The American Conservative symposium on Romney v. Obama
The whole gang at The American Conservative magazine, myself included, weighs in with their personal perspectives about the choice between Obama and Romney.
It's a good point, similar to Dinesh D'Souza's movie in a way. Obama woulda done better as Captain 3rd World instead of Martin Luther Shaft-Cosby Jr. but the American box office is not known for its highbrow ballast
The American Conservative is one of the finest socialist publications in America. I don't read it much but nearly every tweet from their account it seems is outright anti-conservative. I mean, just look at the very first sentence of the piece:
""Pro-life" Romney or "antiwar" Obama?"
Obama just isn't anti-war, he's invaded or launched missile strikes against more countries than Bush ever did. TAC consistently says stupid shit like this.
"Independently minded conservatives may have no obvious candidate in this election..."
Bullshit: you have an actual Marxist fellow traveller as incumbent POTUS talking about people bitterly clinging to religion and guns, and a highly competent Mr. Fixit challenger - the choice is in fact obvious, the leukophobic lysenkoist lickspittle has got to go.
To suggest that Romney and Obama are roughly equivilent as candidates - deep state notwithstanding - strongly suggests an inability to reason and lack of judgment.
Reading the article now...not surprised to see Crunchy Menshevik Rod Dreher stating that he has no preference between Marxist Obama and Mr. Fixit Romney.
Look at this jackass:
"If the choice is between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, I believe that the Republican presidential candidate would be much worse on most policy issues, and especially on national security and foreign policy"
Why is he even interviewed in TAC? If I want to read a socialist's views I wouldn't be reading an ostensibly conservative publication?
Noah Millman supports Obama. Fine, but why is this guy being interviewed? Can TAC not find a dozen pundits in a nation of 300 million who aren't outright hostile to the GOP?
Justin Raimondo is rooting for Obama too. John Zmirak too. This is nuts, TAC is like a fragger in the army, blowing up soldiers on their own side.
I tallied: 6 want/prefer/whatever Romney to win (from the sound of it these writers could start up a full apology tour band if he wins) 6½ want Obama (Steve's the ½) 8 want to claim they voted for Johnson/misc. libertoid 6 are too chicken to say 2 went with the inscrutable, free-association thing
"The American Conservative" and basically no comments on immigration restriction, (white) cultural traditionalism, and social traditionalism, e.g. gay "marriage".
Steve, I don't think you need to worry about wasting your Obama material. If he loses he's just that much closer to being declared Galactic Overlord or UN Secretary General. The guy has made a habit of falling upwards.
You know, gents, this endorsement business doesn't have to be difficult. "I am confidently/begrudgingly/apathetically rooting for [X]. I have decided [Y] sucks. Here is a boilerplate sentence both to put it to rest and grant me wiggle room later. Direct all hate mail to:" Instead we get treated to the full passion play from this lot...
I learned years ago to keep my opinions on American declinism to myself in most company, as this was tinfoil hat territory.
Out of habit, I still tend to follow this practice. These days, I'm continually surprised by the people who will broach the topic, seemingly as if the notion that America as we know it is doomed is just generally common sense these days and perfectly suitable topic for conversation at any gathering.
They may not really understand all the causes, but there is an impressive and growing awareness that whatever is to come for America and Americans in the next decade or two, it isn't going to seem like anything that is a normal continuation of our nation and customs. This includes extreme scenarios such outright dissolution, civil chaos, etc.
And again, this is often from people that I believe never entertained a serious unconventional thought in their life.
The sheeple are always the last to get the memo, so this is significant.
Romney or Obama? Who cares who is fighting for the captaincy of a rapidly sinking ship. I told all my D friends when they were rejoicing about Obama to be prepared for disillusionment. Us Rs had been sending up people for a couple of decades now and nothing changed.
And nothing changed under Obama. More war, more tyranny, more third world colonization, more debt, more deindustrialization, more obesity, more wealth inequality, more corruption, and more cultural degradation.
The system is broken beyond repair, just like the Soviets in their waning years. And the Soviets finally disappeared with a whimper when enough of the population not only lost faith in the system, but faith that it could be repaired.
Obama or Romney? Might as well be Chernenko or Andropov. Maybe we are in a similar stage now, two empty hacks still operating within the assumptions that the nation remains a going concern. Is a Gorbachev the next to arise in this process of coming apart, someone who knows in his gut that the system is fundamentally broken and makes some (futile) stabs at adapting it?
"Justin Raimondo is rooting for Obama too. John Zmirak too."
How'd you get that out of, "This year I will be voting against Barak Obama," and two paragraphs about Obama's attacks on Catholics and any other group that might put up a fuss against the Democrats' soft-totalitarianism?
"""""" Just a bunch of hand-wringing about neocons and civil liberties.
I understand that's an Old Right mentality/short-sightedness, but do these people understand what "American" and "Conservative" mean? """"""
TAC isn't really "conservative" anymore... they're just a bunch of cranky jackasses that want to be cool cranky jackasses. They don't have the courage to be fringe.
This forum is why I let my subscription lapse. What's conservative about any of these comments? How does a conservative justify voting for Obama in ANY way?
Pace "amconwha", both Peter Brimelow and Paul Gottfried have shown themselves to be immigration restrictionists and cultural traditionalists. The former actually discusses immigration in his contribution to the symposium.
If you are not excited about either major candidate, there is one reason to choose the more conservative candidate - Supreme Court nominees. The balance of the Court will likely change this term. Which candidate for president will make better nominees?
"Obama just isn't anti-war, he's invaded or launched missile strikes against more countries than Bush ever did. TAC consistently says stupid shit like this."
Reading a number of those essays was a waste of time. Every year or so I read TAC then quickly remember why I cancelled my sub years ago. Those guys come off as men that would shoot you in the back in a foxhole because you put 4 bullets in the enemy instead of the 3 that were actually warranted.
Rod Dreher - you are kidding, right? Am I the only one who would not be shocked if it was diclosed that he wore his wife's panties.
So, by my aggregation, Mittens got SEVEN votes out of TWENTY-NINE from staffers of the American CONSERVATIVE magazine. One more than Barry, good job, he won!
He also beat Garry Johnson by that same crushing margin. Four decided to sit it out, and four were also undecided/unclear (shame on you, Steve-O).
Now you add this to Willard's non support from the state he governed four years ago, the state in which his running mate is a senator, and the Mormon editor-in-chief from the Salt Lake City Tribune, who would rather endorse a guy who thinks is going to HELL(!) a man, who would have been considered a birthright heathen by Joseph Smith himself, and wow, we've got quite a mandate there!
Bullshit: you have an actual Marxist fellow traveller as incumbent POTUS talking about people bitterly clinging to religion and guns, and a highly competent Mr. Fixit challenger - the choice is in fact obvious, the leukophobic lysenkoist lickspittle has got to go. Romney doesn't stand for anything except more of the same things with an emphasis on neocon pet causes like Israel. A win for Romney will be the final nail for conservatives. He will damn us forever by tying our name to a ruinous agenda involving more warfare, more aid to Israel, and more industry and sovereignty-gutting trade-deals. Obama, like it or not, is the lesser of the two evils. So, if you are going to vote for one or the other, vote for Obama.
No one who calls themselves a conservative should want Obama to have a second term where can do whatever he wants without having to worry about re-election.
It might make sense if you're hoping to hasten the collapse of the country but that is a) a long shot and b) not conservative.
This is nuts, TAC is like a fragger in the army, blowing up soldiers on their own side.
TAC suspects that Obama secretly hates the Scots-Irish as much as they do [even though the Obama phenomenon was created by the likes of the MacGeithners, the MacMinows, The MacDohrn-Ohrnsteins, the MacPritzkers, the MacGoldman-MacSaches, and of course the bagpipe warfare team].
Relax Steve, you're a better writer than Norm MacDonald ever was as a comedian. You will find in the next few years that - assuming Romney wins - your study of Obama was indeed a waste of time. That is, I'm afraid, just the way the cookie crumbles.
Your quest to figure out Obama, was always doomed by the shear resources Obama devoted to keeping his life mysterious. You are not and investigative reporter. You were not the kind of person who would hunt down all his college classmates and coerce them into giving you an interview. You deal with the analysis of published facts - and Obama has suppressed such facts. Your personal mode of operations was always wrong for this particular mystery.
But bigger issues await. Neither candidate has mentioned the plight of black people in Detroit. This is a bigger and more intractable problem than the deficit or even the war that Islam is waging against us.
Detroit isn't the only place where blacks are in trouble but it is the most symbolic. In the next few years people will start to notice that there is no hope. A century ago blacks in Mississippi had hope - they went to Detroit. In the sixties blacks had hope and Nixon and Johnson gave them Affirmative Action, welfare benefits, job training and Head Start. All of those have failed and Detroit crumbles. Write about that.
We are at a turning point in American social development. It will soon occur to the public that electing a black man President didn't address the problem at all. Had to be tried I suppose but it was just a waste of four years.
You are in a good position to comment on this real American crisis. Obama will be actively and rapidly forgotten. For example who today remembers that Jimmy Carter was a crook? He was you know. But the American public can only remember one or two things about a former President. I'm not sure what the agreed upon characterization of Obama will be, but it won't be very long. There will be be newer and fresher political personalities to study. Obama won't be exactly forgotten, but his public fascination will fade very fast.
Carter rehabilitated his rotten reputation by building houses. 'W' has gone passive. I expect Obama to follow Bush's example.
You should beat the rush and start forgetting Obama now.
I also see that the TAC "symposium" forgot to include their own blogger Daniel Larison (pronounced "Wawison")...or perhaps it was deliberate to avoid embarrassment. My God, that silly boy is so bent out of shape by his anti-Mormonism that he'd endorse Major Hasan over Mitt. 6 out of 5 Wawison columns are about how Romney is too hostile to Holy Orthodox Russia.
Reading these endorsements, I am struck by the similarities to the Reason endorsements. I guess its either ideological purity (being carried to 30s Leftist-level conceptual splintering extremes) or New Media desperation for branding: you make the call. As usual, Steve at least is brutally honest about his...conflict of interest, as we say in the law biz.
Thanks for the link. I've now deleted my TAC bookmark.
What a bunch, to win you need to want to win - and these people don't seem to care. Obama = Romney to these long-term thinkers.
In the UK we have a party, UKIP, that is to the right of the Conservatives and has become a valid alternative for small c conservatives such as myself.
But UKIP wasn't built up by people sitting around on their arses and moaning. No, it was built by folks who stood up and got organised. There's no risk of that happening at TAC.
OT, but I got to that (short) chapter in Back to Blood that you quoted from recently ("Skin"). A bunch of iSteve themes crammed into about 10 pages and presented absolutely brutally.
You should really do a book club thing with this. Post an Amazon affiliate link for the book and then do a series of blog posts / comment threads on it.
