Take Away Cal Thomas's Crackpipe

Redefining conservatism

I don't even know where to begin on this one. I would say that this is just a suggestion piece, but Cal Thomas really appears to believe that relabeling interventionist polities as conservative policies, the conservative movement can be revived?

Rhetorically he asks if Reagan were 100% conservative. The answer is, of course, no. No politician is ever 100% conservative. No human being can follow all of the principles of conservatism 100% of the time and politicians have it even worse because they need to compromise in reaching political solutions. I can't believe somewhat like Cal Thomas would not understand that if something that is not 100% in line with conservative principles happens during a politicians term in office it doesn't necessarily mean that they have compromised their ''principles''.

And that is at the root of my frustration with his proposal and apparently that of David Frum which he summarizes. Conservative principles (or rather classical liberal principles) have existed for a long time in Western ideology. Conservatism nowadays is more closely aligned with social conservatism and as a result fiscal conservatism has taken a beating with people who might otherwise be inclined toward free market capitalism. That aside, abandoning conservative principles of small, limited government simply because they are what Reagan claimed to believe in doesn't mean that the early 80s were the only time they were ever exercised or anyone ever believed in them. Can someone who has been around as long as Cal Thomas not understand that conservative principles have been around for several hundred years?

So what is the propose alternative? Create more government programs and interference in the market but "engage in better story telling" by telling voters that this is perfectly in line with conservative principles. He even makes the laughable remark that these programs will help reaffirm conservative principles by reducing people's dependence on government programs. Given that there is no such thing as a government program that has ever gone away or been eliminated and bureaucrats primary motivation is self-preservation, does he really anticipate that any new program "designed to reduce dependence on government" will actually ever be declared successful. Government programs to reduce dependence on government programs is as ironic as any suggestion I have ever heard coming from a so-called conservative.

Here is the main problem though. The main point of the conservative movement in the realm of economics is that government interference never solves a problem. All it does it interfere with the natural mechanism of economics and create moral hazards and perverse incentives that take a bad problem and make it worse. This then requires more government interference to deal with the unintended consequences created in the first place by the government interference. The other main point of the conservative movement it that government interference may or may not always pick the best solution, but when it picks the wrong one, there are no market forces to correct their bad decisions. Furthermore, by taking capital out of the market through the taxes used to create the bureaucracy to administer the government program, there is less money available in the market to find and invest in the best solution. The money goes where the bureaucracy directs either through mandates or perverse economic incentives, right or wrong.

Here are some of Frum's proposals:

* Universally available health insurance, but offered through the private sector
* Lower taxes to encourage savings and investment
* Higher taxes on energy and pollution to promote conservation
* Conservative environmentalism that promotes nuclear power to reduce our need for oil and coal
* Federal policies to encourage larger families
* Major reductions in unskilled immigration
* A campaign for prison reform
* A campaign against obesity
* Higher ethical standards inside the conservative movement and Republican Party
* Renewed commitment to expand and rebuild the armed forces in order to crush terrorism and prepare for the coming challenge from China.
* Micro-loan program to help the poor out of poverty, rather than more government programs that subsidize the poor in their poverty and offer no hope for the future. (Cal's own suggestion)

I will take these apart of the next few days unless something else comes up. The conservative approach to solving problems in this country is dead. Cal is now transitioning himself to join McCain's "March to Mediocrity" in government.

Cal Thomas drinks the cool-aid again

None dare call it ‘victory’

A follow-up from Krauthammer's column:

Correlation Does Not Equal Causation

Also, two months of semi-good news in a 4.5 year war do not constitute solid statistical evidence of a trend. Only the neo-cons could call 35 deaths in a war that didn't need to be fought "good news". What if the deaths stopped altogether? How does that help us against Al Quaeda and terrorism? All of this "progress" is simply quelling a power struggle between Iraqis who want to control Iraq. It has NOTHING to do with terrorism.

When Cal Thomas is quoting the pages of the New York Times claiming that they have finally come around to seeing things his way and the way of the Bush administration, watch out. I don't have any stats to prove it, but I have been noticing that the press is reporting anti-war news ever since it became apparent that it is a strong negative for the presumed democratic front-runner - Clinton. Cindy Sheehan? She is a nut case now to the press - especially after she started attacking Hillary.

The New York Times editorial board will kick itself if it's anti-war rhetoric leads to another GOP victory because they front runner was just as involved in the invasion as any neo-con. That is why they are toning it down. If the war is successful, it becomes a non-issue. If the war continues to be a big issue, the average voter will trust Giuliani or Romney or Thompson over Clinton any day of the week since they always trust the GOP over the dems in matters of foreign policy. Things can always change, but only a fool would ignore past trends when formulating a strategy in this area.

This is, by the way, all perception. 2007 has actually been the WORST year for U.S. casualties. More of our partners have pulled out - including soon Australia after John Howard's recent defeat. We are no closer to finding bin Laden, and our so-called ally Musharraf has basically turned into a Saddam Hussein by jailing all opposition political figures, disbanding the Pakistani Supreme Court and filling it himself so that they can rule his reign "constitutional". The only difference is he has nukes and he hasn't started killing his people en masse yet. Look for that on the horizon whether he "wins" or loses the next election.

Cal Thomas, kool-aid drinker

Cal Thomas on the Presidential Debates

The Republicans, who rarely mention the president, agree that Hillary Clinton would be a bad president and each could fight terrorists better than any Democrat, except for Ron Paul who doesn't want to fight anyone.

OK, I'll admit it. I'm a Ron Paul supporter. This article really isn't about Ron Paul, but it should be. The quoted statement above should be "Ron Paul who doesn't want to fight anyone without a declaration of war". So apparently people like Cal Thomas who like to give a pretense of loving the Constitution at every turn and use it whenever they need a handy tool to decry someone else's opinion, pretty much ignore it if they are in favor of any policy that clearly violates the Constitution. Policies, for example, of invading foreign countries without a declaration of war from Congress. Remember that Ron Paul introduced a bill calling for a letter of marque to be issued against bin Laden shortly after 9/11. Here is one blog calling this "wacky" - apparently they haven't read the Constitution either.

So Cal Thomas in this article has the same complaint as a lot of people watching the presidential debate. This is a collection of meaningless sound-bites from polished C+ students seeing who can promise the most government handouts. The point he is misses is that Ron Paul is the only candidate in either forum whose platform is taking away benefits and abolishing segments of the government that both take away and hand out taxpayer money. How Cal Thomas missed this is anyone's guess.