Conservative Monitor

No one likes to owe money, but we, as a nation, are owing more and more money every year. This is not like a 30 year mortgage, this is like an infinite year mortgage that can never be paid off, because the debt grows every year rather than drops.

I have been asked to review two books in the last three months that have to do with the national debt, Andrew L. Yarrow’s Forgive Us Our Debts (a very well-reasoned study of the debt, its problems, and its solutions), and the more populist work, Where Does the Money Go?, by Bittle and Johnson. Both sound the alarm, both work hard to be non-partisan, and both succeeded in elevating in my mind the need for a reduction of the national debt.

Long ago I read and reviewed a fairly hefty, scholarly, historical study of national debt in free countries, especially Great Britain. It is called A Free Nation Deep In Debt. Frankly, I like history, and I enjoyed the historical approach of the book. Its thesis was that a free nation can borrow far more than a totalitarian nation because it is far less likely to default, thus in crisis situations, when push comes to shove, should a conflict arise, the free nation will be able to raise more resources to fight a war and thus will most often be the winner of the struggle, even with a deficit of manpower and other natural resources (See Napoleonic Wars - GB vs. France).

I still believe James Macdonald’s thesis in “Free Nation” is largely correct. However, I also note that throughout history, democratic nations have also worked to keep their debt to a minimum. There was hard work during the lulls between crises to reduce and eliminate the debt (See William Pitt the Younger and his idea for a sinking fund). If the United States is not careful, we will drive ourselves so near to bankruptcy, that it will be difficult to access loans in times of dire need. It is then that we may become not a “Free Nation Deep in Debt”, but an enslaved one.

Well, it is not every day that I get a death threat, but it is more common than you might think. People on the extreme left can’t argue logically so they first resort to invective and second go straight to the politics of personal destruction in a very literal sense.

Here is the note I received:

My Dearest Will,
As I lay here in my hospital bed in Rammstein, Germany, I can only hope people with your mentality will one day suffer the torture and killing my family has experienced. You see, for the last several years I have become an expert torturer and killer. I am responsible for 11 kills, including 2 women, and 1 child. Some of these people I killed with my bare hands. I did all of this killing fully legal, backed by good ole Uncle Sam. Have you ever seen a child with blood pouring out of his ears? I have. Now my father, and two brothers are dead. The only people left in my family are my mother and I. Remember Saving Private Ryan, well, I’m not a private, actually I’m a highly decorated, purple heart winning Marine, and I love my country, even now, but my name happens to be Rian, with an I. But, Bush and all his NeoCon cronies have now totally destroyed the American economy (look at the dollar vs. the euro), and made a great deal of people miserable, which is a ripe time for revolution. I know this because I earned a Master’s Degree in American History at Illinois State University, and because I’ve spent the last 5 years in Iraq. Anyway, when I get out of this hospital bed, I’m coming to get you. I know your address, so you can be easily found. I don’t know what I’ll do yet, use my brains or my brawn, or both, but you will definitely know when I arrive. Thank you for killing my family and making my life miserable.
See you soon,
Herr Rian Koch
US Marine
Proud Patriot

The problem with these notes is they are mostly written by people who aren’t very bright in the first place and contain nothing of much substance. If some liberal really wants to threaten me, try threatening me with a bit of logic. Show me how you are right and I am wrong. You aren’t going to scare me into silence by threatening me physically.

By the way, I am not the only person this guy has threatened. Bruce Kelly for one got almost the same note. This Rian Koch is a fool to mess with Kelly. Kelly is likely to dig deep enough to find out who this guy is and go after him. I am more likely to fight with the pen (it being mightier than the sword) unless I get physically approached, in which case the nuclear option will not be disdained.

By the way, I found another note from the same “Rian Koch” on Liberalscum.com in 2004. His work stands on its own, without need for commentary from me.

My wife believes that it is my mission in life to dirty the kitchen at the precise moment that she finally has it all straightened up at the end of each day. Her cleanup job is no mean task as, she has the dirty dishes from supper and the accumulated disaster of two kids and a husband to deal with.

Normally, I saunter in just at the time she is putting the last cup in the dishwasher. I throw open the fridge and declare in dolorous tones that I am hungry, if not actually starving. My wife, the soul of patience, always asks, “You are going to clean up after yourself, aren’t you?” My response is, “Of course, I always do.”

