As occurred last February during a previous cleanup, another cleanup now allows me to pass along an excerpt from an article and two other quotes which I discovered during tonight’s effort:
Patti Davis, President Reagan’s daughter, wrote A Daughter’s Remembrance: The Gemstones of Our Years on the occasion of his death in 2004:
…My father was always more accessible when he was teaching his children through stories…
My father was a shy man; he wasn’t demonstrative with his children. His affection didn’t announce itself with strong embraces of dramatic declaration. We had to interpret it. Like delicate calligraphy, it required patience and a keen eye, attributes I had to acquire. I was not born with them.
Eventually, I grew beyond the girl who wanted more from her father than he was able to give. I began to focus on the gifts he gave me…You content yourself with moments; you gather them, treasure them. They are the gemstones of the years you shared…
…My father belonged to the country. I resented the country at times for its demands on him, its ownership of him. America was the important child in the family, the one who got the most attention. It’s strange, but now I find comfort in sharing him with an entire nation. There is some solace in knowing that others were also mystified by him; his elusiveness was endearing, but puzzling. He left all of us with the same question: who was he? People ask me to unravel him for them, as if I have secrets I haven’t shared. But I have none, nothing that you don’t already know. He was a man guided by internal faith. He knew our time on this earth is brief, yet he cared deeply about making his time here count. He was comfortable in his own skin. A disarmingly sunny man, he remained partially in shadow; no one ever saw all of him. It took me nearly four decades to allow my father his shadows, his reserve, to sit silently with him and not clamor for something more…
Francine Klagsbrun wrote these words in Married People: Staying Together in the Age of Divorce:
Acceptance is a prerequisite for intimacy, and from acceptance grows trust. You trust another to accept you for yourself and, once accepting, not to betray that trust.
And, finally, there is this quote from the Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer in The Cost of Discipleship:
[Open full post]Costly grace is the gospel which might be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock. Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly, because it cost a man his life, and it is grace, because it gives us the only true life…
[Cheap grace] is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate….
Yuval Levin has written a piece that is getting some attention around the web. In it, he identifies what he calls the “parenting class” as being the new group to whom politicians will need to appeal:
The worry of middle- and lower-middle-class families arises from a genuine tension between the two things they most eagerly strive to do: build families and build wealth. That tension, and the disquiet it causes, is especially acute for parents. Indeed, Americans in the middle class and what used to be called the working class would be better conceived of today as the parenting class. Their concerns and aspirations are no longer focused on their standing in the workplace, as they were when our political vocabulary was coming of age, but on balancing the pursuits of family and prosperity.
The members of the parenting class do not live on the edge of poverty. But they are anxious about their ability to meet their high aims, like affording a decent college for their children, getting the most from their health care dollar, and (in our increasingly older society) meeting the needs of their aging parents.
This is the anxiety of a successful capitalist economy filled with individuals who want to lead good lives. It is an anxiety produced by the kind of society conservatives seek to promote. It therefore calls for a response from the right, from those who share the aspiration to balance families and free markets…this aspirational anxiety should be the focus of a conservative domestic policy agenda, and the lens through which conservatives understand their challenge in the coming years.
He has his own ideas as to how conservatives can address the concerns of this group. It’s well worth the read.
[Open full post]I posted a couple weeks ago about Arthur Brooks’ findings that conservatives are more charitable than liberals. Last night, John Stossel (via Karen Woods) looked into whether or not we are “Cheap in America” and found that it was a myth. Working off of this, Woods draws a couple conclusions:
Bureaucracies, government ones and even big charity ones (national or international), just don’t do as good a job as private, local donors and charities; and (2) Americans are truly more generous than any other people on the planet–no matter their means. Rich and poor alike give generously…
So one point is clear, defensible, and should motivate that worthy end-of-year giving: Charity does it better. Private donations are more substantial and yield more positive effects on the givers and receivers than any government effort. Volunteerism, direct involvement with those in need, is extremely powerful and productive.
There’s a second, equally critical point, interestingly not in the sites of the “more government money to fight world poverty” campaigns: effective giving. Give to organizations that transform people’s lives and communities.
