Liberalism is a Bankrupt Monster

Conservatism is a shining city on the hill. Liberalism is the clanking monster that threatens to destroy it.

Christopher Chantrill has written a brilliant piece contrasting two opposing views on what American conservatives should do to improve their lot. Our conservative friend from Canada, David Warren says to start the revolution. British liberal Daniel Finkelstein recommends throwing Sarah Palin and the other lowbrows over the side and buddying up to the liberal media.

Read Chantrill's article here: Who's Out of Touch. Here is an excerpt that neatly summarizes his thesis:

The awful truth about liberalism is its central delusion, the notion that life can be neatly organized into rational bureaucratic programs. It turns everything it touches into a soulless clanking monster.

The glorious truth about conservatism is its love of life. Before princes, principalities and powers comes life and love, mothers and babies, children and families, struggle and sacrifice, a city on a hill.

Enjoy!

American Thinker - Chantrill

Anti-Establishment Radicals

Welcome to the other side:

"People who identify themselves as conservatives need to realize that it is they, and not the former sixties radicals now occupying the halls of power in America, who are the outsiders – the anti-establishment group."

For an excellent article by Todd Keister of the NY Conservative Examiner, go here:

http://www.examiner.com/x-2466-NY-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m6d2-The-problem-with-conservatives

I was very impressed... and I don't say that too often.

~Finntann~

William F. Buckley's Impure Conservatism

William F. Buckley's success in building modern conservatism had nothing to do with ideological purity

Ramesh Ponnuru writes an article that looks to the past to give conservatives hope for the future. He talks about the modern conservative movement Buckley fathered. He shows us that

... the coalition Buckley assembled ... seemed to be a ramshackle affair. It included anti-Communists (who were frequently ex-Communists), libertarians, traditionalists, and even the odd — very odd — monarchist. They disagreed with each other on everything from the existence of God to the necessity of government-run lighthouses. Conservatives and liberals said this coalition made no intellectual sense and could not possibly hang together politically, let alone succeed. But common interests, chiefly in resisting liberalism, kept Buckley’s movement in one piece.

The free-market Catholic Buckley collaborated with Sidney Hook, an atheist and socialist, on anti-Communist projects. The conservatives of today have smaller bridges to build. If Buckley could work with Hook, surely we can make the effort to reach out to environmentally conscious suburbanites and new Hispanic citizens.

A similar conservative collection of disagreeing odd-balls can work today. President Obama and his radical confreres in Congress have provided a cause evangelicals, irreligious moderates, libertarian constitutionalists, agnostic free marketeers, and cultural conservatives can all rally around:

Defeat Liberalism

Cultural and religious conservatives do not need to drop their beliefs, they just need to stop card checking others at the door. Non-believers need not bow before God to enter, they must merely acknowledge the constitutional right of believers to openly practice their faith.

Troy Senik, writing at RCP sums it up:

...effective political coalitions are built by addition, not subtraction. The notion that social conservatives, libertarian free-market types, or hawkish neoconservatives can be profitably removed from the party is usually an exercise in wishful thinking on behalf of their ideological adversaries.

William F. Buckley worked with atheists and others who did not share his cultural views. Can you?

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzgzZThlOGJiZTRkZmQxODcxNWIyYzIwMWRlMjM4YzU=
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/450mnzei.asp?pg=2

RINO Stampede is Not Reaganesque

Politics is about addition, not subtraction, and it has nothing to do with ideological purity.

Multifarious GOP factions calling names and declaring jihad on one another is the sure road to failure. Politics is about gaining power so you can influence and control the course of government. You do that by winning elections, not picking fights with teammates who don't think exactly like you do. Ronald Reagan knew it, and savvy conservatives should read his words and emulate them.

Jim DeMint, Republican Senator from South Carolina, wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal giving us his vision of the GOP's big tent. He wants to build the party on principles, not issues. The #1 principle? Freedom

To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, if you aim for principled reform, you win elections in the bargain; if you just aim for elections, you get neither.

Freedom will mean different things to different Republicans, but it can tether a diverse coalition to inalienable principles. Republicans can welcome a vigorous debate about legalized abortion or same-sex marriage; but we should be able to agree that social policies should be set through a democratic process, not by unelected judges.

A Political Party is not an ideological movement

Noemie Emory at the Weekly Standard points out the difference between an ideological movement (Conservatives, free-market capitalists, 2nd Amendment gun owners, gay log cabin republicans) and a political party (Democrat, Republican).