I figured that some of the people would be lukewarm on Romney, but seriously that many people voting/rooting for Obama in a magazine called the American Conservative? It's not like four years ago when everyone was sick of Bush and hated McCain's pandering decision to pick Palin, and there was no track record of Obama, and besides he looked like he was going to win anyway. You have had 4 years of creeping big government at home, more diversicrats, more AA, an attempt to bypass Congress and just let millions of illegals stay without debate and more of the same on foreign policy including deposing Qaddafi. I think the ghost of George Bush II looms far too large for many of the paleoconservatives. The disaster of his foreign policy was more a product of that man's psychology than it was the work of some nefarious cabal. Yes he followed their advice, but 98 percent of politicians in the same position would not have not bought in 100 percent or stuck to it as unwaveringly as Bush II did. That's just a particular personality quirk of the man in the Oval Office. Even if Romney wins, it's highly unlikely that someone as pragmatic as Romney would ever march in lockstep over a cliff with the Neocons like George Jr. did. Since that seems to be the particular bugaboo of these conservatives they need to realize in a presidential system like we have, personality counts for a lot more than in the mostly parliamentary systems of other countries, and the effects of President's personality can have out-sized effects, like with W.
I used to be anti-war, too. I don't really know what happened there. I just don't give a damn how many countries we invade or bomb. Not enough to vote over the issue, anyway. If I had my pick of two solid restrictionist candidates, maybe. But the regime is murdering America in her crib. Why should I care if they bomb some other countries in the process?
Larry Auster writes that the American Conservative is not very conservative. It seems to him bent on expressing "feelings" of anti-neocon, anti-war, anti-Israel, semi-leftist stuff above all, which is not very conservative. Conservatives are supposed to think with their heads not lead with their hearts.
Romney is not my cup of tea, but I don't need a hero. I just need the President to be marginally better than the disaster that is Obama. I am a middle class White guy. I don't want or need revolution, violence, upheaval. I'll settle for things marginally better because I have skin in the game.
Yeah, when TAC can find 29 "conservatives" and at least one is willing to say "yeah, I'm voting for the white dude," I'll start to believe that "conservatives" aren't all a bunch of pussies.
More of them are voting for Romney, Gary Johnson, or Virgil Goode (all three are white) than for Obama.
In 2010, the republicans rode to victory on one issue, obamacare. That issue galvanized the base and gave them an historic midterm victory.
In 2012, the GOP nominates the one guy who enacted similar legislation while governor of a state.
Throw in that there is not a dimes worth of difference in their foreign policy agenda, their take on immigration and even their take on social issues likes homosexuals in the military and you really make it difficult to get excited about your guy.
Now the GOP and her supporters are upset that conservatives won't support their man. What did they think? Nominate someone who is actually a conservative.
Larry Auster has a special interest in Israel, so it is not surprising that he HATES, HATES, HATES anyone who is not 100 percent pro Israel.
Why should an American conservative be expected to proactively support Israel when 70 percent or more of her co-ethnics in the USA routinely vote for the other side? Additionally, Israel's American co-ethnics have had a disproportionate influence in extreme leftwing causes, without which, it is doubtful those causes could even have advanced. As pointed out here numerous times, they were critical in passing the 1965 Immigration Act. And groups led by them such as the ACLU, ADL and $PLC constantly harass anyone who isn't onboard the muliculti express.
If proactive support for Israel is a big deal to you, then why don't you try to persuade American Jews to make nice on certain domestic issues to entice conservatives into supporting your pet cause? Instead all the heat is directed at conservatives who aren't strong enough supporters of that little Mideast nation. And one cannot mention in public, lest they be ostracized, what Israel's American co-ethnics do, (See Glenn Beck).
It really is telling where one's loyalty lies in how they view this issue. Apparently if one is not pro-Israel enough, despite any other issues, they are untouchable. Yet, if one is 100 percent pro-Israel, but supports the current leftist milieu that seeks to destroy traditional America, then they are A-OK. Which apparently means that Israel's welfare is much more important than America's. That's a fine view for an Israeli citizen, but a disturbing one for an American.
I would like to see the pro-Israel crowd visit and comment on Jewish websites imploring them to change their domestic views to help garner more support for Israel. But I doubt that will happen. Instead, the whiskeys of this world will continue to frequent our sites
I mean, did anyone even bring up the fact that 0bama's spent our money like a drunken sailor with 10 days to live? I got bored reading them after like 2 minutes so I CTR-F-ed for Sailer's mercifully brief contribution, and closed the tab.
I used to be anti-war, too. I don't really know what happened there. I just don't give a damn how many countries we invade or bomb. Not enough to vote over the issue, anyway. If I had my pick of two solid restrictionist candidates, maybe. But the regime is murdering America in her crib. Why should I care if they bomb some other countries in the process?
You should care because the left will forever associate conservatives with warmongering, even if the "conservatives" behind the warmongering and all kinds of other crazy crap are actually Trokskyiks and Jewish ethno-nationalists in disguise. Like I said in a previous post, we can't afford another neocon. Better an honest leftist like Obama then a conservative imposter like Romney. Don't vote for Romney. Our only hope is a new conservative political party that won't let itself get hijacked.
Anonydroid at 5:07 asked: How well is Libya going, Mr "American conservative of a certain sort"?
Hunsdon deigns to reply: To use the vernacular, my good sir, it is going for shit. Ritualistic introductory exculpatory phrase: I did not care for Moammar Qaddfi. With that said, I denounced at the time the idea of fomenting and supporting the Libyan insurgency.
I thought it misadvised in terms of probable outcome, and misadvised on quasi-moral and legal grounds. The rebels, the people willing to go out into the streets with rifles, these people are not Western democrats: they are hard hillbilly fanatics.
Also, I thought it useful that we had brought Kaddufi to heel, and had more or less kissed, made up, and said let's forget all about Lockerbie. To turn on him is not only bad manners, but bad policy. The next guy we ask to cooperate and surrender power peacefully will remember the phrase "Qudd'fay enema" and not trust us so readily.
I fear you may have mistaken me for an O-bot. No, no, a thousand times no. In almost all ways, I find the Mittster to be a vastly better human being. But, yes, the 0.5 percent lower chance that a 2d term Obama would take us to war on Iran matters a lot to me.
You see, we seem to assume that we can just go around slapping punk nations at will, and they'll take it. Pride, I read somewhere, goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. In 1914, everyone thought they'd be home before Christmas.
Also, let us ponder some names. Woods, Doherty, Shughart and Gordon. I'm no longer as happy to be losing men like that, to no apparent purpose.
"You should care because the left will forever associate conservatives with warmongering"
Romney could get elected, bring all the troops home from everywhere, have all our fighter jets and carriers melted down and used to build windmills and hybrid cars, and go 8 years without sending a single soldier or bomb anywhere....and the Republicans would still be portrayed as the warmongering party. That's just how it is. Look at how Republicans are consistently seen as the party of the rich, when the Dems have at least as many rich backers and GW Bush actually got more small individual contributions than his opponents. Some things are just entrenched in the public mind, with no relation whatsoever to reality.
I'd like to see Romney cut back our foreign involvement -- but because it's the right thing to do; not because I hope it'll make the media stop calling us meanies.
So, can you point out what policies Obama has enacted or proposed that would qualify as Marxist? I'll admit, I can't think of a single one. His healthcare reform is corporatist--it guarantees the incumbent insurance companies business from now on, with taxpayers ultimately paying for many of the new customers. His auto bailouts were skewed toward unions instead of investors (reflecting who he thought he needed to keep friendly for the future) but were not remotely targeted at government taking over the industry. His overspending on stimulus looked Marxist only in the sense of the corruption of the late Soviet Union. And so on.
Similarly, what do you mean when you call American Conservative a socialist publication? Have they been advocating the nationalization of industry lately? Or proclaiming the dictatorship of the proletariat? Are they proposing seizing the wealth of the richest 1% and sharing it out among the poor? Demanding the imposition of a maximum wage?
As best I can tell, those are just magic words you are using to smear them, in exactly the way that anyone who starts talking sense on IQ tests and what they mean can expect to be smeared as a racist.
This tracks uncomfortably well with my experiences. A couple years ago, I was at an academic conference overseas, and found myself at a table with four Americans. We were not particularly close on political or moral issues By my informal tally, it was a Mormon, a Jew, a Catholic (me), and an unknown religion. All of us smart, educated technical people with wives and kids.
We started talking about US politics, and before long, all four of us were talking decline and unfixable dysfunction and corruption and frightening public ignorance and blindness. It was really striking, and really disturbing.
And this election has the feel, to me, of a *really loud and angry* argument over how the deck chairs on the Titanic should be rearranged.
"Yeah, when TAC can find 29 "conservatives" and at least one is willing to say "yeah, I'm voting for the white dude," I'll start to believe that "conservatives" aren't all a bunch of pussies."
Maybe that's your issue, not theirs? I mean, I'm just thinking out loud here...
I very much expect the tools we have built up for the war on terror to be brought home to us. It's already begun, but it will go a whole lot further. The party of civil liberties and the party of small government got together awhile back to ensure that the president has the legal authority to have anyone, citizen or not, locked up indefinitely on his say so alone. Both parties have agreed that the president has the unquestioned authority to have anyone killed, citizen or not' anywhere in the world, with no appeal and no review and no consequences.
How long till that gets used domestically, to shut someone up who's stirring up the wrong kind of trouble? How long till some really annoying political activists get detained indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism? We have already determined by court cases and passed laws that the administration can keep people locked up forever without giving them a trial (at most, he may have to let them have a habeas hearing). Those precedents won't disappear when it's Joe Smith the alleged white supremacist terrorist instead of Ali Baba the alleged Muslim terrorist. The idea that you don't have to give someone a trial if you think it might not go your way or it might stir up more terrorism is part of the ruling class consensus, supported by all right thinking politicians and pundits--just ask Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. That won't change when it's Fred Johnson the suspected abortion doctor assassin.
I fear very much that all the awful stuff we have visited upon other countries is going to come to visit us, soon.
Against open borders (do we reaaly need millions of more in the country when unemployment is at 20% or so if you factor in U-3 and government lying); against free trade (gee with 250,000 factories closed and 50,000,000 jobs lost since Clinton pushed through NAFTA and welcomed China into the WTO maybe Reagan's idea of using tariffs on automobile and other imports wasn't such a bad idea); against nation building (the wars for Israel have been a terrible waste of money and citizens's lives... let Israel fight its own wars and Neo-con dual citizens can visit their homeland on their summer vacations to do their part); against affirmative action (except for Blacks who can trace their ancestry to American slaves so no Obama or Holder types get any benefits or Native American Indians who can do likewise ...so no Elizabeth Warren types either), etc ...
Mitt's cosiness with the Neo-Cons is a hugh turn off for me ... though at times he has not seemed particulary belligerant.
For example, when during the primary debate Gingrich said that the Palestinians were a made up people...Mitt did not follow suit... and indicated that he (Mitt) was careful about what he said because "he was not a bomb thrower" (thereby implying that Newt was).
