On Natural Born Citizenship:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

When this website was suspended, your host continued involvement on Facebook and from time to time wrote notes on various matters. Some of them have been published here after this website was reactivated and others have not but perhaps at some point will be. One of the subjects to which your host devoted a bunch of writing to was that of presidential eligibility back in 2012 when among the subjects treated were as follows:

On Natural Born Citizenship, Barack Obama, Marco Rubio, Etc. 

On Natural Born Citizenship, the Supreme Court, Common Law, the Founders, and Birther "Champion" George D. Collins 

On Birthers and Some Fundamental Problems With the Kenyan Birth Hypothesis 

On Barack Obama II and His Post-Birth Citizenship Status 

On the Issues of Eligibility, Birthers, Conspiracies, Various and Sundry "Posses", Methodologies of Interaction, Etc.

Dispatching With the Vattel Canard, Etc. 

Some Rational Answers To A Few Additional Questions About Barack Hussein Obama II

This material was also revisited in 2016 with a reworked version of the second note's material from above:

Revisiting the Subject of Natural Born Citizenship For 2016 and Beyond

What you are about to read is the material from the first note above originally published on April 24, 2012. As in that format, all words of my interlocuters were in bold font so I will leave that unchanged in this re-visitation. Without further ado...

My God, how dense can you people be? Read a little bit before spouting off stupidity!

Whenever I see someone respond like this, I immediately become a grammar and fact-checking fiend on whatever they write.

Read Marbury v. Happerset.

There is no Marbury vs. Happerset case. There was Marbury vs. Madison. There was Minor vs. Happersett  -the latter with two t's not one by the way. There is something rather amusing about those who cannot get their basic facts like this right when they are calling other folks stupid but I digress.

Read the Supreme Court's rulings on this.

I have. They do not say what you claim they do.

A Natural Born citizen is born in the United States of parents who are BOTH citizens.

This is not correct.

It is why Obama is not eligible and the same rule applies to Rubio. Being born here is not enough.

The Supreme Court does not agree with you on this.

You have to have BOTH parents as citizens too.

There is no law in this country that says that, the Founders did not understand the concept of natural born citizenship that way, and there is no Supreme Court case has ever made a ruling of that sort. Not even the oft-misunderstood Minor vs. Happersett  case which was a case involving voting rights of a specific individual. The Supreme Court made it very clear in that case that they were not making a ruling on the full franchise of what constituted a natural born citizen. Or to quote from the Court itself in Minor vs. Happersett  (all emphasis is mine):

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that

"No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,

and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Why was it not necessary to solve the points noted above in the case of question? The reason was because Virginia Minor was asserting that she had a constitutional right to vote. The Supreme Court therefore had to resolve two questions in this case and they were (i) was Virginia Minor a citizen of the United States and (ii) did the Constitution grant her if she was a citizen of the United States the right to vote. On the first point the Court pointed out that there were different classifications of citizens who were viewed as natural born. There was one such group of which there was no doubt and that was children born to two parents who were themselves citizens. The other group the Court noted{1} was one which included as natural born citizens children born within the jurisdiction of the United States without reference to parental citizenship.

The aforementioned category did not share the same absence of all possible doubt as the first one did; however, since Virginia Minor was a child born in the United States to two citizen parents, the Court recognized that she qualified as a natural born citizen under even the most narrow of definitions and therefore saw no reason to go any further on the matter. In fact, they explicitly said they were not going to do so in the case of Minor vs. Happersett.{2}

However, in 1898 the Supreme Court did have to decide on the matter of citizenship with someone whose situation was not the same as Virginia Minor. That person was Wong Kim Ark who was born around 1873 in the United States to Chinese parents. He had as a very young man made a couple of short visits to China and upon his return from the second trip was denied entry into the country under the claim that he was not a citizen of the United States. Wong Kim Ark sued on this matter and when it got to the Supreme Court, the Court was required to take up the issue of a child born in the United States whose parents though legally in the country were not themselves either born in the United States or naturalized citizens. The name of that case was United States vs. Wong Kim Ark  and the Court in its decision ruled in favour of Wong Kim Ark in 1898. Here is the essence of the decision:

A child born in the United States who has alien parents who are domiciled in the United States and not serving in a diplomatic or other official capacity acquires United States citizenship at birth by way of the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause.

Now I am aware of how birther sorts will try and raise the "natural born citizen" line but as usual, they do not know what they are talking about. To cover this matter briefly, there are only two ways you can become a citizen in this country. One is being natural born and the other is being naturalized. And there are two ways a child can meet the criteria of natural born citizen (i) at birth and (ii) by birth. To touch on each of them in bulletpoint form:

• To become a natural born citizen "at birth", the child needs to be born in the United States regardless of the citizenship status of their parents as long as said parents were not diplomats or in some other official capacity in service to a foreign country. This is what is called jus soli or "right of soil" insofar as the child is born on United States soil.

• To become a natural born citizen "by birth", it happens whereby the child is born overseas or in some jurisdiction of the United States but not on US soil but of whom at least one of their parents is a United States citizen who has also met the proper residency requirements. This is what is called jus sanguinis  or "right of blood."{3}

In either of the situations noted above, it involves the child being properly considered a natural born citizen according to the English legal tradition that the Founders themselves were educated in. And for those who are not familiar with it, here is how the concept was outlined by William Blackstone in his Commentaries  series on the Laws of England{4} of which the Founders themselves{5} were thoroughly familiar with:

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien. [Commentaries of the Laws of England (circa 1765)]

In other words, no matter where Barack Obama was born{6}, he still meets the criteria of being a natural born citizen of the United States and therefore is not ineligible to be President of the United States. As far as other persons mentioned in relation to the presidency or vice presidency, Senator Marco Rubio fits the jus soli  requirement of natural born citizenship insofar as his parents though non-citizens were domiciled in the United States when he was born. Another who meets the jus soli  criteria in the fashion of Sen. Rubio is Louisiana Governor Pyush (Bobby) Jindal who was born in Louisiana to non-citizen parents who were domiciled in the United States.

Incidentally, there was a controversy in 1968 when Willard Mitt Romney's father George Romney ran for president about his eligibility to be president because of his birth in Mexico City.{7} George Romney met the natural born citizen criteria courtesy of jus sanguinis  and his son Willard Mitt Romney meets the natural born citizen criteria to run in 2008 and also in 2012 courtesy of jus soli  with Detroit, Michigan being his birthplace.

There is in other words no credible foundation for the claim that any of these persons{8} was/is ineligible to run for or hold the office of President of the United States.

Why do you think Obama has fought this so hard? Don't just guess whether something is true or not. Read up on it and learn something before pissing your country away out of frikking ignorance.

Oh I have done more than my fair share of reading up on this stuff and it is quite obvious to me that you have not. In the words of the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, "you have the right to your opinion sir but not the right to your own facts." And the facts on these matters do not in any sense of the term support your interpretation of these things.

LEARN THE LAWS!

There is nothing more delicious than being berated as stupid by someone who has themselves manifested stupidity to a mind-numbing degree on the matter with which they would purport to lecture others but I digress.

Notes:

{1} This was not mentioned in Minor vs. Happersett  because it had no bearing on the standing of Virginia Minor who was jus soli  regardless of the other factors involved.

{2} Therefore, Minor vs. Happersett  cannot be used as evidence for what constitutes natural born citizens beyond the limited inquiry that it made into those who fit the parameters that Virginia Minor found herself in.

{3} This is incidentally how Senator John McCain met the "natural born citizen" criteria to run for president in 2000 and 2008.

{4} Certainly every barrister at the Constitutional Convention  knew Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England  well -by some counts as many as 16 of them knew the work by heart.

{5} Even many of the Founders who were not themselves barristers (such as James Madison) had done some rudimentary studies in law using Blackstone's Commentaries.

{6} I do not intend in this note to enter into the particulars of the Kenyan Birth Hypothesis.

{7} There was also a controversy in 1964 with Senator Barry M. Goldwater who was born in the territory of Arizona three years before it became a state.

{8} Whatever one thinks of any of them.

Points to Ponder:

"We cannot allow the emblem of irresponsibility to attach to the conservative banner." [Senator Barry Goldwater (circa 1962)]

Miscellaneous Musings on Divisions Political and Otherwise:

[Prefatory Note: This was originally put together and published in another medium on June 15, 2009. -ISM]

In recent months, my observations of many people who are opposed in various and sundry ways to the Democratic party found me reflecting on a quote that I want to share at this time. It pertains to the issue of religion in the public square and the approach taken by not a few people who though they mean well often do more harm than good. To wit:

"There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus, God, or Allah, or whatever one calls the supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A,B,C, and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism." [Senator Barry M. Goldwater: From the Congressional Record (circa September 16, 1981)]

I have found that this quote resonates with me a lot more now than it did when I was younger. It is not an issue of principles of course that I refer to of course but the manner in how they are gone about more than anything. Maybe part of it is the longer one is around, the more they realize that to a certain extent the more things change the more they stay the same. For one thing, no one ever claims that they are living in "particularly good times" -indeed most of those people who make statements about their times as being particularly dire do so without knowledge of history or how often this pattern repeats itself. The biblical phrase "nothing under the sun is new" is quite accurate indeed as this quote could have been written today as could this one which was directed by Senator Goldwater at Jerry Falwell circa 1982:

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

I am wondering if the opportunity of the next two election cycles to derail the Obama Express will not be squandered. For almost every issue you can find has a general consensus and also those whose approach to the matter is extremely narrow or otherwise extreme. And oftentimes you will find the latter people basically saying that only their interpretation of the issue is viable, correct, moral, etc. and this ushers in needless conflict which leads to divisions that results in political impotence.

We all have issues we are particularly passionate about but the differences of view on certain particulars of various issues are a reality and one that is not going to go away. If there is not a conscious recognition that politically one may not be able to get everything they want, then the Republicans will continue for sometime to get nowhere politically. I have noted before the irony of those who wave the banner of Reagan who really do not know what The Gipper stood for and did before and do not want to to into that again at the present time though those who buy into many of those myths would do well to consider what is written there because the underlying principle involved in that note remains; namely this:

Do we want to make effective and real progress politically or will continuing factionalism render us politically impotent???

