The Bosque Boys

Wow! It turns out Sean Hannity has not been making this stuff up. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad really does deny the Holocaust, and Iran really did host a scholarly conference investigating the conventional wisdom that six million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis during WWII. They even invited my old neighbor and eminent scholar, David Duke, who praised Iran for its courage to facilitate a free discussion of this volatile issue.

How do I know Sean was right? I read it in the Washington Post (full story here) and heard it on NPR (listen here).

Does this mean that Okie Gardener's coverage of Iran, the 12th imam and Mr. Ahmadinejad's apocalyptic world view might be true as well?

You may review one of his earlier posts on the subject here.

What does all this really mean? Iran is a nation whose foreign policy seems akin to "waving its hands in the air like they just don't care." Iran is playing to a different audience. They are playing by their own rules. Negotiate with Iran? Negotiate with Hitler? Negotiate with Stalin? Sure. Why not? What do we have to lose? But keep Ronald Reagan's advice in mind: Trust but verify.

In response to Gossenius's critique of the Republican Party:
Why I love the Grand Old Party.

Allow me this preface:

As Gossenius challenged GOP advocates to defend the party through positive argument only, I will not mention the Democratic Party in this essay, except to say: I admire the party of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, William Jennings Bryan, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Paul Tsongas, Paul Wellstone, and Joe Lieberman. The Democratic Party has played (and hopefully will continue to play) a vital and positive role in shaping American history and political culture.

Having said that, let me take issue with an element of Gossenius's argument. He notes the irony of Republicans citing instances in which "the other side doesn't live up to the values...Republicans espouse and then betray" [my emphasis]. On the other hand, in an imperfect world in which we all fall short of exemplary, the standards we set for ourselves are an essential measure of who we aspire to be, which is extremely instructive in getting at who we are.

History. Formed to fight the spread of slavery, the Republican Party of the 1850s castigated the insidious institution for a number of reasons. Of course, Republicans absorbed a strain of heroic humanitarian anti-slavery thinking. Southerners labeled the Republicans the "Black Republicans," denoting that the despised abolitionists were especially fond of and optimistic about the new party. However, pure abolitionism was not the most important component of the early Republican ethos. In truth, the Republican Party was a big tent, which claimed within its ranks as many moderate and pragmatic racists as unadulterated abolitionists.

More significantly, fidelity to the market economy animated the early Republican Party. In his monograph Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men! (the title taken from the first GOP campaign slogan), Eric Foner argues early Republicans viewed the relatively new market ideology as the key to America's future success. Republicans like Abraham Lincoln saw slavery not only as a violation of founding ideals but at odds with vital economic principles. Lincoln et al saw the ability to work freely and succeed and ascend the socio-economic ladder as basic to individual freedom and national strength, and he saw slavery as inimical to the wondorous engine of equality and fortune that free labor offered. Born into rural deprivation, Lincoln understood the value of a system that allowed (or, even better, promoted) social mobility.

Republicans and the Market: A modern observer might ask why Abraham Lincoln was such a "toady" for big business? He saw the market economy as the great equalizer. Lincoln favored an economic and cultural system that rewarded persons of character, determination, and skill. That some entities would prosper and become very powerful (maybe inordinately powerful) seemed a reasonable, if not altogether agreeable, price to pay for individual opportunity. Lincoln favored a "just and generous, and prosperous system, which opens the way for all, gives hope to all, and energy, and progress, and improvement of condition of all." In a nutshell free labor equaled national progress and individual freedom.

Market-oriented Republicanism is alive and well today. Think about the Wal-Mart debate. Although traditional conservatives and liberals alike find fault with Wal-Mart, wishing it would go away, market-oriented Republicans continue to defend Wal-Mart as an institution produced by the marketplace providing low cost essentials for millions of families of lower socio-economic rank who are working to move up the ladder, looking forward to the day they can shop at Dillards.

Granted, there are excesses and inequalities in the market. After a period of great growth in the American economy, another Republican president, Teddy Roosevelt, inaugurated the era of government regulation. Republicans generally inveigh against a regulatory state (opting for deregulation whenever possible), but there are no laissez-faire Republicans. Republicans are unabashed supporters of capitalism--but none of us are so ideologically driven that we favor unrestricted capitalism.

We concede that the market is not always right. The market can run amok and cause economic, cultural, and political misery. Just as Madison argued that too much liberty was a danger to liberty, an unrestrained market-driven economy is fraught with peril. Nevertheless, I remain a big fan of liberty and market principles. On the whole, the market is a positive force in American culture, in part because market theory operates on such an honest and practical reading of human nature. It is up to us to balance the tensions inherent in a market economy.

But Lincoln was right. The free market is essential to American prosperity and security; it is also fundamental to the promises of the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Ronald Reagan, another Illinois Republican born into mean circumstances, heard, understood, and preached this gospel of self improvement to an entire new generation of Americans.