Mitt is a business man so I just can't see him thinking that bombing Iran is his first order of business when the companny he is head of (the U.S. if he is elected) is on the verge of insolvency.
Also, as a Republican governor of a state whose legislature was something like 80% Democrat he can work with people who don't share his views... that suggests to me he is more of a conciliatory type not a partisan type with strong views (LOL ...God knows he has also changed some of his views enough times).
Maybe this is just wishful thinking my part.
However, as one of the posters here has pointed out it is no secret that the U.S. is in decline... But should we just give up and not vote so we can hurry the collapse of the current incarnation of the Republican party and maybe even the country?
We know with O we will get more "he could be my son" type race mongering ... more amnesties by executive order for illegals ... more racism from Eric "my people" Holder the chief law enforcement officer of the judicial branch of the government, and more judicial appointments to the Supreme Court like Kagen and Sotomayer who both hate White men..
How could that be any good?
I probably will vote for Mitt because of the Supreme Court issue...
I really don't think that Sotomayer or Kagen, in addition to their hostility to Whites, think the Constitution is all that important and that disturbs me because I especially value the First and Second Amendments to that document.
However, in the final analysis... I wish Steve Sailer or someone like him was running... that is someone I could definitely vote for in good conscience... but neither he or anyone like him is running.
Mitt Romney is the right moral conservative choice for America in 2012. Mitt Romney will fight and defend the rights of all Americans all over the globe against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Mitt Romney will have the most handsome presidential portrait in human history if he is elected and I say this as a 100 percent heterosexual man. Mitt Romney will stand with Israel and will stand with the brave men and women of the United States Armed Services (gay, straight, legal,illegal,) Mitt Romneyite 2012! You have my VOTE!
can you point out what policies Obama has enacted or proposed that would qualify as Marxist? I'll admit, I can't think of a single one. His healthcare reform is corporatist
So? There has always been a very thin line between Marxism and corporatism.
can you point out what policies Obama has enacted or proposed that would qualify as Marxist? I'll admit, I can't think of a single one. His healthcare reform is corporatist--it guarantees the incumbent insurance companies business from now on, with taxpayers ultimately paying for many of the new customers. His auto bailouts were skewed toward unions instead of investors (reflecting who he thought he needed to keep friendly for the future) but were not remotely targeted at government taking over the industry. His overspending on stimulus looked Marxist only in the sense of the corruption of the late Soviet Union. And so on.
All you are telling me there is that you think that Marxism is something good and noble - "a great idea which has never been tried".
If you want to understand TAC read Radosh's book on post war isolationists I.e. the guys who didn't even want to confront the Soviets. I certainly don't consider Charles Beard a conservative but he's definitely who Ron Unz likes.
It's strange how numerous comments suggest TAC is paleocon or Old Right. It might have been that in its first year or two but has been something else (not sure what) for a long time now. I doubt if any of the regulars at TAC would embrace the paleocon label and I'm almost certain they'd be appalled to be associated with the (great) works of Samuel Francis. In the case of McConnell he's an Obama apologist now but was a bit of a paleo (I think) for an hour or two and before that a neocon and possibly a liberal Democrat in the 60s or 70s. I don't know if he's an opportunist or just indecisive but whatever he is he's not a paleocon. Using TAC's Obama love affair and SWPLish sneering at conservatives to show what's wrong with paleocons doesn't make sense.
I used to be anti-war, too. I don't really know what happened there. I just don't give a damn how many countries we invade or bomb. Not enough to vote over the issue, anyway. If I had my pick of two solid restrictionist candidates, maybe. But the regime is murdering America in her crib. Why should I care if they bomb some other countries in the process?
1. The hulking military-police apparatus we have built over the past few decades can be easily directed at American citizens. It needs to be dismantled and executive power should be curtailed. You think "unthinkable" ideas are suppressed now? Wait a couple decades.
2. America doesn't need to bomb other countries, waste money or lives. Our wars in the middle east are big honking distractions that keep the focus off domestic policy. Imagine if the presidential foreign policy debate was about immigration instead of a series of violent, desert hellholes, each less relevant to America's future than the last.
It might have been that in its first year or two but has been something else (not sure what) for a long time now
Don't forget hippie Dreher and neo-Prussian falangista William Lind, latter of whom I often confuse with former next-anointed-W.F.Buckley Michael Lind of Salon (actually they're not too similar). I like that the magazine exists but there were already enough bedwetting hysterics to go around, until The American Prospect shuts down I suppose.
But Reason.com's boutique Muslim just called Mitt "the most protectionist GOP candidate in memory"--so this opinion mag biz can have its own internal logic even if it's outwardly nonsensical. The main thing is social grooming and regulating the sorority, seeing as the explosion of the Internet has not exactly yielded a chain reaction of breakout fearless writers assaulting the regnant taboos (more like reinforcements for everyone to shore up his own clique). You fellas who complain about comment control ought to try TAC's site--Steve's practically fostering a new Speaker's Corner at Marble Arch compared to them. I doubt whether somebody can get a single word in without "the whole load" of affected literary jazz on the paucity of quotations in Seneca to be found in modern daily conversation, or reminiscences of halcyon grad-student days at the Montana College of Mines & Apologetics. They understand the sublunary realm of distasteful politics so well they posted the wrong picture of a guy several of them deigned to endorse this round. It's like the opposite of a movement magazine.
Well Republicans are too blame but so are Democratics. Asians last year grew by 2 percent just behind hispanics. The numbers are 11,000 Orange County,and over 10,000 in La County, and over 10,000 in Santa Clara County. And 7,400 in King County Wa. These are the asian numbers from july 2010 to july 2011. Kennedy's 1965 act caused more asian growth than the h 1 b's.
that's a strange name, the american "conservative". quite a few liberals in that group. several "conservatives" who voted obama in 2008 and openly plan to vote for obama in 2012.
you sure you sent the right link steve? or maybe they should change the URL of their site, to more accurately reflect the subject matter.
I remember when TAC brought Noah Millman on board. His introductory essay there said basically: "WTF? I have no idea why this allegedly 'conservative' magazine is paying me to write for it, because I'm a good Progressive!"
It must be still in the archives somewhere, unless they scrubbed it.
If you think the deficit is a problem, then it's hard to see how it can make sense to spend billions of dollars a year bombing and occupying and invading countries that have nothing to do with our security or well-being. Alongside cutting out our foreign aid (if we can't afford to hand money out to Americans, we certainly can't affort to hand it out to foreigners), we ought to cut back on the blowing up of people in foreign countries, which is costing us many times as much money, and which is probably creating far more problems for us in the future.
Let's imagine a kind of model of the world for a moment. This model is not exactly right, but it may explain something:
First, assume that most of the available jobs for conservative writers and pundits have strict ideological bounds.
Maintream publications mostly require adherence to the ruling class consensus--we keep the war on terror and drugs going, we keep our violent and moralistic foreign policy, the powerful are almost always above consequences for anything they do, big financial companies may be regulated only with great deference and gentleness, affirmative action is at least well-intentioned, Israel is our bestest buddy and we must support them no matter what, all races and sexes are equal, and only discredited pseudoscientists say otherwise, etc.
More ideological publications slide this window a bit--you can be more critical of affirmative action or might even be able to say something kind about gun rights, but you certainly can't question our foreign policy or support for Israel. You can support torture (though you must never call it that).
Now, in such a world, those few publications which don't impose those limits will look kind of strange. They will have people who are real outliers from the ruling class consensus, either the centrist or right-wing version of it. If most conservarive pundit jobs require support for Israel and our foreign policy, then the few conservative pundits working without those limits will quite often be the ones who don't support Israel or our foreign policy. If most such jobs require supporting whomever the Republican party nominates (either because they're Republican publications, or because they're Democratic publications who've hired a token Republican as a foil), then the conservative pundits who work on one of the other places will often be much less friendly to the party's choices. That will happen naturally, because the people who won't support Israel or shut up about IQ or support our sociopathic foreign policy will not be able to get jobs on Fox News or thw Weekly Standard, but they'll be able to get jobs at American Conservative or Taki's Magazine.
Now, all models lie, but I think this model is useful. My guess is that the more conservative pundit/writer jobs have those ideological bounds imposed, the greater the variance from those bounds you will see in the remaining jobs for conservative writers/pundits which don't impose them.
If you don't like Romney, then don't vote or write in 'Ron Paul'. What is the point of voting for Obama? American Conservative is run by a bunch of Crunchy Cons.
Jewish-sold milk chocolate vs Jewish-sold vanilla. What a choice we have. Jews don't care who wins because both will bow down to Jewish power. But they may be a bit worried about Obama since Obama will be freer to do as he pleases in his second term since he won't run anymore.
>foreign policy [is] mostly performance art for careerists.[...] it's just stone irrelevant.<
Wars cost a certain amount of money. You might want to factor that nuance into your calculations.
Not to mention blowback, loss of life (but mostly only among 47%'ers, so who cares?), and the economic distortion involved in having a militarized economy. But hey, that's just commie talk, and so ROMNEY, ROMNEY, ROMNEY, yippee!
Wars cost a certain amount of money. You might want to factor that nuance into your calculations.
Not to mention blowback, loss of life (but mostly only among 47%'ers, so who cares?), and the economic distortion involved in having a militarized economy. But hey, that's just commie talk, and so ROMNEY, ROMNEY, ROMNEY, yippee!
How stupid does a person have to be to believe that Romney is a warmonger and that Obama is not? Really stupid - but not so stupid that some people can't manage it.
If you think the deficit is a problem, then it's hard to see how it can make sense to spend billions of dollars a year bombing and occupying and invading countries that have nothing to do with our security or well-being.
Those are some odd words, coming from an Obama supporter.
If you think the deficit is a problem, then it's hard to see how it can make sense to spend billions of dollars a year bombing and occupying and invading countries that have nothing to do with our security or well-being. Alongside cutting out our foreign aid (if we can't afford to hand money out to Americans, we certainly can't affort to hand it out to foreigners), we ought to cut back on the blowing up of people in foreign countries, which is costing us many times as much money, and which is probably creating far more problems for us in the future.
True, but I reject the premise that a cut in defense spending is a cut to the budget. The feds will spend it somewhere else anyway. Besides, I prefer defense spending to entitlement spending. Entitlements and bloated gov't (but I repeat myself) have to go first, then we can reduce defense spending.
1. The hulking military-police apparatus we have built over the past few decades can be easily directed at American citizens. It needs to be dismantled and executive power should be curtailed. You think "unthinkable" ideas are suppressed now? Wait a couple decades.
All true. But I'd rather keep that around and cut the entitlements, than vice-versa.
As for turning the military apparatus against the citizenry, well, that's always been a looming possibility if we can't hammer out something civilized. I've probably done a lot more thinking about this subject than most of Steve's readership. My nutshell analysis is, if the gov't has to turn that apparatus against the populace in earnest, it's already lost. The very people it depends on will turn against it.