Jesus once said that "a house divided against itself cannot stand" and Sun Tzu counseled his generals to divide enemy armies by sowing discord and creating various dissensions for a reason: it weakens the effectiveness of a cause. It matters not where or what the divisions are and the Democrats are seriously divided now. The haste with which they have sought to push issues that many of their voters do not want and the blatant hypocrisy and double standards they have manifested (not to mention being bitten by the "corruption bug") have got even many of their staunchest supporters confused or angry at them.

The political prospects for the next two election cycles are lining up to be favourable for an opposition movement but I will say right now it will fail as long as all of this factionalism garbage continues. The focus needs to be on broader issues where a consensus already exists and needs to be strengthened, not ancillary distraction issues which needlessly polarize and thus are fodder for political impotence.

Setting the Record Straight on the "Myth of Ronald Reagan" and More on the Problems of the GOP: 

(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum) 

[Prefatory Note: This was originally written and posted to another publishing medium on May 19, 2009 and slightly tweaked for use on this weblog at the present time. -ISM] 

The purpose of this posting is to build on one written earlier in the month and to deal to some extent with myths amongst many conservatives pertaining to the late great President Ronald Wilson Reagan. The note I want to build on in this posting is a shorter piece which can be read here: 

Briefly on the Real Problem With the GOP (circa June 2, 2009) 

Having clarified that, I want to start this thread by pointing out that I have posted bit and pieces at different times that involve the same basic theme: that of GOP party renewal. It may seem odd that a former Republican would concern themselves with what the GOP is doing right now but part of it perhaps is I see signs that the party is starting to get it again. I do not believe they have gotten it for twenty years -yes even in the era of the Republican controlled Congress in the pre-President Bush era they did not get it.{1} Or as I noted in a brief comment from May 4th of this year: 

[T]he GOP since Steele was elected RNC chairman looks like they finally are starting to get it for the first time in a long time...

Notice that I did not say they have gotten it but instead that they are starting to get it. And it seems to me that the last two election verdicts have stamped in the minds of many in the party that they need to do something different. For this reason, we may in the future view 2008 as 1964 redux but only if we do not allow ourselves to be deluded about the past. And because the possibility of the latter is more pervasive than many may realize; ergo the reason I have decided at this time to write on the "myth of Ronald Reagan." Now certainly one problem the GOP has had in the past twenty years is the attempt to placate moderate voters at the expense of principles. It is one thing to reach out to others -indeed this is always well and good. However, one can also take any good thing too far and the GOP was showing an unwillingness oftentimes to take stands on principle against the Democrats. There was also a perverse sense of entitlement to the GOP elections at the presidential level since 1988 and even before that time. Part of the problem with that kind of political entitlement mentality was that people presumed in 1988 that George H. W. Bush would be a worthy successor to Ronald Reagan rather than Jack Kemp and Bush won the nomination that year (followed by a healthy election landslide) by giving indications that he would continue to follow in Reagan's footsteps. He then betrayed this trust and that was what started the ball rolling in the direction we saw in the past twenty years. Another problem in that interim was the message that the GOP received in the 1994 midterms after Bill Clinton's election triumph over President Bush and Ross Perot two years earlier.

I have heard some try to posit the excuse that the GOP "did not know how to govern while in the majority" and while this may have been true in 1994{2}, it does not explain problems in subsequent years. It certainly does not explain what we saw when George H. W. Bush's son was elected and the GOP led congresses of the first six years of his presidency.{3} But there was also the sense of "entitlement" in the GOP where they viewed whoever came up short last time as "due" the next time. We saw this with Senator Bob Dole in 1996{4}, we also saw this in 2008 with Senator John McCain.{5} However, there is also a problem of nostalgia that while I have seen it addressed recently has been the source of criticism by some from the more conservative persuasion. 

If there is one thing that has become an annoyance as of late it is reading the words of those who present facile solutions to the GOP's problem. Yes there were problems with letting the so-called "RINOS" have too much control of the party apparatus. But there is also the problem of opposing extremes with extremes; namely, those who would respond to an overly wide tent mentality with one that is much too narrow. I had/have in mind with this criticism those whom I call the "true believers." That was the reason I posted this comment in another medium a while back:

[T]he squabbles between factions of the GOP [are] regrettable but at the same time [I remind] "true believer" and the "political pragmatist" alike that Reagan incorporated both sides into his vision. A common ground needs to be struck or we will have four more years of [President Barack Hussein Obama]. There is nothing gained by flying your political plane into a mountain for "moral victories" if politically you achieve nothing. [Written on May 4, 2009] 

I stand by every syllable of that statement much as I do this one: 

[I understand] based on years of experience why [new GOP converts] are agitated by the attitudes of many who consider themselves "more conservative than thou" towards those trying to retool the GOP who do not share the views of the "more conservative than thou" crowd to seemingly a 100% degree. It is part of the reason why though sympathies are much closer to the GOP [this writer] is an Independent voter himself. [Written on May 4, 2009] 

There are people who strangely enough think that politics is the art of the perfect or what they think things should be like without any deviation whatsoever. These are those who without rhyme or reason jump to any sliver group that they think represents the "pure and perfect" view of things -most prominent among the groups of irrelevancy is the Libertarians{6} but there are others also. 

And I am sure there are plenty who would view what I am saying here as some kind of advocacy towards rubber-stamping anyone with an R by their name. That is not what I am saying. Personally, I have not rubber stamped anyone with an R by their name ever since I renounced the Republican party back in 1996 and I did not even do that in the years before that time. I am not saying that the GOP is without need of reform of course (heck, that is darn evident to anyone with a normal intact functioning brain at this point) but I am saying that there are a lot of areas where people with conservative outlooks are not going to agree on the precise prescription involved for fixing things.

Insisting on ideological purity as the price of political involvement inexorably results in political impotence -it always has and always will. What is needed is a convergence of points on which everyone whose views are for the most part "conservative" can all focus on. For under the umbrella of conservatism, there are certain principles that need to be advocated even if the precise approach advocated is not the same. This is what a lot of people who call themselves "conservatives" do not understand.{7} 

There is also the question of success politically which ties into what I just said. And I could go over numerous times where certain conservatives of the "true believer" variety have committed a form of political hari kiri and made matters worse rather than better simply because they were not getting everything they wanted. Politics again is the art of the possible not of the perfect. And those who presume that the path to the future is to spend time nostalgically dwelling in the past need to realize that they consign themselves to political obsolescence when they do that. 

It is all fine and well to raise the banner of Reagan as many do but you have to know what Reagan really stood for and how he operated politically or else you will not learn from the past so that it informs your future: learning from the past being a hallmark of proper conservative philosophy.{8} With that in mind, we have to ask ourselves honestly this kind of question: 

How many conservatives have been president in the past seventy-five years???

There was only one that I can think of and he won to no small part because of shrewd coalition building and connecting with the people. When Reagan did not have that coalition built (read: 1976) he did not get the nomination. Even Mr. Conservative himself{9} did not back Reagan in 1976 over Ford and it was not because Ford was more conservative. It was because Reagan did not have much of a chance of winning in the general election at that time. Reagan spent 1976-1980 canvassing the country and connecting with the people as he had in his GE days. As his GE activities represent a part of his biography that is not as well known, I want to dwell on it for a moment by referencing one of the biographies on the man that I have read in years past before picking up with the chronology of Reagan's political approach: 

Reagan's political education begin in 1954 when he gratefully accepted an offer by the General Electric Company to host the show General Electric Theatre and travel around the country as a motivational speaker and corporate ambassador for the company...

Reagan worked for General Electric for eight years from 1954 to 1962 and through his extensive travels, former GE executive Edward Langley says, Reagan discovered "the native conservatism of working America." Month after month Reagan would address workers on the factory floor, or stop in the cafeteria to chat with secretaries, or be forklifted into the air to converse with welders. By his own account, he sometimes gave as many as fourteen talks a day, visiting every GE plant and meeting all the company's 250,000 workers. 

His original speech to them focused on the virtues of the free market system and the benefits of GE's products. He attempted to establish a connection with people by telling them Hollywood stories. He was particularly eager to defend Hollywood against the charges of making debauchery seem glamorous. But he soon discovered that he was not addressing people's real concerns. 

It was not what he said to them but what they said to him that was important. They were the kind of people he grew up with, and he saw them as hard-working, decent Americas for whom life had not been easy. He became a convert to their way of thinking and, in time, a champion for their interests. Indeed, what Reagan heard in the course of countless conversations formed the basis of a philosophy that was in touch with the sentiments of mainstream America --and utterly opposed to the conventional wisdom of the elites at the time. [Dinesh D'Sousa: From Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader page 52 (c. 1997)] 

It was not long after he concluded his time with GE that Reagan made the speech that cemented his viability politically: a speech he authored called A Time of Choosing which was a last ditch effort to support the candidacy of the conservative Senator Barry Goldwater for president in 1964. Two years later, he won the governorship of California and held that position for two terms. 

I outline these things because with each move politically Reagan was building coalitions{10} which helped him succeed at different political levels and not only among those who shared all of his views. Yet this very sort of coalition-building is in the current climate being frowned upon by so many who consider themselves Republicans today. And among the biggest critics are those who wave most proudly the banner of Reagan today who do not appear to realize that they are condemning the very approach that Reagan himself took!!! 

Yes, I hate to say it but many of the very same people who are being critical of the Republicans currently claiming that party renewal is not to be made via "nostalgia" -and who are raising the banner of Reagan- often do not know very much about Reagan the man or his political approach. Reagan was in his time opposed in varying degrees by a variety of people only one of whom were the various liberal groups that everyone is familiar with. He was also opposed by people in his own party and not only those the "true believers" of today presume opposed him. It is true that the less philosophical and more pragmatic sorts (the extremes of which we would call RINOS today) opposed Reagan but he was also opposed by those who considered themselves the "philosophically pure" or "true believers." In the case of both the more moderate or pragmatic Republicans they admired Reagan as a man, his rapport with the American people, and they wanted to persuade Reagan to moderate a bit more. They also did not trust the "true believers" and wanted Reagan to not give them positions of influence. 

