One of those periodic clean-up efforts at home led to the discovery of some random quotes which I had been collecting. Here they are:
From a description of Carroll Quigley’s The Evolution of Civilizations in the Liberty Fund Catalog:
The Evolution of Civilizations is a comprehensive and perceptive look at the factors behind the rise and fall of civilizations.
Quigley defines a civilization as “a producing society with an instrument of expansion.” A civilization’s decline is not inevitable but occurs when its instrument of expansion is transformed into an institution – that is, when social arrangements that meet real social needs are transformed into social institutions serving their own purposes regardless of real social needs.
From Lee Edwards in the book entitled Educating for Liberty: The First Half-Century of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute:
It is the duty of ISI to remind conservatives that in politics there are no permanent victories or defeats, only permanent things like wisdom, courage, prudence, and justice.
From Richard Epstein in his book entitled Skepticism and Freedom: A Modern Case for Classical Liberalism:
Legal and political institutions can take us only so far…There is no automatic safeguard against the scourges of totalitarianism. All that we can hope to do is improve the odds, and toward that end the most powerful bulwark is a determined citizenry that internalizes the basic lessons of human history.
From Michael Potemra in the July 14, 2003 edition of National Review:
Those lessons are clear enough – “private property and limited government” – but they are not self-enforcing. Their survival depends, as does much else, on human virtue.
From James Bowman in the the June 2004 edition of Crisis Magazine:
The debate – if you can call it that – about gay marriage is not really about gays but about marriage. What kind of thing is it? Those who take a sacramental view of the matter are horrified at the idea of gay marriage not because of “homophobia” but because it represents the culmination of the process of desacralization that began with the liberalization of restrictions on divorce…If two people pledging a union “until death do us part” is now a mere mockery of words that used to mean something but are now never uttered without the tacit stipulation, “or until I get tired of you,” why shouldn’t the mockery be extended further to make the two people of the same sex?
Far better, it seems to me, to get the law out of the “marriage” business altogether, since there is no more marriage anyway. Why not pass “civil unions” legislation and make it apply to all domestic partnerships, hetero- or homosexual? True, we would have to bite the bullet and accept that it’s worth the huge increase in business to divorce – or de-unioning – lawyers just to underline our commitment to equal rights, especially “the right to happiness.” But that’s the price we must pay for our attachment to the doctrine of true psychic reality and, with it, the belief that feelings matter more than loyalty in marriage…
From Charles Krauthammer’s June 2004 article entitled The Clinton Legacy:
Clinton’s autobiography, appearing as it does in such close conjunction to the national remembrance of Reagan, invites the inevitable comparison.
The contrast is obvious.
Reagan was the hedgehog who knew – and did – a few very large things: fighting and winning the Cold War, reviving the economy, and beginning a fundamental restructuring of the welfare state.
Clinton was the fox. He knew – and accomplished – small things. His autobiography is a perfect reflection of that – a wild mishmash of remembrance, anecdote, appointment calendar and political payback. This themeless pudding of a million small things is just what you would expect from a president who once gave a Saturday radio address on school uniforms.
From George Will (unfortunately my notes say pages 366-367 but don’t give the source):
An ancient Greek poet said, “The fox knows many things but the hedgehog knows one big thing.”…But Reagan is much more of a hedgehog than a fox. He knows a few simple, powerful things. He understands the economy of leadership…He knows it is necessary to have a few priorities, a few themes. He knows how often – again, the peculiar patience of politics – you must repeat them when building a following. He knows what Dr. Johnson knew – that people more often need to be reminded than informed…Rhetoric is a systematic eloquence. At its best, it does not induce irrationality. Rather it leavens reason, fusing passion to persuasion. Rhetoric has been critical to Reagan’s presidency.
From former Congressman J. C. Watts in the January 24, 2006 edition of the Wall Street Journal’s Political Diary:
I can confidently say I saw this train coming years ago. The arrogance factor among some [Congressional] leaders, members and their staffs who were smitten with power and arrogance was starting to run amok even six years ago. By the way, if there are ever term limits on members of Congress, we might consider term limits on staff as well. It’s all about access to power, and that access morphs quickly into greed.
From George Santayana‘s book entitled The Life of Reason, Volume 1:
[Open full post]Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In the first stage of life the mind is frivolous and easily distracted, it misses progress by failing in consecutiveness and persistence. This is the condition of children and barbarians, in which instinct has learned nothing from experience.
