Right Wing Fighter

Month: January, 2016

A little more about Subsidies

I don’t have a problem philosophically with subsidies. Some people talk about them like they’re little devils running around, trying to get into your wallet and take your cash. But a subsidy is a government payment to a company so that it can keep functioning. There are some companies that can’t run at a profit, or can’t right now, that we’d want to keep functioning anyhow. Say a company that makes important parts for our aircraft. Now that’s a company we’d want to keep in business. If it goes bankrupt, and we need to buy these parts from a foreign company, we might be open to a lot of security problems.

First, this company could give away our secrets to its government.

Second, it could simply have them stolen, since our security agents wouldn’t be around in, say, India, to keep them safe.

Third, in the event of war, we’d be dependent on that company’s country keeping the doors open for us to get the parts we need.

Now doesn’t that sound a little spooky? It sure does to me. I’d rather pour a little dough into one of our local companies so that the parts stay local.

Of course this isn’t the only example of why we’d want to subsidize a company. Say for example that there is a company that needs help getting going now, but that can support itself later. Say a nuclear power plant. Nuclear plants are expensive to get started, but their power is cheap and long lasting. It’s clean energy too. Now, it can be tough to get the kind of dough together to make a nuclear plant, and that means we can lose its benefits because the money isn’t there to get it started. A small subsidy could help it get going. Just make sure the tap gets turned off once the plant is running and we’re all set to benefit.

Obviously there are quite a few cases where subsidies are just welfare. In that case I’m against them. I don’t want Uncle Sam pouring our money down a hole in the ground. Any case of mere corporate welfare I’ll be against in a second.

So that’s my yardstick: is it good for Americans or not? If it’s just giving dough to companies that don’t deserve it, then out with the subsidy. But if it will help Americans by helping the economy or keeping us safe, then I’m for it.

Advertisements

Cruz v. Corn Subsidies

In an article from the 26th, Rich Lowry says that Cruz is “courageously” taking on the ethanol subsidies that the federal government pays to corn producers. He calls it an act of “reckless courage,” since Iowa is make-or-break for Cruz, and he goes on for a few paragraphs praising Cruz and taking a few shots at Trump. Of course, Trump is never far from Lowry’s mind. He lives there “rent-free” as Limbaugh would say. But anyhow, the point of the article is that while Cruz is bravely fighting those anti-free-market corn growers, Trump is kissing up to them with abandon. I can’t say if Trump is actually doing that or not, but here are a few thoughts I have:

First, corn subsidies are not that important. Yes, I suppose they do raise food costs since corn is a part of everything we eat. But there are more important things to worry about right now. For instance, immigration, ObamaCare, and our huge debt.

Second, to fight over a subsidy that could cost Cruz his entire shot at the presidency isn’t “reckless courage,” it’s more like stupidity. Nobody can get everything he wants in politics. Some things are non-negotiable of course, but corn subsidies aren’t one of them. To risk his whole campaign on such a small issue is absurd.

Third, why are corn subsidies important anyway? “Conservatives” for years have pilloried them for their anti-free-marketness, but exactly what is so important about them that they must be talked about like some huge gorilla that is just waiting to gobble up the GDP like a vending machine sandwich?

Again, I don’t like the idea of “following the money” since it sounds pretty cynical, but maybe NR doesn’t get much dough from corn growers, and so they can take shots at them to preserve their “conservatism.” That would explain it quite nicely.

Anyhow, you can read Lowry’s article here if you want:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0116/lowry012616.php3

Rubio More “Conservative” Than Trump?

In an article from two days ago, Rich Lowry says that Rubio is more conservative than Trump. The article is called The Quisling Establishment. After listing various reasons why the establishment is making moves towards Trump, he postulates his final reason why they might be doing so:

Finally, after months of Trump leading the polls, fatalism about him has set in. Nothing can be done to stop him, and the sophisticated play is to pre-emptively accept him. Perhaps Trump will sweep all before him. But no one has voted yet, and there are still vastly preferable, more conservative candidates in the field, including Cruz and Marco Rubio.

