The Death and Re-Birth of Conservatism

Conservatism is dead, long live Conservatism.

In this day of highly polarized politics, no one philosophy has garnered more attention and acquired more influence than what is most commonly referred to as "right-wing extremism." Fueled in part by evangelical Christians 30-year conversion to the Republican party, and in part by talk radio hosts who appeal to the lowest common denominator (and by extension the least thoughtful/intelligent members of the electorate), this particular brand of social (as opposed to fiscal) conservatism has taken hold at every level of government, including most recently the White House.

The social conservative movement really hit its stride after September 11, providing a galvanizing call to arms in defense of a "new" and overt culture war. The American Christian Nation (ACN), the spearhead of Western European Christian Civilization, came into the light in order to defend against the Radical Fascist Islamic Fundamentalist movement that was sweeping the Middle East and the sub-Asian continent.

For years the ACN had been rallying against domestic moral failings - abortion, homosexuality, rock and rap music, and whatever else they didn't understand or like. They were (and are) intolerant, because tolerance equals acceptance, acceptance equals surrender, and surrender equals damnation. The issues were divisive and the ACN could do no more than preach to the choir - it was a total failure at converting the majority of Americans. 9-11 however gave them a cause that all Americans could get behind, or at least could not publically decry. And as a result, they believe they had crossed that last hurdle and had wrested control of America from the heathen majority.

Then came John McCain.

Conventional wisdom has long held that to win a party's nomination, a presidential candidate must carry the South, and in the case of Republicans, must carry the ACN (which is fairly headquartered in the South). In order to carry that vote, a Republican candidate must campaign on issues that make the ACN happy - anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality, God in the classroom, and lip service to tax/spending control.

McCain is not a member of the ACN, and is not a true believer in the ACN movement. Rather, he is a pragmatist who holds his own opinions and rejects extremism is any form. And while his beliefs may not line up with yours or mine or the guy down the street, he does a pretty good job of keeping the pandering to a minimum.

With his pending nomination as the Republican presidential nominee, the ACN is going through a series of spasmodic seizures, trying to figure out what happened and how their party's nominee doesn't share their values. In particular, the ACN radio-show talking heads, i.e. Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and the nameless ass-clown who got dissed by McCain earlier in the week, are all spitting mad that they have failed to sway the vote as they have in the past. (In fact, their vehement denials of such frustration only reinforces the fact of its presence - they doth protest too much).

It is pretty clear to anyone who has been paying attention for the past three years - America is fed up with the ACN and is about to re-assert its status as the majority. If Conservatism is not dead, it is at least Terri Schivo (or at least the ACN's opionion of Terri Schivo). A McCain victory in November would effectively pull the plug. Yes, McCain has campaigned on a platform of maintaining some elements of Bush's policies - that can hardly be a surprise. And yet it does not make him a Bush clone, as much as some might like to suggest. McCain is a moderate pragmatist - the antithesis of and an anathema to the ACN.

On the other hand, if McCain loses, the ACN will be able to rally and point out "see, without us the GOP cannot win." The result will be a shift in the GOP so far to the right that it might even rival the Oregon GOP. The ACN will gain not just control, but absolute control of the GOP for decades to come.

If you know anything about the Oregon GOP, you know that it is controlled by a cabal of ACN fanatics what have for decades proven incapable of winning a statewide general election for any office. Why? Because they field candidates who are true-blue ACN followers, while Oregon generally is about 160-degrees the opposite (the ACN does have some minor local traction throughout Oregon, but not much). The Oregon GOP would rather field candidates who will rigidly adhere to their ACN principles than candidates who can win. And if McCain loses, it is likely the national GOP will go the same route. Conservatism will thus be re-born, but will find itself flailing against the current for many years to come (or until the Democrats screw things up so badly that once again voters will chose change for the sake of change, consequences be damned).

McCain's nomination has dealt a near-fatal blow to Conservatism. His election will kill it entirely. His defeat will revive it and give rise to a Frankenstein's-monster version of the GOP.

Either way, it'll be a hell of a show.

Bush's economic genius on display

Sometimes I can only scratch my head and wonder. I mean, it's easy to make snide remarks about George W. Bush's stupidity in regard to virtually any subject. But sometimes the depth of that stupidity just goes beyond description. For example:

Today in a press conference Bush indicated that he was unaware that gasoline was projected to reach $4.00-per-gallon by the spring. Set aside for a moment the potential diatribe about how that's possible, and move on to the next comment.