Now, my response is either a lie, a fabrication, or mere misguidedness. For the kitchen is never left by me in the same condition in which she has put it. The fact is, I do some perfunctory moving of dishes, swiping of crumbs, and even turning on and off of water, but somehow, the kitchen never comes off as “clean”.

This very evening, this same drama acted itself out. Tonight it was a leftover porkchop and some cheese that lured me into the kitchen just as the dishwasher was turned on. My wife asked her usual question and I responded in the usual way. It was then I was struck by the fact that in some facet of my life I am actually a liberal. You see, I always try to do good, my intentions are - in fact - perfect, but the execution leaves something to be desired. Well, so much to be desired that I leave a mess, and it is left to the true conservative of the house, my charming wife, to clean it up.

Life’s lessons can be found in the most basic of events.

Okay, I admit it. I am not a huge fan of modern art. Being a conservative my taste is somewhere pre-Picasso, pre-Goya - heck it’s probably confined to old prints of naval battles, and a David depicting Napoleon on his charger at the Bridge at Rivoli (at least I think it was David). For this reason, it hardly seems logical for me to wade into the deep waters of controversy over the Alvaro Alvillar work known as “FfOoRrMhUaLtAe”.

If you are a sharp cryptologist you will note that the capital letters alone read “FORMULA” and the lower case read “for hate”. The image is that of several American Flags with words printed on them saying: “Politically its [sic] OK to hate the white man. Is it OK for me to hate if Ive [sic] been a victim.” You can check out the actual work of art Alvillar’s website.

It seems the police union is asking to have the art work removed because it is “bigoted” or “racist”. The city of Atlanta, where the image is displayed, is in an uproar and considering its removal. You can get the skinny on the ins and outs of the controversy at an Atlanta centric website called “Creative Loafing”. The gist of it is that Mr. Alvillar says he is misunderstood, and anyone who can possibly be offended by the painting is claiming to be offended. People on all sides of the issue are putting their own interpretation on the work.

Well, isn’t that what art is about? When I look at the not so perfect image of the painting on my rather grainy laptop, I don’t really know what the author meant to say, or what others get out of it. What the statement says to me is that since the white guy is the only politically correct target remaining in the world of politics, he gets dumped on. This makes him a victim and ultimately he must feel his victim status and grow to hate others.

Is this what the painter intended? I am not sure. But I believe it just may be. Mr. Alvillar has been called a Mexican-American, but I suspect, that like me he is just an American. Sure, he has been influenced by his cultural heritage. Haven’t we all? My ancestors were English, French, German, Luxembourgian, Huron Indian, and maybe a bit Mongolian. But we are all part of a common culture. We are all a part of the same nation.

What Alvillar’s work says to me, whatever he intended, is that the political correct leftists are hypocrits because they encourage attacks on our American Cultural heritage which they see as embodied in the white male and as a result, through their own prejudice, are practicing exactly the kind of behavior they profess to abhore.

Nice job sneaking all that into your painting there Alvaro. Keep up the good work!

There is excessive handwringing these days about the economy. The FED raises and lowers rates and expands or contracts the money supply in an effort to control inflation or affect unemployment rates. The fact is that all of this is merely cosmetic. Sure it has some short term effects and does perhaps even out some of the fluctuations that are going to occur in any economic system that must supply billions of people with their daily bread, shelter, and even entertainment.

The real driver of the economy is and must be energy. The fact is that the only way to create goods and services and to deliver them is to expend that energy. Of course, energy takes many forms, wind power, hydro-electric, etc. converted to electricity and then there are the carbon-based fuels. Coal and Oil. Of course, we have the problem of CO2 emmission associated with the latter. (Dealt with in my last post via my review of Nigel Lawson’s An Appeal to Reason).

It is becoming more and more apparent that the oil reserves in the U.S. are vast. Accessing them with current and developing technology is easily within our capacity. The problem is having the political will as well as the common sense to utilize these resources. The fact is: modern technology can extract oil and coal and deliver it to the consumer in ways that protect the environment.

