Yesterday I blogged Monday’s sunshiny debate on global warming between Newt Gingrich and John Kerry. Today, Dana Milbank rains on my parade with a quote from the former speaker:
“I am not automatically saying that coercion and bureaucracy is not an answer,” he granted.
Newt has never been a limited-government conservative. In 1995, he toldTime, “I’m for limited government, but a very strong limited government.” (Translation, courtesy of Democratic Congressman Barney Frank: “He’s not for smaller government. He’s for different government.”)
Indeed, in a word, Newt is a technocrat, who wants the government to wield science and technology in the service of empowering the citizenry.
Addendum: Bradford Plumer, the liberal New Republic researcher-reporter on the GOPenvironmental beat, raps Newt for being too muchof a limited-government guy. In Newt’s alleged world, Plumer writes,
If it involves more regulation, it can’t possibly be good. “We’re talking about a massive increase in government power,” he warns.
Plumer ends his article with another typically Newtonian quote,
perhaps the most elegant explanation of why global warming is a difficult problem for conservatives—even for someone who, like himself, professes to care deeply about the environment. “For most of the last 30 years, the environment has been a powerful emotional tool for bigger government and higher taxes,” he says. “Even if it’s the right thing to do, you end up fighting it because it’s bigger government and higher taxes.”
This is an intriguing but ultimately specious theory, because it assumes that people cannot be allowed to do the “right thing,” but must have the government do it for—i.e., force it on—us.
If Newt were a conservative before he were a technocrat, he would instead trust the wisdom of crowds and the forces of supply and demand, i.e., the market. But because he’s a technocrat before he’s a conservative, he’s not opposed to “coercion and bureaucracy.”
Addendum (4/14/2007): I should have noted that Newt isn’t the only conservative to have gone green. Mark Sanford, the former congressman and current South Carolina governor, recently penned an op-ed in the Post, in which he proclaimed, “I am a conservative conservationist who worries that sea levels and government intervention may end up rising together.”
Unfortunately, when asked today about these staples, Rudy Giuliani put forth considerably low estimates. While seemingly trivial, I think such knowledge is important because politicians should know what life is like for those whose interests they’re supposed to represent.
To be sure, it’s unimportant for the president to have details like this at his fingertips, since he’s so far removed from you and I that he probably doesn’t even carry a wallet and certainly never pumps his own gas.
But candidates for the presidency, like members of Congress, are not constantly surrounded by a phalanx of Secret Service agents. They’re supposed to live among us, so that when Bill O’Reilly goes on his next tirade about the conspiracy of Big Oil to ratchet up prices, they can judge for themselves en route to their daughter’s weekend-afternoon soccer game.
This is what the founders envisioned when they created Congress: citizen legislators who drop by Washington as a necessary evil, not career politicians who use the capitol as an ivory tower.
Libertarians claim him as one of their own, owing to his rhetoric about government as the problem, not the solution. Christians view his conversion to the pro-life agenda as his strongest legacy. Neocons uphold his ending of the Cold War.
The biggest hurdle facing the current crop of our presidential candidates is the inability of each to unify these three wings of the party.
All three support the president on Iraq, especially, and crucially, the surge. But despite McCain’s voting record, the religious right doesn’t trust him. Nor do they embrace the pro-choice, pro-civil union New Yorker, Rudy Giuliani. On paper, Mitt Romney is the Christian candidate, except that he’s only recently become so, and he’s Mormon.
Rudy is the libertarian candidate, save for his elevation of security over liberty. Romney’s language about deficits and vetoes is attractive, if you minimize health care. Ditto for McCain’s bona fides on pork and waste, if you overlook McCain-Feingold and tax cuts.
So who will be Reagan’s heir? At this point, no one. Still, it behooves us to remember, as George Will has written, “that insisting on perfection in a candidate interferes with selecting a satisfactory one.” Or, to use another cliche, politics is the art of compromise.
