12 posts tagged “conservative”
By Peggy Noonan- Conservative writer and columnist for WSJ
In television interviews she was out of her depth in a shallow pool. She was limited in her ability to explain and defend her positions, and sometimes in knowing them. She couldn’t say what she read because she didn’t read anything. She was utterly unconcerned by all this and seemed in fact rather proud of it: It was evidence of her authenticity. She experienced criticism as both partisan and cruel because she could see no truth in any of it. She wasn’t thoughtful enough to know she wasn’t thoughtful enough. Her presentation up to the end has been scattered, illogical, manipulative and self-referential to the point of self-reverence. “I’m not wired that way,” “I’m not a quitter,” “I’m standing up for our values.” I’m, I’m, I’m.
In another age it might not have been terrible, but here and now it was actually rather horrifying.
What she is, is a seemingly very nice middle-class girl with ambition, appetite and no sense of personal limits.
“She’s not Ivy League, that’s why her rise has been thwarted! She represented the democratic ideal that you don’t have to go to Harvard or Brown to prosper, and her fall represents a failure of egalitarianism.” This comes from intellectuals too. They need to be told something. Ronald Reagan went to Eureka College. Richard Nixon went to Whittier College, Joe Biden to the University of Delaware. Sarah Palin graduated in the end from the University of Idaho, a school that happily notes on its Web site that it’s included in U.S. News and World Report’s top national schools survey. They need to be told, too, that the first Republican president was named “Abe,” and he went to Princeton and got a Fulbright. Oh wait, he was an impoverished backwoods autodidact!
America doesn’t need Sarah Palin to prove it was, and is, a nation of unprecedented fluidity. Her rise and seeming fall do nothing to prove or refute this.
“Now she can prepare herself for higher office by studying up, reading in, boning up on the issues.” Mrs. Palin’s supporters have been ordering her to spend the next two years reflecting and pondering. But she is a ponder-free zone. She can memorize the names of the presidents of Pakistan, but she is not going to be able to know how to think about Pakistan. Why do her supporters not see this? Maybe they think “not thoughtful” is a working-class trope!
“The media did her in.” Her incompetence or lack of any appropriate modesty did her in. Actually, it’s arguable that membership in the self-esteem generation harmed her. For 30 years the self-esteem movement told the young they’re perfect in every way. It’s yielding something new in history: an entire generation with no proper sense of inadequacy.
Reefer sanity
The marijuana lobby goes mainstream
By Kathleen Parker
In an act of merciful sanity, the Obama administration has made good on its promise to stop interfering with states that allow the medical use of marijuana.
Clink-clink, hear-hear, salud, cheers, et cetera, et cetera.
The announcement from Attorney General Eric Holder surely comes as a relief to the many who rely on cannabis to ease suffering from various ailments. This new, relaxed approach doesn't let drug traffickers off the hook. It merely means that 14 states that now provide for some medical marijuana uses no longer need fear federal raids on dispensaries and users operating under state law.
It's a good move, long overdue. But is it enough? Not quite.
The debate over whether Americans ought to have the right to be stupid -- or to make other people seem more interesting -- continues apace after 40 years of the (failed) "war on drugs."
Arguments for and against decriminalization of some or all drugs are familiar by now. Distilled to the basics, the drug war has empowered criminals while criminalizing otherwise law-abiding citizens and wasted billions that could have been better spent on education and rehabilitation.
By ever-greater numbers, Americans support decriminalizing at least marijuana, which millions admit to having used, including a couple of presidents and a Supreme Court justice. A recent Gallup poll found that 44 percent of Americans favor legalization for any purpose, not just medical, up from 31 percent in 2000.
The highest level of support, not surprisingly, is in the Western states and among self-described liberals, with 78 percent of liberals favoring decriminalization. But the shift toward a more sensible national policy is no longer confined to the left. Nor is the long-haired stoner the face of the pro-pot lobby. Today's activist, more likely, doesn't have facial hair, but she does have kids.
Lately to the smallish conservative crowd, notably once led by anti-prohibitionist William F. Buckley, is Jessica Corry of Colorado, a married, pro-life Republican mom, soon to be "freedom fighter of the month" in High Times magazine.