It would seem obvious that the economic problems faced by the world today are largely due to artificial and unecessary restrictions imposed on industry by governments. Some regulation is necessary to safeguard the planet, but for the most part, regulation has gone far beyond safeguarding and moved into the realm of unreasonable and excessive roadblocks to exploration and extraction of resources in response to the fear mongering special interests who wish to restrict economic growth.

One single measure would boost the economy, lower unemployment, lower fuel prices, and raise the world’s standard of living. By now that measure should be obvious. Allow the oil companies to drill in the US.

I just zoomed through Nigel Lawson’s new book on Global Warming: An Appeal to Reason. This book does a great job of sorting through the hysteria and hype of global warming. I wish I could get a copy of this book into the hands of every liberal and then get them to read it.

This work takes global warming head on. Granting the lefties all of their suppositions, especially that the temp of the Earth is going to go up five degrees (which is by no means certain), Nigel Lawson demolishes the fear mongering and extreme policies concocted by the left to handle it.

I did a review of An Appeal to Reason that hits the high points of his arguments. But in it I did not go into the psuedo-religious aspect of the Global Warming crowd. Nigel Lawson points out that the geographic areas where global warming alarmism is most popular is in areas where conventional religion is the weakest. He thinks that it has, in some ways, taken the place of religion in that people believe in it, and do small ritual acts in supplication to the concept (such as energy conservation) largely so they can feel good about themselves.

This is an interesting concept. I believe it is true. I have always thought that Communism was as much of a religion as Christianity in the sense that many of its tenets are similar. What is interesting is that many of these secular religions are less tolerant than the truly religious people they tend to look down upon. Communist states always supress the press. The whole concept of political correctness came about in order to stifle argument from conservatives. Oppose any concept that is supported by liberals and you will be looked upon as a bad person. The same thing goes for global warming where if you express doubts in the academic world, then you are hounded out of your position or denied funding. It is truly difficult to even have a conversation with a Global Warming zealot. If you score any points they will cross their fingers in front of them and say “Get thee from me Satan!” - or words to that effect.

In any case, An Appeal to Reason is well worth the read, if only to sharpen up on the state of the argument.

I have participated in enough committee work and volunteer boards to know that a large part of what gets done and voted on does not occur at the meeting, but behind the scenes in private conversations. This may shock people who have never been in a chamber of commerce board, or in a church session, or a school board, or what have you.

The reason that it works this way is that it is highly inefficient to do all the work that would be necessary at a meeting of an organization. It must be done behind the scenes and presented at the formal meeting. This way coherent proposals can be made. It is not surprising then that by the time ideas are presented there is often already a consensus on what decision will be made. At least partisan lines will have coalesced around the idea. Parliamentary procedure has already formalized this way of doing business and it is called the “committee structure”.

Pennsylvania Avenue: Profiles in Backroom Power, by John Harwood and Gerald F. Seib is all about the give and take that goes on behind the scenes at our national government. It describes many incidents that become footnotes in the history books, but all of these footnotes add up to one big thesis. The authors contend that the partisan politics in Washington has led to virtual grid-lock and, consequently, the only way that things can get done is through the backrooms.

Yet Harwood and Seib do not contend that all this backroom brokering is necessarily a bad thing. The biographies of the various backroom players are not scathing or scandal ridden. They are, rather, straightforward and for the most part positive. We find that people like Karl Rove and David Rubenstein are filling a niche that has become necessary to grease the wheels of government so that things can actually get done.

“Pennsylvania Avenue” contends that:

Today’s combination of ideological polarization and partisan division, of distant personal relations and intense heat from constituents, of viselike pressure from old money and new media, is historically unique. At various times, different incentives and circumstances produced a different capital city.

This has largely come about due to the high speed of communications and the number of outlets which means that information comes to the public in a form that is raw and unfiltered. This has its good points and its bad points. When information is not digested, it can sometimes be false and misleading, because all of the facts have not had the opportunity to come to light before reactions and hard positions are forming. The authors give out the Dubai Ports deal as an example of how this can happen.

Along with the 24 hour news cycle, the constant public opinion polls can be another factor. Americans are very often polled on subjects upon which they are not well informed and they have given little thought to, giving knee-jerk reactions from the public a pronouncement akin to the “voice of the people.”

