SteveB's blog

In the past I have occasionally recommended a book that I felt readers of this blog and others like it would find interesting- books like Crunchy Cons or Neither a Liberal nor a Conservative Be. Today I am recommending a book that on the surface may seem like an odd choice- but bare with me.

Joseph Pieper's Leisure: The Basis of Culture is a fascinating if complex read. The premise behind this short volume is that we have moved into a world of total work and in doing so have lost, or are loosing, some of what makes us human. Pieper explains that the ancient Greeks and medieval philosophers understood and valued leisure and that it has been the first foundation of any culture.

He tells how our world of total labor has destroyed classical leisure, and warns that unless we recover true silence, unless we experience true leisure, we will destroy our culture-and ourselves.

To me this is a very conservative message in the truest sense of the word. We need to conserve that which makes us what we are. The current ethic of work for work's sake is best seen in light of the coming holiday season. What should be a joyous time of family reunion turns into a second job for many- between decorating, shopping and party going they need a vacation to recuperate from the holidays. Turning everything into work is exactly what Pieper is warning us about.

If you'd like a more in depth review please see my new article at Suite101: Joesph Pieper, on Leisure the Basis of Culture.

Crossposted at The Rockefeller Republican. Disagreement over the White House's recent strategy to alienate FoxNews came from a surprising place...MSNBC.According to MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, the administration’s repeated attacks on Fox Newsare an attempt to send a message to the rest of the news media: “Fox isn’t a real news organization, so the stories it generates aren’t real news.”

Wednesday's edition of “Morning Joe” reported on an exchange between ABC Correspondent Jake Tapper and White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs where Tapper questioned whether it was “appropriate” for the administration to be deciding what news organizations are legitimate.

“I think Jake Tapper was onto what we got onto yesterday morning, because we’ve been having this debate: ‘Does this make sense for them to shoot down at Fox News?’” said host Joe Scarborough.

But Fox, Scarborough said, is not the target. “The White House isn’t attacking Fox news to attack Fox News. They’re playing the media. They’re saying ‘Please, don’t follow the ACORN stories. Don’t follow the Van Jones stories. Don’t follow any stories they bring up because they’re not a news organization.’”

When even administration cheerleader MSNBC is against your tactics you know you have over stepped. There is a dangerous slippery slope here.

If one network's perceived "slant'' is motivation for a White House media attack, what about the others? It sounds like a question of friends and enemies -- and enemy lists invoke a a period of American history we would all rather not repeat.

Crossposted at The Rockefeller Republican.  There are now plan for more  troops in Iraq and Afghanistan than there were in the Bush administration. From The Washington Post:

President Obama announced in March that he would be sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But in an unannounced move, the White House has also authorized — and the Pentagon is deploying — at least 13,000 troops beyond that number, according to defense officials...

The deployment of the support troops to Afghanistan brings the total increase approved by Obama to 34,000. The buildup has raised the number of U.S. troops deployed to the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan above the peak during the Iraq “surge” that President George W. Bush ordered, officials said.

Furthermore it looks as though these troops will be in pace for a very long time. From New York Times Magazine:

"For what McChrystal is proposing is not a temporary, Iraq-style surge -- a rapid influx of American troops followed by a withdrawal. McChrystal's plan is a blueprint for an extensive American commitment to build a modern state in Afghanistan, where one has never existed, and to bring order to a place famous for the empires it has exhausted. Even under the best of circumstances, this effort would most likely last many more years, cost hundreds of billions of dollars and entail the deaths of many more American women and men." "And that's if it succeeds."

So my question- where is the liberal rage? If it does not materialize does that mean all the antiwar demonstrations were just political theater? Does the left really not care about this issue?

