Sand in the Gears

Last night's election can only be read as an utter rejection of Obamunism. Despite the claims from folks like Obama and John Kerry that the electorate is scared and isn't thinking straight, or that the issues are too complex for voters to understand, voters were thinking clearly enough to sweep the tax, spend, and regulate crowd out of the House and nearly out of the Senate. Obama's drive to transform us from an independent, entrepreneurial, resourceful, pull-yourself up-by-your-own-bootstraps people to a docile, dependent, risk-averse society was entirely rejected last night. There were two messages that were sent by voters last night--one for Obama and his neo-Euro-socialists, but an equally strong message for Republicans.

The obvious first message was directed toward the Obama administration. Voters attempted in every way possible to tell him that the '08 election was NOT a mandate to put bearded Marxists in charge of every aspect of government mechanisms, and it was NOT a mandate for a foreign policy designed by George Soros. But that is what Obama reached for. He put academic leftists at the controls of all of the departments charged with carrying out policy: Kathleen Sebelius, Carol Browner, Cass Sunstein, Ken "we're up against 200 years of laissez faire capitalism" Feinberg, and Donald Berwick. In foreign affairs, Obama turned a cold shoulder to loyal democratic allies like Great Britain and Israel, while his staff sent birthday greetings to Ahmadinejad and hugged Hugo Chavez, all the while apologizing for America's arrogance. The message from the bullhorn of the American voters last night was: "We're Americans. We're proud of our heritage and our special place in the world. We're not Europeans. We're don't want this much government shoved down our throats." It was that simple. The most common comment I hear from voters that occupy the middle of the road to conservative voters space is, "He scares me." Last night was all about throwing sand in his gears. Most Americans are very uncomfortable with a future constructed by Obama because it is completely foreign and unmoored from our past.

But just as there was a message for Obama, there was an equally strong message for Republicans. There is no mandate. The reason Republicans were rejected in '08 are still around. Republicans are as guilty as Democrats at propagating crony capitalism. They have not developed well-thought out positions to attack the problems of health care, financial reform, entitlement and budget reform. I had an uneasy feeling when John Boehner spoke last night-- it sounded a little like back to the future to me.

Fortunately, Republicans are developing a bright young bench that is poised to replace the old guard. Mitch McConnell and John Boehner need to begin to cede power and influence to the new crew-- Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Eric Cantor, and Michelle Bachmann. This is were the future of the Republican party lies.

The second lesson for Republicans is that even in a wave year, you have to run good candidates. It is a shame that we lost Delaware and Nevada. Next to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid's departure would have been most gratifying. But Republicans failed to capture those seats because they ran poor, flawed candidates. In other states where the tea party supported candidates were strong (Rubio and Toomey), voters embraced them.

Overall, I was pleased with the results last night. It's no accident that seats held by Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama have fallen into Republican hands. But Boehner and crew are mistaken if they commit the same error as Obama by misreading the mandate.

Eating Your Own Children

Juan Williams was fired by NPR (letters stand for No Personal Responsibility) last week for admitting that he felt "nervous" when he boarded airplanes with Muslims in traditional Muslim garb. NPR summarily fired him for that "bigoted" comment.

Mr. Williams is one of my favorite liberal commentators. While I often disagree with him, he takes a reasonable approach to the discussion and has a good sense of humor. He's someone I'd love to have dinner with and have an engaging discussion with. I am outraged by NPR's abrupt termination of him.

First, Mr. Williams was merely vocalizing an emotion, a visceral reaction, not something entirely under one's control. He in no way indicated that his raw emotion would precipitate any change in behavior, and indeed expressed regret that he sometimes harbored this feeling. Truly mature and adult people often have emotions that are not acted upon; in fact, most of us adults spend a great deal of energy in work and at home mastering our basest instincts. It's called being human.