2. America doesn't need to bomb other countries, waste money or lives. Our wars in the middle east are big honking distractions that keep the focus off domestic policy. Imagine if the presidential foreign policy debate was about immigration instead of a series of violent, desert hellholes, each less relevant to America's future than the last.
On the contrary, if you're going to have a large defense budget, you're going to have to use it periodically. In fact, I'm starting to come around to the idea of using the military on a regular basis, even if it's small, and especially if it's large. Otherwise you wind up with the military as another place for fat-assed cosmopolitan bureaucrats to suck at the public teat for free. Along these lines, I'd contract out all the non-combat military jobs. Yeah, that's great tinkerbell, don't ask, don't tell; pregnancy leave for all; now get your sweet ass up to the firing line and kill someone, or go home.
The military needs to be a place where you go and know you might die. None of this in the rear with the gear REMF shit. Otherwise, I think contractors should be doing the job in question. All military units should be periodically rotated into the action. Last I checked, the Marines were at least somewhat on board with this ("every Marine is a rifleman").
How stupid does a person have to be to believe that Romney is a warmonger and that Obama is not? Really stupid - but not so stupid that some people can't manage it. I don't think anyone's saying that. What they are saying is that Romney is is total puppet of hyper-warmongering neocons or he's an arch-warmonger himself. Either way, Romney has conciously chosen to surround himself with bloodthirsty neocon Zionists. Here's a quote from a fairly good article in the New Yorker.
Kristol, Bolton, Gerecht, Cohen, and several other of the people who are listed as informal advisers on Romney’s Web site are former members of the Project for the New American Century, the neocon think tank that will forever be linked to the invasion of Iraq
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/09/mitt-romneys-libya-blunder-reflects-larger-failings.html#ixzz2B1WatbaX
John Bolton may be the creepiest of all of Romney's advisers and he's a gentile which is something of an anomaly. From Wikipedia. Bolton has long spoken in favor of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (also known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq, or MEK),[106] "an armed Islamic group with Marxist leanings"[107] which has long been on the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.[1
So let's be clear. On those issues that are dear to us as conservatives, Romney will betray us just as Bush did. Has Romney said he would do anything about affirmative action/disparate impact? No. He's said nothing. Did he say he would act to stop out of control immigration, both legal and illegal? No, in fact he plans on giving out more H1B visas, and hasn't made any other concrete commitments indicating that he won't challenge the status quo. Will Romney dissolve Nafta and other industry-bleeding trade agreements? No, he has indicated that he's going to sign even more trade agreements. On domestic policy issues is he that different from Obama? NO. So what have we? We have a choice of a phony pretend conservative and Obama who, to his credit, won't giving cabinet positions to John Bolton. Therefore, I contend it is not unreasonable for conservatives to vote for Obama.
"How stupid does a person have to be to believe that Romney is a warmonger and that Obama is not? Really stupid - but not so stupid that some people can't manage it."
I don't think anyone's saying that. What they are saying is that Romney is is total puppet of hyper-warmongering neocons or he's an arch-warmonger himself.
Hey, thanks for clearing that up! So nobody is saying that Romney is a warmonger, except for the stupid people saying it!
Svig, if you cut entitlements, such as SNAP, many military families will put food on the table how? I mean those doing the dying, not the ones collecting $70K+ off the books to prevent corruption.
Hey, thanks for clearing that up! So nobody is saying that Romney is a warmonger, except for the stupid people saying it!
No, I'm saying that Romney is ten times the warmonger that Obama is, and Romney has surrounded himself with certain people who do nothing but warmonger. Yes, nobel peace-prize Obama is a warmonger too but he's not on the same level.
Obama campaigned as a lot less of a warmonger than he has governed as. From everything I have seen and read, Romney seems to disagree with Obama's foreign policy only by proposing to be more belligerent. I guess we can hope that, in the not-all-that-unlikely event that he wins, Romney will govern more peaceably than he campaigned.
Severn:
Libertarians are into open borders, but not at all into bailouts or special help for the big banks. Still, I'm not exactly a libertarian, but I'm much closer to Johnson than I am to Obama or Romney.
The Economist endorsed Obama, because they like his foreign policy more than they dislike his domestic policy. I disagree--Obama's foreign policy is one reason he won't get my vote this year.
It's neocons who are contrasting a "do-nothing Muslimist" Obama with a pro-Bibi go-getting aggressive Romney.
You remind me of the pussy-obsessed "game boys", except that you are neocon-obsessed. Whoever the neocons are for, you're against. That says a lot about you and nothing about Romney. Neocons supported Reagan, so obviously the correct course of action for right-thinking Americans in 1980 was to vote for Jimmy Carter!
Then you're either breathtakingly stupid or incredibly dishonest.
What's so stupid about what I said?
What's stupid about not voting for a party that, instead of furthing those causes we believe in, will only undermine them and unfairly stigmatise us with all sorts of weird associations that, in fact, have nothing to do with us or anything we stand for? The Republican party is not the lesser of the two evils. It's by far the greater of the two.
I pick up the paper and keep reading that "Right-wing" people want to bomb Iran, and before that "we" apparently wanted to invade Iraq, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with Jewish regional aspirations, in spite of the fact that the all the policy architects were heavily Jewish. So apparently "we" just start wars here and there for the most nebulous of reasons (although sometimes "big oil" is invoked as a partial explanation). Apparently we also love any kind of bank deregulation. We even love free trade deals with countries with low-cost labour. The Democrats love these things too but any flak they get over them can be redirected to us, because apparently we run big business.
Anyway that's what the establishment view and the neocons are part of the establishment. So the fact is we are being used as cannon-fodder for the neocons, even if we'ere not being marched to the front lines in Iran. If we vote them in its another four years of being used as human shields for people who probably have a deep abiding hatred for us. This is not to our benefit. Not at all.
One other thing. People keep saying that Romney isn't really that much of a neocon after all because he's occasionally acknowledged that other points of view exist even though he swims in a sea of neocons. Well great. It was much the same with Bush II before his first term of office. He said something about a more humble foreign policy, probably in reference to the Serbian invasion, but never before in human history were such untrue words spoken.
>You remind me of the pussy-obsessed "game boys", except that you are neocon-obsessed. Whoever the neocons are for, you're against. That says a lot about you and nothing about Romney. Neocons supported Reagan, so obviously the correct course of action for right-thinking Americans in 1980 was to vote for Jimmy Carter!<
You could stand to be a bit more dignified in defeat, my friend.
It's a good point, similar to Dinesh D'Souza's movie in a way. Obama woulda done better as Captain 3rd World instead of Martin Luther Shaft-Cosby Jr. but the American box office is not known for its highbrow ballast
ReplyDeleteUh, I meant that about the other post.
ReplyDeleteIsn't the "endorsement" shtick a relic of the Pete Zenger handbill era, anyway
Hey--"cultural ballast" was my line (now try translating that across 10 other gee-dee local dialects; oy vey...)
ReplyDeleteLOL. That was funny Steve.
ReplyDeleteThe American Conservative is one of the finest socialist publications in America. I don't read it much but nearly every tweet from their account it seems is outright anti-conservative. I mean, just look at the very first sentence of the piece:
ReplyDelete""Pro-life" Romney or "antiwar" Obama?"
Obama just isn't anti-war, he's invaded or launched missile strikes against more countries than Bush ever did. TAC consistently says stupid shit like this.
"Independently minded conservatives may have no obvious candidate in this election..."
Bullshit: you have an actual Marxist fellow traveller as incumbent POTUS talking about people bitterly clinging to religion and guns, and a highly competent Mr. Fixit challenger - the choice is in fact obvious, the leukophobic lysenkoist lickspittle has got to go.
To suggest that Romney and Obama are roughly equivilent as candidates - deep state notwithstanding - strongly suggests an inability to reason and lack of judgment.
Reading the article now...not surprised to see Crunchy Menshevik Rod Dreher stating that he has no preference between Marxist Obama and Mr. Fixit Romney.
Look at this jackass:
"If the choice is between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, I believe that the Republican presidential candidate would be much worse on most policy issues, and especially on national security and foreign policy"
Why is he even interviewed in TAC? If I want to read a socialist's views I wouldn't be reading an ostensibly conservative publication?
Noah Millman supports Obama. Fine, but why is this guy being interviewed? Can TAC not find a dozen pundits in a nation of 300 million who aren't outright hostile to the GOP?
Justin Raimondo is rooting for Obama too. John Zmirak too. This is nuts, TAC is like a fragger in the army, blowing up soldiers on their own side.
I tallied:
ReplyDelete6 want/prefer/whatever Romney to win (from the sound of it these writers could start up a full apology tour band if he wins)
6½ want Obama (Steve's the ½)
8 want to claim they voted for Johnson/misc. libertoid
6 are too chicken to say
2 went with the inscrutable, free-association thing
Folks, The American Conservative!
"The American Conservative" and basically no comments on immigration restriction, (white) cultural traditionalism, and social traditionalism, e.g. gay "marriage".
ReplyDeleteDid you read Brimelow's? Or Lind's?
Steve, I don't think you need to worry about wasting your Obama material. If he loses he's just that much closer to being declared Galactic Overlord or UN Secretary General. The guy has made a habit of falling upwards.
ReplyDelete>If I want to read a socialist's views I wouldn't be reading an ostensibly conservative publication?<
ReplyDeleteThe hidden premise of your comment seems to be that the definition of "conservative" is "Republican."
"Conservatism" is a philosophy, not a sports team.
"The whole gang at The American Conservative [sic] magazine...."
ReplyDeleteftfy.
You know, gents, this endorsement business doesn't have to be difficult. "I am confidently/begrudgingly/apathetically rooting for [X]. I have decided [Y] sucks. Here is a boilerplate sentence both to put it to rest and grant me wiggle room later. Direct all hate mail to:" Instead we get treated to the full passion play from this lot...
ReplyDeletebasically no comments on immigration restriction
ReplyDeleteBrimelow mentioned it right away--and then announced for Gary Johnson!
I learned years ago to keep my opinions on American declinism to myself in most company, as this was tinfoil hat territory.
ReplyDeleteOut of habit, I still tend to follow this practice. These days, I'm continually surprised by the people who will broach the topic, seemingly as if the notion that America as we know it is doomed is just generally common sense these days and perfectly suitable topic for conversation at any gathering.
They may not really understand all the causes, but there is an impressive and growing awareness that whatever is to come for America and Americans in the next decade or two, it isn't going to seem like anything that is a normal continuation of our nation and customs. This includes extreme scenarios such outright dissolution, civil chaos, etc.
And again, this is often from people that I believe never entertained a serious unconventional thought in their life.
The sheeple are always the last to get the memo, so this is significant.