Is it any wonder that National Review is a joke? It’s editor considers Marco Rubio to be “vastly preferable” to Donald Trump. What the heck is vastly preferable about Rubio? He backs amnesty, which the donors love, and he doesn’t say anything that might incite the “mob,” i.e., ordinary Americans. What does Lowry think this is, the French Revolution? Does he think the people of America are going to murder their rulers if their interests are actually looked after by a man like Trump? Better to keep them under, to keep serving the establishment, with a conman like Rubio.

What is so radical about Trump? He wants to deport illegal aliens: good. He wants trade deals that benefit America: good. He wants to cut down immigration that’s hurting Americans: good. He wants to repeal ObamaCare: good. He wants to simplify and cut taxes: good. So what is so objectionable about Trump? These so called conservatives get hysterical whenever he’s mentioned, it makes you wonder if they aren’t dancing to a different tune than the one they say they are dancing to. Maybe we should “follow the money” after all, and conclude that it is the donors that are pushing all this “conservative” rage.

Frankly, I’ve never liked the idea of “following the money.” It seems cynical and grungy, like those old gangster movies from the ’30s with poor sound quality and a Tommy gun under every coat. But since the big differences between Trump and the other “more conservative” candidates are: deporting cheap workers; limiting the free flow of money by patriotic trade deals; a tax code without loopholes; etc. etc., perhaps it really is about the money. Perhaps it is that rich guys want policies that help them. Perhaps National Review, and all the “conservative” think tanks, really are on the dole, and thus dance to whatever the donors want. That would explain it quite nicely.

Trump isn’t Perfect

One of the objection people have to Donald Trump is that he isn’t perfect. Of course he  isn’t perfect! Everybody is imperfect. Ever since the fall in the Garden of Eden life isn’t what it used to be. But there are some people who try to live, and expect other people to live, as though nothing has changed and perfection is still the norm. Everyone pays lip service to the fact that life is imperfect. But there are still tons of people who demand perfection. To demand perfection in a fallen world is silly.

George Will, Establishmentarian

About a month ago, George Will wrote an article saying that if Trump won the GOP nomination, it could be the end of America’s “conservative” party. A number of excerpts:

If you look beyond Donald Trump’s comprehensive unpleasantness — is there a disagreeable human trait he does not have? — you might see this: He is a fundamentally sad figure. His compulsive boasting is evidence of insecurity. His unassuageable neediness suggests an aching hunger for others’ approval to ratify his self-admiration. His incessant announcements of his self-esteem indicate that he is not self-persuaded.

The middle initial “F” in his name must stand for Freud. This is just psycho-analytical poppycock. Trump obviously isn’t suffering from a quasi clinical need for admiration which drives him to boast everywhere he goes. His boasting of his accomplishments is clearly meant to serve as credentials, as reasons to support him for president, and not as some gimmick to get people to pat him on the head. Will sounds like an effete intellectual, trying to find some way to attack a strong man without truly hitting him.

In 1912, former president Theodore Roosevelt campaigned for the Republican nomination on an explicitly progressive platform. Having failed to win the nomination, he ran a third-party campaign against the Republican nominee, President William Howard Taft, and the Democratic nominee, New Jersey Gov. Woodrow Wilson, who that November would become the first person elected president who was deeply critical of the American founding.

The reason Roosevelt lost the nomination was because of the machinations of the Republican establishment. He actually had much more support among the people than Taft did, who had managed to alienate both business and the people due to his incompetence. Roosevelt did not cost Republicans the election of 1912, as Will is trying to put over here: the GOP establishment, gaming the system and renominating the unpopular Taft, as opposed to the very popular Roosevelt, are the ones who lost the election.

In 1964, Barry Goldwater mounted a successful conservative insurgency against a Republican establishment that was content to blur and dilute the Republican distinctiveness that had been preserved 52 years earlier. [snip] Like Taft, Goldwater was trounced (he carried six states). But the Republican Party won five of the next seven presidential elections. In two of them, Ronald Reagan secured the party’s continuity as the custodian of conservatism.