Second, this emotion is not without some rational basis in fact. It is the sympathetic nervous system reacting to a perceived elevated risk or threat. Now, one can argue that this is an overreaction to the probability of harm. The probability of dying or being harmed in a terrorist attack in your lifetime is very small--less than your chances of dying from a lightning strike. But we do know some inconvenient facts. While not all Muslims are terrorists, virtually all terrorist attacks on Westerners over the past quarter century have been Muslim. We also know that airplanes are a weapon of choice for Muslim terrorists. Third, we know (despite Eric Holder's feigned ignorance), that some proportion of Muslims are motivated to engage in such acts by a radical and fundamentalist interpretation of the Qu'ran. Given those facts, it is not bigoted for someone to have a visceral reaction to someone in Muslim garb at the airport. But it is important to note that Mr. Williams DID NOT say that he would refuse to fly on the same plane as someone in Muslim garb nor did he say that because of this nervous feeling, we should subject such individuals to heightened scrutiny (although many commentators believe that this might be warranted). All he did was communicate an emotion. And he was fired for it.

Did he and do we engage in religious bigotry? I think nothing could be farther from the truth. Do you realize that we tolerate a fundamentalist religious sect that demands of its followers that they live as they did a century and a half ago? They dress in strict garb. They observe strict mores and customs and rarely marry outside their own group. They are very devoted to their faith, and they reject modern technology and society. That sect would be the Amish. Yet, if an Amish man showed up at the airport (assuming his religion permitted flight), neither Mr. Williams or even the biggest bigot south of Archie Bunker would be nervous. Why is that? Despite their rigid religious beliefs and their desire to live and dress in ways that are not mainstream, no members of this sect seek to impose themselves on others or seek to impose their religion on others through violent means. As a consequence, despite being out of the mainstream, the Amish are left alone to live their lives quietly and peacefully. Unfortunately some proportion of Muslims has chosen a different path.

The left denies the association. They deny the existence of political Islam. We have an attorney general that cannot even utter the phrase "radical Islam." We have people that walk out of discussions as guests on "The View" did when Bill O'Reilly asserted the fact that Muslims attacked us on 9/11. The unfortunate fact is that there wasn't a Catholic, Hindu, Jew, or Buddhist among the 19 hijackers. The Fort Hood shooter was a Muslim. The Times Square Bomber was a Muslim. The "underpants bomber" was a Muslim. Did Williams comment really reflect irrational bigotry. No. The worst that can be said of him is that he miscalibrated the relative increase in the probability of a threat. But to deny the increase in the threat is to deny reality.

Further, let's take another hypothetical. Let's assume that Juan Williams said, "I'm a devout Catholic and my twelve year old son was asked to go on a religious retreat with about 20 other young boys and 5 or 6 young priests in the White Mountains for a week, and I am feeling uneasy about that." Would NPR similarly have fired him for his bigoted comment? After all, only a small percentage of priests have been found to engage in unseemly conduct. Not a chance. They would have all been nodding their heads in sympathy. There would be no outrage over religious bigotry there. You can bet on it.

NPR should be ashamed of itself for silencing a reasonable, rational and articulate commentator. The threat of radical Islam is real and presents very difficult problems for an open, democratic and tolerant society. It is absolutely essential that we fully and fairly and openly address all aspects of the issues that radical Islam presents, not pretend that it doesn't exist. The P.C. crowd at NPR swung an authoritarian club at free and open discourse.

One could imagine the NPR bunch around about 140 years ago. Imagine a pioneer family seeing a group of 20 or so Native American braves on horseback on the horizon, thundering toward their ranch. Under NPR standards, the pioneers would have been harshly taken to task for their bigotry when they unlocked the gun cabinet.

I doubt I'll be real receptive at pledge time this year.

Peter

I heard Peter Orszag, President Obama's ex-budget director speak at the Association for Corporate Growth's Capital Connection (ACG) in Chicago last week. The ACG is a trade organization largely catering to private equity firms and companies that seek to grow through acquisition--- that is, wealth creators and job generators.

He presented a rather grim view of the budget, stating his belief that there is actually little room on the spending side for real reductions. The military consists of 2/3 personnel and 1/3 systems and hardware costs, and since defense experts do not believe it is advisable to shrink our forces at this time and because systems have long lead times, little can be taken out of the military. Entitlement program changes, he believes, may be phased in over time, but little can be done about current retirees. He does believe that tax increases are necessary but advocates leaving the Bush tax cuts in place for two years and then allow them to automatically expire. Orszag failed to differentiate between extending the tax cuts for "the rich" from the middle class, and ducked the question about raising taxes when the economy is so weak (so the liberal argument goes, "well, we raised taxes under Clinton and got a boom."). Yes, but they did so at the front end of a once in a lifetime tech boom, not while the economy was straining to crawl out of a once in a lifetime financial catastrophe.