...a party and movement are not the same thing. A movement exists to express and promote a coherent set of principles in the world of ideas and of values. A party--especially in a two-party system--is something quite different: a gathering of diverse political forces around a large and loosely held set of interests and values, that exists to give all of its factions access to power in the practical world of events.

Yes! The GOP is the bus conservatives must ride to power. The catch is, you have to share it with some who don't think exactly like you. Fine. The temptation is to beat them into submission, but life doesn't work that way. Share the ride and maybe you can debate and convince them along the way to electoral victory.

"Conservatism is not a narrow ideology, nor is it the exclusive property of conservative activists."
-- Ronald Reagan, 1977

Many want to simply throw the ideological nonconformists off the bus, but Noemi reminds us that Reagan would not approve. Consider these comments from Ronald Reagan's 1977 address to conservative activists.

"The biggest single grouping of conservatives is to be found in that party. It makes more sense to build on that grouping than to break it up and start over," he said to those who suggested that option.

"Let me say this about our friends who are now Republicans but do not identify themselves as conservatives. I want the record to show that I do not view the new revitalized Republican party as one based on a principle of exclusion. After all, you do not get to be a majority party by searching for groups you won't associate or work with. If we truly believe in our principles, we should sit down and talk.

Those itching to purge the party of all impurity need to stop blabbering on about Reagan and actually pause to read what he has said.

WSJ - Jim DeMint
Weekly Standard - Noemie Emory

Libertarians, Social Conservative, Natural Allies

What's wrong with libertarianism? It's too cold, too logical... Sterile.

It lacks the fecundity to spawn an emotional movement, and sociologists tell us that politics is driven by emotion.

Libertarianism stands for... Nothing! It doesn't have an elephant or donkey as its symbol, or even a flag.

Actually, libertarianism stands for thousands of things: Drug use, homosexuality, gun rights, log cabin get back to nature, Christianity, Judaism, atheism. It stands for not standing in the way of human activity, some of which may be destructive to the actor.

And guess what? That puts libertarianism in complete concert with the constitution. Unfortunately, it also puts libertarians in the same suspicion-worthy category as liberals and atheists in the minds of cultural conservatives. That's too bad, because these two groups have overlapping goals that can only be protected by banding together.

Peter Berkowitz writes in WSJ Online:

Unfortunately, contrary to the Constitution's lesson in moderation, the two biggest blocs in the conservative coalition are tempted to conclude that what is needed now is greater purity in conservative ranks. Down that path lies disaster.

The cultural conservatives point to how California, Florida and Arizona passed bans on gay marriage. What they fail to recognize is that, notwithstanding these victories, public opinion is trending against them on this issue. In 2000, 61% of Californians voted against gay marriage. In 2008, the anti vote had shrunk to 52%.

Libertarian conservatives point disdainfully to GOP spending that is indistinguishable from Democratic profligacy, as well as a fixation on issues that government has no business getting into such as stem cell research, Terri Schiavo, and gay marriage.

At best, cultural conservatives and libertarian conservatives are highly suspicious of one another; at worst, these are mutually hostile camps.

Berkowitz explains why these two groups need each other:

But the purists in both camps ignore simple electoral math. Slice and dice citizens' opinions and voting patterns in the 50 states as you like, neither social conservatives nor libertarian conservatives can get to 50% plus one without the aid of the other.

He then identifies the principles these two camps can rally around:

The principles are familiar: individual freedom and individual responsibility, limited but energetic government, economic opportunity and strong national defense. They are embedded in the Constitution and flow out of the political ideas from which it was fashioned. They were central to Frank Meyer's celebrated fusion of traditionalist and libertarian conservatism in the 1960s. And they inspired Ronald Reagan's consolidation of conservatism in the 1980s.

Short-term clashes over priorities and policies are bound to persist. But championing these principles is the best means over the long term for conserving the political conditions hospitable to traditional morality, religious faith, and the communities that nourish them. And it is also the best means over the long term for conserving the political conditions that promote free markets, and the economic growth and expanded opportunity free markets bring.

It's not about fighting the noble but futile battle of converting everyone to your social values. It's about defending the constitutional principles that guarantee your right to continue to exercise those values. This is how conservatives keep liberals from hijacking the government and using its powers to snuff their values. It's about creating that space for human action that is free from government control. That is what the founders envisioned. Who knows, in the process, you may just gain some converts by your actions.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123086011787848029.html

Democratic Demographic Deluge

Ronald Brownstein has written another tired story about how shifting demographics dooms the GOP. The blue collar, redneck, gun-totin', bible thumpin' white hick population is declining, while the burgeoning Hispanic population and the African-American community are voting in record numbers. He starts like all good liberals do, by carving up the electorate by race and ethnicity.

