Right Wing Fighter

Month: April, 2016

Obama: US can Meet Goal of Taking in 10,000 Syrian Refugees

From the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says the U.S. can meet his goal of resettling 10,000 Syrian refugees by Sept. 30, the end of the federal budget year.

The question is not “can” we, but “should” we. The answer to that question is no.

For decades many politicians have regarded the United States as a charity house established to take in all the sufferers of the world. Whether it is a natural disaster, say a hurricane, or something man-made like a civil war, these politicians take it for granted that the US is here to take care of all the people hurt by such occurrences.

First off, this is simply wrong. A nation state exists to forward the interests of its own people. A nation state is not a lodging house established to help all the suffering people in the world.

Second, this is very bad policy. For a nation to take it upon itself to aid and shield all of the oppressed peoples of the world is to line itself up for dissolution. No single nation can possibly handle the millions (perhaps billions) of people that need help. Moreover, it certainly can’t literally take in those people, often from backward cultures, and treat them as if they were average Joe Workadays born in Brooklyn. These people are often completely unassimilable, and to bring them here weakens our culture.

The US must assert its interests, and stick to them. Among them, is to stop taking in refugees, period.

 

Advertisements

Party Control of Congress (A Nerd Post)

This is a bit of a nerd post, so don’t bother to read it unless you’re interested in political minutia.

For several years now people have said that the Republican wave election of ’94 was the first time since 1926 that the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate.

It turns out that is wrong. The GOP controlled both houses up to the beginning of 1931.

After a period of Democratic dominance, the GOP took both houses again between 1947-1949.

The GOP took both houses again between 1953-1955, riding along with Eisenhower’s presidential campaign.

This may seem like nitpicking, but it surprised me that the oft mentioned half century of complete Democratic control was actually broken up by several GOP congresses.

Wikipedia has a nice list detailing party control of congress from the first congress to the present. You can find it >here<.

Cruz Picks Fiorina as VP (A tad Premature?)

Well this is interesting:

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) – In need of momentum after a five-state shutout, Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz on Wednesday tapped former technology executive Carly Fiorina – a woman who he said has repeatedly “shattered glass ceilings” – to serve as his running mate. The Texas senator announced his pick for vice president at an Indianapolis rally, an unusual move for an underdog candidate that reflects the increasing urgency for the fiery conservative to reverse his downward trajectory.

Now that is desperation.

The Reagan campaign pulled the same trick back in 1976 when the Gipper was losing to Ford in the primary. The idea was to shift focus back onto Reagan. The man Reagan picked was Richard Schweiker, a moderate senator from Pennsylvania.

The Reagan team hoped that picking a moderate would blunt Ford’s charge that Reagan was a conservative firebrand that would start World War 3.

It did shift focus back to Reagan for a bit, but in the end it didn’t have much effect, and Reagan’s poll numbers stayed about the same.

I wonder why Cruz thinks that picking Fiorina will help. Aside from a short-term bump in the polls after her first debate, she never got anywhere at all. She doesn’t have very much appeal.

Trump Triumphs: Wins All Five Primary Contests with Above 50% Support

Trump crushed Cruz and Kasich in last night’s primaries. Here is a breakdown of how the three candidates did:

Connecticut: Trump: 58% | Cruz: 12% | Kasich: 29%

Delaware: Trump: 61% | Cruz: 16% | Kasich: 20%

Maryland: Trump: 54% | Cruz: 19% | Kasich: 23%

Pennsylvania: Trump: 57% | Cruz: 22% | Kasich: 19%

Rhode Island: Trump: 64% | Cruz: 10% | Kasich: 24%

So much for all that talk about Trump not having the support of a majority of the party.

Patrick Buchanan: Help or Hindrance?

In Buchanan’s latest article, he questions, for probably the thousandth time, if America can survive without Christianity.

I’ve read his articles fairly frequently, and while he does say a lot of things mainstream conservatives wont, yet he is also a constant bucket of cold water. Frankly, I’ve avoided really addressing it for years, since Buchanan does write a lot of good things.

But his perennial pessimism has filled up a kind of meter in my mind, and I’ve had enough. So here are my thoughts:

Buchanan: what is the point of putting all these “harsh truths” out there if the very next sentence you’re going to pooh-pooh the very country, the very people you say you are trying to help?

What is the point of alerting the West to Muslim immigration if you’re just going to say that the West is probably doomed? In short, why write book after book detailing how and why things are going to be so horrible, and yet you don’t do a thing about it? And on top of it, why do you say things that are guaranteed to demoralize the very people who would do what you wont do, that is, actually act to solve the problems the West has to deal with?

To make an analogy, why do you (a), tell the patient he is dying; (b) tell him that there is almost certainly nothing that can be done to save him; (c) talk endlessly about his death, how he is going to die, and how the world will be without him? The last one is especially morbid. Why are you demoralizing everyone else that want to actually try to save the man?

