As usual, score one for Mickey Kaus

who has this to say about the GOP’s mood (it’s the last item in the post):

Conservatives I’ve met in D.C. so far have been near-ebullient, not downcast or bitter. Why? a) They know how unhappy they’d be now if McCain had won; b) Obama has not fulfilled their worst fears, or even second-to-worst fears; c) now they can be an honest, straight-up opposition.

Oddly enough, b) might be the least important of the three.  a) and c) go together, really; the shots from Democrats that John McCain represented “a Bush third term” weren’t fair on the whole, but there is one respect in which he would have been a continuation of the Bush administration:  it would have been four more years, for conservatives, of gritting teeth and biting tongues on a great many policies (more than with President Bush, I’m sure) so as not to undermine him on the few key ones on which we agree.  Valued commenter and colleague Doug Hagler has argued repeatedly in his comments here that Republicans don’t believe in free markets any more than the Democrats do, and that there is no party of small government; that isn’t true on a grassroots level, or among the more junior leaders of the party, but it’s been true on a national level for quite some time, and this is a lot of the reason.  The GOP hasn’t put up an economic conservative as its presidential candidate since Reagan (though George H. W. Bush talked the talk long enough to get elected); and while the party won both houses of Congress on a conservative platform in 1994, power and its seductions bent the congressional GOP leadership away from that in time.  Conservatives in the party, in order to hold fast to conservative positions, would have had to go into opposition en masse to their own party—which probably would have looked severely counterproductive at the time, since it would undoubtedly have swung the federal government as a whole to the left.  In the long run, I’m not sure it would have been counterproductive at all, but that would have been a pretty long gamble to play . . . and might very likely have cost those conservatives their seats.  Would it have been worth it anyway to preserve a greater integrity to a conservative opposition?  Perhaps, but I doubt we’ll ever be able to say for sure.In any case, as Kaus notes, that particular problem has now been solved (in the most drastic fashion possible); the party has been purged to a considerable extent, and exiled to the outer darkness for its misdeeds.  That means it’s a long road back, but as conservatives, we can be glad simply to be on the road back—it has at least turned around—and to have a new generation of leaders rising up, folks like Governors Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal, and Representatives Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy, to guide us on the way.  It means it’s the ideal time to begin to make the GOP a conservative party once again—and perhaps, this time, to learn from the mistakes of the last time, and keep it one.

The speechwriters’-eye view

Hugh Hewitt linked today to a blog that was started just this month by former White House speechwriters—specifically, the White House Writers Group, founded by former Reagan/Bush speechwriters, and the West Wing Writers, a group of former Clinton speechwriters—called Podium Pundits; their stated purpose is “to analyze and comment on major speeches, messaging strategy, and the business of communications.”  This looks like it’s going to be a fascinating blog, and I’ve added it to the blogroll.  Bonus points for posting the pictures of the year so far:

Channeling Dubya

We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us,
and we will defeat you.—President Barack Obama, January 20, 2009Fine words, and very familiar-sounding, somehow.  Here’s hoping he has the guts to stand to the mark behind them the way his immediate predecessor did.(Great word, “predecessor”; literally, “the one who died before you.”  Good metaphor for the presidency, really.)

Reasons to be proud

David Horowitz has an excellent piece on the inauguration up on FrontPage Magazine. I especially like his conclusion:

