An Emerging Theme.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal was interviewed by ABC News' Jake Tapper about the strange laxidasical behavior by the United States Government regarding the protection of his state's coastal wetlands. Aha! thought Jake, doesn't this contradict his conservative view of limited government? Jindal replied:

“When government grows too big, it doesn't do its core functions properly. Absolutely, I believe in a limited government that is effective and competent in what it does. We need federal government exactly -- we need our federal government exactly for this kind of crisis.”

George Will has also jumped on this theme: asserting that a massive central government that intervenes in all aspects of the nation's life will, by corollary, be competent at the essential functions that are truly of national interest is false. Advocacy for a limited federal government is not simple ideology of Washington "doing nothing". There are roles - such as national defense or the coordination to mitigate an interstate enviromental disaster - that are appropriate for a federal government. Then there is most of the rest of what Washington believes is good value for your tax dollars.

Look for the theme of "limited and competent government" to grow in the public conversation.

The Mount Vernon Statement.

Getting back to basics.

Is Our Government Breaking Down?



(Painting: Neptune Offers the Wealth of the Sea to Venice, by Giovan Battista Tiepolo)


In the last several months we have witnessed historic events: legislation has been introduced and passed (The Bailout Bill, The Stimulus Bill, The Carbon Cap and Trade Bill, and the House Health Care Reform Bill) that possess cosmological scales in size, scope, and cost. This government intervention is so reaching and complex that our legislators now concede that they are unable to analyze and deliberate on their provisions. Yet the Administration has aggressively pushed for a fast-track process for these acts through Congress. A torrential storm of unforseen consequences from this legislation hangs like ominous black laden clouds of an approaching squall.

The process and function of our government is seizing up because of the immensity of this legislation. There is a very real danger that we will destroy republican democracy by the powerful majorities continuing to ram these behemoth bills through Congress without some thought to what they will have wrought. We cannot continue to do the business of the people in this manner.

A thousand-page bill cannot be adequately considered in a fortnight. We are reaching a natural limit to the scale and scope of how the Federal Government can intervene in our lives. It is time to back off.

Right Time, Right Place.

Rick Brookheiser reads from his memoir of WFB and National Review.

Jack Kemp, 1935-2009.

Bill Bennett had a marvelous three-hour tribute to his close friend this morning. He and his guests completed all of their passes: Jack Kemp worked tirelessly for the message of opportunity in the American conservative movement. He "got it" way before most did. He was the blacksmith who hammered out the exciting ideas of economic liberty into practical political tools, such as the great tax cuts that Reagan adopted. This author was an enthusiastic supporter of Jack for the Presidency in '88. He will be sorely missed, but he has nurtured a new generation to take up his torch. R.I.P.

Erbitux Is Not Aspirin.

Scott Gotlieb discusses in the WSJ about the risks to the developmental drug industry posed by government-forced cost controls on new drug therapies.

A Fashion in Thinking.

Without censorship in the West, fashionable trends of thought and ideas are fastidiously separated from those that are not fashionable, and the latter, without ever being forbidden, have little chance of finding their way into periodicals or books or being heard in colleges. Your scholars are free in the legal sense, but they are hemmed in by the idols of the prevailing fad. There is no open violence, as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to accomodate mass standards frequently prevents the most independent-minded persons from contributing to public life and gives rise to dangerous herd instincts that block successful development.

- Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, "A World Split Apart", 1978.

End the Enabling.

We at Deaddrifts recieved a weekend solicitation phone call from the RNC. After explaining to the "salesman" that we would be confining our political contributions to Misters McCain and Walberg (our Congerscritter) directly, the salesman attempted to persuade us otherwise. We were not amused.

The RNC must accept the fact that it had, expressed in the idiom of test pilots, "screwed the pooch" in the last seven years. Not in the manner in which the Left shrieks, but in dismantling an exciting movement of conservative ideas and philosophy of governance for forty pieces of silver and the incessant pursuit of ever-increasing political power. They have, we are sad to say, met the enemy, and they is them (hat tip to Walt Kelly).

One of our principal complaints is the noxious triad of expanding government, drunken-sailor spending, and the inevitable corruption that accompanies it. Tonight Fox News presented "Porked: Earmarks for Profit", and highlighted the shenanigans of several Republican congerscritters in adding earmarks to spending bills that ended in personal profit for the pols, including former Speaker of the House Dennis ("Mr. Permanent Minority") Hastert and California Representative Ken Calvert. Fox also discussed how the current House Republican standard-bearer, Mr. Boehner, squashed the appointment of Jeff Flake, the Arizona Republican and sworn enemy of earmarking, to the House Appropriations Committee. The reason given that Boehner gave to Flake was, well the obvious: it would put the pigs off their feed.

Adieu.

We will leave to Mr. Buckley himself to look back on a life well spent. Charlie Rose gives a wonderful farewell. Requiescat in Pace, Dear Sir.

William F. Buckley, 1925-2008.