These are our people we are talking about. If the nations of the West fall, the people will go more or less into slavery. We have to work to save America, even if there is little or no chance of success because these are our people. Besides, prophets of doom tend to be wrong, and deliverance may come from a quarter that nobody expected. Remember, that both James Burnham and Alexander Solzhenitsyn thought that the Soviet Union would conquer the West. Yet by 1991 the Soviets had collapsed because of the presidency of one single man.

As Churchill said, “sometimes imagination makes things out far worse than they are.”

But the fact is, despite all the doom that the prophet Patrick foretells, our situation is not beyond hope. Heck, it is very fixable. Consider the utter sea-change our politics have had because of Trump. Just one man! Just one single man has turned our politics-as-usual atmosphere into one of the most exciting and meaningful elections of our lives.

The real problems facing America are globalism and hyper individualism. Globalism is damaging our economy, and bringing to our shores millions of unassimilable people. Hyper individualism is paralyzing our national conscience, and dampens our ability as a nation to take care of ourselves.

The country is ripe for anti-globalism and for a healthy communitarian, common-good focused philosophy. All that really needs to be done is to advocate these things to get the ball rolling. Once they become part of the national discussion, political action becomes possible.

But Buchanan always stops short of this, and as stated at the top I’ve had enough of it. I don’t plan to read Buchanan any longer for light on world events, since he, at bottom, is only a depressant. And I think that at bottom he is a hindrance to patriotic reform in America, since he highlights problems, and then talks about how impossible it is to solve them.

Having read Buchanan, you get the sense that not only is the world a terrible place, but there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. That’s mistaken.

For a long time I thought it was just the turn of events that had depressed him. So I cut him some slack and kept reading. This thinking appeared justified when he perked up over Trump, and began writing as if America could be saved. But now, even with Trump all but dominant in the GOP Primary, Buchanan is back to his sour grapes outlook.

And so I wont be reading him anymore, unless I have to for the sake of political commentary.

The Ideologues

The ideologues are people that value a particular principle above everything else.

For instance, there are ideologues that value the principle of equality over everything else. No consideration of practicality, or sometimes basic humanity, will stop them. They want to reorder society to fulfill their principle.

Needless to say their heedlessness to any other consideration can make them dangerous. Not always, of course. It depends on the principle in question and the ideologue’s particular circumstances.

Say for instance you’ve got a pacifist leading a country that is at war. Disaster is clearly on the way.

But say you’ve got someone that values kindness as the supreme principle, and he is the director of a ward in a children’s hospital. His desire for kindness may be impractical at times, but clearly it will do very little harm, and probably a lot of good, in such a circumstance.

Today, there are more than a few wackos that are running around with their lousy “principles.” The radical environmentalists, for instance, with their radical anti-humanism. They want to end all industry, and wish to reduce the world to a state of “nature,” which is to say, carnage and disease.

Then there are the radical feminists, that literally regard childbirth as some kind of conspiracy against woman. Seeing as it is the females of every animal species that give birth to children, I wonder why they should consider their situation such a departure from the norm. But nevertheless they have their principle, and year by year they fight to divide men and women, parents and children, to forward their “principle.” Some principle! Some goal! Some legacy!

Then there are the radical individualists that think any kind of authority is tyrannic. Never mind the public good. Heck, they don’t even recognize the public good. “That’s just a lie to chain the individual!” Again, these ideologues don’t consider anything other than their particular “principle.” No matter how absurd it is, they stick to it and devote their lives to it.

There are two problems with ideologues when they come to power.

First, is that they frequently sacrifice every other important consideration on the altar of their “principle.” So for instance, Thomas Jefferson and his anti-authority principle led us to be so totally unprepared for war that in the war of 1812, most of our battles with Britain were shameful disasters “fought” by militias that didn’t have half the discipline they needed to fight a battle.

Second, because ideologues are single-minded, they ignore everything not related to their “principle.” So that if they are elected, they are out of their depth in everything not related to their principle. They are then either (a), incompetents nevertheless in charge of very important portions of the national interest; or (b), the pets of “advisors” who are completely unaccountable to the public. It is a question which is worse: rule by an incompetent or an unaccountable clique.

 

Trump Campaign Chief: You’ll see a Different Trump after the Primary

From the AP:

HOLLYWOOD, Fla. (AP) – His general-election appeal in question, Donald Trump’s senior team is promising anxious Republicans that voters will see “a real different way” soon after the GOP front-runner claims his party’s presidential nomination. “When he’s out on the stage, when he’s talking about the kinds of things he’s talking about on the stump, he’s projecting an image that’s for that purpose,” Paul Manafort, who is leading Trump’s primary election strategy, told Republican National Committee members in a private briefing late Thursday. The Associated Press obtained a recording of the discussion. “You’ll start to see more depth of the person, the real person.

First, every Republican campaign promises to “go to the middle” after the primary. It has been GOP dogma ever since Nixon.

Second, Manafort didn’t actually say anything. The AP would like you to get the impression that Trump will turn around on the issues. They want you to think Trump is going to stab his supporters in the back to get elected.