Romney or Obama? Who cares who is fighting for the captaincy of a rapidly sinking ship. I told all my D friends when they were rejoicing about Obama to be prepared for disillusionment. Us Rs had been sending up people for a couple of decades now and nothing changed.
And nothing changed under Obama. More war, more tyranny, more third world colonization, more debt, more deindustrialization, more obesity, more wealth inequality, more corruption, and more cultural degradation.
The system is broken beyond repair, just like the Soviets in their waning years. And the Soviets finally disappeared with a whimper when enough of the population not only lost faith in the system, but faith that it could be repaired.
Obama or Romney? Might as well be Chernenko or Andropov. Maybe we are in a similar stage now, two empty hacks still operating within the assumptions that the nation remains a going concern. Is a Gorbachev the next to arise in this process of coming apart, someone who knows in his gut that the system is fundamentally broken and makes some (futile) stabs at adapting it?
"Justin Raimondo is rooting for Obama too. John Zmirak too."
ReplyDeleteHow'd you get that out of, "This year I will be voting against Barak Obama," and two paragraphs about Obama's attacks on Catholics and any other group that might put up a fuss against the Democrats' soft-totalitarianism?
""""""
ReplyDeleteJust a bunch of hand-wringing about neocons and civil liberties.
I understand that's an Old Right mentality/short-sightedness, but do these people understand what "American" and "Conservative" mean?
""""""
TAC isn't really "conservative" anymore... they're just a bunch of cranky jackasses that want to be cool cranky jackasses. They don't have the courage to be fringe.
Thank God for Taki.
This forum is why I let my subscription lapse. What's conservative about any of these comments? How does a conservative justify voting for Obama in ANY way?
ReplyDeletePace "amconwha", both Peter Brimelow and Paul Gottfried have shown themselves to be immigration restrictionists and cultural traditionalists. The former actually discusses immigration in his contribution to the symposium.
ReplyDeleteThe Unamerican Conservative
ReplyDeleteThe Jewish American. Conservative
The Not Really Conservative
"Crunchy Menshevik" That's classic. Good job sir.
"Justin Raimondo is rooting for Obama too. John Zmirak too. This is nuts, TAC is like a fragger in the army, blowing up soldiers on their own side."
ReplyDeleteActually makes sense to me. Basically they weigh either candidate's degree of indebtedness to the Scotch-Irish. Dems are 0,5% less likely to nuke Iran
It's a puzzlement indeed why TAC would be so wishy-washy on Romney, until you rub up against Dan Senor and the whole Iran thing.
ReplyDeleteMaybe American conservatives of a certain sort are just tired of pointless wars against our little brown brothers.
I mean, how well are Afghanistan and Iraq going?
If you are not excited about either major candidate, there is one reason to choose the more conservative candidate - Supreme Court nominees. The balance of the Court will likely change this term. Which candidate for president will make better nominees?
ReplyDeleteThat's enough for me to vote for Romney.
"Obama just isn't anti-war"
ReplyDeleteWell yeah, that's why "anti-war" was in quotes.
"Obama just isn't anti-war, he's invaded or launched missile strikes against more countries than Bush ever did. TAC consistently says stupid shit like this."
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes
Obama the Muslimist? Ironically he shoots Muslims now, his signature innovation.
ReplyDeleteReading a number of those essays was a waste of time. Every year or so I read TAC then quickly remember why I cancelled my sub years ago. Those guys come off as men that would shoot you in the back in a foxhole because you put 4 bullets in the enemy instead of the 3 that were actually warranted.
ReplyDeleteRod Dreher - you are kidding, right? Am I the only one who would not be shocked if it was diclosed that he wore his wife's panties.
MDR
So, by my aggregation, Mittens got SEVEN votes out of TWENTY-NINE from staffers of the American CONSERVATIVE magazine. One more than Barry, good job, he won!
ReplyDeleteHe also beat Garry Johnson by that same crushing margin. Four decided to sit it out, and four were also undecided/unclear (shame on you, Steve-O).
Now you add this to Willard's non support from the state he governed four years ago, the state in which his running mate is a senator, and the Mormon editor-in-chief from the Salt Lake City Tribune, who would rather endorse a guy who thinks is going to HELL(!) a man, who would have been considered a birthright heathen by Joseph Smith himself, and wow, we've got quite a mandate there!
Having read your obfuscation of your voter choice linked to above, I suspect you are hoping Obama wins, Obama expert that you are.
ReplyDeleteMike Eisenstadt
TAC is like a fragger in the army, blowing up soldiers on their own side.
ReplyDeleteTAC is exactly what Ron Unz wants it to be.
The real question is, why do some people still believe that Unz is any sort of conservative.
Bullshit: you have an actual Marxist fellow traveller as incumbent POTUS talking about people bitterly clinging to religion and guns, and a highly competent Mr. Fixit challenger - the choice is in fact obvious, the leukophobic lysenkoist lickspittle has got to go.
ReplyDeleteRomney doesn't stand for anything except more of the same things with an emphasis on neocon pet causes like Israel.
A win for Romney will be the final nail for conservatives. He will damn us forever by tying our name to a ruinous agenda involving more warfare, more aid to Israel, and more industry and sovereignty-gutting trade-deals. Obama, like it or not, is the lesser of the two evils. So, if you are going to vote for one or the other, vote for Obama.
Noah Millman supports Obama. Fine, but why is this guy being interviewed?
ReplyDeleteBecause Unz hired this self-admitted lefty to write for the oddly misnamed "American Conservative".
No prizes for guessing who Unz is voting for.
"Can TAC not find a dozen pundits in a nation of 300 million who aren't outright hostile to the GOP?"
ReplyDeleteWhat, exactly, is conservative about the GOP?
Interventionist foreign policy?
Plutocracy?
More immigration for everyone?
None of the authors is conservative, so who cares what they think?
ReplyDeleteDitto the Anonymous at 11:19.
ReplyDeleteNo one who calls themselves a conservative should want Obama to have a second term where can do whatever he wants without having to worry about re-election.
ReplyDeleteIt might make sense if you're hoping to hasten the collapse of the country but that is a) a long shot and b) not conservative.
Joe Scarborough called the Election for Obama. It's over.
ReplyDeleteThis is nuts, TAC is like a fragger in the army, blowing up soldiers on their own side.
ReplyDeleteTAC suspects that Obama secretly hates the Scots-Irish as much as they do [even though the Obama phenomenon was created by the likes of the MacGeithners, the MacMinows, The MacDohrn-Ohrnsteins, the MacPritzkers, the MacGoldman-MacSaches, and of course the bagpipe warfare team].
True conservatives should be voting for Obama.
ReplyDeleteRomney will be Bush 2.0.
At least with Obama in the White House, the House Repubs will have a backbone to stand up to the President.
If Romney is elected, expect a guest worker program, more wars, etc. Basically, the GOP will rubber stamp all of his policies.
Relax Steve, you're a better writer than Norm MacDonald ever was as a comedian. You will find in the next few years that - assuming Romney wins - your study of Obama was indeed a waste of time. That is, I'm afraid, just the way the cookie crumbles.
ReplyDeleteYour quest to figure out Obama, was always doomed by the shear resources Obama devoted to keeping his life mysterious. You are not and investigative reporter. You were not the kind of person who would hunt down all his college classmates and coerce them into giving you an interview. You deal with the analysis of published facts - and Obama has suppressed such facts. Your personal mode of operations was always wrong for this particular mystery.
But bigger issues await. Neither candidate has mentioned the plight of black people in Detroit. This is a bigger and more intractable problem than the deficit or even the war that Islam is waging against us.
Detroit isn't the only place where blacks are in trouble but it is the most symbolic. In the next few years people will start to notice that there is no hope. A century ago blacks in Mississippi had hope - they went to Detroit. In the sixties blacks had hope and Nixon and Johnson gave them Affirmative Action, welfare benefits, job training and Head Start. All of those have failed and Detroit crumbles. Write about that.
We are at a turning point in American social development. It will soon occur to the public that electing a black man President didn't address the problem at all. Had to be tried I suppose but it was just a waste of four years.
You are in a good position to comment on this real American crisis. Obama will be actively and rapidly forgotten. For example who today remembers that Jimmy Carter was a crook? He was you know. But the American public can only remember one or two things about a former President. I'm not sure what the agreed upon characterization of Obama will be, but it won't be very long. There will be be newer and fresher political personalities to study. Obama won't be exactly forgotten, but his public fascination will fade very fast.
Carter rehabilitated his rotten reputation by building houses. 'W' has gone passive. I expect Obama to follow Bush's example.
You should beat the rush and start forgetting Obama now.
Albertosaurus
http://youtu.be/5w7romhgUzM
ReplyDeleteProf. Virginia Abernethy Interview October 2012.
Shmccarthyism.
I also see that the TAC "symposium" forgot to include their own blogger Daniel Larison (pronounced "Wawison")...or perhaps it was deliberate to avoid embarrassment. My God, that silly boy is so bent out of shape by his anti-Mormonism that he'd endorse Major Hasan over Mitt. 6 out of 5 Wawison columns are about how Romney is too hostile to Holy Orthodox Russia.
ReplyDeleteWhat a deeply stupid magazine.
Reading these endorsements, I am struck by the similarities to the Reason endorsements. I guess its either ideological purity (being carried to 30s Leftist-level conceptual splintering extremes) or New Media desperation for branding: you make the call. As usual, Steve at least is brutally honest about his...conflict of interest, as we say in the law biz.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link. I've now deleted my TAC bookmark.
ReplyDeleteWhat a bunch, to win you need to want to win - and these people don't seem to care. Obama = Romney to these long-term thinkers.
In the UK we have a party, UKIP, that is to the right of the Conservatives and has become a valid alternative for small c conservatives such as myself.
But UKIP wasn't built up by people sitting around on their arses and moaning. No, it was built by folks who stood up and got organised. There's no risk of that happening at TAC.
OT, but I got to that (short) chapter in Back to Blood that you quoted from recently ("Skin"). A bunch of iSteve themes crammed into about 10 pages and presented absolutely brutally.
ReplyDeleteYou should really do a book club thing with this. Post an Amazon affiliate link for the book and then do a series of blog posts / comment threads on it.
I figured that some of the people would be lukewarm on Romney, but seriously that many people voting/rooting for Obama in a magazine called the American Conservative? It's not like four years ago when everyone was sick of Bush and hated McCain's pandering decision to pick Palin, and there was no track record of Obama, and besides he looked like he was going to win anyway. You have had 4 years of creeping big government at home, more diversicrats, more AA, an attempt to bypass Congress and just let millions of illegals stay without debate and more of the same on foreign policy including deposing Qaddafi. I think the ghost of George Bush II looms far too large for many of the paleoconservatives. The disaster of his foreign policy was more a product of that man's psychology than it was the work of some nefarious cabal. Yes he followed their advice, but 98 percent of politicians in the same position would not have not bought in 100 percent or stuck to it as unwaveringly as Bush II did. That's just a particular personality quirk of the man in the Oval Office. Even if Romney wins, it's highly unlikely that someone as pragmatic as Romney would ever march in lockstep over a cliff with the Neocons like George Jr. did. Since that seems to be the particular bugaboo of these conservatives they need to realize in a presidential system like we have, personality counts for a lot more than in the mostly parliamentary systems of other countries, and the effects of President's personality can have out-sized effects, like with W.