Morality. Born during a period of spiritual and religious revival in American history, the Republican Party inherited a large constituency of evangelical Christian reformers. For 150 years, the GOP has welcomed the mantle of "the moral party," consistently leading to charges from opponents that the piety of the Republican Party was a false morality and hypocritical (an accusation often justified in its particulars).

True, the Republican Party has not been immune to scandal. Having conceded the obvious, however, I am happy to report that the Mark Foley's, Bob Ney's and Bob Sherwood's of the party don't last long after their sins are revealed. Not that Republicans don't believe in redemption--but they are inclined toward discipline first (usually exile from public service), repentance second, and rehabilitation later in private life.

The most perfidious of all American presidents, Richard Nixon, found that he could not count on Republicans in Congress to lock arms and defend him in partisan allegiance. His fellow party members proved essential in the fall of Nixon, investigating and leaking and breaking faith with their titular leader. And it was Republican stalwart Barry Goldwater who made the final call on the President to tell him that the jig was up.

In short, the constituency of the Republican Party is especially demanding. Scandals come and go--but the Republican rank-and-file has a very low tolerance for less-than-upright leaders. With the aid of an often hostile news media, the Republicans are in the constant process of self cleansing.

Please allow me to pause here. In subsequent installments, I intend to reconcile the GOP small-government rhetoric with its penchant for internal improvement projects and assistance to business interests. I also intend to touch on judicial restraint and Republican foreign policy. But you are invited to comment on my apologia thus far.

The Federalist Society now has the video (or audio only if you choose) available of the debate between Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia. Link here.

I am posting Gossenius's thoughtful reply to my call to articulate a political philosophy (I continue to encourage you all to add your voices to that discussion). The following essay is provocative. Gossenius asks sincere and penetrating questions that demand honest introspection from Republicans and conservatives. As I am the most upper-case Republican within our community, I will take it upon my self to defend my Republicanism. You may expect my response forthwith.

Guest Blog: Gossenius

I agree with much of what Farmer says [from the comments section of the aforementioned post], and all of paragraphs 6 and 8-10 describe me as well. However, I would never consider myself conservative or Republican, and see the Republican Party and self-described conservatives being hostile to most of the values articulated there: Republicans in office seem to favor top-down moral control, big government, and a wholesale rejection of the restraint and humility expressed in Farmer's last paragraph. The reaction of Republicans to these charges seems to be often the same: But look at what Democrats do! A strange response on its face-- to say that 'the other side doesn't live up to the values we Republicans espouse and then betray.'

» Read More

According to this article on an unreleased UN report, the UN has determined that Iran is looking for uranium in Somalia, in exchange for arms. Also, that Al Qaeda has a presence there. Link from Instapundit.

We seem to be seeing the establishment of a Taliban-like Islamist state in Somalia. Unlike Afghanistan, however, Somalia is not landlocked, is close to vital sea-lanes, and near both the Middle East and Africa. Lots of potential for deadly mischief.

And, Iran and the Palestinians agree, on to Jerusalem. Here. Links from Gateway Pundit.

Muslim violence is causing Buddhists to flee southern Thailand. Story from AP. Here. Link from Jihadwatch.

Thailand's Muslim insurgency has prompted hundreds of Buddhists to flee their homes in the restive south, creating refugee-like communities of Thais in their own country. So far, the migration is limited to a handful of villages, but it has alarmed Thai authorities who fear the daily violence of the three-year-old rebellion could provoke a larger Buddhist exodus and leave the three southern provinces exclusively Muslim. Buddhist monks have been beheaded, Buddhist teachers slain, and leaflets distributed around Buddhist villages warning that raising dogs and drinking alcohol are offensive to Muslims.

I am sure that if the US withdraws from Iraq, and Israel dissolves itself as a nation, then all this Muslim violence will end. (alert for the irony impaired)

This headline and opening from the Telegraph: article here

Adopt our values or stay away, says Blair

Tony Blair formally declared Britain's multicultural experiment over yesterday as he told immigrants they had ''a duty" to integrate with the mainstream of society. Tony Blair yesterday: 'We don't want the hate-mongers' In a speech that overturned more than three decades of Labour support for the idea, he set out a series of requirements that were now expected from ethnic minority groups if they wished to call themselves British. These included "equality of respect" - especially better treatment of women by Muslim men - allegiance to the rule of law and a command of English. If outsiders wishing to settle in Britain were not prepared to conform to the virtues of tolerance then they should stay away. He added: "Conform to it; or don't come here. We don't want the hate-mongers, whatever their race, religion or creed.

Bravo. I hope that concrete and consistent steps will be taken. And, that the center can hold on our side of the Atlantic.

Tocqueville recently directed me to this link (interesting blog) and issue, which he suggested was an "important discussion taking place across the blogosphere."

The post discusses an essay by Brink Lindsey entitled "Liberaltarians" (on the Cato Institute website) and a discussion of the essay from the American Spectator.