All over the country Americans have invested their hopes in Obama’s ability to pull his country together to face its challenges. Among these Americans are millions—most likely tens of millions—who have never identified with their government before, who felt “outside” the system they regarded as run by elites, who ascribed its economic troubles to the greedy rich, who bought the Jackson-Sharpton canard that America was a racist society and they were locked out, who would have scorned the term “patriot” as a compromise with such evils, and who turned their backs on America’s wars.But today celebrating their new president are millions of Americans who never would have dreamed of celebrating their president before. Millions of Americans—visible in all their racial and ethnic variety at the Lincoln Memorial on Sunday—have begun to feel a patriotic stirring because they see in this First Family a reflection of themselves.The change is still symbolic and may not last. A lot depends on what President Obama will do, which is not a small question given how little is still known about this man and how little tested he remains. Some of this patriotism may be of the sunshine variety—in for a day or a season, when the costs are not great. Or more cynically: in to show that their hatred for America is really just another form of political “dissent.” Yet whatever the nature of these changes they cannot for now be discounted. Consider: When President Obama commits this nation to war against the Islamic terrorists, as he already has in Afghanistan, he will take millions of previously alienated and disaffected Americans with him, and they will support our troops in a way that most of his party has refused to support them until now. When another liberal, Bill Clinton went to war from the air, there was no anti-war movement in the streets or in his party’s ranks to oppose him. That is an encouraging fact for us in the dangerous world we confront.If it seems unfair that Barack Obama should be the source of a new patriotism—albeit of untested mettle—life is unfair. If the Obama future is uncertain and fraught with unseen perils, conservatives can deal with those perils as they come. What matters today is that many Americans have begun to join their country’s cause, and conservatives should celebrate that fact and encourage it. What matters now is that the American dream with its enormous power to inspire at home and abroad is back in business. What it means is that the race card has been played out and America can once again see itself—and be seen—for what it is: a land of incomparable opportunity, incomparable tolerance, and justice for all. Conservative values—individual responsibility, equal opportunity, racial and ethnic pluralism, and family—are now symbolically embedded in the American White House. As a result, a great dimension of American power has been restored. Will these values be supported, strengthened, put into practice? It is up to us to see that they are.

HT:  Paul Mirengoff

The future of newspapers

I think most folks who follow the news are aware that newspapers are in trouble, as stories multiply about the financial problems at papers like the Chicago Tribune, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and of course the Grey Lady, the New York Times.  Yesterday, Geoff Baker, who covers the Seattle Mariners as the beat writer for the Seattle Times, reflected on this situation on his blog.  I think he has some worthwhile things to say; I believe he’s right that online content offers newspapers the opportunity to do far more than they can with their print editions. I particularly appreciate (and agree with) his comment that “the first step is for all reporters who still have jobs to start practising journalism to a far greater degree than they do.”  He’s more optimistic than I am about finding a financial model that will work to keep our newspapers afloat, but in the end, I think he’s right that “this Darwinian exercise” will lead not to the extinction of newspapers but to their reinvigoration; we rely too much on the work they do for them to disappear.

The politics of gratitude

He was never the candidate I supported, or the president I would have chosen; I think he’s gotten a raw deal and that he’ll be treated much better by history than he was by the media, but there are many legitimate criticisms that will remain.  Some of those are policy disagreements, matters of liberals and conservatives having different ideas, but many of them aren’t, especially as regards his management style and personnel judgment.Nevertheless, I thank George W. Bush for his eight years of service as our president, just as I thank Barack Obama for now taking up that heavy burden—and just as I will thank him when the time comes for him to lay it down in turn.  I disagreed with much that President Bush did; I fully expect to disagree with far, far more that President Obama does; but just because they do not serve in the way I would prefer does not mean I’m not grateful for their willingness to serve.  Indeed, barring actual corruption, if you have to agree with everything a politician does in order to be grateful for their service, if you can only honor politicians who think the way you do and support the policies you want, then there’s something wrong with you.  I mean that in complete sincerity.This is now something conservatives need to bear in mind.  We’ve dealt with eight years of “He’s not my president” and similarly dishonorable talk from liberals; for the sake of the Republic and the health of our own souls, we cannot afford to return ill for ill.  Just because we didn’t get what we want doesn’t mean we have the right to declare Barack Obama “not our president,” or to belittle him, or spread lies about him, or treat him with contempt, or dismiss him as unworthy, or run down his character, or any of the other things we’ve watched liberals do to George W. Bush for the last two terms.  He is our president—Lord willing, the only one we’re going to have for the next four years—and for the good of our country, we need to support him as best we can.  Not only would it be sick and wrong for conservatives to be as evil to him (or anywhere close) as his supporters were to President Bush, it’s a luxury we can’t afford.  We need to be better than that.  My prayer is that we will continue to be.HT for the picture:  Benjamin P. Glaser

Listen to the dream

My children are in school today; our school district is using holidays as snow days, which doesn’t exactly seem kosher to me. So, as a tribute but also as a bit of a protest, I thought I’d post Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech this morning; this is the whole thing, not just the famous peroration, and if you’ve never heard it, it’s more than worth the time to listen. For that matter, even if you have heard it, it’s still more than worth the time.