I received a fund-raising letter last week from Senator Lincoln Chafee. Here is the paragraph to which my response vacillated between irritation and utter amusement at its words and tone:
My opponent in the Republican primary, Stephen Laffey, is preparing to run a negative campaign because the only way he can win is to attack me. You see, his divisive, confrontational approach has led to acrimony and costly law suits, but little in real results for the City of Cranston. He can’t run on his record so he’s going to attack mine.
Tone deaf. Chafee apparently doesn’t understand that Laffey need not attack him. All Laffey has to do is speak up about what he believes in and the stark contrast with Chafee cannot be missed. Simply pathetic.
Here is to voting for change.
I recently posted about the angry comments being expressed by conservative Republicans in the “comments” section of an anti-Laffey story that was promoted by the National Republican Senatorial Committee on behalf of Sen. Chafee. Apparently, rather than deal head-on with discontent being expressed by their conservative base, the NRSC has instead “bravely” decided to remove the original story and the 100+ anti-Chafee comments associated with it. (Thanks to commenter “ballottra” for the heads up).
The original story was released around Dec. 19 (if memory serves) and now it is gone from the list of news releases. It seems it is the only such story removed. Thankfully, I have preserved a few of the comments in post I mentioned before.
However, the NRSCs attempt to CENSOR the legitimate grievences of GOP members concerned with the NRSCs actions in the Laffey/Chafee race were poorly implemented. Though the story and old comments are gone, new comments can still be be made here. I respectfully request that conservatives do so. I wouldn’t be surprised if the NRSC eventually figures it out and takes even this meager avenue of protest away. If so, we will have to come up with another way to convey our displeasure.
Finally, a question: Does the NRSC actually believe it willl be able to issue pro-Chafee press releases with an open comments section without getting anti-Chafee comments?
For what it’s worth, here are a couple stories being promoted on the NRSC website concerning the RI Senate race that seem appropriate venues for commentary…
R.I. mayor defies GOP in Senate bid
GOP Leaders Rally Around Chafee
Arthur Kimball-Stanley reports in today’s Projo that a casino developer is interested in building a casino on or near the site of the Johnston Landfill (will the hook be “The Stinkiest Casino in the East”? How about “Johnston: A Place for Solid Waste and Clean Fun”)…
The casino project pitched for [Johnston] Thursday night includes a 27-hole golf course and an upscale hotel, town officials who heard the presentation said yesterday….Mr. Nunes refused to disclose the name of the company he and Ajax Ventures represent. However, unless there’s some uber-Machievellian machinations going on, it’s pretty clear that this effort is not associated with the efforts of Harrah’s or the Narragansett Indian Tribe…
Town Councilman Ernest F. Pitochelli said developer David H. Nunes, representing a company called Ajax Ventures, presented the possibility of building a casino resort on or near the industrial park built by the Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation, which operates the state Central Landfill “His reason for being there,” Pitochelli said, “was that he wanted the council to work with the company to help get the people to vote in favor of a casino in town.”
Harrah’s shouldn’t have a monopoly on developing a casino in Rhode Island, Nunes said, and that is why he is talking to Johnston officials. “There is potential for competition in building a casino in Rhode Island,” Nunes said yesterday, “and we’re looking for a receptive community.”There is no mention of whether any Indian tribe is involved, or what an Ajax-associated Constitutional amendment would look like, and whether it would simply legalize gambling in Rhode Island, or try to carve out a state-run monopoly for one company.
Nunes would not discuss anything about the company he represents, refusing even to name it. “We’re going to see if this jells, if it gets legs, and then we’ll pursue it,” he said.
Finally, the article mentions a recent poll taken showing strong public support for a casino in Johnston…
Nunes told the council that the company he represents is interested in Johnston because of its location, Russo said. Also, a pollconducted by an unnamed Oregon company indicated that town residents were more supportive of such a proposal than were the residents in any of the other area communities polled, Nunes said.In the spirit of public responsiveness that casino developers always seem to be touting, let’s ask them to add one more question to any poll about establishing a casino…
Gerard Scotti, a town resident who answered the poll, said the questions were skewed to reflect positively on the casino. He said most of the questions referred to the financial problems that the town faces, and asked whether residents would mind having a casino contribute to the town’s coffers.