But by contrast and not as well known is that there were "true believers" who shared much of Reagan's personal philosophy but they did not understand what Reagan knew about the importance of having political coalitions to actually get things done. These people who also had their positions of influence in Reagan's administration wanted Reagan to fire all the pragmatists to prevent his administration from being "less pure" as a result. They also fought him on his approach to the Soviet Union when Reagan modified it later in his term from what it was earlier on and in other areas as well. Yet Reagan did not listen to them and kept a mixture of people in his administration. This was done in no small part I am sure because Reagan knew that "true believers" more often than not fail to achieve things of note politically. The reason for this is because left to their own devices, they tend to let their ideology blind them to where they cannot see the political "land mines" in their path and avoid them.{11} This is what I meant when I said in one of the quoted bits above that "[t]here is nothing gained by flying your political plane into a mountain for 'moral victories' if politically you achieve nothing." And that is a principle that more and more people today seem to lose perspective on unfortunately. 

It is not often realized that there is a certain type of conservative today who while they most often call for another Reagan are of the mentality of some of the conservatives who opposed Reagan back in the day. One of the bones of contention among that group of Reagan's critics as I already noted was Reagan's refusal to cast out of his administration those the "true believers" did not believe were ideologically pure enough. I do not believe for a moment that these "true believers" of today would act differently today if they were back in Reagan's time and observed things as they happened rather than relying on their current nostalgia which omits to account for these things. 

To use a biblical analogy, they are like the Pharisees in Jesus' time who loved to build monuments to the prophets who lived in earlier times in the way they build monuments today to Reagan. Jesus noted that the Pharisees claimed that they would not have joined their ancestors and taken part in the stoning of the earlier prophets and bluntly stated that they would indeed have done so. In like manner, many of today's "true believers" who would build monuments to Reagan and who invoke his name would not have been his enthusiastic supporters but would have fought him the way those before them did. 

I have not a shred of doubt in my mind that today's "true believers" if left to their own devices and without some sort of check and balance would also oppose another Reagan if one were to appear on the political landscape. The reason is because ideological sorts have their benefits of course but they also have their liabilities -one of which is that they make far too many things a matter of unbending principle and will not support anything less than what they want. They look for the perfect in politics in other words not the possible. Ronald Wilson Reagan was not of that sort of temperament politically even if he shared many of the same philosophical positions of the "true believers." This is why he succeeded politically where so many conservatives before him (and since him) have failed. But having outlined Reagan's GE activities and the approaches he took to make himself politically aware and viable, we pick up the time line after his 1976 failure to get the Republican nomination for president. 

As I said, Reagan spent his time politically building coalitions at every step and when 1980 came around, he was finally ready to run. I should note that the coalitions that Reagan built were not just among people but also among ideas -to win elections you have to have broad support for certain ideas you choose to run on. By 1980, Reagan had built coalitions of people{12} and ideas that struck a chord with the public at large. And Reagan knew this because of his time traveling the country both in the late 1950's-early 1960's and also in the post-California governor years (1974-1980). If Reagan had taken the approach that many conservatives advocate now -namely kick out of his coalition those who did not agree with him on everything- he never would have won the governorship of California nor would he have won the presidency of the United States. 

I reprise what I asked earlier, namely: how many conservatives have been president in the past seventy-five years??? Other than Calvin Coolidge who became president when Harding died{12}, I ask you to name for me another conservative president of the twentieth century of the sort that some conservatives claim we "need to have to win" now. Hoover??? Nope, he was a major meddler in economic matters and made a recession worse. FDR??? Nope. Truman??? Compared to Democrats since 1972 he was quite conservative but he was no conservative. Eisenhower??? Goldwater called his administration a "dime store New Deal" and not without reason. Kennedy??? Nope.{14} Johnson??? Hell no!!! Nixon??? He implemented wage and price freezes and many other Great Society things. Ford??? He was perhaps more conservative than any president since Eisenhower in some respects but not in others. Bush Sr??? He ran as another Reagan but governed in another fashion altogether. Clinton??? Nope. Bush Jr??? Very little of what he implemented could be considered conservative by the general standards of conservative philosophy. 

So those who stake this claim, kindly tell me where it is proven that we either "need a conservative to win" or that an ideologically pure conservative without some kind of coalition support can win the general election. Goldwater failed in 1964 on the latter model and Reagan in 1976 could not get the nomination of the GOP with a similar approach. Only Reagan with a coalition of people -some of whom were not in agreement with one or more of his principled views- was able to do it. And for those who point to Reagan's landslide victories as "proof" of their assertions, Hoover won big in 1928, Eisenhower spanked Stevenson in 1952 and even worse in 1956, and Nixon after a healthy win in 1968 won by a landslide in 1972. Every one of these presidents had conservative support without which they would not have won either at all or in the fashion that they did. But conservatives trying to win without support from those who are not amongst those they would consider "ideologically pure"??? The last time that happened was 1964 and they won 52 electoral votes out of 538. 

I reiterate a third time: politics is the art of the possible not the art of the perfect. Furthermore, conservatism as a political philosophy admits of a variety of applications to political and social problems. Not all conservatives approach the Constitution the same way. Some follow the Jefferson theoretical approach{15} and say that unless it is explicitly outlined in the Constitution it is not permissible. Others follow the approach of the majority of the Founding Fathers who recognized that there had to logically be certain implied powers so that the Constitution could work as a governing document in reality and not just theory. I have gone over these divergent factors of Constitutional approach in a couple of other postings to this humble weblog before and do not want to do so at this time so I will note them in a footnote so I do not get offtrack in what I am writing now.{16} 

On matters where there is a divergence of opinions on how to apply conservative philosophy, there are some who view the idea of the federal government being limited in its power who are yet rather inconsistent in trying to force their religious beliefs onto others. There are conversely others who say the government has no business doing this. There are different approaches to trade{17}, different approaches to taxation and economic policy{18}, different approaches to national security and how that is best handled, etc. But I have found that most of whom I call "true believers" have no understanding or very little any of American and Constitutional history and the diversity of views under the conservative umbrella of philosophy. 

 To put it another way, conservatism is not merely what people like Rush Limbaugh say it is and while they are conservatives too and valuable allies, they do a disservice to conservatism when they try to present their views as the only ones permissible and sabotage politically anyone who does not agree with them in lockstep fashion. 

To conclude these musings I want to reference something I wrote in another publishing medium to someone on the occasion of the passing of Jack Kemp: 

[T]o listen to many conservatives going into town hall meetings and meeting people face to face is not the solution -just sitting there and taking a "if they want us they can find us" approach is. Jack Kemp spent time in the inner cities, he spoke with the people. Jack Kemp's model is the model of the future for the GOP and for those worried about "abandoning Reagan" Kemp showed how you could both keep the past from determining who you are and yet have it be a part of what you will become. Hopefully others who claim a loyalty to Reagan akin to what Kemp had will before the 2010 & 2012 elections also realize this. [Written on May 4, 2009] 

It is my genuine hope that the opportunity that the next few years will present itself with will not be wasted by those who either believe there is no principle that cannot be compromised (i.e. the RINOS) or by those who believe that there is only one way to do anything and who try to undermine those who do not think on matters exactly as they do (i.e. the "true believers" of whom I spoke of earlier). The path of the future is indeed to learn from and implement the wisdom of the past but it must be a past rightly understood and not based only on myths. And for those Republicans who look to use the name of Reagan to rip down those who do not agree with them on everything, I will finish this note by reminding you of more things about Reagan that you obviously do not understand: 

"Anyone who agrees with me 80% of the time is my friend and not my enemy." 

This statement was enunciated by Ronald Reagan and encapsulated his political philosophy when it comes to coalition-building yet to listen to many of the conservatives on talk radio and in other places today, that approach is considered selling out. You read that right: by their own stated standards the same Ronald Reagan they claim to revere was a RINO!!! This is why I said earlier that the "true believers" despite building monuments to Reagan today nonetheless by their actions and statements condemn his view ala what the Pharisees did in Jesus' time with the prophets they claimed to revere. 

"Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." 

I have not been a Republican for over twelve years but even I am more faithful to the second statement (aka "Reagan's Eleventh Commandment") than many who brandish the GOP label today. 

It would behoove those who take the approach of the media self-proclaimed "Reagan conservatives" towards the Republican party today -the party that after two consecutive election losses is giving every appearance of finally starting to get it and is returning to the basics including listening to the people- to learn a bit more about the man they claim to want to honour and whose electoral landslides they want to duplicate. Because there are a lot of details they are not familiar with obviously and the old proverb "God is in the details" applies here as much as it does anywhere else.

[Dedicated to the memories of Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp] 

Notes: 

{1} That is not to say they were all bad of course -heck they were the best congresses we have had in a long time. 

{2} I remember back in 1994-1996 being persuaded by this argument admittedly. 

{3} I blame the president more for this than the congresses because President George W. Bush was on almost all issues not a strong leader and as Alexander Hamilton noted back in the late eighteenth century, lack of strength in an executive does not make for good government. 

{4} Dole ran for unsuccessfully for the GOP nomination for president in 1980 and 1988.

{5} Who was the runner up in 2000 for the GOP party nomination. 

{6} And yes, any political group that in thirty-five years of existence has (i) never gotten more than 2% of the vote and (ii) has not come close to 2% in twenty-eight years is irrelevant. 

{7} I refer to the idea that there can be an agreement amongst people on conservative philosophical principles but less agreement perhaps on how those principles are best applied to society. 

{8} "Surely the first obligation of a political thinker is to understand the nature of man. The Conservative does not claim special powers of perception on this point, but he does claim a familiarity with the accumulated wisdom and experience of history, and he is not too proud to learn from the great minds of the past." [Senator Barry Goldwater: Excerpt from The Conscience of a Conservative as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa August 2, 2008)] 

{9} I refer here to Senator Barry Goldwater. 