Start by considering the electorate's six broadest demographic groups -- white voters with at least a four-year college degree; white voters without a college degree; African-Americans; Hispanics; Asians; and other minorities.

He explains how white votes are decreasing and minorities are increasing.

These trends point toward trouble for the GOP if it cannot attract more minorities, especially Hispanics, and reverse the recent Democratic inroads among well-educated whites.

Ever notice how only paternalistic liberals can get away with ghettoizing blacks, Hispanics and "other minorities"? A conservative who stereotypes behavior based on race or culture is called a bigot. Liberals blithely assume these groups will always vote Democratic; that they are homogeneous and care nothing for basic liberties, free enterprise, and other conservative principles. The unspoken belief is that these groups are spilling over with poor people who are dependent on handouts that only a liberal democratic machine can dispense. This balderdash is a benign brand of cultural and racial stereotyping.

Brownstein is right in one respect: Republicans must broaden their outreach, but not it the way he is thinking. Yes, appeal to everyone, but not by pandering to various minority constituencies like the democrats do. No, you do it by standing up for timeless American values like hard work, liberty, making your own life decisions for yourself and your family and your community instead of a government nanny state doing it. It means making free-enterprise solutions more accessible for people to grow small businesses where communities need them to solve local problems. Who wouldn't want that?

Communication is critical. The libs have beaten us bloody in the PR war: We conservatives hate gays, blacks, women, anybody who doesn't look like us or pray like us. Actually, I just described the radical Muslim groups these liberals defend so often, but you see my point. They know how to get their message out while negatively painting their opponents. Yeah, they've got teachers, professors, TV, Hollywood movies, every news outlet in the world on their side, so now what? General Chesty Puller, highly decorated and legendary Marine officer said it best: "We're surrounded. That simplifies the problem."

So Hollywood and the media hate us. So what. We need to do what Reagan did: Go over their heads directly to the American people. How? The GOP and conservative movements need to stop sending out stupid questionnaires that are really thinly disguised fund raising props to people who already agree with them. They need to get some young people in there who know how to take the message to the masses. They need to fund conservative grass-roots experiments.

Think I'm dreaming? We have no alternative. You can't out-democrat the Democrats, just ask failed GOP candidate John (reach across the aisle) McCain and former President (education bill, senior prescription drug bill, compassionate) G.W. Bush.

People just wanna be free, and they can't get that from liberalism.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/politicalconnections.php

GOP Trinity for Success: Unity, Diversity, Charity

Mark Sanford is a successful GOP governor I admire. He once turned a pig loose in the South Carolina Statehouse to chastise the state's pork barrel spending legislators. He has the following advice for the GOP:

I believe Republicans and conservatives must agree on our core principles. St. Augustine called for ‘unity in the essentials, diversity in the nonessentials, and charity in all things,’ and while I believe there should always be a big GOP tent, there must also be a shared agreement on the essentials.

Sorting the essential from the nonessentials is the hard part. Charity (the classical definition meaning love, or a positive attitude towards others) is mostly a matter of tone.

Unity in the Essentials
What are the essentials? The Constitution is a good starting point. Minimal government interference in markets and people's lives. Private sector solutions over government ones. Fiscal responsibility.

This is the line in the sand: Cross it, Mr. Politician, and you are no longer a Republican. If this list is too long, the GOP will be ideologically pure but unable to attract a majority. Make the list too short, and the party will stand for nothing, still unable to attract a majority... Kind of like it is now.

Diversity in the Nonessentials
Politics is about addition, not subtraction. Torch bearing, pitchfork wielding pogroms that run every last RINO out of town may be emotionally gratifying, but it's not how you build a party.

Let me start by saying I think popular culture and a vocal minority of society is hostile and intolerant to religious conservatives, especially Christians. My question is, can conservative Christians be charitable and tolerant of those who do not share their religious or social values?

Before you answer, recall that religious tolerance is a founding principle enshrined in the constitution. The founders thought belief in The Almighty to be essential to a free people but nonetheless consciously chose to not mandate it.

Can you welcome into the GOP tent gay financial wizards, lesbian intellectual Ayn Rand devotees, atheists, agnostics, lapsed Catholics? Hindus, profane money worshipers, deists, and even... *Gasp!*... Muslims? Surgeons who golf on Sunday morning instead of going to church, pro-choice free-market entrepreneurs...