Crossposted at The Rockefeller RepublicanAs of today it looks like the Baucus bill on health care has a decent shot at passing, so a timely look at how it is going to be paid for is in order. Luckily, Kevin Hassett looks the numbers and they don't look good for most of us. Some highlights...or lowlights as the case may be: 

    [T]he Baucus plan holds that if you have an insurance plan with a high premium (exceeding $8,000 per individual or $21,000 per family), your insurance company would pay a tax of 35 cents for every dollar that your plan exceeds the threshold.    Ostensibly the excise tax is a tax on insurers. But as with other excise taxes (gasoline, cigarettes), the cost would undoubtedly be passed on to the consumer, in the form of more expensive insurance.    The report projected that the excise tax would raise about $52 billion in 2019. Of that, about $8.9 billion would come from taxpayers with incomes of less than $50,000; about $19.4 billion from taxpayers with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000; and about $17.4 billion from taxpayers with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000.    Add those up, and you see that about 87 percent of the revenue in the original Baucus proposal to finance Obamacare would come from individuals with incomes of less than $200,000.    The remarkable thing is that this revenue comes from low- and middle-income people who already have insurance. Many members of organized labor have these "gold-plated" plans. And they would be worse off, not better, because of Obamacare.

Finding positive news for conservatives in New England can be tough. Fortunately members of the Granite State look like they are leaning towards keeping a Republican representing them in the senate. A new New Hampshire State Poll finds that in a hypothetical U.S. Senate race, Kelly Ayotte (R) leads Rep. Paul Hodes (D), 40% to 33%, among likely voters.

Keeping a foothold in New England is vital if the Republicans are to fight the growing impression that they are a regional party.

Crossposted at The Rockefeller Republican.

According to Scott Spreling at the WSJ, the recent Chrysler bailout is “capitalism at work.” While I am not an economist I would have to respectfully disagree. Effective capitalism would support companies that provide products and services that the public wants. Effective capitalism breeds efficiency in corporate structures. And in truth, effective capitalism would have seen Chrysler die out nearly 25 years ago.

The unfortunate truth is that Chrysler stopped making automobiles the public wanted long ago. That, and not the current economic crisis is what put it in the position it is in today. A glance at the most recent Consumer Reports Auto Edition tells the tale. The following are the recommended buys for a variety of brands.

Ford: 14 models

Ford EdgeFord Escape Hybrid Ford Escape 4-cyl. Ford Escape V6 Ford Expedition ELFord F-150Ford Focus AT Ford Focus MT Ford Fusion 4-cyl. Ford Fusion V6 Ford Mustang V6 Ford Mustang V8 Ford Taurus Ford Taurus X

Honda: 15 models

Honda Accord V6 Honda Accord 4-cyl. AT Honda Accord 4-cyl. MT Honda CR-V Honda Civic Si Honda Civic EX AT Honda Civic EX MT Honda Civic GX CNG Honda Civic Hybrid Honda Fit Base AT Honda Fit Sport MT Honda Odyssey Honda Pilot Honda RidgelineHonda S2000

Chrysler: 0 models

That's right, zero, none, nada. Is it really a win for capitalism when a company that makes cars that don't sell well and are generally of lower quality than its competitors is propped up by an intrusive federal government for the sake of short term job savings?

Lets put the quality of the product aside for a moment and look at what the company itself is willing to sacrifice to enable survival. When a company fails this miserably one would expect drastic measures in terms of its corporate structures to try and keep it alive. First among those changes would be cost cutting tactics. So one would think the workers along with the CEO's would be taking a long hard look at compensation as a temporary way to right the ship. However, among the cost-cutting measures being enacted are a suspension of cost-of-living-adjustments and new limits on overtime pay. Chrysler workers will also lose their Easter Monday holiday in 2010 and 2011, according to a union summary. No pay raises? Limits on over time? That's it? Even the workers themselves are surprised, “the reaction here has been incredibly positive. With many workers saying the plan is not nearly as drastic as they expected.”

Sadly, this is not the first time Chrysler has relied on the largess of the federal government and the American taxpayer. An eerily similar situation occurred 25 years ago. Chrysler chairman, Lee Iacocca, came to Washington in 1980, hat in hand, begging for a government bail out which he got. However, while the public perception was that Iacocca was a corporate savior, the reaction from economists was somewhat different, and very illuminating for our current situation. Below is the reaction from 1983.