{10} Among these was a group of self-made businessmen who after they watched Reagan's speech realized he would make a good political prospect for having a stance of non-compromise on the matters of freedom at home and abroad. They were the ones who offered to support a candidacy for governor of California if he promised to implement the principles of his speech while governor. (Reagan himself had not thought of running for political office but eventually he took them up on their offer.) 

{11} This kind of shortsightedness on their part is why Reagan did not have an administration of only "true believers" and furthermore why he did not listen to them and fire those in his administration who were of a more moderate outlook. 

{12} These consisted of conservatives and also some of who voted for him despite some misgivings or disagreements because of the alternative. 

{13} Coolidge later won in his own right in 1924. 

{14} Even those who would point to Kennedy's approach to taxes as being the same as Reagan's do not realize that conservatives of Kennedy's day did not support such approaches. 

{15} I say "theoretical approach" because for all of their talk about literal approaches, Jefferson and Madison acted this way when it was in their best interests to and opposed it when it was not. See the material in the next footnote (particularly the one from February 6th) for details on this. 

{16} Between Unconstitutionality and Unworkability (circa February 6, 2009) 

On the Constitutional Standing of Wars Fought Without a Formal Declaration (circa December 26, 2007) 

{17} Some support free trade either in theory or in practice while others support more protectionist approaches. {18} You would not know it by listening to many conservative pundits but "supply side economics" is not the only acceptable economic policy for conservatives to advocate.

Wanted: A Fighting Party

Pat Buchanan as I have often said is a streaky shooter -when he is off he misses by a lot but when he is on, it is usually from downtown and nothing but net. This article belongs to the latter classification.

Michael Steele Gives His First Interview as RNC Chairman

My comments made offhand in various forums on this matter will clarify my own view on this event so I post them here for your consideration from an interactive chat thread with various friends:

[I]n light of the election of Steele to RNC chair [I am] going to strongly consider reaffiliating with the Republicans after years in political exile...[circa January 30, 2009 @ 3:30pm]

I said consider it JJJ...after twelve years of exile I am finally optimistic that things are as they were after Goldwater's defeat where the base is rising again. (We have not had that for over twenty years.) [circa January 30, 2009 @ 3:37pm]

I hope so CCCCC...I saw the mess that the GOP is in now coming over a decade ago and wanted nothing to do with it. I felt about the Republicans like Reagan did the Democrats: he did not leave them they left him. At least he had a party to move to and I did not so it is what it is now and not in the same sense of "is" President Clinton used ;-) It is at least on the table now and has not been for ages. As far as gun toting goes, as long as we do not go hunting with Cheney consider that a rain check if I am out in that area... [circa January 30, 2009 @ 3:46pm]

There are sadly those who think that anyone who does not agree with them either 100% or at least 100% on their pet issues is somehow not a "real conservative." Those people despite having good intentions nonetheless end up doing nearly as much damage as the RINOS do. [circa January 31, 2009 @ 10:32am]

Without the election of a conservative to party chair, I would not be feeling this optimistic Aaaaaa. But I am now sensing that 2008 could be 1964 all over again except the sacrificial lamb for the cause was not Goldwater but Palin. (Johnny Mac went down too but he was not the one who in a classic Goldwater-like way fired up the base.) [circa January 31, 2009 @ 10:36am]

I have been tired of the old boys for nearly twenty years Ccccc so believe me, I know. But Steele has me seriously thinking about re-upping again...if they are actually gonna fight for a change I would be glad to help them. But I will not carry water for RINOS -my view is the same as Reagan's in that if there is 80% agreement then join common cause. The remaining differences can always be hashed out later on but this "political perfection" crap that so many idealists seek never translates into victory in the political arena. [circa January 31, 2009 @ 10:42am]

I agree Ttttt but for the first time in eons I am actually optimistic that the GOP may be starting to get it again. [circa January 31, 2009 @ 6:56am]

With that in mind, I have decided that the often-mentioned and long-completed thread on the necessary third way in politics{1} will be posted on February 6, 2009.

So that is where I am at now folks, strongly considering something I have not given even a second's thought to for over twelve years after the results of a few days ago.

Note:

{1} To my knowledge (and I may be mistaken), this was the last time I mentioned the piece on this humble weblog:

But that point aside, the originally planned posting will be done soon -though I may lead off tomorrow's new blogging cycle with the oft-mentioned posting on the needed third way in politics.

I am not sure right now how I plan to do that and will basically decide on a whim tomorrow depending on if I am motivated to finish the aforementioned material into a bloggable piece or not at that time or thereabouts. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 21, 2008)]

On How To Approach the Presidential Election Results of 2008 and Analyzing the Political Trends for 2008 and Beyond:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

We announced in a previous posting, certain exceptions notwithstanding and at our discretion{1}, that this was the only posting we intend to make on election related issues prior to inauguration day. And while we were planning on a shorter yet comprehensive coverage of this subject in the following posting, frankly we are simply not in the mood to do it. So we have decided to touch briefly on a variety of points which we believe point towards general trends of the electorate. From there we will restate in a very brief fashion{2} our own philosophy on these matters, and also point out some steps we believe need to be undertaken if genuine progress is to be made without the sacrificing of core principles as we move into the next administration of government this coming January 20th. It seems appropriate to touch on these in the order listed so without further ado, let us get to it.

To start with the same sex pseudo "marriage"{3} initiatives failed in every state that ran them including those states which went heavily for the soon-to-be President Barack H. Obama. Similarly in states where affirmative action was on the ballot it was voted down. The Republicans despite this being the worst election season to be a Republican since the 1974 midterm election{4} held down some pretty important seats which many of the talking punditry were proclaiming would be likely lost causes. This factor points towards not some sort of "mandate" for the incoming president{5} and congress but more of a referendum on the present administration.

As far as a supposed "landslide" goes, this was no landslide by objective criteria folks. A "landslide" requires a much larger electoral vote margin than the one that Senator Obama got.{6} And those who denied presidential mandates were in order for Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr. (whose electoral college majorities were much larger than that of the soon-to-be-President Obama) cannot be allowed to engage in double standards on this matter. No, they must be held to ethical consistency even if it means dragging them there kicking and screaming in the process. Having noted those matters at the outset, how should conservatives handle this upcoming paradigm shift of sorts??? In our mind there are a variety of ways that this needs to be approached and we will go over the more pertinent ones right now underlining them for easier text differentiation.

Any attempts to pretend that President Brack H. Obama is not "our president" need to be avoided.

It was both stupid as well as embarrassing to see the deranged antics of the moonbat fringe who played this game with President George W. Bush because they did not like how the election of 2000 turned out. Many of these same sorts will make "holy pilgrimages" to pray at Mecca worship at the next inaugural. Meanwhile, conservatives who are bitter over how the msm handled the election coverage{7} or how badly in spots Senator John McCain ran his campaign or other factors{8} need to set all that aside now. More on this in a moment.

Opposition if it is made at all must be differentiated between that of the president and the country

Far too often we witnessed since 2000 a tactic taken by those who were opposed to the president that resulted in a blurring of distinctions. Meaning, they took opposition to the president so far and to such an extreme that it inexorably became opposition to the country. This is something conservatives need to avoid at all costs. They must oppose President Obama personally where warranted, support him where warranted, and never in any fashion come across as opposing their country in the process.

Avoid taking a "chickenhawk" approach

One thing that really bothered us was the attitudes of those who despised our last two presidents whereby they took issue with the principle of their utilizing the military as opposed to having issues with the use of the military in a particular situation based on how the presidents themselves never served in the military. Conservatives criticized this with President Clinton before he was elected which was of course just fine much as they raised the superior military credentials of President Bush Sr. in 1992 they did the same with Senator Dole in 1996. In an election season this is one thing but arguing this way on the basis of any president using the military is out of line. Your host never took the latter approach when Clinton was president then{9} and he will not with Obama as president now.

Questioning the verdict of the election

There is voter fraud in all elections including both this last one and the one preceding it -though you would not know that to hear the silence from the msm on the last two elections because they got "their guys" in as opposed to the three elections previous to 2006.

Chronicling specific examples of voter fraud is fine, outlining various connections of unsavoury persons and circumstances with the Obama campaign is also fine. Going over how absolutely disgracefully the msm conducted themselves is also fine as well as problems with fundraising that the Obama campaign had with various donations of a controversial nature. But using any of this as a pre-text for rejecting the verdict of the voters is unacceptable.

Part of being not only a good soldier but also a mature human being is knowing not only which battles have been lost but also which battles are worth fighting. I will not go into the physiological realities behind the inverse natures of intensity and duration at this time but battles will need to be fought with the coming administration but ones based on principles. And acting like the spoiled child who throws a temper tantrum after losing a game -as many of the most rabid supporters of the incoming president did for the past eight years- will not help in any fashion.{10}

Blaming the voters

Your host has at times voiced an opinion of the electorate prior to an election that was by no means flattering. But he has never in recent memory{11} blamed the voters afterward. It serves no constructive purpose as what is done is done. There are reasons for this and the GOP needs to do some serious soul searching first and foremost because they gave the public reasons for doing what they did. That is where they can focus and should they do that, they can expect support from independent voters such as your host. If not...well...lets move onto the next subject.

Refocus for the next election

Building on what was just covered, the focus needs to be the next election and we are not talking about 2012 here. No, we are talking about the 2010 midterms which are less than two years away now. We at Rerum Novarum certainly are going to do our part to assist on these matters at various levels of government as we noted recently in our ultra-brief post election comments.{12} We advise all who are not pleased with how this election went to do likewise.

Strategery, Strategery, Strategery

With an incoming Democratic president and a Democratic majority in both houses of the Congress, a lot of issues are going to be pushed -many of them ones that we who did not vote for President Obama and the Democrats do not agree with. The problem is, if we run all over the map and oppose simply to be opposing, that will achieve nothing constructive. And furthermore, it is naive to think that everything they attempt to do we will be able to stop so that also needs to be taken into account.

Basically, we need to decide in how we go about this first of all, what we will fight tooth and nail for: what are the issues which we absolutely must stand up and hold the line on without an iota of compromise. From there, the rest can be categorized into basically (i) things we want to try and force the Democrats on record supporting so we can make election issues on them in 2010, (ii) things of a less significant nature we actually think can be accomplished despite the Democrats having control of the government, (iii) things we need to put out there for the future which we know will not succeed in the soon-to-be present but nonetheless are points of reference for the future of a positive nature.