Newt Gingrich takes to the op-ed page of the LA Times today to clarify his YouTubed remark equating Spanish with “the language of living in a ghetto.” His premise is as follows:
Mastering the language of a country opens doors of opportunity. . . . In the United States, English is by no means our only language, but it is the language of economic success and upward mobility.
This is so self-evident, I’m constantly dumbfounded when I run into someone (say, a server in the capitol building cafeteria, as I did yesterday) who shrugs and says, “No hablo Inglés.”
Of course, the ignorance of such people is their loss, not mine, and ignorance does not threaten me. What does threaten me, for instance, are multilingual ballots.
Why should ballots be unilingual? Because what makes America unique is our ability to assimilate immigrants. A common tongue gives us unity and thus strength. As Charles Krauthammer has argued,
The key to assimilation . . . is language. The real threat to the United States is not immigration per se but bilingualism and, ultimately, biculturalism. Having grown up in Canada, where a language divide is a recurring source of friction and fracture, I can only wonder at those who want to duplicate that plague in the United States. . . .
The way to prevent European-like immigration catastrophes is to turn every immigrant—and most surely his children—into an [English-speaking] American.
Indeed, this is why bilingual education—that is, being taught (usually in Spanish) while being gradually taught English—is misguided. As Krauthammer notes, “It delays assimilation by perhaps a full generation.”
To be sure, had I learned espanol while learning English (instead of blowing off classes in the former in high school), I bet I’d be fluent today. Research shows that learning a language is easiest when you’re young and the mind is sponge-like. Moreover, in part because of our geographic insulation, Americans are less worldly than our European counterparts, among whom bilingualism is the rule rather the exception. In the age of interconnectedness, speaking only one tongue—even if it’s the global one—surely puts us at a competitive disadvantage.
These objections are valid, but can both be addressed via immersion classes, instead of bilingual education. The difference—between English-first and English-second—is crucial, and, in fact, once one learns English, one should move on to Spanish.
A version of this blog post appeared on Reagan Republicans on April 4, 2007.
The cover of the current issue of Reason (not yet online) contains the subtitle, “The totalitarian implications of public health.” By contrast, the subtitle of last month’s cover story used the word “authoritarian,” as in “The frightening mind of an authoritarian maverick.”
I don’t think it’s purely semantic to argue that “totalitarian,” as used today, is facile and hyperbolic, and, as such, diminishes real totalitarianism—of the Stalin, Hitler, Mao variety.
Let’s be clear: nothing in America today compares to the systematic murder and enslavement of tens of millions of people, engineered by tyrants unconstrained by checks or balances and utterly dismissive of democracy.
Accordingly, let’s reserve “totalitarian”—like references to the Holocaust, Nazis and tsunamis—for the real thing, and instead partake of the richness of the English language with words like “dictatorial,” “authoritarian,” “tyrannical,” “despotic” and “autocratic.”
“Let’s not quibble,” Charles Krauthammer asserts. The immigration bill pending in Congress
grants the essentials of amnesty. True, there is a $5,000 fine (for a family of five!) attached to registering for legal status in the U.S. But the truly significant penalty for illegal immigration is deportation—which undoes everything the immigrant has built in America.
In other words, anything short of deportation qualifies as amnesty. But as Quin Hillyer points out, this is a mischaracterization:
Again and again and again, the mainstream anti-illegal immigration folks have said their preferred option is to get tough on border enforcement and get tougher on employers who hire illegals, and let the rest of the problem work itself over time by mere attrition. That is not a massive deportation scheme.
Note: Quin is referring to “mainstream” views, not those of Tom Tancredo.
One of the most revealing moments of the 2004 Bush-Kerry debates came at the end of the third one, when moderator Bob Schieffer asked, “We’re all married to strong women. Each of us have two daughters that make us very proud. I’d like to ask each of you, what is the most important thing you’ve learned from these strong women?”