The problem with the Chrysler bail-out—in fact, the problem with all "industrial policy"—is that it is necessarily political in nature; the loudest interest groups get the greatest reward, while the scattered and fragmented "invisible constituency" is largely ignored. But a free market is a tangled web of infinite and subtle interaction, in which the full impact of intervention is not always recognized until too late. In the case of the Chrysler bail-out, a big chunk of taxpayer money was committed to a shaky and inappropriate venture. Every American became an involuntary and uncompensated partner in a company whose future is still in doubt. The precedent established is extremely dangerous. On top of this, the bail-out even failed in its purpose.

It is time to pick your favorite cliche. The past is prologue; those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it; here we go again. Any of these will apply. But is it a win for capitalism? Unfortunately not.

Crossposted at The Rockefeller Republican.

It is no longer a statistical blip; the United States has definitely drifted to the right on the issue of abortion. The latest Fox News issue opinion poll mirrors the movement in the Gallup and the Quinnipiac polls, but the larger question is why?  Nancy Gibbs at Time has one theory,

Abortion has forever been blown by electoral trade winds; when the right was in charge, people feared the return of coat hangers in back alleys. Now that the left leads, they fear abortion on demand. The very meaning of the labels adjusts; calling yourself pro-choice at a time when a liberal Democratic President and allies in Congress are lifting abortion restraints may imply no qualms at all, and that's not where most people are.

But there could be more to the strangely shifting polls than politics. Perhaps in some very important way, the pro life movement is simply winning over the hearts and minds of America. The culture of violent protests at abortion clinics that once defined the movement is now thankfully over. Now the bulk of pro-life energy is being channeled into grassroots efforts, from crisis pregnancy centers to post-abortion counseling.  Many of the current crop of megachurches now focus their efforts on these and other like minded projects which serve the dual purpose of seeking to reduce the abortion rate one woman at a time, while also softening the image of the movement overall. Ross Douthat in an editorial piece this past December adds to the picture of a more positive pro life push,

Over the same period, pro-lifers — especially in the evangelical community — have broadened their movement’s ambit, emphasizing poverty, the environment and other non-abortion “life issues” more consistently than an earlier generation did. Leading pro-life figures like Rick Warren are more likely to be photographed touring poor nations alongside Bono than protesting outside abortion clinics.

What is most interesting is that these strong pro life numbers are coming at a time when the Democratic party ID numbers far outweigh the GOP's. This means that many self described Democrats are admitting to not being pro choice. Is this because of technology- high resolution ultrasound pictures? Or is this because of the absence of the threat of back alley abortions- back-alley talk may be politically untenable, in a way that it wasn’t 35 years ago? Regardless, the young voters the pro-life movement has won over are likely to stay pro-life.

Maybe the abortion issue will change from being a starkly right vs left debate into a more rational human debate?

More center-right news and views at The Rockefeller Republican

Russ Douthat has some critical things to say about as he calls it — Republicanus Rockefellus. Understandably as a self-described Rockefeller Republican I take issue with some, but not all, of his points. Douthat is using the recent Sen. Specter debacle to make a broader point about the politics of centrists.

Political debates are often framed in binaries: Middle-of-the-roaders versus hard-liners, moderates versus ideologues. But American politics is more complicated than that. There are multiple rights and lefts, and multiple middles as well.

I couldn't agree more. There are many factions within the greater Republican party,-Fiscal conservatives, Libertarian conservatives, Moderates, National Security-oriented, Neoconservatives, Paleoconservatives, Religious Right/Theoconservatives, Social conservatives, States' rights supporters, Federalists- and we need them all.

In reference specifically to Northeast Republicans,

The Northeastern moderates tend to style themselves as fiscal conservatives, spinning a narrative in which they’re the victims of a doctrinaire social conservatism and its litmus tests. But many of them are just instinctive liberals who happen to have ancestral ties to the Grand Old Party....others, like Collins and Snowe and (until last week) Specter, are simply horse-traders and deal-cutters, whose willingness to cross party lines last month to vote for $800 billion dollars in deficit spending tells you most of what you need to know about their supposed fiscal conservatism.