Get used to the idea. All conservatives are not dedicated Christians. Some are not Christians at all. We can't turn these people away; we need to increase our numbers, and the GOP is a political movement, not a church.

Tolerating does not mean condoning. Our constitution tolerates believers and non-believers alike. We should do the same. Discriminating against someone for not believing or believing differently is just as wrong as preventing someone's outward expression of religious belief.

Charity in All Things
Many conservatives come off as mean and they need to stop it if they want to attract more people to their cause. Democrats have used fuzzy bunny, happy sappy tactics for years to great affect. What else can explain voters calling government tax and spend "caring and generous" while declaring letting you keep your own money "greedy?" The Democrats understand the propaganda war.

Would you accept advice from a mean-spirited, loathsome creature, even if it was really good advice and you could clearly see the benefit of it? (think Bill Maher, or Rosie O'Donnell) Probably not, they're so repulsive you'd refuse to listen. Well, it works the same it reverse: To much of the muddled middle, that's how many conservatives look.

It's all in the delivery. Just ask two-term popular ex-presidents Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan. Both men were perpetual optimists with sunny attitudes, and each was the the most effective spokesman for his political movement. Deranged political opponents just couldn't steal their sunshine.

Finally, can we turn the Republican National Committee upside down and empty out all the country club republicans and woolly mammoths and replace them with 20-somethings and Hip Hop Conservatives? If we can't turn on the newest generation of voters to conservatism, this country is doomed.

Conservatives: Keep the Faith!

The road to GOP recovery lies not in chasing every last infidel from the party, but rather organizing around simple constitutional principles and then sticking to them. And that doesn't mean abandoning your traditional values.

Randall Hoven has written a piece in the American Thinker entitled, A Libertarian Defense of Social Conservatism. He defends social conservatism better than social conservatives do.

He exposes the angry left as the truly intolerant social engineers who use legislation and the courts to boss the rest of us around.

The most obvious point to me is that it is the do-gooding liberals who are telling us all what we can and can't do.

The religious right usually just wants to be left alone, either to home school, pray in public or not get their children vaccinated with who-knows-what. Inasmuch as the "religious right" wants some things outlawed, they have failed miserably for at least the last 50 years.

Abortion, sodomy, and pornography are now all Constitutional rights. However, praying in public school is outlawed, based on that same Constitution.

I must say, even as an agnostic, something is creepy about a government that outlaws Nativity scenes at City Hall, but subsidizes Piss Christ. That tries to disband the Boy Scouts but promotes gay marriage. That disallows even voluntary, student-led prayer at public school, but teaches children how to put on condoms.

What is so funny about Bill Maher's Religulous? What is so bad about Sarah Palin hoping to do God's will or praying for His guidance?

Conservatives can embrace core principles, keep our traditional values, and still attract small government and libertarian agnostics to our cause. Keep the faith!

Democrat Technicolor Dream Fight

Mr. Obama's election has sparked heady talk of "liberal mandates" and a "progressive America." David Sirota at Salon joins a chorus of pundits urging President Obama to go progressive and go big. It's a good article, but I'm suspicious of any argument based on comic book philosophy:

Maximizing this opportunity relies on Democrats understanding the parable from Spider-Man comics -- the one about great power coming with "great responsibility." In politics, that latter phrase is a euphemism for high expectations.

Just as soaring campaign rhetoric easily slips the surly bonds of reality, boastful and grandiose pronouncement are to by expected from euphoric victors. Let them have their fun while it lasts. Remember the one about how President Bush had ushered in a permanent Republican majority? Campaign hot air and post-election fantasies are inevitably doomed to dissipate into the ether.

A piece written by the Heritage Foundation produces some needles to prick the balloon. It points out Mr. Obama's late breaking conservative spasms (Pro-gun, pro-FISA, middle class tax cuts, fiscal responsibility, larger military). It also reveals the inconvenient truth that while the Obama campaign ran no ads claiming the support of the liberal Center for American Progress, it did run some wrongly claiming conservative Heritage Foundation support for its tax policies.

There is clearly a yawning gap between the what the left expects from an Obama presidency and the rhetoric that Obama actually ran on. As to who the real Obama is — a pragmatic centrist or a progressive ideologue — our guess is as good as anyone’s. After all, Obama has never governed anything, so there is no track record to make predictions.