Bush answered first, with the perfect blend of warmth and sincerity that conveyed love for his better half. He cited a few anecdotes, including the way they met, and concluded, “I guess you would say it was love at first sight.”
Kerry, on the other hand, began with a tribute to his recently deceased mother, inserted a line about being humbled and “blessed” by his daughters and wife, and then concluded by lauding not his family but the guy he was running against.
If you’re wondering why Bush carried the soccer mom vote, look no further.
I was reminded of this exchange in watching a recent clip of a Larry King interview with Mitt Romney and his wife. It’s only two minutes, but when Romney’s not praising his partner—“She’s . . . my best counselor. . . . There’s no personnel-type issue that I don’t ask Ann’s advice [about]. . . . She’s very good at assessing qualities of character and heart”—he’s gazing at her, torso tilted, as enraptured as he was the day he proposed. He beams with pride, both of her and to be in her presence. This is a man who adores his wife.
It’s worth noting that the two times I’ve seen the Romneys in person (both in DC), they were holding hands. Similarly, in contrast to the other candidates, most (all?) of Romney’s TV spots end with a picture of them both.
Indeed, of the 2008 Republican presidential front-runners (once, current and future)—George Allen, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson—Romney (the Mormon, no less) is the only one who’s only had one wife. They were high-school sweethearts and have been married for almost 40 years.
Addendum (1/5/2012): In their new book, The Real Romney, Michael Kranish and Scott Helman tally the evidence of Mitt’s love for Ann:
“To Mitt, the special one in the house was Ann, with her wide smile, piercing eyes, and steadying domestic presence. And woe was the boy who forgot it. Tagg said there was one rule that was simply not breakable:
“’We were not allowed to say anything negative about my mother, talk back to her, do anything that would not be respectful of her.’
On Mother’s Day, their home would be fragrant with lilacs, Ann’s favorite flowers. Tagg didn’t get it back then, but he came to understand. From the beginning, Mitt had put Ann on a pedestal and kept her there.
‘When they were dating,’ Tagg said, ‘he felt like she was way better than him and he was really lucky to have this catch. He really genuinely still feels that way’. . . .
Mitt and Ann’s relationship would grow and change as their family entered the public eye. But she has remained his chief counselor and confidante, the one person who can lead Mitt to a final decision. Though she did not necessarily offer detailed input on every business deal, friends said, she weighed in on just about everything else.
‘Mitt’s not going to do something that they don’t feel good about together,’ said Mitt’s sister Jane. Tagg said they called their mom ‘the great Mitt stabilizer.’ Ann would later be mocked for her claim that she and Mitt had never had an argument during their marriage, which sounded preposterous to the ears of many married mortals. Tagg said it’s not that his parents never disagree. ‘I know there are things that she says that he doesn’t agree with sometimes, and I see him kind of bite his tongue. But I know that they go and discuss it in private. He doesn’t ever contradict my mother in public.’ Friends of the Romneys’ back up that account, saying they cannot recall Mitt ever raising his voice toward Ann.
Nowhere was Ann’s special status more evident than on long family car trips. Mitt imposed strict rules: they would stop only for gas, and that was the only chance to get food or use the restroom. With one exception, Tagg explained. ‘As soon as my mom says, ‘I think I need to go to the bathroom,’ he pulls over instantly and doesn’t complain. ‘Anything for you, Ann.’
The latest YouTube video making the rounds shows Rudy Giuliani speaking at a Women’s Coalition for Giuliani event. The clip is 17 years old and only 28 seconds, but it contains a sentence that, I suspect, will haunt Rudy’s campaign: “There must be public funding for abortions for poor women.”
Abortion is a sensitive subject for Rudy, which requires a delicate balancing act. For instance, he once supported late-term abortion. He now opposes it. Will he now also flip-flop on taxpayer-funded abortions? How about the global gag rule?