Recent partakers undoubtedly will have to rub their eyes for a double take when they spot Corry, who spoke last month at a NORML conference (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) in San Francisco, wearing an American flag lapel pin, a triple strand of pearls and a gold marijuana leaf pin.
Another day, another stereotype in the dust bin.
In addition to writing and speaking to end marijuana prohibition, Corry, who does not smoke pot, is trying to organize Republican women around the cause. So far, she has commitments from 20 fellow Coloradoans, most of them lawyers, like Corry. Her husband, also an attorney, represents medical marijuana users.
Corry's arguments focus not only on the inhumanity of further punishing sick people who seek relief through pot but also on protecting her children should they decide to try marijuana someday. There's nothing like imagining one's own children as "criminals" to put irrational laws in perspective.
Corry is hardly alone and, in fact, may be part of a "toking point." (Is there a drug yet for "Tipping Point Fatigue"?) In its October issue, Marie Claire magazine featured "Stiletto Stoners," an article about accomplished career women who prefer to relax with pot. A September Fortune cover story, "Is Pot Already Legal?" examined the issue. In April, the 2006 Miss New Jersey, Georgine DiMaria, outed herself as a stealth marijuana user to treat her asthma.
States' rights and conservatism are old friends -- except when they're not. While many Republicans nurse a libertarian streak, the party has been selective in its support of federalist principles. George W. Bush's administration refused to honor states authorizing medical uses of cannabis, for instance, but aimed to return abortion and marriage issues to state jurisdictions.
In a column for the Colorado Daily, Corry argued that conservative principles of smaller government directly conflict with laws that try to control what we put into our bodies. Alcohol and cigarettes -- not to mention 700-calorie cheeseburgers -- are inarguably more harmful than a little reefer, she wrote.
The decision not to raid dispensaries or punish people who benefit from marijuana use, though commendable, falls short of what's needed. At the very least, when jobs and cash are in short supply, legalizing marijuana would seem both prudent and profitable.
In 1929, the Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform led the movement to end alcohol prohibition. Might women lead the next revolution in personal autonomy?
Keep those flutes and snifters (and bongs?) handy.
As the Republican Party seeks to regain political control after the last election, some conservatives are calling for a new image.
"As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit," Kathleen Parker wrote for The Washington Post. "To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh."
Evangelicals make up about a quarter of the electorate, and about 62 percent of them identify themselves with the Republican Party. David Brooks spoke with Christianity Today in Wheaton, Illinois, about how evangelicals can change their image.
Do you see evangelicals as the core of the Republican Party or as weighing on the neck?
I see them as the core of the party. Just sheer numbers, politically, the party would be dead without evangelical voters, or without a lot of evangelical voters. But even more seriously, spiritually, … the moral core of the party is provided by social conservatives. Without that core, it would just be a party of tax cuts, and that wouldn't be a very inspiring party. I think social conservatives will always be the core of the Republican Party.
Can Christian conservatives repackage certain issues?
Life issues will always be center — life and death issues will always be central. I guess what I would think is the core issue — which is possible [issue] around which to build bridges — is the family, issues about family togetherness, reducing divorce rates, helping kids do missionary work or aid work in Africa. All that stuff should come from the core pro-life community to a broader community.
How does religion make a difference in the Republican Party, as opposed to just promoting conservative values?
Religion connects you to a set of moral principles that are more than just conserving the past or the free market. Americans like the free market, they like capitalism, but it's not that inspiring. To really inspire people and inspire young people, you've got have a more serious moral mission. So I think social conservatives at their best provide that. As long as it's not a social conservatism that is about how sinful everybody else is.
Is there anything that evangelicals can do to repair their image?
It comes and goes. I understand [that] Rick Warren's not the leader, but I think people like him have a positive effect. There are a lot of people all around the country less famous than he is that don't have churches with thousands of people but who do that on [a] day-to-day basis. The more those people are in public life, the more familiar the country gets with them. I thought, to be honest, I feel that Jerry Farlwell did damage, and frankly I think James Dobsons does damage sometimes. His work on psychology and family is very sophisticated and very productive, but a lot of his observations on politics are crude and ill-informed. I sometimes think he says things that are too angry.