I take issue with the point that I, or others like me, are instinctively liberal. While Specter and the ladies from Maine do tend to prove this point they are not the only examples of Rockefeller Republicanism. There are many fiscally conservative North-easterners who are a better representation of our brand of conservatism. One only needs to look at some of the members of the Republican Main Street Partnership for proof of moderate Republicans who are still truly conservative, members like Todd Platts of PA 19th district, Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey, Mike Castle of Delaware and Charlie Dent of PA 15th who all voted with their party 85% of the time in the last congress. They do not get the press of the Specters and Snowes of the world but are quietly working to further a center-right ideology in Washington.

Douthat goes on to make the point that centrist are needed, but in his words we need a

better sort of centrist. The Reagan-era wave of Republican policy innovation...has calcified in much the same way that liberalism calcified a generation ago. And so in place of hacks and deal-makers, the Republican Party needs its own version of the neoliberals and New Democrats — reform-minded politicians like Gary Hart and Bill Clinton, who helped the Democratic Party recover from the Reagan era, instead of just surviving it.

This I agree with and posit that moderates could lead the way here, or at the very least be a strong partner in a coalition to rebuild the party. A strong platform built around energy policy for the 21st century would be a good start; it would be pro-environment, pro-business as well as strongly pro-security. Someone like Jon Huntsman, Governor of Utah should be looked at closely as a leading voice for the new moderates. Being from Utah he is predictably conservative on many social issues, but he has been known to be more centrist in other areas. The environment in particular has been an area that he has stressed. "We as Republicans can’t shy away from speaking the word 'environment,' and we shouldn’t shy away from speaking the words 'climate change,'" Huntsman told reporters at a press conference late last year. "When you’ve got a body of science that already is rendering certain judgments about what is happening in our world, for us to shy away, say it doesn’t matter as an issue, I think is foolhardy, it’s short-sighted and it’s bound to do us damage in the longer-term." He has also talked of reform in the areas of education, health care and energy.

The GOP needs all factions of its party to win back a majority, even neo-Rockefeller Republicans like me.

For more center-right news and views read The Rockefeller Republican

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter switched his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning. "I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary. I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election."

  Paying the political price for his support of President Barack Obama's Stimulus Plan, Specter trailed former Congressman Pat Toomey 41 - 27 percent in a Republican primary for the 2010 Senate race, with 28 percent undecided, according to a Quinnipiac University poll at the end of March. In a move called a "decision [representing] the height of political self-preservation,” by Sen. John Cornyn. He went on to say, “[w]hile this presents a short-term disappointment, voters next year will have a clear choice to cast their ballots for a potentially unbridled Democrat super-majority versus the system of checks-and-balances that Americans deserve." The question is will a Pennsylvania electorate vote for a hard-line conservative after turning more and more blue over the past few election cycle?

The site has argued in the past why the Republicans need to hold on to moderates, even extreme ones like Specter. If you look at congressional records objectively you can see why. Democratic Sens. Nelson, Bayh and Lieberman have been given a lot of praise for their somewhat conservative stands over the years; and I would venture to guess the Republicans would be glad to have any of them switch parties and join the Republican ranks. In fact in 2008 many did lobby Lieberman to cross over. Ironically, Specter himself was quoted as being all for the Lieberman switch.

  “I would like to see him vote with Republicans in September,” Specter said. “He’s practically there. That would have the consequence of giving us a Republican Senate.”

Now, if Republicans are so eager to celebrate centrist Democrats who agree with them some of the time, why are they so unwilling to hold onto centrist Republicans who agree with them most of the time? According to The Political Guide, since 1990, Arlen Specter has voted with the majority of his party 72.9% of the time and missed only 2.8% of the votes. In all likelihood PA is going to elect a Democrat in 2010 and the Republican party will miss out on those potential votes.

Believe me, I am no big fan of Specter and others like him who often cross the aisle and vote for things like the recent stimulus bill. However, I'd rather have them then lose a seat to the other side.  For more center-right news and views see The Rockefeller Republican.

Article highlights: Conservatives need to stop talking about being conservative, and need to start acting like it.