In other words, we need to strategerize here and not play the same bullshit of those who opposed the outgoing Bush administration on everything and anything simply because they hated President Bush, thought he was Hitler, or whatever.

It is a tall order and those who are presuming that the incoming president is some kind of messianic figure are going to be profoundly disappointed before long. Keep that in mind and do not let their smugness get to you. And remember, politics is the art of the possible not of the perfect. As far as that goes, it is just about time for a final grade on the Bush presidency and as we do with every administration, President Barack Obama will start off with an A grade by us on the day of his inauguration. What he does after that is up to him.

Notes:

{1} I do not intend prior to the publishing of that commentary to say anything about the election unless it is a response to reader email.[...] Furthermore, even after that commentary is published through at least the final months of President Bush's term that is how I intend to approach this matter. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 5, 2008)]

{2} It is probably a certainty that our view as touched on in this posting will be misunderstood with the brevity to be undertaken -and we would gladly after the inauguration clarify the position as the need is perceived to do so of course. But our intention here is to give a general overview for the reader so they have some points of reference in navigating this and other statements we have made over the years on these matters.

{3} We say "pseudo 'marriage'" because your host refuses to concede to the proponents of such absurdity any pretext of legitimacy for their position. We have explained the extremely important principle being used here in years gone by and felt prior to the posting of this commentary that the subject needed to be revisited in a more complete fashion than could be done in this posting; ergo it was pre-emptively done with the results viewable here:

Revisiting the Subject of the Underlying Weltanschauung of "Language Control" (circa November 25, 2008)

{4} The elections held in the immediate aftermath of the resignation in disgrace of President Richard M. Nxon.

{5} Setting aside the issue of 2000 for a moment here, if there was no "mandate" for President George W. Bush with his 52% popular vote gain in 2004 than there is no "mandate" for President Barack H. Obama who only got 53% of the vote in this election. Those who affirmed the former must out of consistency affirm the latter if they want anyone with a normal intact functioning brain to take them seriously.

{6} We define a "landslide" as far more than a major majority vote but instead an election where the winner received 70% or more of the electoral vote. Here are some examples of presidential electoral landslides to illustrate our point -more than one set of numbers indicates an election with three or more candidates getting electoral votes:

1789: Washington won 69-0 - 1792: Washington won 132-0 - 1804; Jefferson won 163-14 - 1816: Monroe won 116-34 - 1820: Monroe won 231-1 - 1832: Jackson won 219-49 - 1840: Harrison won 234-60 - 1852: Pierce won 254-42 - 1864: Lincoln won 212-21 - 1868: Grant won 214-80 - 1872: Grant won 286-42-18-3-2 - 1904: T. Roosevelt won 336-140 - 1920: Harding won 404-120 - 1924: Coolidge won 382-136-13 - 1928: Hoover won 444-87 - 1932: F. Roosevelt won 472-59 - 1936: FDR won 523-8 - 1940: FDR won 449-82 - 1944: FDR won 432-99 - 1952: Eisenhower won 442-89 - 1956: Eisenhower won 457-83 - 1964: Johnson won 486-52 - 1972: Nixon won 520-17 - 1980: Reagan won 489-49 - 1984: Reagan won 525-13 - 1988: Bush Sr. won 426-111

There has not been a "landslide" since 1988 going by the manner in which we have defined the term and the last time a Democrat won by a landside was LBJ over Senator Goldwater in 1964.

{7} And yes, it was so biased to be ridiculous and has perhaps destroyed if not forever than at least for a long time any remaining credibility the msm had left after the past six years of ever-increasing journalistic ethical malpractice. This was touched on a bit in a dialogue with freelance writer Joseph D'Hippolito which can be read here for those who are interested in the context of a dialogue on the state of journalism in general. (Mr. D'Hippolito was responding to a commentary your host did on journalism back in June of 2005 and while it had been in the can for a while, the increasing irresponsibility of the msm in covering this election is what prompted its posting in the final weeks before the election.)

{8} Including the whole question of who the best Republican candidate would have been, whether Bush was better than McCain would have been as president, and all the other kinds of questions that were thrashed about before the election was concluded.

{9} We opposed President Clinton on many things but never on either the manner in which he was elected or the principle that he as commander in chief of the armed forces was not eligible to utilize them on the basis of who he was personally.

{10} Your host is aware of the court challenges to the legitimacy of President Obama to even run constitutionally due to questions of the circumstances and place of birth, etc. But even if such challenges are in various courts at the present time, prior to any ruling on these matters, the reality of Obama as president needs to be recognized even by those who are filing such cases. We cannot say we have put much thought into this particular approach though we will say this: if those filing the lawsuits do not win, they should show themselves to be of a higher species of humanity than those who spent eight years inaccurately regurgitating what happened in 2000 as their excuse to act like spoiled children who refused to grow up.

{11} Well, not since 1992 anyway: a year we voted for H. Ross Perot incidentally enough.

{12} I may however in that interim [prior to the inauguration] and as time allows for it sketch out a rough draft of the second of two initiative ideas I want to get on the ballot for Washington State in the 2010 election. (The first idea of which was sketched out nearly five years ago on this humble weblog and may be revisited again in the interim prior to the election as well.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 5, 2008)]

Revisiting the Subject of the Underlying Weltanschauung of "Language Control":
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Prefatory Note: I decided to handle this matter in its own posting so it does not make my planned election commentary any longer than necessary.]

I have discussed this subject at sundry times and in divers manners in years gone by{1} and have decided the time has come to touch on the matter again. The circumstances are not exactly the same as some of the times I have explicitly{2} gone over this before but the value of timeless principles is that they are admitting of a variety of applications depending on changed circumstances.{3} For that reason, I want to precede the election commentary I am working on with a revisiting of the subject of language control to avoid having to quote large chunks of other postings in that commentary in the form of footnotes.{4}

To start with, I have as long as I can remember resisted being typecast by the many who have tried in one form or another. One reason for this is my views are not easy to categorize into any one "school of thought" in part because while there are degrees of systematization to how I view various issues; there is also a good degree of what could be called "cross-pollination" as a result of the amount of study I have done in my life on a panoply of subjects. But to it seems not a few people, something I have written or a view I would appear to concur with even if only in part is presumed to be my view. This kind of approach is more than a bit deceptive and persons who make such presumptions are thus inexorably wrong and often stunningly so. Or as I have said in a multiplicity of ways over the years including quite recently{5}: similarity is not the same as identity.

What does all of this have to do with "language control" is something probably crossing the minds of many who read these words. Well, for one thing, when you have the combination of seriously misunderstanding someones view coupled with the tendency most people have towards trying to find easy ways to categorize things, it can involve no small degree of miscategorization. And while this would not per se be a problem in and of itself, it can very well be if you also have in the mix those who try to define the terms of categorization in a way to give the impression that those so categorized should have their views{6} dismissed without fair consideration. This is the methodology of the propagandist after all. Any cursory reading of history should open one's eyes to the various ways people can have their humanity reduced in the eyes of others by means of varied forms of propaganda and this does not only apply to totalitarianist viewpoints of the most explicit and horrifying kind. It also applies to those who in a variety of ways fit the bill for what the late Senator Barry M. Goldwater called "those gentler collectivists who ask our permission to play God with the human race" though they do not often merely ask for such permissions anymore.{7}

Such persons will always find a foe in those such as your humble blog host who take seriously not only the concept of ideas but actual ideas themselves and recognize their power both in potentiality as well as actuality{8}, the importance of controlling the terms of identification if you will becomes in my mind pretty self-evident for those who ponder this matter syllogistically.

Or as has been noted on this weblog in years past in various ways{9} engineering of a social nature in whatever area one seeks to do it is always preceded by an engineering of a verbal nature. The reason for this is because in order to engineer things in actuality you first have to engineer them abstractly or in the realm of ideas for everything that is or ever will be starts with an idea. So if engineering requires precedence in the area of verbality before being manifested in actuality, then to fight the former with the greatest likelihood of success you must take a stand on the latter.

Because the moment we allow those who would seek to enslave us to coin their own terminology in reasonable sounding prose is the moment we give them the pretense of nobility for whatever nefarious scheme they are seeking to push onto us. Thus we get euthanasia promoted under terms such as "death with dignity", homosexual liaisons promoted by an attempted hijacking and redefinition of the term "marriage",{10} etc. -all of which provides the cultural wolves the cover of sheep's fleece to cloak themselves in to more easily hoodwink the unsuspecting masses. They want to control the terms of the battle because they can thereby put their opposition at a significant disadvantage positionally. And that is the first step towards putting their God-given rights at risk in reality; ergo they need to be fought positionally and on principles and not be allowed to set the terms for any debate.

This is why I have long said that I will not allow others to control the terms of any subject matter I am involved in{11} and my opposition at times can be pretty strident on this. Even if the subject involved may appear trivial to the casual observer, the underlying issue is where the matter of principle is with me my friends. Hence though the circumstances can differ, the principles behind my actions in a panoply of situations remain unchanged.

To give two examples of seemingly inconsequential subject matters, I was at one point quite strident in battling the attempt to typecast me as a writer of certain theological views characterized as "traditionalist" in nature. I have also steadfastly refused to allow people to caricature me as a Republican or in any way as a spokesman for the outgoing administration of whom I have had nearly as much disagreement with as agreement{12} over the years. Both of these do not seem significant but part of the reason was my concern to try and head off these matters in their most embryonic of stages before things developed further. And while on the former I have been quite successful, the latter has taken a bit more work and I am not so sure "victory" has been achieved there yet though the overall signs have been generally quite positive as I see them. But that is neither here nor there.