ReplyDeleteI used to be anti-war, too. I don't really know what happened there. I just don't give a damn how many countries we invade or bomb. Not enough to vote over the issue, anyway. If I had my pick of two solid restrictionist candidates, maybe. But the regime is murdering America in her crib. Why should I care if they bomb some other countries in the process?
ReplyDeleteI understand that's an Old Right mentality/short-sightedness, but do these people understand what "American" and "Conservative" mean?
ReplyDeleteTo paraphrase Nancy Sinatra, "We've been down so long it looks like up to us."
Larry Auster writes that the American Conservative is not very conservative. It seems to him bent on expressing "feelings" of anti-neocon, anti-war, anti-Israel, semi-leftist stuff above all, which is not very conservative. Conservatives are supposed to think with their heads not lead with their hearts.
ReplyDeleteRomney is not my cup of tea, but I don't need a hero. I just need the President to be marginally better than the disaster that is Obama. I am a middle class White guy. I don't want or need revolution, violence, upheaval. I'll settle for things marginally better because I have skin in the game.
MacGeithners, the MacMinows, The MacDohrn-Ohrnsteins, the MacPritzkers, the MacGoldman-MacSaches
ReplyDeleteGeithner isn't Jewish.
Yeah, when TAC can find 29 "conservatives" and at least one is willing to say "yeah, I'm voting for the white dude," I'll start to believe that "conservatives" aren't all a bunch of pussies.
ReplyDeleteMore of them are voting for Romney, Gary Johnson, or Virgil Goode (all three are white) than for Obama.
Anonymous you are right about Daniel Larison complete tool Putinite, but apparently the storm kept him from submitting his entry.
ReplyDeleteIn 2010, the republicans rode to victory on one issue, obamacare. That issue galvanized the base and gave them an historic midterm victory.
ReplyDeleteIn 2012, the GOP nominates the one guy who enacted similar legislation while governor of a state.
Throw in that there is not a dimes worth of difference in their foreign policy agenda, their take on immigration and even their take on social issues likes homosexuals in the military and you really make it difficult to get excited about your guy.
Now the GOP and her supporters are upset that conservatives won't support their man. What did they think? Nominate someone who is actually a conservative.
Larry Auster has a special interest in Israel, so it is not surprising that he HATES, HATES, HATES anyone who is not 100 percent pro Israel.
ReplyDeleteWhy should an American conservative be expected to proactively support Israel when 70 percent or more of her co-ethnics in the USA routinely vote for the other side? Additionally, Israel's American co-ethnics have had a disproportionate influence in extreme leftwing causes, without which, it is doubtful those causes could even have advanced. As pointed out here numerous times, they were critical in passing the 1965 Immigration Act. And groups led by them such as the ACLU, ADL and $PLC constantly harass anyone who isn't onboard the muliculti express.
If proactive support for Israel is a big deal to you, then why don't you try to persuade American Jews to make nice on certain domestic issues to entice conservatives into supporting your pet cause? Instead all the heat is directed at conservatives who aren't strong enough supporters of that little Mideast nation. And one cannot mention in public, lest they be ostracized, what Israel's American co-ethnics do, (See Glenn Beck).
It really is telling where one's loyalty lies in how they view this issue. Apparently if one is not pro-Israel enough, despite any other issues, they are untouchable. Yet, if one is 100 percent pro-Israel, but supports the current leftist milieu that seeks to destroy traditional America, then they are A-OK. Which apparently means that Israel's welfare is much more important than America's. That's a fine view for an Israeli citizen, but a disturbing one for an American.
I would like to see the pro-Israel crowd visit and comment on Jewish websites imploring them to change their domestic views to help garner more support for Israel. But I doubt that will happen. Instead, the whiskeys of this world will continue to frequent our sites
Romney will be Bush 2.0
ReplyDeleteWe already have Bush 2.0. He's called Barry Obama.
I mean, did anyone even bring up the fact that 0bama's spent our money like a drunken sailor with 10 days to live? I got bored reading them after like 2 minutes so I CTR-F-ed for Sailer's mercifully brief contribution, and closed the tab.
ReplyDeleteI used to be anti-war, too. I don't really know what happened there. I just don't give a damn how many countries we invade or bomb. Not enough to vote over the issue, anyway. If I had my pick of two solid restrictionist candidates, maybe. But the regime is murdering America in her crib. Why should I care if they bomb some other countries in the process?
ReplyDeleteYou should care because the left will forever associate conservatives with warmongering, even if the "conservatives" behind the warmongering and all kinds of other crazy crap are actually Trokskyiks and Jewish ethno-nationalists in disguise. Like I said in a previous post, we can't afford another neocon. Better an honest leftist like Obama then a conservative imposter like Romney. Don't vote for Romney. Our only hope is a new conservative political party that won't let itself get hijacked.
+1 to Svigor. Even in the '80's, I suspected that foreign policy was mostly performance art for careerists. But now it's just stone irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteOn my ipod now,dedicated to Obama: "How does it feel/To be on your own/with no direction home/A complete unknown/Like a rollin' stone..."
ReplyDeleteAnonydroid at 5:07 asked: How well is Libya going, Mr "American conservative of a certain sort"?
ReplyDeleteHunsdon deigns to reply: To use the vernacular, my good sir, it is going for shit. Ritualistic introductory exculpatory phrase: I did not care for Moammar Qaddfi. With that said, I denounced at the time the idea of fomenting and supporting the Libyan insurgency.
I thought it misadvised in terms of probable outcome, and misadvised on quasi-moral and legal grounds. The rebels, the people willing to go out into the streets with rifles, these people are not Western democrats: they are hard hillbilly fanatics.
Also, I thought it useful that we had brought Kaddufi to heel, and had more or less kissed, made up, and said let's forget all about Lockerbie. To turn on him is not only bad manners, but bad policy. The next guy we ask to cooperate and surrender power peacefully will remember the phrase "Qudd'fay enema" and not trust us so readily.
I fear you may have mistaken me for an O-bot. No, no, a thousand times no. In almost all ways, I find the Mittster to be a vastly better human being. But, yes, the 0.5 percent lower chance that a 2d term Obama would take us to war on Iran matters a lot to me.
You see, we seem to assume that we can just go around slapping punk nations at will, and they'll take it. Pride, I read somewhere, goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. In 1914, everyone thought they'd be home before Christmas.
Also, let us ponder some names. Woods, Doherty, Shughart and Gordon. I'm no longer as happy to be losing men like that, to no apparent purpose.
Well, off to trick or treat!
"You should care because the left will forever associate conservatives with warmongering"
ReplyDeleteRomney could get elected, bring all the troops home from everywhere, have all our fighter jets and carriers melted down and used to build windmills and hybrid cars, and go 8 years without sending a single soldier or bomb anywhere....and the Republicans would still be portrayed as the warmongering party. That's just how it is. Look at how Republicans are consistently seen as the party of the rich, when the Dems have at least as many rich backers and GW Bush actually got more small individual contributions than his opponents. Some things are just entrenched in the public mind, with no relation whatsoever to reality.
I'd like to see Romney cut back our foreign involvement -- but because it's the right thing to do; not because I hope it'll make the media stop calling us meanies.
Anon 11:19:
ReplyDeleteSo, can you point out what policies Obama has enacted or proposed that would qualify as Marxist? I'll admit, I can't think of a single one. His healthcare reform is corporatist--it guarantees the incumbent insurance companies business from now on, with taxpayers ultimately paying for many of the new customers. His auto bailouts were skewed toward unions instead of investors (reflecting who he thought he needed to keep friendly for the future) but were not remotely targeted at government taking over the industry. His overspending on stimulus looked Marxist only in the sense of the corruption of the late Soviet Union. And so on.
Similarly, what do you mean when you call American Conservative a socialist publication? Have they been advocating the nationalization of industry lately? Or proclaiming the dictatorship of the proletariat? Are they proposing seizing the wealth of the richest 1% and sharing it out among the poor? Demanding the imposition of a maximum wage?
As best I can tell, those are just magic words you are using to smear them, in exactly the way that anyone who starts talking sense on IQ tests and what they mean can expect to be smeared as a racist.
Ex Submarine Officer:
ReplyDeleteThis tracks uncomfortably well with my experiences. A couple years ago, I was at an academic conference overseas, and found myself at a table with four Americans. We were not particularly close on political or moral issues By my informal tally, it was a Mormon, a Jew, a Catholic (me), and an unknown religion. All of us smart, educated technical people with wives and kids.
We started talking about US politics, and before long, all four of us were talking decline and unfixable dysfunction and corruption and frightening public ignorance and blindness. It was really striking, and really disturbing.
And this election has the feel, to me, of a *really loud and angry* argument over how the deck chairs on the Titanic should be rearranged.
"Yeah, when TAC can find 29 "conservatives" and at least one is willing to say "yeah, I'm voting for the white dude," I'll start to believe that "conservatives" aren't all a bunch of pussies."
ReplyDeleteMaybe that's your issue, not theirs? I mean, I'm just thinking out loud here...
Svigor:
ReplyDeleteI very much expect the tools we have built up for the war on terror to be brought home to us. It's already begun, but it will go a whole lot further. The party of civil liberties and the party of small government got together awhile back to ensure that the president has the legal authority to have anyone, citizen or not, locked up indefinitely on his say so alone. Both parties have agreed that the president has the unquestioned authority to have anyone killed, citizen or not' anywhere in the world, with no appeal and no review and no consequences.
How long till that gets used domestically, to shut someone up who's stirring up the wrong kind of trouble? How long till some really annoying political activists get detained indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism? We have already determined by court cases and passed laws that the administration can keep people locked up forever without giving them a trial (at most, he may have to let them have a habeas hearing). Those precedents won't disappear when it's Joe Smith the alleged white supremacist terrorist instead of Ali Baba the alleged Muslim terrorist. The idea that you don't have to give someone a trial if you think it might not go your way or it might stir up more terrorism is part of the ruling class consensus, supported by all right thinking politicians and pundits--just ask Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. That won't change when it's Fred Johnson the suspected abortion doctor assassin.
I fear very much that all the awful stuff we have visited upon other countries is going to come to visit us, soon.
Surprised at how many are not voting for Romney.
ReplyDeleteI consider myself a paleo-conservative of sorts.