Woods continues on, but the short and sweet of it is that it’s a more effective use of your money and time if you give to local charities.
[Open full post]For those interested in the “global warming” case (Massachusetts v. EPA) heard by the Supreme Court on Wednesday (which Rhode Island is a party to), Jonathan Adler of the Volokh Conspiracy has been compiling links on the media coverage, the Supreme Court has already posted the official transcript of the oral arguments, and the legal briefs filed in the case are available from the Community Rights Council website.
In one sentence, the case is not directly about the science of global warming, but about whether a) states can sue a Federal agency to force it to enact regulations in areas where they have not been granted express authority by Congress and b) whether anyone has the standing to sue for damages for the broad, collective effects of something like “global warming”. Expect the Court’s four liberal justices to rule that “Statutory mandates on executive branch agencies should be interpreted very broadly in places where we agree with the policy outcomes”, the four conservative justices to say that “Congress must grant specific authorization to a Federal agency before it can act”, and Anthony Kennedy to be the swing vote.
Earlier today, Marc noted the “neat little trick” whereby “moderates” and those to their left claim to tolerate everybody except the intolerant and then define as intolerant anybody with whom they disagree. To my ear, there’s something similar in the recently vogue usage of the term “mandate,” as in:
“The election did show that there’s a mandate to expand embryonic stem cell research,” Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., said Tuesday in a telephone interview.
Putting aside the issue of embryonic stem cell research, what DeGette’s statement highlights is the evolution of “mandate” into a linguistic proof of legitimacy — the implication being that a proven mandate requires our representatives to pursue, or not pursue, a particular policy. Thus, despite the inevitable ambiguity of election results, one side insists that representatives must support a particular cause, or the president must not do as he sees fit when it comes to national security. The side that wins is that which is able to declare most loudly and frequently the yea or nay on a mandate.
Our system would be more effective, I’d say, if representatives did whatever they felt to be right and then faced the consequences, or reaped the benefits, with voters in the next election. Of course, it would also be more effective if the average voter were sufficiently well informed to have his or her own preferred policies and, therewith, a certain immunity to code-word talismans.
I remember during the recent RI Senate race that Senator-elect Whitehouse made much of Healthcare, and, in particular, the “broken” Medicare Part “D” program (prescription drugs). In fact, it was number one on his Health Care reform To-Do list. While he was holding “the hands of seniors who are desperately afraid that they’ll wake up one day to find that the medicines they need the most are beyond their reach,” Whitehouse proposed that the Medicare Part “D” plan be “scrapped” and cited the Washington Post, which reported “only 1.4 million people – a fraction of the 8 million eligible – have signed up for the new benefit, despite a $400 million campaign by the Bush administration.”
Well, now the Washington Post (via Barone) has reported this:
Oooh, I know, I know! An election year issue to scare senior citizens! [Open full post]It sounded simple enough on the campaign trail: Free the government to negotiate lower drug prices and use the savings to plug a big gap in Medicare’s new prescription-drug benefit. But as Democrats prepare to take control of Congress, they are struggling to keep that promise without wrecking a program that has proven cheaper and more popular than anyone imagined…
Polls indicate that more than 80 percent of enrollees are satisfied, even though nearly half chose plans with no coverage in the doughnut hole, a gap that opens when a senior’s drug costs reach $2,250 and closes when out-of-pocket expenses reach $3,600. By the latest estimates, 3 million to 4 million seniors will hit the doughnut hole this year and pay full price for drugs while also paying drug-plan premiums.
The cost of the program has been lower than expected, about $26 billion in 2006, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The cost was projected to rise to $45 billion next year, but Medicare has received new bids indicating that its average per-person subsidy could drop by 15 percent in 2007, to $79.90 a month.
Urban Institute President Robert D. Reischauer, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, called that a remarkable record for a new federal program.