The principle I refer to in the above examples also extends to my reasons for demanding at times that users of certain buzzwords define said terms or cease using them altogether as "definitions are the tools of thought" (cf. M. Mentzer); ergo thought cannot be well cultivated in an environment where the words used are not given workable meanings. The failure to do this philosophically leads to what I call rational nominalism{13} which is a form of the epistemological fallacy of solipsism.{14} Theologically this principle manifests itself in what was once misappropriately called modernism.{15}

It also bears noting that often those opposed to a particular view will caricature it in a gross manner and those sympathetic often react to this by seeming to embrace and magnify the caricatured elements both of their own side as well as the other side. I do not and never have liked this kind of polemics{16} because it does not serve the cause of truth well however the latter is perceived by the parties in question.{17} And it does advertise well the lesser angels of our natures when those are the kinds of writings which get the most attention oftentimes to the detriment of ones where serious points of reference are put forward for potentially productive dialogue.

Yes in one sense it is a war of words but as I firmly believe that everything including our very existence as persons started with an idea{18}; ergo principles and ideas are of the utmost importance to me. People have fought for ideas and even died for them since the dawn of time. I do not feel therefore that ideas deserve to be treated as anything less than what they are which is merely the first points of contact with something that is of tremendous power potentially before it can be effectively realized in reality. That makes ideas quite powerful and therefore deserving of our respect in how they are interacted with -certainly a hell of a lot more respect than most people care to accord them in this day and age of increasing barbarity but I digress.

Notes:

{1} To note some stuff from the archives in past years in order from oldest to most recent pertaining to this subject:

On the Underlying Weltanschauung of Language Control (circa August 30, 2003)

On the Use of Labels -A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG Posting (circa August 30, 2003)

On Workable Remedies for Society's Problems -Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa March 31, 2004)

[That] I recognize (for tactical or other reasons) certain exceptions is an indicator that there is no such thing as an immutable rule on these matters. There are however principles that construct my rule of discourse if you will and one of them is not ceding to opposing viewpoints the right to define the terms of dialogue. It might sound arrogant but I insist on defining those terms myself or (at the very least) relegating that to a stalemate in finding terms that each party can concur with. It sounds petty but propaganda is a matter of language and perceptions which are generated by images or concepts play a strong role in the matter. I am not saying that I am a propagandist of course[...]; however, as one who knows how propaganda works, I do what I can to not allow myself to be so caricatured by those who disagree with me. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 2, 2004)]

Since at least the point in 2004 where the above example was blogged up to the current posting, to my knowledge, all of the examples of my noting this principle in various subjects and circumstances on this weblog have come more from actual implementation of it rather than calling attention to it explicitly as was the case in the other links noted above.

{2} Rarely has it been discussed directly at this humble weblog but often it has been addressed in implicit or less recognizable ways.

{3} [A] subject as a rule needs to be of contemporary significance to be of interest to me in its discussing. This can take many forms including but not limited to (i) something that interests me that I have a reasonable degree of knowledge about which I may not have discussed before and want to discuss for some reason, (ii) that someone emails me on a subject previously discussed and I am predisposed for some reason to discuss it again at or approximate to that time, (iii) contemporary events which provide for the opportunity to in some fashion expound on timeless principles pertaining in some fashion or another to the subject so discussed, (iv) something I recall from reading which is of interest to me at a given moment in time, or (v) a situation whereby some additional threads can be added to the mosaic of subjects which have been of interest to me at various times as a way of further refining through development my views on a given subject matter. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 27, 2006)]

{4} I did promise brevity to the extent that would be possible of course which is part of what makes a posting like this an opportune one at the present time.

{5} On "Consequentialism", "Proportionalism", and a Lesson in General Norms of Interpretation, Theological or Otherwise (circa October 6, 2008)

{6} Or should I say, their views in the manner in which they have been often misrepresented by the one doing the categorizing thereof.

{7} No, they have gone from merely asking to do these things to trying through a variety of perversions of law and government to impose themselves onto others to deprive people of their fundamental God-given rights in the name of what they call "progress." As a fundamentally conservative person (but not a fundamentalist: again similarity is not the same as identity), I find this to be appalling but history proves the corruption that power oftentimes has in proportion to the amount it is possessed.

{8} [A]s far as I am concerned, arguing for a position on its intrinsic merits or lack thereof utilizing the tools of reason and logic is a serious business and far too many of a sophistic bent either do not realize this or they fail to take seriously the principle that ideas are serious things.

People have fought for ideas, they have died for ideas, and this has not only not changed in the present but these things still occur. Therefore, what someone is willing to involve themselves in (should they set foot into the arena of ideas) should be focused on primary or serious matters and not secondary or ancillary griping. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 28, 2006)]

{9} I for my part want nothing to do with this scuffling nor will I allow others to label me - even if they attempt to do so as a kind of "reference point" in a discussion.[...] Again, I either control the vernacular or we relegate it to a stalemate. The moment I as a rule allow others to do so[...] is the moment that I begin to give control of the arena to someone else. And that my friends is (i) not something I have ever done and (ii) it simply is not going to happen at any time in the future. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 30, 2003)]

{10} However, wherever, and whatever pretext one might use in defining this term, the variety of forms marriage has taken since the dawn of time have one constituent element to them that is the same: that marriage is between human beings of the opposite sex. To propose an application to this term of an arrangement that does not involve this constituent element is to do violence to the principle of words meaning things and with a concept that is the root and matrix of civilization itself.

{11} I have always recognized that at times concessions are required in this area, the underlying principle is to control the terms used in the arena of ideas as much as it is possible to do. Or as I noted to Charles de Nunzio when discussing this in the context of so-called homosexual "marriage" back in mid 2004:

[That] I recognize (for tactical or other reasons) certain exceptions is an indicator that there is no such thing as an immutable rule on these matters. There are however principles that construct my rule of discourse if you will and one of them is not ceding to opposing viewpoints the right to define the terms of dialogue. It might sound arrogant but I insist on defining those terms myself or (at the very least) relegating that to a stalemate in finding terms that each party can concur with. It sounds petty but propaganda is a matter of language and perceptions which are generated by images or concepts play a strong role in the matter. I am not saying that I am a propagandist of course[...]; however, as one who knows how propaganda works, I do what I can to not allow myself to be so caricatured by those who disagree with me. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 2, 2004)]

{12} Plus that I have not been affiliated with any political party for over a decade now explains my motivations in part with matters of a political nature.

{13} Proposing for Use and Future Definition the Terms "Rational Nominalism" and "Selective Rational Nominalism" (circa October 21, 2007)

{14} Defining the Term "Solipsism" -A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG Post (circa February 7, 2004)

{15} I say "misappropriately called" because the term itself has a deeper concept that the presumption of applying it only to the modern age misses the forest for the trees on. (I may go over this another time if asked about it and if I am inclined to want to discuss it at the time but it is one of those factors under the surface which is of no small significance and yet rarely recognized as such -at least explicitly.)

{16} I will not claim to be without fault in this area myself at times in the past of course.

{17} As no one's philosophical. sociological, theological, political, or any other views exist in a vacuum, the foundational presuppositions that people operate from in seeking to perceive what is true can vary and sometimes quite dramatically.

{18} To really take it all down to brass tacks.

Excerpts from Classic Writings:

Today's sampling is from one of the earliest writings that influenced my overall outlook on politics and geopolitical issues in general.

I have been much concerned that so many people today with Conservative instincts feel compelled to apologize for them. Or if not to apologize directly, to qualify their commitment in a way that amounts to breast-beating. "Republican candidates," Vice President Nixon has said, "should be economic conservatives, but conservatives with a heart." President Eisenhower announced during his first term, "I am conservative when it comes to economic problems but liberal when it comes to human problems." Still other Republican leaders have insisted on calling themselves "progressive" Conservatives. These formulations are tantamount to an admission that Conservatism is a narrow, mechanistic economic theory that may work very well as a bookkeeper's guide, but cannot be relied upon as a comprehensive political philosophy.

The same judgment, though in the form of an attack rather than an admission, is advanced by the radical camp. "We liberals," they say, "are interested in people. Our concern is with human beings, while you Conservatives are preoccupied with the preservation of economic privilege and status." Take them a step further, and the Liberals will turn the accusations into a class argument: it is the little people that concern us, not the "malefactors of great wealth."

Such statements, from friend and foe alike, do great injustice to the Conservative point of view. Conservatism is not an economic theory, though it has economic implications. The shoe is precisely on the other foot: it is Socialism that subordinates all other considerations to man's material well-being. It is Conservatism that puts material things in their proper place-that has a structured view of the human being and of human society, in which economics plays only a subsidiary role.

The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man's nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual [p.5] desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man's nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man's spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy. Liberals, on the other hand,-in the name of a concern for "human beings"-regard the satisfaction of economic wants as the dominant mission of society. They are, moreover, in a hurry. So that their characteristic approach is to harness the society's political and economic forces into a collective effort to compel "progress." In this approach, I believe they fight against Nature.

Surely the first obligation of a political thinker is to understand the nature of man. The Conservative does not claim special powers of perception on this point, but he does claim a familiarity with the accumulated wisdom and experience of history, and he is not too proud to learn from the great minds of the past.

The first thing he has learned about man is that each member of the species is a unique creature. Man's most sacred possession is his individual soul-which has an immortal side, but also a mortal one. The mortal side establishes his absolute differentness from every other human being. Only a philosophy that takes into account the essential differences between men, and, accordingly, makes provision for developing the different potentialities of each man can claim to be in accord with Nature. We have heard much in our time about "the common man." It is a concept that pays little attention to the history of a nation that grew great through the initiative and ambition of uncommon men. The Conservative knows that to regard man as part of an undifferentiated mass is to consign him to ultimate slavery.

Secondly, the Conservative has learned that the economic and spiritual aspects of man's nature are inextricably intertwined. He cannot be economically free, or even economically efficient, if he is enslaved politically; conversely, man's political freedom is illusory if he is dependent for his economic needs on the State.

The Conservative realizes, thirdly, that man's development, in both its spiritual and material aspects, is not something that can be directed by outside forces. Every man, for his individual good and for the good of his society, is responsible for his own development. The choices that govern his life are choices that he must make: they cannot be made by any other human being, or by a collectivity of human beings. If the Conservative is less anxious than his Liberal brethren to increase Social Security "benefits," it is because he is more anxious than his Liberal brethren that people be free throughout their lives to spend their earnings when and as they see fit.