If a destination casino were built in RI, would it be better if it contributed 25% of its profits or 60% of its profits went to the state for the purposes of improving education and providing tax-relief?[Open full post]
I’ve tried to keep my eye on Beacon Mutual’s bid to privatize–and thus remove government oversight–and have posted a couple times (here & here) on why I’m not sure it’s a good idea. The Governor isn’t too keen on it either. In short, BM is a government-funded entity that was created to serve a specific purpose–underwriting Workman’s Comp. for small businesses– and the move to privatize doesn’t seem like it would be beneficial for RI employers. With no State oversight, BM would be allowed to make their own rules. For example, they could set different standards for different companies depending on (let’s just say) whether or not one of the BM board members happens to own that company. That was a hypothetical until yesterday (read-on).
Meanwhile, Beacon Mutual has already created a private company–on its own–in anticipation of receiving the go-ahead to expand out of state. Their stated goal for such a move is to cover the employees of RI businesses who work outside of RI. Sounds relatively benign, but as my previous posts indicate, there are questions regarding whether or not there may be some alterior motives.
Despite these concerns, the BM move from public to private has already been approved by the RI Senate. And while the ProJo tries to undersell the brewing controversy (notice the headline and especially the “lead”) by pointing out that an independent audit determined there is no wrongdoing going on at BM, the real story is that there wasn’t enough information provided by former Manpower Pres. Sheldon Sollosy–who also served as the BM Chairman–to come to any conclusion.
Sollosy has resigned as BM Chairman as it appears that he took advantage of that position to help him get a break on insurance rates for his business, Manpower, Inc. He did this by simply not providing the correct information on payroll figures to BM auditors. They, in turn, did not take appropriate action as outlined by the bylaws.
Finally, Governor Carcieri recieved and is publicizing a letter from a BM board member who is in disagreement with the actions of the majority of her fellow members. Dan Yorke (who has been all over this) has the letter as well as some more information regarding Sollosy.
It’s a little complicated, but if you’re interested, read the items to which I linked. The question is: is it a proper–or wise–use of tax-payer dollars to allow this public-to-private move? How much will the individual board members benefit from this maneuver? What are their motives and–in light of the Sollosy resignation–can they be trusted?
I’m not well-versed in the financial world (Don H.?), so I’d be interested to see if anyone thinks there’s any “there, there.”
RI House Leaders unwrapped a slew of tax reforms entitled the “Taxpayer Relief Act of 2006.” Here are the bullet points of the nine-point proposal:
- Personal Income Tax Reduction: Instead of the current rate of 9.9% of their federal taxable income, which is then subject to adjustments, deductions, and tax credits, taxpayers could elect to pay 7.5% of their Adjusted Gross Income (AGI), but without any of the reductions. Over the course of five years, the flat rate would be gradually reduced to 5.5% to make it closer to the rate that taxpayers would owe if they lived in Massachusetts.
- Sales Tax Holiday: This proposal would institute a sales tax holiday weekend on August 12 and 13, 2006.
- Comprehensive Sales Tax Review: A new study commission would aggressively investigate the state sales tax and whether some changes to it are necessary.
- Increase Earned Income Tax Credit: The refund that low- and moderate-income taxpayers could get as a result of the earned income credit on their state income tax returns would go up.
- Energy Star Tax Break: This proposal would institute a weeklong sales tax holiday in March 2007 for any item under $2,500 that carries the federally designated “Energy Star” label for energy efficiency.
- Car Tax Phase-out Acceleration: The phase-out of the auto excise tax would continue, but with changes that would get more relief to taxpayers sooner.
- Property Tax Relief: The refundable income tax credit that elderly, disabled, and qualified low-income residents receive under the property tax “circuit breaker” law would increase.
- Transparent Income Tax: The Tax Administrator would be required to submit recommendations for a Rhode Island Personal Income Tax Code that would include tax rates, income brackets, and personal exemptions.
- Create New Department of Revenue: A new Department of Revenue’s sole purpose would be to collect taxes and tax data. House leaders believe this department is necessary to provide the state with a continuous review of the tax structure so lawmakers can stay on top of trends and changes and keep Rhode Island’s tax laws competitive with those of other states. Rhode Island is the only state in New England without such a department.
With this type of tax reform, how do house leaders propose to pay ever-increasing social service programs or state pensions? I’m all for reducing income and sales taxes, and especially making the overly burdensome car tax moribund at a more rapid pace. However, tax reform cannot come without review of various state programs/expenditures.