Initially, he said, people were worried no private plans would participate. “Then too many plans came forward,” Reischauer said. “Then people said it’s going to cost a fortune. And the price came in lower than anybody thought. Then people like me said they’re low-balling the prices the first year and they’ll jack up the rates down the line. And, lo and behold, the prices fell again. And the reaction was, ‘We’ve got to have the government negotiate lower prices.’ At some point you have to ask: What are we looking for here?”
Offering a decidedly contrarian viewpoint (relative to the usual MSM perspective), Pawtucket Times columnist Jim Baron comes out against political parties that are big tents…
The Republican and Democratic parties long ago stopped standing for any particular ideology or principle. Both have determined to become “Big Tents” attracting any voters they can. They have become about nothing more than their side winning the election and seizing the power and getting the fundraising advantage. If it is going to be one side or the other in charge, each wants it to be them. Philosophies be damned; the parties want to get their hands on the levers of power and keep them there. Nothing else is important….In his column, he also comes out against straight-ticket voting, choosing candidates through primaries, and maybe even political parties in general.
So all of politics, and by extension, government, is the gang of R’s fighting over power, turf and perks with the gang of D’s, and everyone else – more than half of all Americans; more than half of all Rhode Islanders – matter not at all.
And you wonder why apathy about government and politics is so rampant that most people don’t bother to vote, that most sane and grounded people can’t be convinced to run for office to try to change things.
I’d like to submit for consideration one other contrarian observation (relative to the usual MSM perspective) to those sympathetic to Mr. Baron’s viewpoint. A large part of the mechanistic vulgarization of politics that Mr. Baron describes is a natural outgrowth of government becoming big, intrusive and expensive. Once government takes control of a huge chunk of resources, either directly through taxation or indirectly through regulation, human nature dictates that rival gangs, focused on grabbing those resources for themselves, will form.
Reduce the amount of power controlled by the government monopoly, and you’ll reduce the number of hands grasping at the levers of government for power’s sake alone. [Open full post]
An adjunct fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (who is also an advisor to the government of Saudi Arabia, BTW) offers some fascinating insight into the political economy of oil prices in the Middle East. Writing in the Washington Post, Nawaf Obaid explains that if the United States cuts-and-runs from Iraq, the Saudis will not stand idly by if either the Shi’ite dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki or any of Iraq’s various Shi’ite militias embark on an ethnic cleansing campaign against Iraq’s Sunnis (h/t Rich Lowry). Because of their oil wealth, the Saudis have a number of options…
Options now include providing Sunni military leaders (primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency) with the same types of assistance — funding, arms and logistical support — that Iran has been giving to Shiite armed groups for years.Remember, Saudi manipulations to lower oil prices would serve a second Saudi objective, lessening the urgency being felt in much in the United States for developing oil alternatives — alternatives that could permanently lower the price of Saudi crude.
Another possibility includes the establishment of new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias. Finally, [Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah] may decide to strangle Iranian funding of the militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half, the kingdom could still finance its current spending. But it would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today’s high prices. The result would be to limit Tehran’s ability to continue funneling hundreds of millions each year to Shiite militias in Iraq and elsewhere.
Then again, both motivations — impeding Iran and stifling interest in new energy sources — already justify a Saudi-engineered oil price drop, so it has to be asked why it hasn’t happened already. (Certainly, there has been a drop over the past few months, but Mr. Obaid’s article suggests that the Saudi domestic economy could easily absorb an even further decline). Could it be that it is important for the Saudis to see the US defeated, necessary to assauge domestic political considerations, before they take action?
Finally, including Saudi Arabia’s long-term interests in the picture perhaps makes the refusal of Prime Minister Maliki to confront Iraq’s Shi’ite militias just a tad more understandable. Knowing the Saudis are ready to surge aid to the Sunnis the moment the U.S leaves, he may already be preparing for his next war against a Saudi/Iraq Sunni alliance, if he believes that the United States is now destined to abandon him in his current war. [Open full post]
First, the New York Times focuses the soft-filter lense on the now dwindling ranks of GOP moderates in New England and :
It was a species as endemic to New England as craggy seascapes and creamy clam chowder: the moderate Yankee Republican.
