Comments Posted By michael reynolds
Displaying 571 To 580 Of 839 Comments
REFLECTIONS ON GOD, MAN, AND CPAC
Conservatism vs. Diversity is a false dichotomy. The core dichotomy is Individualist vs. Communitarian.
Conservatives believe in the individual and individual responsibility. They believe that if a million people pursue their own interests the whole will prosper as well. For this reason they believe that government is a tool that should only be taken out and used when there is no alternative -- defense, for example.
Liberals believe that the community or group is the essential unit and that the individual must as times compromise with the community for the good of all. They see government as a useful tool that expresses the will of the community.
Obviously in practice there's all sorts of cross-over. Conservatives want to use government to dictate morality, liberals praise the freedom of individuals, particularly artists. An awful lot of people who think of themselves as conservatives, are no such thing.
But "diversity" is an empty scare word. It's also past its sell-by date as far as the young are concerned. The young assume racial equality, and assume religious equality, and assume gender equality. Yes, gay marriage is coming. No, abortion won't be outlawed. Yes, gays will serve openly in the military. No, we're not doing away with the wall between church and state. Accept all that and move on.
Your problems are less about "diversity" than about urbanization and suburbanization. The individualist approach makes more sense for people who grow their own food and pump their own water than for people who live cheek by jowl in 50 story condos, or even people in gated communities. Conservatism is living on nostalgia at this point. Conservatives need to stop looking back to cowboys and pioneers and Ronal Reagan. Figure out how conservatism works for a New Yorker or an Anegelo, or you're done for.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 26.02.2009 @ 11:17
<em>THE RICK MORAN SHOW</em>: CPAC PREVIEW
Lionheart:
If I had intended to write something profound I would have done so. I was having a laugh. It's good to laugh. Especially when you find yourself witnessing precisely what you've been predicting in your more profound moments. Sorry, but Jindal was funny. The GOP is funny. Stop being ridiculous and I'll stop laughing.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 25.02.2009 @ 12:01
Aoibhneas:
Well, you make some very cogent and well thought-out points.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 24.02.2009 @ 22:27
Well, that's it for Jindal. We're laughing. And not "with."
This is the GOP's great non-white hope? Ah hah hah hah. He's still talking. Oh, my God, Bobby? Is he competing for the Tim Kaine stupid response prize?
Jindal/Palin 2012! Where can I send the check?
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 24.02.2009 @ 21:33
Just watched the speech. You people are so f---ed.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 24.02.2009 @ 21:20
IDEOLOGY vs PRINCIPLES? SCHWARZENEGGER HIDES UNDER THE BUS
Lionheart:
I often have music on while I write. So here's my excuse: I was listening to Jeff Beck.
I'm not saying it's true, but it's a pretty good excuse, don't you think?
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 24.02.2009 @ 15:35
Lionheart:
Jindal downed down a tiny portion of the whole.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 24.02.2009 @ 10:25
No doubt elections have consequences. But Mr. Obama did not run a campaign where he promised to fundamentally alter the relationship between the citizen and the government, where Washington was going to reward bad behavior by forcing the people to subsidize failure and bad decisions by their fellow citizens .
Fundamentally alter? We've been subsidizing other people's failures and inadequacies and bad behavior for a very long time.
If you don't manage to save for retirement there's a social security program that pays you more than you paid in. Bails you out.
If you can't manage to keep up your health insurance there's Medicare and Medicaid wherein other citizens bail you out. You smoked three packs a day? No problem: we bail you out.
There are price supports and protectionist measures (not to mention ethanol, oy!) that keep farmers afloat. More money flowing from my pocket to the pockets of people who can't compete.
Food stamps, welfare, federally insured bank deposits, subsidies you and I couldn't even begin to track down built into the tax code, all of it my money flowing to other citizens.
I also have a bad habit of living in states that are net payers of taxes that flow like water to states that are net collectors of taxes. More bailing out of losers.
And that's not even getting into subsidies for Egyptians, Israelis, Pakistanis, Eastern Europeans, South Americans and on and on and on.
What's happening now isn't fundamental anything. It's the same old thing with different numbers.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 23.02.2009 @ 14:32
EXPLOITING TAXPAYER RAGE NOT THE WAY BACK FOR GOP
I'm a serial exaggerator? Do you read your own blog?
You refer to taxpayer rage, I question that, (and supply data) you supply no data to support your assertion and accuse me of exaggeration.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 22.02.2009 @ 12:29
I see no evidence of this taxpayer "rage." Obama's sitting in the high 60's, 10-15 points higher than his election number.
The chances are pretty good at this point that all the “stimulus” in the world is not going to head off a deep recession and the federal government is apparently setting itself up to decide who wins and who loses in this shakeup.
False dichotomy: yes deep recession or no deep recession. Even deep recessions come in different strengths. No one has promised this will keep us out of recession. We're already in a recession. We're just trying to take some of the edge off and shorten the recession. Federal spending doesn't drive us deeper, it keeps it shallower.
I'd love to see the GOP come up with a positive message. But I'll bet a hundred bucks (to your favorite charity) that a year from now the GOP will still be playing its usual games. I think there was a moment a couple of months back when your party might have gone a different direction. But the GOP's chairman is not Mr. Steele, it's Mr. Limbaugh. It will continue to be Mr. Limbaugh, at least until the 2012 campaign gets going in earnest and we start to see a strong GOP candidate emerge. Even then a GOP standard-bearer will have to tug a forelock and bend a knee to the nuts.
Face it, Rick: it's 1856 and you're a member of the Whig party.
You are a serial exaggerator. Can't you make any point at all without hyperbole and spin? Guess not.
ed.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 22.02.2009 @ 11:45