Lastly, has House Speaker Murphy been attending conservative economic theory classes? I ask because he says:
[Open full post]The ultimate goal is to put more money directly into people’s pockets both by giving relief to those who need it and by making Rhode Island a more attractive place for businesses that will provide high-paying jobs for more Rhode Islanders.
Thinking aloud over at The Corner, Ramesh Ponnuru asks, “What do conservatives gain if Chafee wins?” But first he makes a case for conservative retribution against Sen. Chafee:
The more I think about it, the more important it seems to me that Steve Laffey beat him in the Rhode Island Senate primary.
None of the Republicans who voted against Bork in 1987, and none of the Democrats who voted against Thomas in 1991, paid any price. (It was the pro-Thomas senators who suffered: Democrat Alan Dixon lost a primary to Carol Moseley-Braun, and Arlen Specter had a tough general election.) If Chafee loses, it will make it harder for Snowe and Collins to vote against a qualified conservative in the next Supreme Court fight.
What do conservatives gain if Chafee wins? The hope that he would vote to keep Senate Republicans in the majority if it came down to him. We don’t know that he would vote that way; and it’s not clear that nominal control of the Senate matters all that much. Even if Laffey went on to lose the general election, taking out Chafee looks like a good move to me.
As some of you may have realized, I’ve basically come to that conclusion myself, though not from any desire for retributive action against Senator Chafee.
In a response to a critique of my post regarding where Sen. Chafee has differed from conservatives, I explained why I have decided that it’s time to send Sen. Chafee on his way. I think it’s proper for me to summarize my reasoning in a “regular” post so readers (and my fellow Anchor Rising contributors) can see where I stand on the Laffey/Chafee race.
Anchor Rising is a conservative blog, not a Republican blog. I am a registered Republican, but I’m a conservative first. I am more concerned with growing the conservative movement within the state than I am with keeping a liberal Republican in national office merely for the false promise of “goodies” for my state.
It is a political reality that the home for conservatives is the GOP. Unfortunately, Sen. Chafee–the face of the RIGOP at the national level–has shown time and again that he is most comfortable being a liberal Republican. In fact, it’s as if he revels in the attention he accrues for being a Republican wildcard. His position as the only Republican in our congressional delegation has given both he and his supporters considerable power–both direct and indirect–within the State GOP, especially at the top of the state GOP hierarchy.
Additionally, though there are many leaders within the RIGOP who are more conservative than Sen. Chafee (such as Governor Carcieri), these leaders have chosen to be “pragmatists” and “grin and bear it” as Sen. Chafee routinely votes against the interests of his President and the interests of the majority of the Party he calls “home.” They are understandably reluctant to break Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment (“Never speak ill of another Republican”; the same cannot be said for the NRSC), especially in a state with such a small GOP contingent. But the willingness of the RIGOP to accept whatever Senator Chafee does for the sake of having a seat at the national GOP’s table is starving their own conservative base.
The Alito confirmation vote is the most recent and stark example of how much Sen. Chafee differs from even his fellow liberal/moderate Republicans like Maine Senator Olympia Snowe. He was the only Republican to vote against confirmation of Justice Alito, a nominee of a President of his own party. Yes, the GOP is a “big tent” party–but Sen. Chafee usually isn’t in the tent when the Main Event is in the center ring!
Eventually, the RI GOP–whether from the “bottom up” or the “top down”–has to make a decision: Continue being satisfied with the status quo and the shenanigans of our “independent” Senator, or send the sort of message that is long overdue. Currently, Mayor Steven Laffey is the vehicle through which conservative members of the RIGOP can best make such a statement. Mayor Laffey isn’t a “perfect” conservative (if such a thing exists), but he is undeniably more conservative than Sen. Chafee. At the least, he will support President Bush on the big issues like the War in Iraq. I am not condoning some sort of ideological purity within the RIGOP, nor am I naive enough to believe such a thing is achievable. All I desire is that the RIGOP begin to reflect the predominant ideals of the majority of its members, from the top on down.
Regardless of whether or not Sen. Chafee has a better chance than Mayor Laffey of winning the general election is not as important as how the nomination of each effects the structure of the RIGOP. If–as Tip O’Neill said, “All politics is local”–then it’s time for RIGOP to concern ourselves with our own backyard. Party building requires its members to be inspired, something that has been sorely lacking within the GOP. Inspiration requires leadership, but it also requires that the members “buy-in” to a message in which the truly believe. Even if Mayor Laffey should win the primary, but lose the general election, few can doubt that his views are more in line with the majority of the RIGOP.