I know you mentioned that you like Mike Gerson, President Bush's former speechwriter. Are there other evangelicals you would like to see more of?
I liked Mike Huckabee's campaign. There [are] a bunch of governors who are committed Christians as well as very modern, sophisticated politicians like Bobby Jindal in Louisiana. The people will naturally emerge, I think.
Obama has promoted the faith-based initiatives again recently.
I think he's sincere about that. I'd hate to see the faith-based initiatives cut off. Obviously, there's this issue of whether or not you can discriminate in your hiring and keep your core mission. That's the political fight. But I'm glad we have a President who is a Democrat who is very sincere, and not only sincere but very comfortable talking about religion in public life.
Do you think the faith-based initiatives office is a good result of that?
I think when you're trying to get somebody over drug addiction, you can tell them, "Hey, you shouldn't do drugs because it's wrong," or you can transform their life through evangelical work. The latter is just more powerful and more effective. Sarah Pulliam
Sarah Palin's resignation gives Republicans a new opportunity to see her plain—to review the bidding, see her strengths, acknowledge her limits, and let go of her drama. It is an opportunity they should take. They mean to rebuild a great party. They need to do it on solid ground.
Her history does not need to be rehearsed at any length. Ten months ago she was embraced with friendliness by her party. The left and the media immediately overplayed their hand, with attacks on her children. The party rallied round, as a party should. She went on the trail a sensation but demonstrated in the ensuing months that she was not ready to go national and in fact never would be. She was hungry, loved politics, had charm and energy, loved walking onto the stage, waving and doing the stump speech. All good. But she was not thoughtful. She was a gifted retail politician who displayed the disadvantages of being born into a point of view (in her case a form of conservatism; elsewhere and in other circumstances, it could have been a form of liberalism) and swallowing it whole: She never learned how the other sides think, or why.
In television interviews she was out of her depth in a shallow pool. She was limited in her ability to explain and defend her positions, and sometimes in knowing them. She couldn't say what she read because she didn't read anything. She was utterly unconcerned by all this and seemed in fact rather proud of it: It was evidence of her authenticity. She experienced criticism as both partisan and cruel because she could see no truth in any of it. She wasn't thoughtful enough to know she wasn't thoughtful enough. Her presentation up to the end has been scattered, illogical, manipulative and self-referential to the point of self-reverence. "I'm not wired that way," "I'm not a quitter," "I'm standing up for our values." I'm, I'm, I'm.
In another age it might not have been terrible, but here and now it was actually rather horrifying.
McCain-Palin lost. Mrs. Palin has now stepped down, but she continues to poll high among some members of the Republican base, some of whom have taken to telling themselves Palin myths.
To wit, "I love her because she's so working-class." This is a favorite of some party intellectuals. She is not working class, never was, and even she, avid claimer of advantage that she is, never claimed to be and just lets others say it. Her father was a teacher and school track coach, her mother the school secretary. They were middle-class figures of respect, stability and local status. I think intellectuals call her working-class because they see the makeup, the hair, the heels and the sleds and think they're working class "tropes." Because, you know, that's what they teach in "Ways of the Working Class" at Yale and Dartmouth.
What she is, is a seemingly very nice middle-class girl with ambition, appetite and no sense of personal limits.
"She's not Ivy League, that's why her rise has been thwarted! She represented the democratic ideal that you don't have to go to Harvard or Brown to prosper, and her fall represents a failure of egalitarianism." This comes from intellectuals too. They need to be told something. Ronald Reagan went to Eureka College. Richard Nixon went to Whittier College, Joe Biden to the University of Delaware. Sarah Palin graduated in the end from the University of Idaho, a school that happily notes on its Web site that it's included in U.S. News and World Report's top national schools survey. They need to be told, too, that the first Republican president was named "Abe," and he went to Princeton and got a Fulbright. Oh wait, he was an impoverished backwoods autodidact!
America doesn't need Sarah Palin to prove it was, and is, a nation of unprecedented fluidity. Her rise and seeming fall do nothing to prove or refute this.