Only after Reagan’s populist challenge to Gerald Ford cost Ford the election and handed the White House to the Democrats. Will is also shamelessly misrepresenting history: Taft’s renomination was a victory for the establishment, whilst Goldwater’s was a victory for the people: the same kinds of people who were disenfranchised by Taft’s renomination; the same ones that fueled Reagan’s near victory over Ford and his eventual victory over Carter; the same ones that are fueling Trump now. Will is just taking a grab-bag of history, taking the items he likes to build his flimsy argument, that nominating Trump will mean a Democratic victory.

One hundred and four years of history is in the balance. If Trump is the Republican nominee in 2016, there might not be a conservative party in 2020 either.

Will’s fears about “history” are unimportant compared to the fears average Americans are having about their jobs, their families, their nation. Their fears are fully justified, and Donald Trump is the only man running who can do anything about those fears.

You can read the article here:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will122315.php3

A Patriot

A patriot is a man who loves the people of his country, past, present, and future. He also tends to love the traditions and customs of his people since they are an extension of his people, but that is not mandatory.

Kevin Williamson, Uber Snob

There is an astonishing article by Kevin Williamson on NR’s website which is the longest, most detailed example of snobbery in a single person that I have ever seen. It is a disgrace, and shows the intellectual vacuum of NR for what it is. Some excerpts:

Forgive me for turning to one other aspect of the question, which is that the candidacy of Donald Trump is something that could not happen in a nation that could read.

This two-bit intellectual conman, this pathetic creature of research institutes, this man who can write a book with the mindless title, “The End Is Near and It’s Going To Be Awesome: How Going Broke Will Leave America Richer, Happier, and More Secure,” how dare he have the temerity to charge Trump supporters, some 40% of the GOP base, with being unable to read? Just the idea makes my blood boil. He no more loves the American people than he loves his old pairs of shoes. He’s the most unmitigated snob I’ve ever seen.

More excerpts:

Thomas Aquinas cautioned against “homo unius libri,” a warning that would not get very far with the typical Trump voter stuck sniggering over “homo.” (They’d snigger over “snigger,” too, for similar reasons.)

So, Trump supporters can’t recognize Latin when they see it? Of course not, they’re just too stupid to understand much of anything in fact. Oh, and they’re blind to the letter “s” too, in the word “snigger”. Well of course they are! They’re too stupid to understand anything. It’s a wonder they’re let out of their charity homes to go vote.

Understanding and exploiting the baser emotions is what con artists do, and Donald Trump is a con artist par excellence. If you want to surf, you care about how big the wave is, whichever way it is breaking.

American fear and worry about losing our jobs, our safety, our whole way of life, are just base emotions! Nothing more! No legitimacy to ’em at all! Just the crackpot nonsense of people too stupid to recognize Latin and see the letter “s.”! I wonder if Mr. Williamson will be so good as to pass our daily portion of pudding: wouldn’t want to risk ourselves with any food more dangerous.

Donald Trump is the face of that insalubrious relationship, a lifelong crony capitalist who brags about buying political favors. But his enthusiasts, devoid as they are of a literate politics capable of thinking about all three sides of a triangle at the same time, take a kind of homeopathic view of Trump, believing that they can dispatch a crony capitalist to undo crony capitalism in the same way that New Age healers believe that a little bit of diluted poison chases away similar toxins.

What a contemptible little monkey. He actually enjoys looking down on the American people. He likes thinking we’re stupid, and that he is so intelligent. It is always the intellectually pathetic that enjoy preening before those that they consider beneath them, just like a socialite enjoys flashing her diamonds in front of people who can’t afford them. Except there is just one little problem: the diamonds are synthetic in the case of Williamson.

You can read the article if you want at this link:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430227/donald-trump-supporters-establishment-books

We must Build, not just Conserve

Conservatism is admirable, and I really mean that. But it is not enough. If you retire from your job at 40, save your pennies as much as you possibly can, you will still run out of money. Conservation slows loss: it does not replace it. Construction is necessary, otherwise the conservative must eventually lose. Politically and culturally speaking, leftism has been taking bites out of America for years, and while conservatism has slowed the loss, it has not replaced the damage. As such, every new bit of damage done is permanent damage. Leftism must not only be stopped, it must also be replaced. I’ll explain the replacement.