Whatever he does, one thing is crucial: how he responds to the response. Even though the video was uploaded yesterday, as of this writing, it’s already been viewed 71,334 times. That’s a considerable number, and Rudy’s silence will only generate further skepticism and confusion.
My advice: take a page from Mitt Romney’s communications shop. When potentially devastating video of the then-moderate governor’s 1994 debate with Ted Kennedy surfaced on YouTube last month, within hours “GovMittRomney” had uploaded a response, showing Romney on the phone discussing the video with a reporter.
In one swift and sharp swoop, Team Romney avoided another macacca moment, and the resultingstories highlighted the push back instead of the controversy.
Many assume that a nuclear Iran, led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, presents an unacceptable threat to Israel and to the United States. But as Cato scholars Justin Logan and Ted Carpenter argue in a recent op-ed, Ahmadinejad is, in fact, a rational actor and thus deterrable through conventional means—which both Israel and the U.S. possess in overwhelming quantities.
First, let’s contextualize Ahmadinejad’s holocaust-denying, holocaust-promising MO. Recent reports indicate that Tehran is increasingly criticizing Ahmadinejad, who may consequently be removed from office before his term expires. Moreover, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, wields the real power behind the regime, and his deeply odious ideas notwithstanding, he’s a moderate compared to Ahmadinejad.
Second, despite its bomb-making activities in Iraq, Iran has never passed chemical or biological weapons to Hezbollah or other client organizations. The reason is historically based: if Iran were to attack Israel—which it’s far likelier to do than attack the U.S.—it would surely suffer “mutually assured destruction.” In short, the fear of retaliation keeps fanatics in check.
Indeed, as Logan and Carpenter conclude, “Never in history have leaders made a decision that was absolutely certain to destroy their own country in a matter of hours. Until someone can come up with definitive evidence that Iran is the first such country, we must work from the assumption” that Ahmadinejad is deterrable.
In 2002, an inspector for the National Organic Program sued the Department of Agriculture over the USDA’s new rules governing the definition of “organic.” In short, the inspector, Arthur Harvey, alleged that the rules rendered the word overly broad, and thus permitted nonorganic ingredients to be marketed under the USDA organic seal of approval you’ve probably seen in the supermarket. In other words, you’re being duped. And you probably didn’t even know it.
The suit initially failed, but on appeal, the First Circuit Court sided with Harvey and remanded the holdings to the district court. The district court then ordered the USDA to issue new rules within a year (by June 2006, which it has done) and to enforce them by June 2007. In the meantime, the annual agriculture appropriations bill came up on Capitol Hill, and to prevent consumer confusion, commercial disruption and unnecessary litigation, Congress effectively resolved Harvey v. Veneman.
Mr. Harvey, however, remains unsatisfied. To show him the error of his ways, let’s review some of the district court’s holdings
First, there’s the question of what percentage of organic ingredients a product must contain to qualify as “organic.” Before Harvey, conventional ingredients commercially unavailable in organic form—Cornstarch, Gums, Kelp, Lecithin and Pectin—could be labeled “organic.” After Harvey, in accordance with the congressional agriculture bill, the Agriculture Secretary must declare an “emergency” to designate something as “organic”—and then only for up to 12 months.
Consequently, according to William Friedman, a former vice chair of the National Organic Standards Board, “Up to 90 percent of the multi-ingredient products that today bear the USDA organic seal would have to be relabeled.” Most crackers, breakfast cereals, bread, milk, cheese, yogurt, tofu, bananas, lettuce and any products containing sugar would cease to be potentially organic. Indeed, the new regime would make it financially prohibitive for many family farms to continue operating.
The next question: do synthetic substances in or on processed food make the product organic? Before Harvey, 38 such substances could be labeled “organic.” This is important because if we forbid synthetics from the “organic” umbrella, we force producers to downgrade their products from, say, 95% organic to 70% organic. The result: people eat less organic, and less healthy, food, and the organic market gradually shrinks.