But Manafort, in the common tradition of politics, used words that you can interpret multiple ways. It’s lawyer-speak, in other words. The idea is to use words that give an impression without actually committing to anything. The goal is to get the best of both worlds: get a guy’s support without actually promising him anything.

It’s sneaky, but that’s politics.

The goal of reporting like this is to make Trump’s supporters doubt him. Now that Trump is go higher and higher in state polls, the political media is trying to get some of Trump’s supporters to stay home on election day. They’re trying to lower his supporter’s morale.

Again, it’s sneaky, but that’s politics.

The Political Media

I was reading a blog recently and I came across the phrase “the political media.” That frames perfectly what the media is.

Calling it “the political media” removes their false veil of impartiality and puts them in perspective. Because they act and talk as though they’re unbiased, we tend to believe them.

But they are busy at work avoiding all the news that doesn’t fit. Their political role is to shape the bounds of public thought by publishing the “right” news and omitting all the “wrong” news.

By doing so, people get a slanted view of the world around them. Thus politicians can propose laws that seem reasonable when they aren’t, because the media has given the public a slanted view of the world around them.

A perfect example of this is the media’s reporting of the Iraq War. Night after night the network news shows would detail how many soldiers had been killed. They ran stories covering the plights of wounded veterans who were disabled for life. They interviewed the families, wives, parents, of these soldiers and recorded their tearful reactions to the disabilities or deaths of their loved ones.

But did the media cover how many of the Taliban were getting killed? Did they cover how they were getting bombed by the Air Force? Oh sure, technically they covered these topics. But they were reported dryly, in black and white if you will. The stories of our soldiers’ deaths were in full, living color.

And so the media gradually turned the public against the Bush administration. By telling one side of the story, they gave the public a false picture. That false picture of Iraq led to the “Bush fatigue” that seriously damaged the Republicans in the 2008 election. That was the goal all along: to damage the GOP to get a Democratic victory at the polls.

The same thing happens at Trump rallies. The media doesn’t outright lie about how many people go to his rallies. But they don’t pan out and view the huge crowds with their cameras. They don’t let the viewers see how many people Trump draws. This helps them keep the idea going that Trump is just a loser with only a clique of radical supporters.

This is why Trump makes such a point of protesters. Like he says, that’s the only time the media will point their cameras at the great mass of the audience.

“The political media” is a very accurate description.

Earth Day

So today is Earth Day. Mostly it’s just an excuse for totalitarians to try to stamp down on industry. We’ve seen for years their attacks on coal, oil, gas, and really anything that pollutes.

Of course all of these things pollute, but not to the planet-fouling degree that they allege. And since all of these fuels are being burned in more efficient ways all the time, their pollution value is gradually declining.

Environmentalism is fueled by multiple groups. You’ve got the old style leftover commies that want to end American industry because they still think America is an oppressive capitalistic menace.

You’ve got the totalitarians that want to control all of business. They use EPA regulations and pollution standards to control business in fact, if not in form.

Then there are the “naturalists” who wish mankind never existed on earth. They inconceivably think that earth would be better off without man. They’re a strange lot.

Then there are the well-meaning people that think they’re doing something good. They’ve just been propagandized by the media. Basically they’re just normal people who have been misled by others.

And so we have Earth Day. A 24 hour farce that comes about every year.

Public vs Private Interest

Politics today is dominated by private interest. The reason that politicians are doing so badly is not because they are incompetent.

They are doing badly because they are playing an entirely different game. Instead of entering public office to serve the public interest, they enter public office to serve their private interests. That is why our politicians are so useless: they come to the football game to play baseball.

Take a good look at many of our politicians. Consider former would-be politician Mitt Romney. Is he stupid? No, actually he’s very smart. Was he unserious or just a good old boy slacker? No, by all accounts he is a very serious worker. So why did he always play it safe in the election? Why wouldn’t he stand up for the American people?

The answer is, he wouldn’t take a risk for the sake of the public. Consider Trump. Trump is taking many bold stands on issues that other people just whisper about. Deporting all the illegal aliens? Muscling China on trade? Taxing companies that manufacture outside the country? These are all stands that no politician would take, because there is no private gain involved.

Let’s say Trump builds the border wall. Does he benefit privately from doing so? No. He’ll get the admiration of tens of millions of Americans, but he wont get anything that qualifies as private gain.

Now as an opposite point, consider Eric Cantor. Cantor was the faithful servant of special interests. What happened when he was turned out of office? He got rewarded with a multi-million dollar job.

Working for the public good isn’t as well paid as chasing private gain. It is infinitely more important, but it just doesn’t pay as well.

And that is what’s wrong with our politics: our public leaders, most of them, are after private gain.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with working for yourself and your interests. Obviously we all have to do that or we’d be wards of the state. But you have to do it within the confines of the public good. You can’t shortchange other people to help yourself. And you especially can’t enter a position of public trust just for private gain.

But that is just what not a few politicians are doing. They are running for office just to enrich themselves without any eye to the public welfare.

And that is the real problem in American politics. Our leaders aren’t stupid, they’re just in it for private gain.