Thanks, Hap

The last couple weeks have been pretty crazy; I’m hoping that things will clear out a bit for the next couple.  We had a big meeting today at the church which took a lot of time and mental energy for preparation, and which I think went fairly well; we’re dealing with the big questions of identity and vision, working towards developing a ministry plan for the next 3-5 years, so there’s a lot on the line here, but I think we made a good start on it.  We just need to keep praying and thinking and trust God to lead us.If the pace does slow a little, one thing I want to do is catch back up with various blogs.  Hap, for instance, has been doing some interesting work on Psalm 119, working through the acrostic; and most recently, she has a remarkable post up titled “healing, community, and the poverty of availability.”  It’s a valuable rumination on the cost of being available to others, and why even ministry must be held in balance with the rest of life; as such, after a week like this, it’s just what I needed to read.  I commend it to your careful consideration.

Economics in its proper place

A while back, I put up a post riffing on Colossians 2 and asking, “What are the spirits our society accepts as the elemental powers that rule human destiny?”  I didn’t have a lot of answers to that question, but the estimable Doug Hagler had a good one:  “ECONOMICS.”  In support of that, he offered a very interesting point, which hadn’t occurred to me before (emphasis mine):

Everyone treats economics as a science, which in our culture, means a truth-discerning and truth-telling method, when it is in fact a value system of subjective measurement.

I posted again, noting his penetrating observation and interacting with it a little more; and then a little while later, I ran across Kent Van Til’s article in Perspectives titled “Not Too Much Sovereignty for Economics, Please:  Abraham Kuyper and Mainstream Economics.”  Due to technical difficulties, I didn’t manage to get it posted at the time, and other things intervened.  I did want to come back to it, though, because it’s a remarkable piece—particularly when considered in conjunction with Doug’s argument, because Dr. Van Til works with the idea that economists are primarily, not scientists, but storytellers offering an explanatory story of the world.  As he notes, the promises they make for their story tend to go beyond what they can actually keep:

In spite of their role as writers of fiction . . . economists pretend to be physicists who deal only with empirical data.  They also mainly talk about what has already happened because they aren’t necessarily great predictors—if they were, they’d all be rich.

Dr. Van Til’s analysis is of particular interest when he applies it to rational choice theory, pointing out that people cannot be reduced to “rationality” (and especially to one particular definition of what it means to be rational) and “efficiency.”  As he argues, such a reductionistic understanding of human beings can only lead to injustice if left unchallenged; thus it is critically important to see ourselves as more than homo economicus, but with Abraham Kuyper to insist that

economics is not the only sphere of life, nor the only explanatory model of human action.  The attempt by one sphere to suppress or dominate all the others must be resisted.

As such, Dr. Van Til writes,

We must urge that humans are more than individuals who rationally satisfy their preferences.  We must insist that there really are sins and evils, not merely sub-optimal conditions or disequilibria.  We must contend that all goods are not reducible to the one goal of utility.  We must contest the notion that the ultimate meaning of the good is only a composite economic good for many individuals.  And we must say that all grand narratives are ultimately foolish unless their denouement is found in Christ.  That is simply to repeat after our Master that it makes no sense for us to gain the whole world but lose our souls.

So much for bipartisanship

It looks like the “stimulus” package coming out of DC is going to be a pure Democrat bill, not the bipartisan legislation some folks were talking about.  Whether this is the bill Obama wanted and thus represents “the greatest head fake ever” from the Obama team (as some commentators think) or whether it represents a victory for hard-left Congressional Democrats over the incoming administration’s centrist economic team is unclear at this point; but it really doesn’t matter.  On the first major vote of the next two years, it’s already crystal clear that bipartisanship is clean out the window.  How Barack Obama responds will tell us whether his apparent move to the center will follow it.