Finally, as we scrutinize the above figures and facts, let’s remember that they were all arrived at after years of painstaking analysis and input from a range of parties. There is always room for improvement, but for all its purported irregularities, organic food in America remains a rapidly growing industry. And contrary to what some would have you believe, Americans are buying not because we’re gullible but because we enjoy what we’re eating.
HR 4740, the Save Our Small and Seasonal Business Act, allows people in the United States via an H-2B visa to continue their hard work here for an additional year.
HR 4770 is necessary because the H-2B program permits only 66,000 visas per year—a cap that has not been expanded since it was enacted in 1990. Indeed, in 2005, this quota was reached by March.
Such myopia puts many small businesses in a catch-22. On one hand, they can curtail their output, which reduces profits and slows the economy. On the other hand, they can turn to illegal immigrants, which rewards illegal behavior and undermines respect for the rule of law. Both options are bad, which is why HR 4740 is important.
The bill exempts H-2B workers who have been gainfully employed during the past three years and abided by all the rules of their visa, from counting toward the cap.
The bill also contains various safeguards to protect American workers. For instance, employers must first recruit U.S. citizens (by advertising through the state and federal labor departments). Only if openings remain may they then hire H-2B workers. Furthermore, the one-year assignment must be a one-time occurrence, at the end of which visa holders must return to their country of origin.
A version of this blog post appeared as an action alert for the American Conservative Union.
Conservatives in Colorado haven’t had much to cheer about recently. Amendment 39 changes that prospect.
For too long, the only demand of education funding has been more money. Indeed, owing to Amendment 23, Colorado taxpayers have seen their public education costs rise to record levels every year.
Amendment 39 reverses this trend to “more education for more money” by implementing what columnist George Will calls the 65% solution. Simply put, this program will ensure that 65% of K-12 public school funding reaches Colorado’s classrooms, teachers and students, rather than lining the coffers of bloated bureaucracies.
Like all good legislation, Amendment 39 reprioritizes expenditures instead of raising taxes. Amendment 39 is also flexible, phased-in and allows a governor to grant a waiver if a school district has a legitimate reason why 65% cannot be reached, such as rural transportation costs.
While this reform should be implemented nationally, it’s particularly important in Colorado. For only 58 cents of every education dollar currently reaches the state’s classrooms, making them the 47th least-funded in the country.
No wonder fellow conservatives from around the country are promoting the 65% solution for their states. Texas Governor Rick Perry of Texas and Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue have implemented it, while gubernatorial candidates Dick Devos (MI), Ken Blackwell (OH), Mark Green (WI), Charlie Crist (FL) and your own Bob Beauprez have all endorsed it.
So do your part for Colorado taxpayers, parents and students. Make classroom instruction Colorado’s first priority in education by voting yes on Amendment 39 in November.
We all know the drill. In purchasing alcohol or tobacco, cashing a check or boarding a plane, you need a picture ID. No ID; no dice. The routine is uncontroversial and commonsensical.
But did you know that in order to vote in a national election—in order to exercise that most elemental aspect of democracy for which America’s founders waged a revolution—you need not show proof of identification?
And if you need not show proof of identification, you need not show proof of citizenship. Even Mexico recognizes the injustice, insecurity and fraud this system encourages, and so requires voters to—gasp!—present a picture of themselves when voting
Why, then, doesn’t the United States require the same?
As the editors of National Review have observed, as long as we rely on nothing more than the honor system, we are effectively inviting the 12 million illegals already here to influence the American political process. Does not the sanctity of the ballot box warrant as much protection as boarding a 747?
Thankfully, Congress has taken up this long-overdue cause, and earlier this week, the House of Representatives passed the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 (HR 4844).
The bill proposes two modest requirements: (1) proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote, and (2) photo identification when voting. By the November 2008 election, states must check for such IDs, and by November 2010, the only valid IDs will be those issued on the basis of citizenship.