Let me state this right off the top: I am part of the problem with today's conservative movement. I drive a GM truck, shop at Big Box stores, own four computers; and I complain about the current state of our nation. When Senator Phil Gramm said we are a nation of whiners he was criticized for it- but in fact, he was right. We like to complain about big government & big business failures, but we seem to have little desire to actually make the changes in our own lives that would bring about some modest solutions. It is time to put our money where our mouth is.

• Conservatives across the country were quick to criticize the auto executives who came crawling to Washington to beg for funds, but how many of those same conservatives drive around in GM SUV's or minivans? When gas was $4 a gallon you couldn't find a Prius on the lot, now they are there in abundance.

• The media and the rest of us readily complain about the questionable methods of agribusiness every time a new salmonella scare comes up or mad cow disease rears it's crazy head, but how many of us shop at the local farmer's market where you can talk to the man who grows your food?

• Republican legislators have not been in short supply when it comes time to criticize the too-large-to-fail financial institutions that over-extended themselves to Olympian proportions. However, I am sure many of their constituents are the proud owners of McMansions, 2 new cars, plasma tvs, rider mowers and in ground pools purchased on the backs of easy credit and low equity.

There is a lot of talk, rightly so, about how the GOP and conservatives in general need to refine, remold and rebrand. A great place to start would be to align with the definition of the word conserve. Conserve: to keep in a safe or sound state; especially : to avoid wasteful or destructive use of.

Let's start with the auto industry. Yes, they failed to make small economical cars like Honda and Toyota did; but this was because the American consumer demanded bigger and bigger SUV's. This is the only country where a military assault vehicle could become every suburban dad's dream car. However, not every American car company failed to plan for the future. Ford alone has resisted taking government bail out cash, and could be the last one standing when all is said and done. It will be interesting to see- will Americans reward Ford for solid business practices? Will Ford out-sell GM over the coming year? If we were true to our principles it would. Conservatives need to move their political activism into the marketplace. We need to make principled decisions with our money. Everyone knows an oil dependent auto industry means uncomfortable ties to the Middle East, not to mention the destructive environmental factors. We need to start supporting, with our wallets, the kind of cars that will rid us of this burden.

The same idea of principled spending can be applied to our grocery bills. In Walter Goldschmidt’s classic 1940s study of California’s San Joaquin Valley, As You Sow: Three Studies in the Social Consequences of Agribusiness, he compared areas dominated by large corporate farms with those still characterized by smaller, family farms.

In farming communities dominated by large corporate farms, nearby towns died off. Mechanization meant fewer local people were employed, and absentee ownership meant farm families themselves were no longer to be found. In these corporate-farm towns, the income earned in agriculture was drained off into larger cities to support distant enterprises, while in towns surrounded by family farms, the income circulated among local business establishments, generating jobs and community prosperity. Where family farms predominated, there were more local businesses, paved streets and sidewalks, schools, parks, churches, clubs, and newspapers, better services, higher employment, and more civic participation.

While the clock can not be turned back to some dream of an idyllic 1940's farm town, recent studies confirm that Goldschmidt’s findings remain essentially valid. If conservatives made a concentrated effort to shop locally when it came to food we would be helping local economies, eating healthier, and taking away one of the left's talking points to the young. The GOP was the original party of environmental conservation; supporting a modified slow food movement would be economically sound, and politically expedient.

Finally, we need to conserve that most important of resources, our own money. While it is right and proper to admonish Washington for their “economic-crisis” induced spree, our politicians are just a microcosm of our ethos as a nation. We are all big over-spenders. If we want a conservative government, and by conservative we mean small, thrifty and cautious, then we need to lead by example. This is the hardest point of all. After years of cultural movement towards a credit fueled society we need to think more strategically about our money- in some sense it may be too late for some of us, but the next generation can be taught the values of disciplined and principled spending.

"Criticism is necessary and useful; it is often indispensable; but it can never take the place of action, or be even a poor substitute for it. The function of the mere critic is of very subordinate usefulness. It is the doer of deeds who actually counts in the battle for life, and not the man who looks on and says how the fight ought to be fought, without himself sharing the stress and the danger." - Teddy Roosevelt

 For more center-right news and views see The Rockefeller Republican