He was the twentieth century's Conservator of the American Idea. In a century with precious few public intellectuals whose ideas shall endure, WFB was its flower. R.I.P.

Yes, Conservatives Can Be Green.

Newt Gringrich is promoting "green conservatism":

...It is possible to have a healthy environment and a healthy economy. It is possible to build incentives for a cleaner future. It is possible to have biodiversity and wealthy human beings on the same planet. And it is possible to have free markets, scientific and technological advances, and an even more positive environmental outcome. There is every reason to be optimistic that if we develop smart environmental and biodiversity policies our children and grandchildren will experience an even more pleasant world...

Somewhere, in a pleasant place, TR is "Dee-lighted!"

David Limbaugh's Test of Faith.

A column by David Limbaugh is now being parroted by the Establishment Republican Media as the Litany Against McCain. It serves as the ERM's Test of the Faith; to wit:

• A Conservative does not criticize a sitting Republican president, ever, regardless of the effect of said President's actions on the national security.
• A Conservative always supports tax cuts, even when a Republican Congress cannot not restrain its spending.
• A Conservative believes that the problem of illegal aliens can be solved by literally rounding up millions of people in the United States and deporting them, with no possibility of mistakes nor violation of liberties of American citizens, nor consideration of extenuating circumstances (such as members of the Armed Forces with illegal alien parents).
• A Conservative tortures enemy captives to extract information, regardless of the quality of said information.
• A Conservative tears up the rules of the Senate, regardless of unintended consequences such as loss of the protection of said rules when Republican control of the Senate is lost.
• A Conservative cannot believe in climate change, and cannot disagree with the Republican Establishment on environmental issues.
• A Conservative cannot criticize the political positions adopted by Evangelical Christian groups.
• A Conservative cannot criticize corporations. Theodore Roosevelt was mistaken in his "trust busting".

We just want make sure we've got it straight.

McCain Taking Flak, or, The Conservative Crack-Up.

Michelle Malkin really, really dislikes John McCain. Witness the video above, posted to her blog, the second in her series "McCain Gets Booed". This allegedly documents the deep revulsion that "conservatives" have for John McCain. Of course, the most precious ox of Malkin's to be gored by McCain is his alleged softness on the illegal alien problem.

This revulsion toward John McCain, regrettably, does exist. We've encountered it in many blogs and opinion columns, and heard it on many radio talk shows. It is attributed to McCain's heresies against important conservative policy positions. The correct positions appear to have been established by self-appointed protectors of the faith, based on little if any dialogue on these issues by conservatives.

We've previously discussed two of his heresies, immigration and judicial appointments. We will use the immigration issue to demonstrate how the dialogue between different but legitimately conservative points of view has been silenced.

If one is intellectually honest, then one may state that it is more true than not that the Republican candidate's positions on illegal immigration are equivalent. Short of brutal - and, we argue, unAmerican - tactics, we must face the fact of assimilating some millions of people that are here illegally. Not all, certainly. First, there is a border to be "sealed". There are criminals that must be deported, heavy fines to be imposed on businesses knowingly violating the law, penalties to be paid by illegals, reform of identification and documentation bureaucracies, and hardball to be played with Mexico.

The actions described above will lead to millions of illegals to leave, and all of the candidates agree with these initiatives. For those millions of illegals that can and chose to remain, the federal government must choose one of two courses of action. Course One is to rapidly and agressively track down these remaining people and force them to leave regardless of their circumstances. Course Two is to begin naturalization and assimilation for those who step forward for documentation, and deportation of those who refuse and are discovered over time.

The first course of action has appeal to some conservatives; it can swiftly restore the "rule of law" and the essential sense that the federal government is protecting the physical and economic well-being of its citizenry from foreign threats. There are costs, too. It will appear as a police-state action, it will likely trigger an enormous amount of litigation that will choke an already suffocating court system, it will consume an enormous amount of military and law-enforcement resources, and there will be circumstances of true injustice and tragedy where we must measure whether we have lived up to our frequently-proclaimed Judeo-Christian ethics and the conservative tenet of non-interference of government in the lives of its citizens (for some citizens will be caught in this mess).

The second course of action avoids the drawback of the first, and does with time (perhaps too much time) bring normalcy to immigration and border security. However, it does cheat those wanting to become citizens who have followed the rule of law and have waited their turn. Those persons may continue to wait or ultimately be denied naturalization.

There are legitimate points for advocacy and opposition for both options by conservatives. However, the debate between these options was stillborn and the "conservative orthodoxy" became a emphatic call for the Draconian Option One, but with no acknowledgment of its drawbacks nor any real plan to implement it. It seems to have just to felt good take the "angry path". Was this adhering to true conservatism or rather mere populism, with a generous dollup of hyperbole for entertainment?

After much thought and consideration, we at Deaddrifts feel that the most sound conservative approach to solve the illegal alien issue is following Option Two. We mourn the fact that a legitimate discussion of this issue has not taken among conservatives. A loss for our movement, and a symptom of a growing sclerosis within it.