"The elites hate her." The elites made her. It was the elites of the party, the McCain campaign and the conservative media that picked her and pushed her. The base barely knew who she was. It was the elites, from party operatives to public intellectuals, who advanced her and attacked those who said she lacked heft. She is a complete elite confection. She might as well have been a bonbon.
"She makes the Republican Party look inclusive." She makes the party look stupid, a party of the easily manipulated.
"She shows our ingenuous interest in all classes." She shows your cynicism.
"Now she can prepare herself for higher office by studying up, reading in, boning up on the issues." Mrs. Palin's supporters have been ordering her to spend the next two years reflecting and pondering. But she is a ponder-free zone. She can memorize the names of the presidents of Pakistan, but she is not going to be able to know how to think about Pakistan. Why do her supporters not see this? Maybe they think "not thoughtful" is a working-class trope!
"The media did her in." Her lack of any appropriate modesty did her in. Actually, it's arguable that membership in the self-esteem generation harmed her. For 30 years the self-esteem movement told the young they're perfect in every way. It's yielding something new in history: an entire generation with no proper sense of inadequacy.
"Turning to others means the media won!" No, it means they lose. What the mainstream media wants is not to kill her but to keep her story going forever. She hurts, as they say, the Republican brand, with her mess and her rhetorical jabberwocky and her careless causing of division. Really, she is the most careless sower of discord since George W. Bush, who fractured the party and the movement that made him. Why wouldn't the media want to keep that going?
Here's why all this matters. The world is a dangerous place. It has never been more so, or more complicated, more straining of the reasoning powers of those with actual genius and true judgment. This is a time for conservative leaders who know how to think.
Here are a few examples of what we may face in the next 10 years: a profound and prolonged American crash, with the admission of bankruptcy and the spread of deep social unrest; one or more American cities getting hit with weapons of mass destruction from an unknown source; faint glimmers of actual secessionist movements as Americans for various reasons and in various areas decide the burdens and assumptions of the federal government are no longer attractive or legitimate.
The era we face, that is soon upon us, will require a great deal from our leaders. They had better be sturdy. They will have to be gifted. There will be many who cannot, and should not, make the cut. Now is the time to look for those who can. And so the Republican party should get serious, as serious as the age, because that is what a grown-up, responsible party—a party that deserves to lead—would do.
It's not a time to be frivolous, or to feel the temptation of resentment, or the temptation of thinking next year will be more or less like last year, and the assumptions of our childhoods will more or less reign in our future. It won't be that way.
We are going to need the best.
Will Sarah Palin's Undisciplined Operation Cost Her?
Kathleen Parker
Washington Post Writers Group Columnist
Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:30 PM
"Everyone seems to have a Sarah Palin story of ignored calls, mishandled invitations or unanswered e-mail. Disorganized is how one might charitably describe the Palin operation," writes Washington Post Writers Group columnist Kathleen Parker.
Parker was online Wednesday, June 10 at 2:30 p.m. ET to discuss her column about how Palin's approach is causing her problems with the GOP and how it could impact her political future.
Comments and Questions from Palin defenders
____________________
Philadelphia, Pa.: What was Sarah Palin's reputation for returning phone calls and messages before she ran for Vice President? Does she have basically the same staff as Governor before and after this run and has she added staff since becoming a national celebrity?
Kathleen Parker: My understanding is that Gov. Palin was inundated with volumes of requests. She was suddenly famous and in demand. The problem was that she wasn't willing to delegate or hire the staff she needed to deal with it. Machinery can be put in place for such things -- and plenty of GOP handlers and funders tried to help.
_______________________
Omaha, Neb.: Why do you think Palin has ignored external offers for administrative help? Also, do you think this lack of organization (or willingness to seek outside help) is evidence of leadership style, or just a simple newbie-mistake?