A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 81% of the American people favor an ID requirement for voting. In another poll by Rasmussen, 77% of likely voters agreed that a photo ID should be required to cast a vote. Indeed, 24 states already require voters to present some form of identification when voting, and seven require that ID to include a headshot.
Yet since the courts have overturned some of these regulations—in Georgia, for instance—the time has come for a uniform federal standard.
So, using the below form, please e-mail your senators and urge them to pass this eminently prudent, embarrassingly overdue, and admirably taut legislation.
Don’t let your vote be offset by someone who has no right to vote here in the first place. Tell your senators to pass HR 4844 today.
First they came for the Internet, which they wanted to smother with innovation-stifling regulations. Now they’re after your TV, which they want to keep in the clutch of a select few companies, rather than open the field to competition.
“They,” of course, are far-left groups like MoveOn.org, and their goal is as predictable as it is destructive: replace the American system of free enterprise with a Washington maze of congressional committees, federal agencies, and unaccountable bureaucrats.
So far, groups like ACU have prevented a government takeover of the Internet. But we need your help to ensure that freedom also prevails with respect to your television.
Here’s the rub. For too long, cable companies have lobbied for and then hid behind arcane red tape that makes it prohibitive for start-ups to enter the market. ACU, however, believes that companies should rise or fall on the basis of their goods and services, not their connections to politicians. We trust the judgment of consumers, not regulators.
If we succeed, consumers will benefit from more channels, lower bills, improved customer service, and superior technology.
To make these dreams a reality, please e-mail your senators—using the form below—and ask them to support the Advanced Communications Act (HR 5252). Tell them that TV shouldn’t can’t be held hostage by those who think the best way to harness the genius of the American people is by yoking us to a governmental chain. We must not let those who believe in Big Government panaceas dictate what our elected officials hear on this issue.
E-mail Prepared for Members
Dear Senator,
I am writing to urge you to support HR 5252, the Advanced Communications Act, and to defeat any amendments that would open the Pandora’s box of government regulation of the Internet.
The Internet has and continues to flourish because it has been allowed to grow free of government control. For the same reason, cable service progresses at a snail’s pace because of government control.
For years, cable companies have hid behind arcane regulations that make it prohibitive for competitors to enter the market. While some (like MoveOn.org) seek to sustain this undemocratic status quo, I believe we should introduce the cable services market to the American system of free enterprise. It is time that TV watchers enjoy the manifold benefits of competition.
For instance, cable competition will foster more channels (01 will become 001); lower bills (in communities where competition exists, prices have fallen by at least 20 percent); better customer service (who hasn’t spent hours waiting at home for the repairman or on the phone with an operator?); and superior technology (think digital is cutting-edge? just wait).
History shows that free and open markets have made America’s markets the envy of the world. Let’s keep it that way.
Lindsey Graham, the junior Republican senator from South Carolina, has taken a beating in recent months from conservatives—first for his blocking the nomination of Defense Department counsel William Haynes, an architect of the administration’s detainee policy, and now for his (just-reconciled) views on how to try the al Qaeda 14, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
But it’s hard not to like a guy who, this past summer, was in Kabul, Afghanistan, teaching the principles of U.S. military law at the Afghan Defense Ministry. The only senator now serving in the National Guard or reserve, and the first in decades to do military duty in a combat zone, Colonel Lindsey Graham, ipso facto, deserves the same respect the audience at Frank Gaffney’s “Keeper of the Flame” dinner last week gave other officers.
Moreover, as Jonathan Martin points out in today’s New Republic, “[A]ccording to the American Conservative Union ratings—the widely used metric for ideological purity—Graham voted the conservative line 94 percent of the time over the last two years. And Graham’s career score, 91 percent, is higher than such party stalwarts as Majority Leader Bill Frist, Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, and even liberal boogeyman Rick Santorum.”
Posted by Jonathan Rick in 
Scholars “use an intellectual scalpel…