Against open borders (do we reaaly need millions of more in the country when unemployment is at 20% or so if you factor in U-3 and government lying); against free trade (gee with 250,000 factories closed and 50,000,000 jobs lost since Clinton pushed through NAFTA and welcomed China into the WTO maybe Reagan's idea of using tariffs on automobile and other imports wasn't such a bad idea); against nation building (the wars for Israel have been a terrible waste of money and citizens's lives... let Israel fight its own wars and Neo-con dual citizens can visit their homeland on their summer vacations to do their part); against affirmative action (except for Blacks who can trace their ancestry to American slaves so no Obama or Holder types get any benefits or Native American Indians who can do likewise ...so no Elizabeth Warren types either), etc ...
Mitt's cosiness with the Neo-Cons is a hugh turn off for me ... though at times he has not seemed particulary belligerant.
For example, when during the primary debate Gingrich said that the Palestinians were a made up people...Mitt did not follow suit... and indicated that he (Mitt) was careful about what he said because "he was not a bomb thrower" (thereby implying that Newt was).
Mitt is a business man so I just can't see him thinking that bombing Iran is his first order of business when the companny he is head of (the U.S. if he is elected) is on the verge of insolvency.
Also, as a Republican governor of a state whose legislature was something like 80% Democrat he can work with people who don't share his views... that suggests to me he is more of a conciliatory type not a partisan type with strong views (LOL ...God knows he has also changed some of his views enough times).
Maybe this is just wishful thinking my part.
However, as one of the posters here has pointed out it is no secret that the U.S. is in decline... But should we just give up and not vote so we can hurry the collapse of the current incarnation of the Republican party and maybe even the country?
We know with O we will get more "he could be my son" type race mongering ... more amnesties by executive order for illegals ... more racism from Eric "my people" Holder the chief law enforcement officer of the judicial branch of the government, and more judicial appointments to the Supreme Court like Kagen and Sotomayer who both hate White men..
How could that be any good?
I probably will vote for Mitt because of the Supreme Court issue...
I really don't think that Sotomayer or Kagen, in addition to their hostility to Whites, think the Constitution is all that important and that disturbs me because I especially value the First and Second Amendments to that document.
However, in the final analysis... I wish Steve Sailer or someone like him was running...
that is someone I could definitely vote for in good conscience... but neither he or anyone like him is running.
NOTA said...
ReplyDeleteSvigor:
"I fear very much that all the awful stuff we have visited upon other countries is going to come to visit us, soon."
Yup ... why else would such laws have been passed with the consent of both parties and nary a peep from the MSM?
Mitt Romney is the right moral conservative choice for America in 2012. Mitt Romney will fight and defend the rights of all Americans all over the globe against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Mitt Romney will have the most handsome presidential portrait in human history if he is elected and I say this as a 100 percent heterosexual man. Mitt Romney will stand with Israel and will stand with the brave men and women of the United States Armed Services (gay, straight, legal,illegal,) Mitt Romneyite 2012! You have my VOTE!
ReplyDeletecan you point out what policies Obama has enacted or proposed that would qualify as Marxist? I'll admit, I can't think of a single one. His healthcare reform is corporatist
ReplyDeleteSo? There has always been a very thin line between Marxism and corporatism.
can you point out what policies Obama has enacted or proposed that would qualify as Marxist? I'll admit, I can't think of a single one. His healthcare reform is corporatist--it guarantees the incumbent insurance companies business from now on, with taxpayers ultimately paying for many of the new customers. His auto bailouts were skewed toward unions instead of investors (reflecting who he thought he needed to keep friendly for the future) but were not remotely targeted at government taking over the industry. His overspending on stimulus looked Marxist only in the sense of the corruption of the late Soviet Union. And so on.
ReplyDeleteAll you are telling me there is that you think that Marxism is something good and noble - "a great idea which has never been tried".
Better an honest leftist like Obama then a conservative imposter like Romney.
ReplyDeleteIt's Moby Central around here lately.
Now the GOP and her supporters are upset that conservatives won't support their man.
ReplyDeleteConservatives are supporting Romney.
The sort of people who read TAC are not conservatives.
If you want to understand TAC read Radosh's book on post war isolationists I.e. the guys who didn't even want to confront the Soviets. I certainly don't consider Charles Beard a conservative but he's definitely who Ron Unz likes.
ReplyDeleteIt's strange how numerous comments suggest TAC is paleocon or Old Right. It might have been that in its first year or two but has been something else (not sure what) for a long time now. I doubt if any of the regulars at TAC would embrace the paleocon label and I'm almost certain they'd be appalled to be associated with the (great) works of Samuel Francis. In the case of McConnell he's an Obama apologist now but was a bit of a paleo (I think) for an hour or two and before that a neocon and possibly a liberal Democrat in the 60s or 70s. I don't know if he's an opportunist or just indecisive but whatever he is he's not a paleocon. Using TAC's Obama love affair and SWPLish sneering at conservatives to show what's wrong with paleocons doesn't make sense.
ReplyDeleteI used to be anti-war, too. I don't really know what happened there. I just don't give a damn how many countries we invade or bomb. Not enough to vote over the issue, anyway. If I had my pick of two solid restrictionist candidates, maybe. But the regime is murdering America in her crib. Why should I care if they bomb some other countries in the process?
ReplyDelete1. The hulking military-police apparatus we have built over the past few decades can be easily directed at American citizens. It needs to be dismantled and executive power should be curtailed. You think "unthinkable" ideas are suppressed now? Wait a couple decades.
2. America doesn't need to bomb other countries, waste money or lives. Our wars in the middle east are big honking distractions that keep the focus off domestic policy. Imagine if the presidential foreign policy debate was about immigration instead of a series of violent, desert hellholes, each less relevant to America's future than the last.
Paul Mendez said...
ReplyDeleteTo paraphrase Nancy Sinatra, "We've been down so long it looks like up to us." -- I'm tuning up for ya
BTW the line's actually from Richard Fariña...
It might have been that in its first year or two but has been something else (not sure what) for a long time now
ReplyDeleteDon't forget hippie Dreher and neo-Prussian falangista William Lind, latter of whom I often confuse with former next-anointed-W.F.Buckley Michael Lind of Salon (actually they're not too similar). I like that the magazine exists but there were already enough bedwetting hysterics to go around, until The American Prospect shuts down I suppose.
But Reason.com's boutique Muslim just called Mitt "the most protectionist GOP candidate in memory"--so this opinion mag biz can have its own internal logic even if it's outwardly nonsensical. The main thing is social grooming and regulating the sorority, seeing as the explosion of the Internet has not exactly yielded a chain reaction of breakout fearless writers assaulting the regnant taboos (more like reinforcements for everyone to shore up his own clique). You fellas who complain about comment control ought to try TAC's site--Steve's practically fostering a new Speaker's Corner at Marble Arch compared to them. I doubt whether somebody can get a single word in without "the whole load" of affected literary jazz on the paucity of quotations in Seneca to be found in modern daily conversation, or reminiscences of halcyon grad-student days at the Montana College of Mines & Apologetics. They understand the sublunary realm of distasteful politics so well they posted the wrong picture of a guy several of them deigned to endorse this round. It's like the opposite of a movement magazine.
ReplyDeleteDreher is a eastern orthodox few of them are sonservative
ReplyDeleteWell Republicans are too blame but so are Democratics. Asians last year grew by 2 percent just behind hispanics. The numbers are 11,000 Orange County,and over 10,000 in La County, and over 10,000 in Santa Clara County. And 7,400 in King County Wa. These are the asian numbers from july 2010 to july 2011. Kennedy's 1965 act caused more asian growth than the h 1 b's.
ReplyDeleteScrewing up the Virgil Goode picture was classic.
ReplyDeleteWe're you the person who pointed it out in the message board?
that's a strange name, the american "conservative". quite a few liberals in that group. several "conservatives" who voted obama in 2008 and openly plan to vote for obama in 2012.
ReplyDeleteyou sure you sent the right link steve? or maybe they should change the URL of their site, to more accurately reflect the subject matter.
I remember when TAC brought Noah Millman on board. His introductory essay there said basically: "WTF? I have no idea why this allegedly 'conservative' magazine is paying me to write for it, because I'm a good Progressive!"
ReplyDeleteIt must be still in the archives somewhere, unless they scrubbed it.
Fun/Svigor:
ReplyDeleteIf you think the deficit is a problem, then it's hard to see how it can make sense to spend billions of dollars a year bombing and occupying and invading countries that have nothing to do with our security or well-being. Alongside cutting out our foreign aid (if we can't afford to hand money out to Americans, we certainly can't affort to hand it out to foreigners), we ought to cut back on the blowing up of people in foreign countries, which is costing us many times as much money, and which is probably creating far more problems for us in the future.
Let's imagine a kind of model of the world for a moment. This model is not exactly right, but it may explain something:
ReplyDeleteFirst, assume that most of the available jobs for conservative writers and pundits have strict ideological bounds.
Maintream publications mostly require adherence to the ruling class consensus--we keep the war on terror and drugs going, we keep our violent and moralistic foreign policy, the powerful are almost always above consequences for anything they do, big financial companies may be regulated only with great deference and gentleness, affirmative action is at least well-intentioned, Israel is our bestest buddy and we must support them no matter what, all races and sexes are equal, and only discredited pseudoscientists say otherwise, etc.
More ideological publications slide this window a bit--you can be more critical of affirmative action or might even be able to say something kind about gun rights, but you certainly can't question our foreign policy or support for Israel. You can support torture (though you must never call it that).
Now, in such a world, those few publications which don't impose those limits will look kind of strange. They will have people who are real outliers from the ruling class consensus, either the centrist or right-wing version of it. If most conservarive pundit jobs require support for Israel and our foreign policy, then the few conservative pundits working without those limits will quite often be the ones who don't support Israel or our foreign policy. If most such jobs require supporting whomever the Republican party nominates (either because they're Republican publications, or because they're Democratic publications who've hired a token Republican as a foil), then the conservative pundits who work on one of the other places will often be much less friendly to the party's choices. That will happen naturally, because the people who won't support Israel or shut up about IQ or support our sociopathic foreign policy will not be able to get jobs on Fox News or thw Weekly Standard, but they'll be able to get jobs at American Conservative or Taki's Magazine.
Now, all models lie, but I think this model is useful. My guess is that the more conservative pundit/writer jobs have those ideological bounds imposed, the greater the variance from those bounds you will see in the remaining jobs for conservative writers/pundits which don't impose them.
Reason.com's boutique Muslim just called Mitt "the most protectionist GOP candidate in memory"
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile the pro-protectionist people at iSteve insist that Romney is the most pro-free-trade GOP candidate in memory.
If you don't like Romney, then don't vote or write in 'Ron Paul'. What is the point of voting for Obama? American Conservative is run by a bunch of Crunchy Cons.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteCan you imagine anyone at The Nation or Huffington Post thinking, "I'm disappointed with Obama, so I'll vote for Romney."
American Conservative should change its name or American Contrarian or American Alternative. It's not a conservative magazine, for better or worse.
Jewish-sold milk chocolate vs Jewish-sold vanilla. What a choice we have.