So it is that Conservatism, throughout history, has regarded man neither as a potential pawn of other men, nor as a part of a general collectivity in which the sacredness and the separate identity of individual human beings are ignored. Throughout history, true Conservatism has been at war equally with autocrats and with "democratic" Jacobins. The true Conservative was sympathetic with the plight of the hapless peasant under the tyranny of the French monarchy. And he was equally revolted at the attempt to solve that problem by a mob tyranny that paraded under the banner of egalitarianism. The conscience of the Conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being. Today, therefore, he is at odds with dictators who rule by terror, and equally with those gentler collectivists who ask our permission to play God with the human race.

With this view of the nature of man, it is understandable that the Conservative looks upon politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. The Conservative is the first to understand that the practice of freedom requires the establishment of order: it is impossible for one man to be free if another is able to deny him the exercise of his freedom. But the Conservative also recognizes that the political power on which order is based is a self-aggrandizing force; that its appetite grows with eating. He knows that the utmost vigilance and care are required to keep political power within its proper bounds.

In our day, order is pretty well taken care of. The delicate balance that ideally exists between freedom and order has long since tipped against freedom practically everywhere on earth. In some countries, freedom is altogether down and order holds absolute sway. In our country the trend is less far advanced, but it is well along and gathering momentum every day. Thus, for the American Conservative, there is no difficulty in identifying the day's overriding political challenge: it is to preserve and extend freedom. As he surveys the various attitudes and institutions and laws that currently prevail in America, many questions will occur to him, but the Conservative's first concern will always be: Are we maximizing freedom? [Senator Barry M. Goldwater The Conscience of a Conservative (circa 1960)]

More on Senator John McCain, the Boundaries of Conservative Republican Thought Historically Speaking, and Certain Troubling Contemporary Ahistorical So-Called "Conservative" Trends Thereof:
(Part V of a Dialogue)

This is a continuation from the fourth part of this series which can be accessed here. To start from the beginning (if you have not read the previous parts) please go here.

And though I have noted it in every part of the series so far, a reminder of the colour schemata in this series (to cut down on confusion as to the sequence of arguments) still seems pertinent; ergo I reiterate for a final time what I noted in the first part of this series:

The orange font is from the emailer's original email while light blue font is my responses to the emailer's original note. The dark green font is from the emailer's follow-up to my first response while the regular blog font colour is my response to the emailer's follow-up note. Any sources I quote in this note will be in dark blue font and possibly smaller type as a result of the format this original text was taken from (I do not have time to change it). [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 26, 2008)]

Without further ado...

Furthermore, the Reagan years were an aberration of sorts...in the past hundred ten odd years, there were only three non-establishment Republican candidates: Teddy Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan. (The Democrats had only one -Harry Truman- in that same span of time if you exclude the thrice defeated William Jennings Bryan.) TR only became president because the establishment plan to shut him up by making him vice president backfired when McKinley was assassinated. He was able to get elected on his own in 1804 and if he had not died when he did, probably would have won in 1920...a story for another time altogether perhaps.

Goldwater broke the back of the establishment in 1964 along with the Democratic stronghold of the south though he lost in a landslide thanks to the establishment doing their part of not supporting him as they should have. But he made an important breakthrough because other than his home state of Arizona, all the states he won electorally were in the deep south: a break of the "solid south" which had been dominated by Democrat electoral power since 1856. This paved the way for Nixon to come through in 1968 and then even more spectacularly in 1972 but Nixon was an establishment candidate. He was replaced by Ford in 1974 and in 1976, the entire establishment supported Ford against Reagan -even Goldwater who basically brokered Nixon's resignation supported Ford over the candidate who was ideologically much closer to himself.

Well, Goldwater was actually closer to Rudy Guiliani that he was to Reagan. Once issues like abortion and homosexuality became issues Goldwater was both pro-gay and pro-abortion.

Sigh...more education is needed on this obviously.

I think it is more than safe to say that Reagan turned out to be a true conservative while Goldwater didn't.

Senator Goldwater did take the view that someone who was gay should not be disallowed in the military if they are competent soldiers. If you are going to oppose his view on that then at least familiarize yourself with it first. It is not a matter of being "pro gay" but instead pro military and recognizing that those who can shoot straight can make valuable contributions to the nation's defense even if they are not personally straight. There is also the recognition that there have been homosexuals in the military in every military since the days of the Roman empire and policies that involve pretending otherwise are both naive as well as stupid.

I happen to have not viewed the gays in the military issue as much of a big deal -ironically I differed from Goldwater on means though not the end if you will. I had no problem with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy when Clinton announced it (unlike Goldwater) and I do not now: it has nothing to do with being "pro gay" any more than defending someone's right to believe something makes me "pro" their view. And I am not going to anathematize Goldwater for disagreeing with me on this issue viz. the means.

As far as the abortion issue goes, to understand Goldwater's position it helps to consider some of his comments from The Congressional Record:

There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C," and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism." [Senator Barry M. Goldwater: From The Congressional Record (circa September 16, 1981)]

I can not only understand Senator Goldwater's anger on these matters but to some extent I have long shared it. On religious matters it embodies opposing those who would try to make others follow every jot and tittle of their personal opinion as if it was required dogma lest they be viewed as "heterodox" "anathematized", or whatever.{1} On political matters it encapsulates those who try to claim some unique franchise on the term "conservatism" by focusing on one or two issues and disregarding the rest; essentially, ignoring the underlying philosophy of a conservative outlook while uncritically parroting one or two talking points positions which are based on certain foundational presuppositions which they do not bother to question. To quote Goldwater, "just who do they think they are"???

Of course there are some areas where Reagan fared a bit better on the issue of conservatism. Neither man was supportive personally of abortion but they went about it differently. In Goldwater's case, his claim that women had a "right to abortion" late in his life was a recognition that RvW was "settled law" (cf. John Roberts) whether we like it or not. But just because something is "settled law" does not mean it cannot at some point be changed.

Goldwater according to his autobiography was personally was opposed to abortion -viewing it as a states right issue not a federal one. And while Reagan was better on balance than Goldwater on abortion perhaps;{2} nonetheless, on the plethora of what embodies conservative principles, Reagan did not fare as well overall as Goldwater.

For Goldwater was not only opposed to The Great Society as Reagan was but also to The New Deal which Reagan was in many respects not. (My view on this is somewhere between that of Reagan and Goldwater.) But the root difference between Conservatives and Liberals was one that Goldwater noted decades ago in the following fashion:

The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man's nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man's nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man's spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy. Liberals, on the other hand,—in the name of a concern for "human beings"—regard the satisfaction of economic wants as the dominant mission of society. They are, moreover, in a hurry. So that their characteristic approach is to harness the society's political and economic forces into a collective effort to compel "progress." In this approach, I believe they fight against Nature.

Senator Goldwater did not believe in trying to harness any governmental entity to try and "compel progress" regardless of what that proposed "progress" happened to be. He was in other words completely consistent on this matter. The same cannot be said of The Gipper who did not mind trying to use government at times to "compel progress" depending on the issue at hand.

The problem with judicial activism on one hand is it makes one lack credibility when they criticize the other side for doing the same thing: yet this is precisely what the religious right sorts want to try and do. The hallmark of conservatism is advocating the maximum of human liberty consonant with societal order: subsidiarity if you will. And part of subsidiarity is not involving the federal government in the attempt to compel societal virtue.

This is why Goldwater did not favour activist judges of any stripe and Reagan in this area was a bit inconsistent. They were both conservatives, believing in the same core principles but differing at times on how they viewed those principled to be best implemented. Neither was 100% perfect but Goldwater overall was better than Reagan was.

At bottom, your comments about Goldwater reveal to me that you do not really understand the heart of conservative philosophy despite (usually) having some good conservative instincts XXXXXXX. But that is a subject for another time perhaps...I have said all I intend to for now on it.

And if not for Carter being such a horrible president, Reagan would probably not have been elected in 1980. There was that and also because Carter and his advisers made the same mistake in 1980 that Governor Pat Brown and his advisers did in California in 1966: they presumed Reagan was easier to beat than the other major candidates so they sabotaged the front runner to get Reagan as an opponent. So Reagan got the nomination, resisted the attempts to paint him in demonic colours that the Democrats tried to do, and won in 1980 by significantly dominating the south -winning all but Georgia and West Virginia. He added those states in 1984 when he swept the south: the second time a Republican had ever done that. (Nixon was the first in the 1972 election to do it.) Bush Sr. ran as carrying Reagan's mantle the same way that Taft ran as carrying TR's mantle in 1912. And just as Taft was a huge disappointment, so too was Bush Sr. and both of them lost re-election in three party races. The Republicans in 1916 as in 1996 went with an establishment candidate and need I go on??? The bottom line is, what we saw this year is historically more probable than not.

1916, the year of the Bull Moose "It's all about Teddy" debacle.

You mean 1912. Woodrow Wilson ran for re-election in 1916 on the "he kept us out of war" platform winning narrowly.

TR's act of self-agranddizement was both embarrassing and destructive.

In a sense it was sure. But your claim that it was an act of "self-aggrandizement" shows me you do not know much about what actually happened. TR followed the Ben Franklin model and did not campaign for the presidency -noting that he would not seek the nomination but if there was a grass roots movement that supported him, he would not refuse out of a proper sense of duty on the matter. As it happens, there was such a movement from many who were pissed off at the Republican party bosses and the most visible person they could find to champion their cause was TR. I could note more on this but that you do not even realize that TR responded to a movement to draft him and did not lead such a charge himself tells me just how shallow your knowledge on this matter really is.

But you are right about this event having a destructive nature to it as it basically drove the Roosevelt element out of the Republican party and let the conservative oligarchy element to deservedly die on the vine in the general election. But it also opened a new vista in the form of the election primary contributing to the nomination of a candidate.