What is a Liberaltarian?

According to Lindsey, libertarian-leaning voters are increasingly unhappy with the conservative-dominated Republican Party over so-called big-government conservatism and the growing influence of evangelical Christianity in GOP policy making. That is, libertarians favor small government and less regulation in business and personal morality. The current Republican Party seems perfectly content to allow (facilitate) the growth of government and runaway government spending. The other gap is on moral issues (values): "The old formulation defined conservatism as the desire to protect traditional values from the intrusion of big government; the new one seeks to promote traditional values through the intrusion of big government."

What is a libertarian-Republican to do? The old fusion of libertarians and traditional conservatives appears more and more tenuous. As the original blog post points out, most traditional conservatives are more than ready and willing to show their erstwhile Cold War allies the door. Lindsey suggests that the libertarians ought to start thinking about a new alliance for progress and freedom with liberals.

My real question today, however, is how would you define your own political philosophy? In the comments section a few days ago, the Okie Gardener took renewed umbrage at a remark I made years ago, when I observed that he was not a pure conservative--but a Midwestern populist. Frankly, after reading the Gardener on a daily basis, he writes much more conservative than I originally believed him to be when I made that statement, but I would not back off from my assertion that populism and regionalism play a significant role in his worldview.

As the piece on "liberaltarians" argues, there is great difficulty in fitting one's political philosophy into one category. Gossenius labels himself a small-government liberal. I see myself as an evangelical-conservative-libertarian. Joab claims to be a libertarian-conservative. Steinway is a Goldwater Republican. Tocqueville is the most orthodox conservative I know. What about Martian Mariner? Photognome? Bear-Tex? Evrvglnt? And others?

So, my question: how would you define your political philosophy? How did you get there? Where do you want to go? Feel free to comment on the Liberaltarian article--but I would also really enjoy hearing about your intellectual journey.

Note: Obviously, I should lead by example, but I may not be able to offer my story for a few hours or days.

Update: I have now posted some of my thoughts in the comments section.

The latest Peggy Noonan column is terrific. Speaking of George H. W. Bush (41) and his propensity for choking up, Noonan reports and speculates on a recent episode in which he was unable to hold back his tears:

"Barely more than a day after he spoke, the Iraq Study Group's report would be issued. It was chaired by his old friend, the one with whom he'd discussed serious things years ago only after the kids, George and Jeb and the others, left the room.

"Surely Mr. Bush knew--surely he was first on James Baker's call list--that the report would not, could not, offer a way out of a national calamity, but only suggestions, hopes, on ways through it. To know his son George had (with the best of intentions!) been wrong in the great decision of his presidency--stop at Afghanistan or move on to Iraq?--and was now suffering a defeat made clear by the report; to love that son, and love your country, to hold these thoughts, to have them collide and come together--this would bring not only tears, but more than tears."

On the emotional differences between Ronald Reagan and his successor:

"Afterwards I thought about the two presidents I had known. Ronald Reagan was emotionally moved by American history and the Founders, by the long sweep of history. Personal issues and relations left him more dry-eyed. His successor was enormously moved by personal relations, by his love for his children and parents and friends. But to him the sweep of history was more abstract; it didn't capture his imagination in the same way. It left him dry-eyed.

"Different strokes, different folks."

Memory, emotion and growing old:

"Age exposes us, if we're lucky enough to be given it. Some say it makes you softer, some tougher, some a mix of both. Some say it just leaves you more so--whatever you were, you are, only more."

"[G]rowing older can leave you more exposed to the force of whatever it is you're feeling. Defenses erode like a fence worn by time. But what you feel can surprise you.

"You're thinking about what was, and suddenly apprehending for the first time how important it was. You think of your son, age 3, on the lawn when you drove up that time. Once that memory touched you in some way you don't fully understand, but now it makes your throat constrict because you realize that of all the things that ever happened to you, none was as important as how he looked on the lawn when you drove up that time.

"Age reorders. The order is expressed by the mysterious force of a fragment of a moment. And there you are at the podium, mugged by a memory."

An aside: the tag of the piece is much less charitable to the current President Bush. It pains me and alarms me that Peggy Noonan has given up on the President.

Read the piece in full (here).

We have lost one of the great heroes of the international relations side of the Reagan Revolution.

From the Washington Post:

"Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, a conservative political scientist who became the first woman to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, died at her home outside Washington late Thursday, colleagues announced today. She was 80" (full obit here).

We will add obits and tributes as the day progresses. You are invited to comment on the life of Kirkpatrick.

From the New York Times: “When she put her feet under the desk of the Oval Office, the president listened,” said William P. Clark, Mr. Reagan’s national security adviser during 1982 and 1983. “And he usually agreed with her" (full obit here).

Norman Podhoretz, in the Weekly Standard, offers this tribute to Kirkpatrick and a defense of neo-conservatism.

From CNN.com: the famous "Blame America First" speech at the 1984 Republican National Convention.