Many say that RI is a “liberal” state, and that having a liberal Republican is the best that we can do. That is both pessimistic and defeatist. Conservatives have to realize that there is no law stating hat RI will always be “liberal.” We are not consigned to some permanent fate. We have the ability to change Rhode Island, but only through optimism and hard work will we be successful.
After 1964, Barry Goldwater was considered a fringe candidate who had led the nascent national conservative movement to a fiery death. In 1980, Ronald Reagan proved them wrong. In between 1964 and 1980, Reagan and others led a grassroots movement that spread the conservative message throughout the nation. Unfortunately, with the exception of a brief period during the 1980s, that message has been forgotten in Rhode Island. It is past time that Rhode Island conservatives rectify that situation. The first step is to change the attitude and direction of the RIGOP. So long as we continue to derive inspiration from our conservative ideals and values–and don’t accept vague promises of maintaining our little slice of the political pie–we can be confident in our attempt to fundamentally change the Rhode Island Republican Party. Change has to start somewhere and sometime: Why not here, why not now?
Sen. Kerry, thank you for keeping such a high profile. Whether it be instigating a doomed-to-fail filibuster of Justice Alito from the slopes of a Swiss ski resort or claiming that “53 percent of our children don’t graduate from high school” or “The average American struggles to find time to take care of families, working two or three jobs… ” (emphasis mine), you make it easy for us to point out the intellectual bankruptcy of so many on the Left. On the face of it, no one can possibly believe that less than half of our students graduate from high school. Also, as an “average American” who happens to know a lot of other “average Americans,” I can tell you that none work “two or three jobs” to make ends meet. But that’s OK, such incessant carping reveals your politics-of-demogoguery for what it is. Thanks! (Oh, and please do run for President in 2008.)
[Open full post]In addition to being the only Republican Senator to vote against the confirmation of now-Justice Alito, Senator Chafee has opposed President Bush and–more often–conservative ideals on the following substantive matters. (All links are to data provided by ProjectVoteSmart. An index of Sen. Chafee’s complete voting record is here).
Presidential Appointments:
Voted against nomination of Judge Priscilla Owen.
Voted against nomination of Judge William Pryor.
Domestic Issues:
Voted against cloture on debate on the Federal Marriage Amendment Bill in 2004, thus upholding a filibuster.
Voted against the provision that allowed for opening up ANWR to oil exploration and drilling.
Voted against the Firearms Manufacturers Protection bill that limited civil liabilities against gun makers–twice.
Voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act 2004 that would have made it a criminal offense if a “fetus” is injured or killed while carrying out a violent crime on a pregnant woman.
Voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit (thus supporting the President).
Foreign Policy:
Voted against the use of military force against Iraq.
Voted for an attempt to make members of the US Military subject to the International Criminal Court.
Voted against an amendment that prohibits any employee of the Federal government from holding a security clearance for access to classified information if they disclose such information to unauthorized persons (say, to the NY Times).
Finally, of course, he voted against the President in the 2004 election.
To be fair, there are many important issues in which Sen. Chafee has been in line with many conservatives or the President. For instance, there can be little doubt that he’s a free-trader. However, as can be seen, on substantive issues he is just as likely to bolt the President as he is to join him.
Back in December, the National Republican Senatorial Committee–in support of Sen. Chafee–decided to try to undermine Steve Laffey’s conservativism by claiming he was really a tax-and-spender. Well, by reading the comments (select “View all comments” at the aforementioned page), you’ll find that a few people have tried to set them straight. Interestingly, the thread is still growing given the recent Alito vote–possibly because the NSRC has decided to put Sen. Chafee “In the Spotlight” this week. Oops–good timing guys. If nothing else, reading the comments calling for the NRSC to “wake up” can be a cathartic experience.
Meanwhile, the NRSC is making much of the fact that Michigan Democrat Senator Debbie Stabenow is supported by the radical, left-wing Emily’s List and are claiming that she voted for the attempted filibuster of Alito because she is beholden to this pro-abortion organization. Apparently, NARAL isn’t considered as left-wing by the NSRC. Maybe because they’re the second-highest single contributor to Sen. Chafee’s re-election campaign? (Here’s another way to look at this data–look for yellow).