That election also was one of the first where primaries became a factor in nomination and it was the Roosevelt faction that favoured the primary system as a way of breaking the establishment hold on the party machinery. The problem is, the primaries were not viewed as binding back then but instead as voluntary; ergo Wisconsin Senator Robert LaFollette won two primaries out of the first four, President Taft won two out of the first four, and TR won nine of the last ten including Taft's home state of Ohio which he won by a large margin. The momentum had clearly shifted and Taft was losing where the party bosses were unable to keep a tight control on things. And at the convention, the conservative party bosses rigged the machinery to get a nomination victory for Taft. They did this not only in seating Taft delegates in Alabama and Arizona but also from California -a state that Roosevelt had won. As a result of the California shafting, TR and his delegates saw the screw job in the making and walked out of the convention hall and formed their own party.

Of course you think that TR was the "embarrassment" because he did not smile, lie back, and have "thoughts of England" while he was being screwed by party bosses. But then again, that is the difference between those who are party loyalists (like you) and those who are not (like me). Disgraceful actions are disgraceful in and of themselves, not okay or otherwise worth being quiet about when "our guys" do it but then shrieking like a banshee when "their guys" do.

One of the major differences between TR and Reagan was their post presidential years. Reagan was a true statesman when push come to shove and Roosevelt wasn't.

Reagan was an old man of 77 who did not have much else he could do when he left office whereas TR had just turned 50 and still had plenty of gas in the tank. That point aside what exactly did Reagan do of a "statesman-like nature" that you think was so compelling or otherwise accomplishing of something positive??? I cannot think of anything offhand -he gave a great speech at the 1992 convention and attended Republican functions on occasion but that is about it.

By contrast, TR was involved in a much-publicized African Safari in support of science in 1909-10{3}, fought the corruption in his own party in 1911-12, trekked through South America in 1913-14 again to aid in the advancement of science -though that time he was infected by malaria and the result was a loss of a massive amount of weight and health problems that plagued him for the rest of his life.

Despite that though, he campaigned energetically for Charles Evans Hughes in 1916, offered once President Wilson received his declaration of war to raise an all-volunteer infantry, and on party matters also through his efforts at campaigning for Republicans enabled them to regain control of the Congress in 1918 which put an important check on President Wilson's efforts. And besides these things, he was an energetic campaigner for physical fitness and hunting his entire life, supported the Boy Scouts, and wrote a number of books on a variety of subjects from foreign policy to history.

If I did not want to finish this thread as soon as possible, I would supply links in that paragraph to substantiate every point I made. The bottom line is this: the contributions of TR after he was president so dwarfed those of RR that your assertion is (with all due respect) absurd. I do not fault RR for this for a variety of reasons but your deprecation of TR's post-presidential record overall is frankly quite disturbing.

But McCain has repeatedly stuck the knife in the back of the GOP establishment (and it was not even to being a conservative dagger), whereas the other guys didn't. That's the major difference here.

As I said, I can sympathize with some of McCain's annoyance. I find myself embarrassed by the ahistorical and narrow-minded dogmatism of the self-anointed "true conservatives" a lot. The pro lifers particularly are at times embarrassing and I noted this not only recently but indeed in every election cycle since I have been blogging to some extent or another.{4} And I noted it in discussion forums long before anyone had heard of my apologetics stuff and in various conversations and formats prior to that as well. If not for having spent enough time on this response already, I would make quite a list -my position on this has been both ample as well as consistent over the years.

For what could be a response to Medved's Kool Aid drinking (although it isn't actually) Rush's little brother has this to say.

David is wrong: McCain is not "liberal lite." Compared to Obama (8%) and Clinton (9%), McCain's lifetime conservative rating is 82.3%. That is lower than the ratings of Tancredo (97.8%), Brownback (94%), Hunter (92%), Thompson (83%). I am not sure about Guiliani and Romney but if we consider the flop-flop of Romney and Guiliani's views on certain core conservative issues where he is seriously lacking (unlike McCain) it seems probable that both of them would finish lower than McCain on that score. (The American Conservative Union does not rank governors or mayors so this is a nebulous area.)

No, you are wrong. I hinted above that his voting record does not give us a true picture of the real John McCain. How many of John McCain's votes in the Senate were decisive?

Neither you nor I are in a position to know this without an exhaustive review of the Congressional Record.

I think it is undisputable that the legislation he has co-authored and sponsored tells us more about the real John McCain than his voting record. I can't think of any legislation McCain co-authored or sponsored that wasn't only leftist but to the far left.

So because you cannot think of any, that means none exists huh??? You realize presumably that finding just one piece would invalidate your whole presumption. However, I am not sure whether or not you would ignore whatever I would present as if it was non-existent. Certainly without a pledge to avoid such things I will not expend an ounce of time on the matter.{5}

Just the damage wrought by MF itself more than wipes out any positive effect of his voting record.

By whose assessment??? The intention was to (i) control soft money contributions in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees -in not only national but also state and local races-from raising or spending non-federally limited funds and (ii) utilizing issue ads within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election which named candidates along with any such ad paid for by corporations -be they non profit or unincorporated entities -one that stretches to both business entities as well as union ones.

The result so far is a significantly lessened influence of soft money on campaigns since MF was signed into law. It is a regrettable piece of legislation in several ways this is true and we will see clarifications on it coming from the courts which in my mind is just fine. But I doubt you have taken any time to look soberly at this piece of legislation -a presumption based on your track record thus far in what I have responded to.

Medved is lying through his teeth when he says that MF was only "useless" and has done no real harm, especially to the Right to Life cause. The Wisconsin Right to Life case soundly refutes him there.

One example doth note a definitive statement on this matter make. MF affects a variety of activist causes -among the organizations fined for failure to follow campaigning guidelines in the 2004 election were (according to Wikipedia) the liberal League of Conservation Voters ($180,000) and Moveon.org ($150,000) as well as the conservative Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ($299,500). I do not know the reasons for the fines so levied so am not in a position to say whether they should have been more or less in any given case.

Presumably Medved was referring to the effect of MF on balance as opposed to one particular issue or group. But then again, I am inclined towards giving a charitable interpretation whenever this is feasible to do where the party in question has not given me just cause to not do so. By contrast, you apparently are driven to presume the worst without sufficient cause to do so viz. Medved's statement on this matter. This shows the depth of who really has a "derangement syndrome" here XXXXXXX and I will give you a hint: it is not this little black duck, nosiree.

And MF is as brash a violation of the First Amendment as the criminalization of porn isn't.

You appear to take a Hugo Black approach to the first amendment and historically the courts have never sided with that interpretation -heck the 1919 Schenck vs. United States case{6} is the example that most readily comes to mind. That point being noted though, there is still a question as to the extent of MF in passing constitutional muster. And that being noted, I have no problem with the Supreme Court (in its current configuration under Chief Justice Roberts geared as it evidently is towards judicial restraint) hearing cases on MF.

But it doesn't stop there. You have McCain Leiberman, which is McCain's open vying for the Cardinal's red hat in Pope Algore I's church of the environmentally ill.

You realize presumably that variations of that bill have been introduced since at least 2003 and they have died every time right??? Even the one currently up (S. 280) is nowhere near being in danger of being made into law. But to know this would be to know the status of the bills and the percentage of bills that actually make it out of committee.{7}

I don't think I need to tell you how dangerous the radical evironmentalist agenda is to this country in terms of economics and national security.

I agree with you on that.

And yes there is the McCain Kennedy amnesty bill. This is the only area where the unconservative Bush is anywhere near as liberal as McCain.

Bush is a fiscally irresponsible "dime store new dealer" (cf. B. Goldwater) and McCain is not. There is another issue for you.

Furthermore, if I am not mistaken, McCain's voting record post-2000 is only in the low 60's to high 50's.

It varies from session to session but you are (as you have been thus far) quite spectacularly wrong. The average in that span of time excluding 2007 is...well...you do the math yourself. Here are the numbers:

2006: 65%
2005: 80%
2004: 72%
2003: 80%
2002: 78%
2001: 68%
2000: 81%

I trust you do not need a calculator to figure out that you are (yet again) quite mistaken.

Furthermore, the average numbers are even higher than that prior to 2000 on balance with only five years with a rating of less than 83% going all the way back to not only his first Senate year (1987) but even including his previous four years as a Representative from Arizona (1983-1987). I could say more but once again: the facts do not substantiate your presumption.

If you are going to say that McCain is going to govern more conservatively than Bush you need to bring something more substantive than "Bush has set the bar so low" to the table.

I have not said he would govern more conservatively.{8} What I said was simply that it would not be hard for him to since Bush set the bar so damned low.

Finally, you really have a lot of nerve engaging in the same kind of deadagenting and sophistry that you have railed against (and rightly so) these last few years. In the text of this letter I have pointed out where you have done that to the point of moonbattery.

Since so little of what you said is sustained under examination, you would be wise to not speak so brashly as you have been. I have engaged in no sophistry at all. What I have done is take a view on these matters which accounts for the diverse streams in the well of what is commonly called "conservatism" while you have shown an ahistorical understanding on these matters both wholly and in most of the significant parts. Conservative instincts are good to have (and on balance you have them) but instincts not informed by facts make for a dangerous combination.

I could get up in a twist about having my intelligence so carelessly insulted. But why? I have better things to do than to expend emotion on such nonsensical horseshit.

If anyone should feel their intelligence has been insulted on this, it is me. Kindly do your own homework next time and do not blindly and uncritically genuflect, bow three times, and incense the opinions of either of the Limbaugh boys.

Notes:

{1} Or someone's particular interpretation of an accepted dogma to the exclusion of other possible viewpoints.

{2} If we rule out his signing of the most liberal abortion law in the country when governor of California.

{3} Financed by both Andrew Carnegie and also sales of his own writings.

{4} I do not have time to look for them but the archives of this weblog contain several examples -the most recent one from January of this year:

On the Candidacy of Mike Huckabee and the Political Stupidity of Pro-Lifers (circa January 9, 2008)

{5} I spent enough time tracking down the sources on this note already.

{6} Which upheld the US Sedition Act of 1918.

{7} A hint: it is very small and I gave it to you already.

{8} I did not realize that in responding to the longer email the first time, I actually did say this though I intended more nuance than that. The emailer can consider this to be a victory for them if they want but it would be a pyrrhic victory if they do.