Finally, America just ain't that liberal. Democrats might outnumber Republicans, but there are still more conservatives (34%) than liberals (22%.) And the Wall Street Journal reports that swing voters who ushered in an Obama Presidency nontheless do not want big government. I know, that doesn't make sense, but little in politics does...

A poll commissioned by the Club for Growth in 12 swing congressional districts over the past weekend shows that the voters who made the difference in this election still prefer less government -- lower taxes, less spending and less regulation -- to Sen. Obama's economic liberalism. Turns out, Americans didn't vote for Mr. Obama and Democratic congressional candidates because they support their redistributionist agenda, but because they are fed up with the Republican politicians in office. This was a classic "throw the bums out" election, rather than an embrace of the policy views of those who will replace them.

The great struggle will not be between a triumphant Democratic Empire and a small band of persecuted Republican hiding out in the catacombs. The real battle will rage within the Democratic Party between ideological centrists and doctrinaire liberals each convinced they have a mandate. Meanwhile, Republicans need only stand aside and look responsible.

The most interesting question is, which side will President Obama come down on? It will take the wisdom of Solomon to thread that needle.

Conservatism

We are still a nation where conservatives (34%) outnumber liberals (22%). 40% are up for grabs, and the Democratic party has been attracting them by sounding conservative (Talk right, vote left).

Here's a post-election e-mail from the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank that produces scholarly analysis of political issues that ordinary folks like you and me can understand.

I keep telling everyone to keep their powder dry. Well, the Heritage Foundation is the armory where you can get all the ammo you need to fight for the conservative cause. Go to the Heritage Web Site and arm yourself for battle!

November 7, 2008| By Nathaniel Ward

What the election means

On Tuesday, American voters elected Senator Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States. His Democratic Party allies also realized substantial gains in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

In a column circulated nationwide, Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner explains what this election means for conservatives.

An abiding belief in our country's greatness, tinged with optimism, has long been a cornerstone of conservatism. And Obama's been tacitly leaning toward conservative ideas since he became the Democratic nominee. Even though his record indicated he was the most liberal candidate in (at least) a generation, he ran as a conservative on major issues like taxes (promising to cut them), the military (vowing to add some 92,000 new troops) and energy (saying he'd at least consider offshore drilling).

"The problem," he continues,

is that both political parties have failed Americans

In recent years the Republican Party, which in Reagan's hands carried the conservative standard to new heights, lost its way. Federal spending now tops $25,000 per household annually, and the coming Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid costs of 77 million retiring baby boomers threaten to add another $12,000 per household to the taxpayers' annual tab. Yet neither party offers a solution to the entitlement crisis or a real plan to cut spending.

And while "Republicans who have lost touch with their conservative roots are in trouble," Feulner argues, "conservatives are thriving," dominating the talk radio airwaves and expanding their online presence on sites like Townhall.com.

Still a center-right nation

Heritage Vice President Mike Franc made two key observations about the election results in a National Review Online symposium.

First, with the defeat of Republican moderates, "returning House Republicans will be more uniformly conservative. To the extent congressional Republicans plan to rediscover their inner conservative selves, this enhanced ideological uniformity will serve them well."

Secondly, and more importantly, Franc notes that "the exit polls, to the extent they can be believed, remind us once again that America remains a decisively right-of-center nation."

Liberal remains a dirty word. In fact, many more Americans continue to self-identify as conservative (34 percent) than as liberal (only 22 percent). Knowing this, successful Democratic candidates across the country used conservative rhetoric and themes to score points against their Republican opponents and win the hearts of voters. The Democrats' repeated refrain on behalf of middle class tax relief was but one of several such examples.

Nanny State Dems: Yes We Can! No You Can't!

Michael Medved has written a brilliant analysis of the Democratic convention's contradictory message on success and the American Dream. The convention featured personal testimony from those who rose to success from humble beginnings. Their message for us, the great unwashed masses? We need government help in every aspect of our lives. These successful Democrats were able to do it on their own, but the rest of us are not. Mr. Medved zeros in on this in his article:

...in recounting their own stories of advancement and achievement, none of the speakers cited bureaucratic intervention or federal assistance as an element of success. Instead, they repeatedly invoked strong personal values – strong families, self-discipline, tireless effort, sacrifice – as the sole key to economic and educational progress.

If those values worked for the top Democrats themselves, why can’t they work for Americans everywhere?

By implication, these smug and preening politicians suggested that we’re brilliant and strong and special enough to make it to the top without government help, but most of the mere mortals who are watching us on TV will get nowhere at all unless we somehow use taxpayer money to assist them.