The replacement is actually not a single thing. An ideology is essentially a belief system with one single idea at its heart, with all other ideas and actions hanging in relation to it, as opposed to resting in their proper places. That is why ideologies are always wrong: they take one idea, make it supreme, and then measure the whole world by it alone. The replacement for leftism on the other hand is multifaceted, since this is the only way to be accurate.

The first step is the affirmation of Christianity as the source of moral knowledge. Out with all the talk of “ethics,” and all the spiritualistic attempts at some universal morality. Christianity is true, and it needs to be affirmed as such. Most Americans are already Christians, but for various reasons some have cooled. Simply affirming the truth will do a lot to help the problem, since many have been battered by hostile academics who, for inscrutable reasons, hold Christianity in contempt.

The second step is complete Americanism. No more cosmopolitanism. No more globalism, either economic, cultural, or political. We must think for ourselves, work for ourselves, live for ourselves. This is not selfishness, this is managing our affairs which have been neglected. This is spending our time and energy replacing what has been damaged, and rebuilding what has been destroyed. This also includes such virtues as courage, honesty, fair play, and common American decency; virtues which the academics have attacked as fabrications. Virtues we need to succeed.

Thus the solution is made up of multiple parts: Christianity, which is singular, and Americanism, which is made up of many things and cannot be boiled down to a single item. The truth is, Americanism is not a thing, but a grouping of things that exist all in a constellation.

This is the solution for America: Christianity and Americanism. Without both, America cannot be rebuilt. This post is only a sketch of the solution, marking out the outlines of the answer. The details will have to be covered later.

Why Iraqi Democracy Failed

The project that the Bush administration embarked on in Iraq, where it sought to turn a previously despotically-run, third world, Muslim country into a democratic nation overnight could not possibly have succeeded. Here is why:

First, a people that had no say in government for all their lives could not possible just become skilled public-minded citizens overnight. The British colonists who rebelled against Britain in 1775 had already had enormous experience in self government, since they had legislatures and other elective offices. The people of Iraq had no such training for democratic government, and were thus in over their heads. Government is a practical affair, and you cannot just take people who know nothing about it, give them the vote, and have it work. It is practically guaranteed to fail from the start.

Second, Iraq is a third world country with little of the civilization that we take for granted here in the west. Such a country is so close to the barbaric level of existence, relatively speaking, that mature democratic government is not possible. There will be too many petty squabbles about local affairs; too many people will revert to their guns and swords when they lose either elections or legislation that a democratic government will be at the mercy of strong men on every side.

Third, Islam is not conducive to democracy. Islam is not merely a religion, it is also a political structure that is completely at odds with western democracy. Islam establishes a theocratic government. Thus unless the government is completely in line with Islam, i.e., democratic in name only and in fact a theocracy, then there will be constant agitation to pull down the government and replace it with a theocracy.

The people that attempted to transform Iraq, to make it essentially into a little America, had no knowledge of what they were doing. They imagined that people were as changeable on the inside as a suitcase, and that after talking up the glories of American style government, that the people of Iraq would take hold of their country and make it into a little Kansas. People are not suitcases; their ideas are typically very hard to change. As such, the project could never have succeeded, since it would require the complete reshaping of an entire country.

The Failure of Buckley Conservatism

Buckley conservatism has failed, because it was never expressly allied to the American people. Buckley’s method, “standing athwart history yelling ‘stop!'”, was bound to fail from the start since he did not actually, at bottom, stand for anything. He doubtless had personal goals and ideas, but his movement did not. It was, in a manner, sufficient due to the communist threat that existed when he started out, but that was only because American patriots needed something, anything, to stand by instead of the suicidal left-wing ideology that was crippling the nation. But once the communist threat was destroyed by Reagan, conservatism lost the only real object it ever had: that of stopping the leftists from feeding us to the communists.

Because Buckley-ism did not have an actual goal, but instead a process, that of “yelling ‘stop!'”, it had no destination, no end, nothing in fact to accomplish other than slowing down left-wing gears as much as possible. But the American people, like all people, want to actually get somewhere, not merely stand always against leftism. They want to move in a good direction, and not just always not go in a bad direction. That was, and is, the insufficiency of Buckley conservatism: it has never had an actual destination, and thus has never had anything to give the American people.