ReplyDeleteJews don't care who wins because both will bow down to Jewish power. But they may be a bit worried about Obama since Obama will be freer to do as he pleases in his second term since he won't run anymore.
"6½ want Obama (Steve's the ½)"
ReplyDeleteThis is why wasp niceness never wins. After all that Obama's done to whites, 1/2 of Sailer still wants to kiss the man's behind.
>foreign policy [is] mostly performance art for careerists.[...] it's just stone irrelevant.<
ReplyDeleteWars cost a certain amount of money. You might want to factor that nuance into your calculations.
Not to mention blowback, loss of life (but mostly only among 47%'ers, so who cares?), and the economic distortion involved in having a militarized economy. But hey, that's just commie talk, and so ROMNEY, ROMNEY, ROMNEY, yippee!
Wars cost a certain amount of money. You might want to factor that nuance into your calculations.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention blowback, loss of life (but mostly only among 47%'ers, so who cares?), and the economic distortion involved in having a militarized economy. But hey, that's just commie talk, and so ROMNEY, ROMNEY, ROMNEY, yippee!
How stupid does a person have to be to believe that Romney is a warmonger and that Obama is not? Really stupid - but not so stupid that some people can't manage it.
If you think the deficit is a problem, then it's hard to see how it can make sense to spend billions of dollars a year bombing and occupying and invading countries that have nothing to do with our security or well-being.
ReplyDeleteThose are some odd words, coming from an Obama supporter.
More of them are voting for Romney, Gary Johnson, or Virgil Goode (all three are white) than for Obama.
ReplyDeleteNo, you misunderstood me. I didn't mean one "conservative" who will vote for the white guy. Obviously they'll vote for a white guy.
I mean, one "conservative" who will SAY, "I'm voting for the white guy."
Not, "I'm voting for the white guy, incidentally," or "the white guy happens to be the better guy."
I mean, "I'm voting for the white guy." As in, "as a white man, naturally I'm going to vote for the white man, ceteris paribus."
I very much expect the tools we have built up for the war on terror to be brought home to us. It's already begun, but it will go a whole lot further.
ReplyDeleteGood. Let the gov't sow the seeds of revolution, I says. Alternatively, let a populace willing to be enslaved, be enslaved. They deserve it.
Fun/Svigor:
ReplyDeleteIf you think the deficit is a problem, then it's hard to see how it can make sense to spend billions of dollars a year bombing and occupying and invading countries that have nothing to do with our security or well-being. Alongside cutting out our foreign aid (if we can't afford to hand money out to Americans, we certainly can't affort to hand it out to foreigners), we ought to cut back on the blowing up of people in foreign countries, which is costing us many times as much money, and which is probably creating far more problems for us in the future.
True, but I reject the premise that a cut in defense spending is a cut to the budget. The feds will spend it somewhere else anyway. Besides, I prefer defense spending to entitlement spending. Entitlements and bloated gov't (but I repeat myself) have to go first, then we can reduce defense spending.
1. The hulking military-police apparatus we have built over the past few decades can be easily directed at American citizens. It needs to be dismantled and executive power should be curtailed. You think "unthinkable" ideas are suppressed now? Wait a couple decades.
ReplyDeleteAll true. But I'd rather keep that around and cut the entitlements, than vice-versa.
As for turning the military apparatus against the citizenry, well, that's always been a looming possibility if we can't hammer out something civilized. I've probably done a lot more thinking about this subject than most of Steve's readership. My nutshell analysis is, if the gov't has to turn that apparatus against the populace in earnest, it's already lost. The very people it depends on will turn against it.
2. America doesn't need to bomb other countries, waste money or lives. Our wars in the middle east are big honking distractions that keep the focus off domestic policy. Imagine if the presidential foreign policy debate was about immigration instead of a series of violent, desert hellholes, each less relevant to America's future than the last.
On the contrary, if you're going to have a large defense budget, you're going to have to use it periodically. In fact, I'm starting to come around to the idea of using the military on a regular basis, even if it's small, and especially if it's large. Otherwise you wind up with the military as another place for fat-assed cosmopolitan bureaucrats to suck at the public teat for free. Along these lines, I'd contract out all the non-combat military jobs. Yeah, that's great tinkerbell, don't ask, don't tell; pregnancy leave for all; now get your sweet ass up to the firing line and kill someone, or go home.
The military needs to be a place where you go and know you might die. None of this in the rear with the gear REMF shit. Otherwise, I think contractors should be doing the job in question. All military units should be periodically rotated into the action. Last I checked, the Marines were at least somewhat on board with this ("every Marine is a rifleman").
How stupid does a person have to be to believe that Romney is a warmonger and that Obama is not? Really stupid - but not so stupid that some people can't manage it.
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone's saying that. What they are saying is that Romney is is total puppet of hyper-warmongering neocons or he's an arch-warmonger himself. Either way, Romney has conciously chosen to surround himself with bloodthirsty neocon Zionists. Here's a quote from a fairly good article in the New Yorker.
Kristol, Bolton, Gerecht, Cohen, and several other of the people who are listed as informal advisers on Romney’s Web site are former members of the Project for the New American Century, the neocon think tank that will forever be linked to the invasion of Iraq
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/09/mitt-romneys-libya-blunder-reflects-larger-failings.html#ixzz2B1WatbaX
John Bolton may be the creepiest of all of Romney's advisers and he's a gentile which is something of an anomaly. From Wikipedia.
Bolton has long spoken in favor of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (also known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq, or MEK),[106] "an armed Islamic group with Marxist leanings"[107] which has long been on the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.[1
So let's be clear. On those issues that are dear to us as conservatives, Romney will betray us just as Bush did. Has Romney said he would do anything about affirmative action/disparate impact? No. He's said nothing. Did he say he would act to stop out of control immigration, both legal and illegal? No, in fact he plans on giving out more H1B visas, and hasn't made any other concrete commitments indicating that he won't challenge the status quo. Will Romney dissolve Nafta and other industry-bleeding trade agreements? No, he has indicated that he's going to sign even more trade agreements. On domestic policy issues is he that different from Obama? NO. So what have we? We have a choice of a phony pretend conservative and Obama who, to his credit, won't giving cabinet positions to John Bolton. Therefore, I contend it is not unreasonable for conservatives to vote for Obama.
Severn:
ReplyDeleteHuh? I'm voting for Johnson, not Obama.
I'm voting for Johnson, not Obama.
ReplyDeleteWhat a buffoon.
"How stupid does a person have to be to believe that Romney is a warmonger and that Obama is not? Really stupid - but not so stupid that some people can't manage it."
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone's saying that. What they are saying is that Romney is is total puppet of hyper-warmongering neocons or he's an arch-warmonger himself.
Hey, thanks for clearing that up! So nobody is saying that Romney is a warmonger, except for the stupid people saying it!
Numbers USA: Mitt Romney B-
ReplyDeleteNumbers USA: Barack Obama F-
The positions are all there.
VOTE ROMNEY / RYAN: For A Slower Rate Of National Decline
Svig, if you cut entitlements, such as SNAP, many military families will put food on the table how? I mean those doing the dying, not the ones collecting $70K+ off the books to prevent corruption.
ReplyDelete>How stupid does a person have to be to believe that Romney is a warmonger and that Obama is not?<
ReplyDeleteProbably as stupid as a neocon. It's neocons who are contrasting a "do-nothing Muslimist" Obama with a pro-Bibi go-getting aggressive Romney.
If you believe that Obama and Romney are equal warmongers, then why do you also - presumably - spend time hollering angrily about Benghazi?
Hey, thanks for clearing that up! So nobody is saying that Romney is a warmonger, except for the stupid people saying it!
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm saying that Romney is ten times the warmonger that Obama is, and Romney has surrounded himself with certain people who do nothing but warmonger. Yes, nobel peace-prize Obama is a warmonger too but he's not on the same level.
Anon 756:
ReplyDeleteObama campaigned as a lot less of a warmonger than he has governed as. From everything I have seen and read, Romney seems to disagree with Obama's foreign policy only by proposing to be more belligerent. I guess we can hope that, in the not-all-that-unlikely event that he wins, Romney will govern more peaceably than he campaigned.
Severn:
Libertarians are into open borders, but not at all into bailouts or special help for the big banks. Still, I'm not exactly a libertarian, but I'm much closer to Johnson than I am to Obama or Romney.
The Economist endorsed Obama, because they like his foreign policy more than they dislike his domestic policy. I disagree--Obama's foreign policy is one reason he won't get my vote this year.
No, I'm saying that Romney is ten times the warmonger that Obama is
ReplyDeleteThen you're either breathtakingly stupid or incredibly dishonest.
It's neocons who are contrasting a "do-nothing Muslimist" Obama with a pro-Bibi go-getting aggressive Romney.
ReplyDeleteYou remind me of the pussy-obsessed "game boys", except that you are neocon-obsessed. Whoever the neocons are for, you're against. That says a lot about you and nothing about Romney. Neocons supported Reagan, so obviously the correct course of action for right-thinking Americans in 1980 was to vote for Jimmy Carter!
Then you're either breathtakingly stupid or incredibly dishonest.
ReplyDeleteWhat's so stupid about what I said?
What's stupid about not voting for a party that, instead of furthing those causes we believe in, will only undermine them and unfairly stigmatise us with all sorts of weird associations that, in fact, have nothing to do with us or anything we stand for? The Republican party is not the lesser of the two evils. It's by far the greater of the two.
I pick up the paper and keep reading that "Right-wing" people want to bomb Iran, and before that "we" apparently wanted to invade Iraq, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with Jewish regional aspirations, in spite of the fact that the all the policy architects were heavily Jewish. So apparently "we" just start wars here and there for the most nebulous of reasons (although sometimes "big oil" is invoked as a partial explanation). Apparently we also love any kind of bank deregulation. We even love free trade deals with countries with low-cost labour. The Democrats love these things too but any flak they get over them can be redirected to us, because apparently we run big business.
Anyway that's what the establishment view and the neocons are part of the establishment. So the fact is we are being used as cannon-fodder for the neocons, even if we'ere not being marched to the front lines in Iran. If we vote them in its another four years of being used as human shields for people who probably have a deep abiding hatred for us. This is not to our benefit. Not at all.
One other thing. People keep saying that Romney isn't really that much of a neocon after all because he's occasionally acknowledged that other points of view exist even though he swims in a sea of neocons. Well great. It was much the same with Bush II before his first term of office. He said something about a more humble foreign policy, probably in reference to the Serbian invasion, but never before in human history were such untrue words spoken.
>You remind me of the pussy-obsessed "game boys", except that you are neocon-obsessed. Whoever the neocons are for, you're against. That says a lot about you and nothing about Romney. Neocons supported Reagan, so obviously the correct course of action for right-thinking Americans in 1980 was to vote for Jimmy Carter!<
ReplyDeleteYou could stand to be a bit more dignified in defeat, my friend.