Ultimately, as a conservative/libertarian, I see the new media as good (as it is one of the few outlets for conservative thought), and I believe that there is still too much compromising by our side in the political debate. However, there is perhaps too much rancor on both sides of the aisle. (I would say it is mostly on the side of the Dems, but that would sound partisan.)

Pennsylvania Avenue: Profiles in Backroom Power, by John Harwood and Gerald F. Seib is a primer on how things really get done in Washington, with a who’s who of the current power-brokers.

I got an advance copy of Bruce Herschensohn’s new book, “Above Empyrean”. Herschensohn has a vast insight to human nature and applies it to make not only interesting fiction, but to make conservative points about the War on Terror.

I took this page turner to my son’s baseball game the other night. The book had me so engrossed, I actually missed one of his at-bats. Luckily it was just a bunt single toward first. (The pitcher was a might bit slow and he got on.)

This seems like light fiction in the reading, with engaging characters, snappy dialogue, and a certain lightness of tone. Yet this belies the seriousness of the subject and Mr. Herschensohn’s ability to get a point across without your realizing it. This is a great book for teaching foreign policy lessons.

You can read my extended review of Above Empyrean or get your copy of the book through the Conservative Bookstore.

Denis Avery of the Hudson Institute contributes a well thought out piece on saving seeds in the arctic. It seems the Swedes are storing away seeds to protect them from global warming.

I have always found it interesting how liberals seem to think that the conservative resistance to change is indicative of a static world view. It seems to me that the global warming zealots are the ones resistant to change. As Denis Avery points out in his commentary, they take long term natural trends and run around like the proverbial “Chicken Little” (only with their heads cut off), proclaiming the end of the world as we know it.

As you can imagine, the Conservative Monitor gets a considerable number of emails that purport to be scathing attacks and turn out to be mere insults by those who cannot make a reasoned argument. I always respond with a comment to the effect that I will argue the merits of an idea, but I don’t plan to merely trade insults. The following exchange is a perfect example:

Regarding your March 2003 piece about “liberals”:  I wonder if it is now becoming clear to you that the “conservative ascendency”(sic) is an anomaly?

Bush preferred by, what? 27% of Americans.  More than 80% of your fellow citizens say they think the country is on the wrong track after almost 8 years of a Republican administration.

 When our government was invented it was something completely new.  It was as unorthodox as it could be.  It was and is basically, liberal: a liberal democracy.  This means broad minded, open to new ideas, flexible and adaptable to the constant challenges of a changing world.

American conservatives seem to me, so often, to simply be cowards in the face of life’s annoying tendency to throw us curveballs that require us to change to respond.

I’m sorry you guys are so scared of life, the world.  But don’t worry, as the 20^th century showed us, Democrats can lead us to success and victory in military campaigns and Republicans, who are not cowards like Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld, can have the courage to talk to the Soviet communists and the Chinese communists.  So, we will be all right.

And remember, according to our ideals, the nation my uncles fought in WW II to defend, the country my forefather at Gettysburg gave his right arm to keep united, the government my ancestors fought for in our War for Independence, the concept of freedom my ancestor George Soule helped promote when he stepped off the Mayflower in 1620 and started building Plymouth colony, admits your right to free speech.  And as a liberal democracy we will continue to admit that right and even fight and die for it, despite the fact that your cowardice and whining in the face of a dangerous world are at best unproductive and at worst craven.

Sincerely,

Name Removed

Our Response:

At one time I would have tried to answer in a way that would hopefully convince the author of the email that his or her (very seldom a her) arguments were mistaken. But the fact is, the time is wasted as most of these “authors” are not ones to be convinced by logic and only wish to vent their spleen. When I do get a response, it is usually a long and rambling rant that I cannot possibly read through and leads pretty much nowhere anyway.

If I thought the gentleman who penned the above diatribe could understand Burkean notions of evolutionary change as a way to advance society then perhaps I would have dealt with his mistaken understanding of how Conservatives view change.

So, how is a person like this reached? Not by logic. This is a person who will have to experience life, and perhaps someday will come to understand that Conservatism is the only time tested way to deal with reality that actually works.

As for his opening about the “conservative ascendancy”, I can only say that the pendulum does swing.   

Finally, let me recommend to you Frank Knights Law of Talk.