Right on! And polling data reveals 50% of Americans think government is doing too much. 84% of Americans reject income redistribution. Follow this link to see the details. As expected Republicans are overwhelmingly against more government, while Democrats are all for it. Most importantly, those who identify themselves as independents side with the Republicans on these issues.

Take this polling data into account as you contrast this week's Republican message with that of the Dems last week. Which is more coherent? Which accords with public opinion? More importantly, whose message accords with our Founding Fathers' ideal of a constitutional republic with a limited role for government?

America is receptive to a conservative message. Can the GOP deliver it?

Liberal Fantasies -- Conservative Reality

Bruce Walker has written an encouraging piece in the American Thinker.

He's been tracking results of the bipartisan Battleground Poll since 2002, and points out that Conservative/Liberal self-identification has consistently been roughly 60% conservative, 40% liberal.

He goes on to analyze why these data are so at odds with popular perception. Short answer: Those to the left of center run from the liberal label while conservatives proudly self-identify. He also provides examples showing how skewed polling questions make America look more liberal than it actually is.

I believe this to be true. America is not a liberal nation, and recent off-cycle elections bear this out. Yes, I know, Democrats won them all. But the winners ran not as proud progressives, but as gun totin', bible thumpin' conservatives.

Republicanism may be on the ropes (and rightly so due to the gross malfeasance of its political practitioners) but Conservatism's heart still beats in the American breast.

Now, is there anybody in the GOP smart enough to capitalize on this information?

Reagan's Wisdom: Antidote to Liberalism

As we fight the slide to Socialism and goodies giveaways by our elected "leaders" it is useful to return to the words of Ronald Reagan. I get frustrated arguing with those who think liberal government policies will solve our problems.

Liberalism is easy: Every problem can be solved by government. Can't pay for health care? Uncle Sam will pick up the tab. Poor? Here, have this money Uncle Sugar shook out of somebody else's pockets. Confused by too many choices in the marketplace? Bureaucrats will make those decisions for you. Protectionism, paternalism, leveling the playing field. It all sounds so attractive, and it makes people feel good.

Conservatism, on the other hand, takes thought. Where will the money for government handouts come from? What would happen if you take away incentive to work or make money? What would happen to personal initiative if government took care of everybody and shielded us from those tough decisions? If people had no more incentive and no more initiative, what would happen to our country?

Ronald Reagan, a man much greater and wiser than I, addressed all these issues decades ago. His solutions, drawn from the wisdom of the ages, healed a malaise-ridden nation whose economy had been made moribund by a half-century of liberal policies.

American Rhetoric, an on-line speech bank, has the complete text of a speech President Reagan gave at Hillsdale College. You can read the text or even listen to a recording of the speech. It will refresh your belief in free enterprise and restock your armory for doing battle with the feel-good liberals. You can read the entire text or listen to the speech here.

Here are a few excerpts:

But how much are we to blame for what has happened? Beginning with the traumatic experience of the Great Depression, we the people have turned more and more to government for answers that government has neither the right nor the capacity to provide. But government, as an institution, always tends to increase in size and power, not just this government -- any government. It's built-in. And so government attempted to provide the answers.

Ludwig von Mises said that, "Government is the only agency that can take a perfectly useful commodity like paper, smear it with some ink, and render it absolutely useless."

There’s a fellow in Indiana with a shop. He’s got seven employees. At the front and back of his tiny shop there was a twelve foot door -- each end. OSHA has just told him he has to install exit signs in the event that a new employee might become confused in case of fire and not be able to find his way out. He asked a pretty logical question. He said if he can’t see a twelve foot door, how’s he going to see that exit sign?

You know, it has been said that politics is the second oldest profession, and I've come to realize over the last few years, it bears a great similarity to the first.

But, you know, if you lose your economic, you lose your political freedom, all freedom. Freedom is something that cannot be passed on in the blood stream, or genetically. And it's never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it, or it's gone and gone for a long, long time.

Already, many of us, particularly those in business and industry, there are too many who have switched rather than fight. And it's time that particularly, some of our corporations learned, that when you get in bed with government, you're going to get more than a good night's sleep.

Neal Boortz’s Famous Commencement Address

A friend sent this to me and suggested I post it. It’s a nice summary of conservativism. Neal pokes a little fun at liberals and the academic left, but he does it in a civil manner while handing out some good advice. BTW, he has never actually given this speech at any college, but it is nonetheless one of his most well-known.

Enjoy!

http://boortz.com/more/commencement.html