Apparently, the solution to $4.00-per-gallon gasoline is to make his tax cut permanent. Again, set aside the potential diatribe about the merits of the tax cut and who it benefits, etc.

No, instead focus on this - the solution to $4.00-per-gallon gas is to maintain the status quo vis-a-vis taxes, during which status quo gas will hit $4.00-per-gallon. In other words, do nothing. Gas will hit $4.00 while the tax cut is in place. How, then, does continuing the tax cut help? Bush's theory is that it would be worse if taxes went up in a couple years, then, boy-howdy, wouldn't $4.00-per-gallon gas suck.

Newsflash Mr. President, $4.00 is unacceptable and unaffordable now, with the tax cut in place. Making the tax cut permanent will not alleviate the suffering caused by $4.00 gas. And I don't think anyone is worried that, gee, taxes might go up in a couple of years (which, by the way, they will - but that inevitability is a topic for another day). No, in a couple years we'll be worried about $6.00-$7.00 gas.

I seriously wonder whether we can even survive another 10 months of this clown.

No rebate for GOP, either

This is classic. One of the Republican Party's arguments in its favor is that it believes in running government like a business. Apparently, that is a truer statement than I ever gave them credit for.

It seems that the Oregon GOP decided to stop paying its payroll taxes and is now under a federal tax lien. This from the Oregonian:

According to filings with the Federal Election Commission, the party had $35,850 in cash on hand in its federal political action committee as of the first of the year and $263,930 in debt. The state PAC had about $42,000 in cash on hand, according to a report filed with the state Elections Division.

* * *

The party, which favors lower taxes, came under federal scrutiny when it stopped paying payroll taxes for about a year and a half, starting in the last three months of 2006. Last fall, the Internal Revenue Service placed a lien on the organization, which is now on a repayment plan for the approximately $33,500 it owes.

The party blames an errant employee. However, isn't another GOP call to arms something about personal responsibility? It is not the employee's fault for failing to do the job - it is the GOP's fault for failing to make sure its business was being taken care of.

Tax rebate - not really.

By now you've heard that the feds are going to be giving out a "tax rebate" as part of a poorly-conceived economic stimulus plan designed to jump-start the failing economy. Ignoring for a moment the stupidy of the rebate program generally, it turns out that it's not what the gov't and media have made it out to be.

Media reports all state that taxpayers will receive $600 rebates ($1,200 for couples who filed jointly) and $300 for people who didn't have any tax liability. Sounds pretty sweet, right?

Not so fast. First, in order to get your rebate you must file your 2007 tax return. So much for just sending a check. But that's not really such a big deal - you have to file your return anyway, so no big deal.

However, in order to get your rebate check, you have to either owe nothing or get a refund on your 2007 taxes. So, if you file single and end up owing $100, then your rebate check will be $500. If you owe $1,000, then you'll simply get a credit of $600 and still owe $400. And of course is you have an outstanding prior tax liability, it will be reduced by $600.

Now, there is an certain logic to the idea that the government should not hand out money to people who owe it money. However, the purported purpose of the plan is to stimulate the economy by giving people cash to inject into the pipeline - in other words, to go shopping. Not to give taxpayers a bonus, but to move products, increase spending and hopefully kick start the economy overall. It's a stupid idea and won't work, but if program's instigators truly believed in the goal, wouldn't they have made sure that the gov't kept its hands off the money in order to ensure a maximum economic bump? How does paying the IRS stimulate the economy?

There is nothing worse than a bad idea poorly executed. And while I would love to lay this on top of the stack of other poorly-executed bad ideas by Bush, this is truly a bi-partisian effort. Everybody is guilty. Worse, the media have utterly failed to investigate these details, and I assure you that you will not read or hear a news story about the IRS intercepting rebates until the checks start going out and people start bitching about not getting their's. Way to be on top of the news, guys.

Dolts for Hillary?

Fascinating factoid - in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, it turns out that Hillary Clinton's base is made up of lower-income white people with primarily high-school educations. In other words, poor dumb people.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama is attracting higher-income college-educated voters. In other words, wealthy elitist snobs.

Interesting.