Kathleen Parker: I think it could be both. Her organizational skills seem to be part of the problem. But also, this is all new. Palin got where she is by her wits - good for her. But that's not enough at this level of engagement. She seems not to have realized this yet.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: I would like you to address what it is about Gov. Palin that incites such vehement hatred in the left. Sarah Silverman had a "comedy" routine about Palin being raped by black gangsters; David Letterman calls her a slut and "jokes" about her 14-year-old daughter becoming pregnant by a baseball player. All of this is greeted with yuks by so-called liberals. I can just imagine the umbrage if somebody substituted "Michelle Obama" for Sarah Palin's name or "Sasha Obama" for Willow's. And let's not even discuss the loathsome comments about her that you can find on this very newpaper's web site. To me, Palin's disorganized staff and her feuds with GOP staffers aren't the issues; it's the hatred she brings out in otherwise reasonably sane people. Your thoughts?
Kathleen Parker: I may not be much help here because I don't get it either. Then again, I don't get the hatred directed at me and others from the right when I criticize Palin. It's a pretty nasty world out there.
_______________________
Wye River, Md.: Aren't your attacks on Sarah Palin just part of your trying to carve out a niche as the female David Brooks- the anti-conservative "conservative"?
Kathleen Parker: I'm happy to correct the record here. I've been a columnist for 22 years and have had a pretty strong niche for most of those years. I've been running in 400 newspapers for quite a while, though am relatively new to the Post. I don't think I'm anti-conservative, but, as George Will once said:"Being conservative doesn't mean one has to leap into the darkness."
_______________________
Savannah, Ga.: Ms. Parker, do you think that disorganization alone is holding Palin back? When I hear her speak on her positions, she sounds, well, like she doesn't really understand what she's talking about. (Alaska is very capitalist because it take wealth generated from natural resources and distributes it to all its citizens?) Do you think she does understand, and just comes off inarticulate, or do you think that good organization can overcome a basic deficit of ideas and understanding?
Kathleen Parker: Good question. One of Palin's biggest problems, obviously, is an inability to clearly articulate her positions. I have it on good authority that she had a terrible time training for the vp debate and threatened to leave at one point. The McCain people were very frustrated with her as they tried to hammer a few talking points. Time will tell, but I'm not optimistic. (No winking)
Read More Nasty Questions from Palindrones all over the country.
Sound familiar?
By Rebecca Logan
Staff Writer
The Alaska Standard
A recent article I read about President Obama opened with the line, “Barack Obama is looking for a church, but what religion is he?” Even though Americans seem to be asking that question frequently, a recent Gallup poll showed that 56 percent of weekly churchgoers thought Obama was doing a good job. So it would seem that denomination is not as important as perceived spirituality.
Here are some thoughts on the topic:
With Egypt facing seven years of eventual hard famine, Joseph carried out a plan:
Genesis 41: Joseph went out from Pharaoh’s presence and traveled throughout Egypt. During the seven years of abundance, the land produced plentifully. Joseph collected all the food produced in those seven years of abundance in Egypt and stored it in the cities. In each city he put the food grown in the fields surrounding it. Joseph stored up huge quantities of grain, like the sand of the sea; it was so much that he stopped keeping records because it was beyond measure. But Joseph seemingly forgot who actually owned the grain!
Genesis 41: 56 when the famine had spread over the whole country, Joseph opened the storehouses and sold grain to the Egyptians, for the famine was severe throughout Egypt. And what could the man on the street do?
Genesis 47:20 Joseph bought all the land in Egypt for Pharaoh. The Egyptians, one and all, sold their fields, because the famine was too severe for them. The land became Pharaoh’s and Joseph reduced the people to servitude, from one end of Egypt to the other.
Insult to injury, Joseph imposed a 20 percent flat tax. . . and the people submitted!
Genesis 47:23 Joseph said to the people, “Now that I have bought you and your land today for Pharaoh, here is seed for you so you can plant the ground. But when the crop comes in, give a fifth of it to Pharaoh. The other four-fifths you may keep as seed for the fields and as food for yourselves and your households and your children. You have saved our lives,” they said. “May we find favor in the eyes of our lord; we will be slaves to Pharaoh.”
Does all this sound familiar?