Dignified in demeanor, independent in ideology and frequently blue in blood, they were politicians in the mold of Roosevelt and Rockefeller: socially tolerant, environmentally enthusiastic, people who liked government to keep its wallet close to its vest and its hands out of social issues like abortion and, in recent years, same-sex marriage…
Then they let the moderates explain that they’re the real conservatives:
Walter Peterson, a former New Hampshire governor and lifelong Republican, this year became the co-chairman of Republicans for John Lynch, the incumbent Democratic governor.
“What the people want is basically to feel like the candidates of a political party are working for the people, not just following some niche issues,” Mr. Peterson said. “The old traditional Republican Party was conservative on small government, efficient government; believed in supporting people to give them a chance at life but not having people on the dole; wanted a balanced budget; and on social issues they were moderate, tolerant, live and let live. They didn’t dislike somebody from other religious viewpoints.”
He continued, “That was the old-fashioned conservative, but the word conservative today has been bastardized.”
I’m afraid that Mr. Peterson is the one “bastardizing” the meaning of the word. His apparent complaint that today’s conservatives “dislike [people] from other religious viewpoints” stands out as the primary difference in his functional description of “what it means to be a Republican” and that of most contemporary conservatives. Together with the linkage of “live and let live” with “moderate” and “tolerant”–such a neat little trick–the comment reveals that the real axe he and other moderates have to grind is that they look down their blue-veined noses at people who actually have a religious viewpoint. In short, live and let live unless you’re a right wing, religious nut. Very tolerant of them.
As a practical, pragmatic and political matter, the various New England GOPs need to have a much bigger tent than their counterparts in, say, the south. Yet, they also have to recognize that the conservatives who are (seemingly) at the lower, rank-and-file level of the party are tired of being ignored. We’re smart enough to realize that compromises have to be made. Maybe it’s time that the bluebloods realize that, too.
Finally, the Times offers Senator Chafee as Exhibit “A”:
I’m caught between the state party, which I’m very comfortable in, and the national party, which I’m not,” said Mr. Chafee, adding that he was considering the merits of “sticking it out and hoping the pendulum swings back.”
Sheesh, Senator. “Sticking it out”? Could he be any more complacent? If he really wants to hold elective office again, he has to be proactive, seize the bull by the horns and start working now. A good place to start would be to put his time and money where his rhetoric is and help build the RI GOP. Don’t start waiting. Start doing. (And remember to be tolerant and open-minded, K?)
[Open full post]According to the Washington Post, the government of Fairfax County, Virginia has decreed that individuals cannot give homemade food to homeless people without first obtaining government approval…
The casserole has been canned.I’m not sure what political philosophy the individual or panel who made this decision believes in, but the Fairfax decree sums up the modern liberal (actually progressive) ideal of a strong state quite well – in the ideal, all human interaction (outside of sexual relations in the home) will first be sanctioned by the government.
Under a tough new Fairfax County policy, residents can no longer donate food prepared in their homes or a church kitchen — be it a tuna casserole, sandwiches or even a batch of cookies — unless the kitchen is approved by the county, health officials said yesterday.
Yes, the rules in Fairfax County are an extreme case (for now), but they embody the preferred approach of modern liberalism towards almost every domestic civic and economic problem there is. Want individuals to give food to the homeless? Sorry, can’t be done. Someone might bake a bad tuna casserole, so it’s best to limit hunger relief to government approved facilities only (even if it means that fewer people get fed). Want individuals to be able to choose the schools best for their kids? Sorry, can’t be done. Someone might make a bad choice for his or her child, so it’s best to have the government choose a school for them (even if it means that fewer people get a quality education). Want to let individuals put their Social Security in individual retirement accounts? Sorry, can’t be done. Someone might not invest wisely, so it’s best to let the government hold their savings, and give it back to them when the government deems the time to be right (even if it means putting the younger generation into a system destined for bankruptcy). Et cetera. Et. cetera. Et. cetera.
Further commentary on Fairfax County’s insanity is available from Jonah Goldberg, John J. Miller, and (in pro-active fashion) Donald B. Hawthorne. [Open full post]