There was a time when I thought that, to be a truly faithful and believing member of the Church, it was implicitly required that I become much more politically engaged as a conservative. While I still believe that, I suspect that there are many Christians who do not believe this is an unarticulated truth. After all, if Christians (and leaders) of the Church seek inspiration in voting, and if 80-90% of active members (and perhaps leaders) in the U.S. regularly vote for conservative candidates and positions, isn’t that pretty good evidence that political conservatism must be correct? It is hard to believe that God would inspire the overwhelming majority of active Christians to vote the wrong way. As in many other aspects of faith, it's by your choice, it's by your educated or uneducated opinion that a candidate of your choice is chosen, voting is a personal decision that you make- not GOD.
1. Is the the Church politically neutral and nonpartisan, I believe it is in general. I do not believe that there is an implied wink-wink that I should interpret to mean that God wants me to be a conservative republican.
2. I do believe that God inspires individuals on both side of political disputes. Iron sharpens iron....Thus, I think, at the constitutional convention, those representing the interests of large states and those representing small states were both inspired, and that it was by considering the interests of both that an acceptable solution was found. I think the same is true on most political issues of the day.
3. While the structure and pattern of Church leadership may result in a large representation of capable leaders who are politically conservative, I think the fundamental teachings of the Church support a common political view. I embrace, in particular, Creation, hopeful, healing, participatory, redemptive, accountability, life, democratic and tolerant themes are prevelent. While I know my more progressive thinking brothers and sisters also embrace those principles, I see those principles, as a general matter, as more consistent with a traditional political worldview. Reasonable minds may differ of course.
4. I generally try to avoid political discussions at Church (which would be good advice for me, there are several ex elected officers and state employees who have the same Church home). When overt discussions occur, I try to change the subject, or at least avoid participating in the discussion. In those cases where it is impossible to remain silent, I try to couch my comments in terms of commonality of beliefs, taking ownership of my opinions (using “I” words and not “you” words), and acknowledge implicitly or explicitly that I may be wrong.
5. Even within the party or political labels differing political beliefs, though, are sacred, usally are not secret. While I try to avoid political discussions at Church, I do have a “No More Pa_in” magnet on my car, and my husband and I both did not vote for McCain/ Palin during the campaign. We parked our car at the Church, and never had anyone show destain (even though it was the only anti Palin stickers as far as the eye could see). My views are pretty well known, and most people know if I'm engaged about local issues, current events, if I'm asked my opinion, I will have an opinion.
How do we deal with the conundrum of either (1) one issue conservatives (2) as a conservative in a conservative Church, should we be reaching out to and accepting people based on political idealogy? (3) Is being Christian synanamous with being conservative?
Ooooooh, Barracuda!
October 28, 2008 3:34 PM
Allies of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin are now trying to throw McCain aide Nicolle Wallace under the proverbial bus, and as they do so those in McCain’s circle are wary of the impact on Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., himself.
Since becoming McCain's running mate, there have been a host of issues where Palin publicly challenged decisions made by McCain – withdrawing from competition in Michigan, for instance, or for not attacking Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., for his longtime relationship with the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright. (See "McCannibals," from earlier this week.)
But nothing has seemed so resonant as $150,000 in clothes purchased for Palin and her family by the Republican National Committee.
Palin has taken to blaming the entire incident – as well as her introduction to the nation – on her “handlers,” presumably meaning Wallace, who was a key part of the team that handled Palin's successful announcement speech, her successful convention speech, and her interviews with Charlie Gibson, Sean Hannity and Katie Couric.
McCain allies say that Palin allies talked to Fox News commentator Fred Barnes to further throw Wallace under the bus. Barnes yesterday said, “the person who went and bought the clothes and, as I understand it put the clothes on her credit card, went to Saks and Neiman Marcus...the staffer who did that has been a coward” for not coming forward and accepting the blame for the $150,000 shopping spree. Barnes clarified that he was talking about Wallace.
But Wallace didn’t buy the clothes, put the clothes on her credit card, or go to Saks and Neiman Marcus, sources on the McCain campaign say.
And plenty of people on the McCain campaign are mystified as to how the $150,000 charges were racked up.
Moreover, McCain campaign sources say, Palin has developed quite a reputation on the campaign trail for shopping.
My Groups
-
Blabber Mouth Updated: 2 minutes ago
-
Let's Talk Politics Updated: 2 minutes ago
-
Keep Liberals Out of Office (host) Updated: Yesterday
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