In addressing health care, he asserted that "the bill addresses costs more than is popularly believed," but expressed disappointment that the bill did not address tort reform (although he claimed that research shows that malpractice claims to not significantly affect costs).

While optimistic about the long term vibrancy of the U.S. economy, he said that 2012 would be "bumpy" and was bearish about prospects for the U.S. budget, given the partisanship that will undoubtedly be present in Washington after the elections.

Overall, Mr. Orszag left me a little flat. He was better after he got the obligatory bland jokes out of the way at the beginning. He attempted to steer a neutral political course in his remarks, but as a result, left unanswered the important questions about the overall efficacy of the stimulus, the effect on growth, employment, productivity, and innovaation that all these tax increases and regulatory burdens being foisted on business will have, and said nothing about financial reform.

Afterwards, I asked one professional what he thought the punchline of Orszag's remarks was, and he replied dryly, "I can't get rich. I can't retire. And I sure as hell can't get sick."

Euro-Socialism in America- Think Again

“We’re all Socialists Now” proclaimed the cover of Newsweek in February of ’09. Stuart Varney begs to differ. Last week, I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Varney, senior business journalist at Fox Networks. As a fellow defender of capitalism and ardent opponent of big government, I have been a fan of Varney’s for a long time. Cheery and affable both on screen and in person, Varney is not bashful about being an advocate for the free market, and, conversely, shining a light on the demoralizing, suffocating aspects of our blossoming Nanny State. On his show that day, he spoke with the head of the Miami patrolman’s union defending the union’s position not to give an inch on its bloated pension system (where an ordinary retired police officer receives north of $90,000 per year and a lump sum payment in excess of $850,000). He also had a guest that demonstrated that the extension of unemployment benefits are helping keep the unemployment rate artificially high----when all benefits are considered, it turns out that unemployment pays better in many instances.

My chat with Varney was relatively brief, but two thoughts occurred to me afterword. The first is that Mr. Varney walks the walk—a true capitalist actor in a competitive marketplace. After shaking my hand, the first words out of his mouth were, “How can we improve the show?” I am not a media expert or consultant, but only a single consumer of his product (admittedly, one that is in his target demographic). But Mr. Varney was eager to learn if he could make his product better for his customers, ever seeking to get better. When does ANYONE in government ever ask that question? Imagine someone from the EPA or Department of Energy or Health and Human Services asking how their department might improve. The thought is preposterous. They don’t need to ask. They already know how to achieve their mission. Their mission is to develop a bunch of rules for YOU to follow, and to think of ways to make life painful and unpleasant if you do not. You really don’t have much choice about consuming the “government services” they produce. Mr. Varney does not have that luxury. He knows that if he doesn’t constantly find ways to make his show interesting, people like me will turn our attention elsewhere. He wants me to pay attention to the information that he is working hard to provide. That is the mark of a true capitalist.

Second, I understand that Mr. Varney overcome very modest beginnings to achieve the status he has achieve, and came to America to “escape European Socialism.” That is the second mark of a true capitalist. Unlike the picture that the Left likes to paint of the “idle rich,” a common thread among most genuine capitalists and advocates of capitalism is the notion of overcoming and persevering. They know how hard it is to be successful, how many obstacles and indignities must be borne, how many family dinners must be missed and how many late nights must be endured to have a chance at success.

It is not just a coincidence that there are two other conservative media personalities that have overcome--- Glenn Beck (whether you think he’s over the top or not) and Lawrence Kudlow. Beck overcame alcoholism to regain control over his life and Kudlow overcame substance abuse. Whether you agree with their views or not, both have gone on to become enormously successful conservative commentators.

That is a common conservative narrative—the notion of overcoming. Certainly, a handful of people are wealthy and successful by birth. But in America, most become successful by overcoming—overcoming poverty or modest roots, overcoming setbacks and sometimes your own demons, of being dismissed or excluded. But they persevere. By attempting to erect a Nanny State that will look after us and catch us if we fall no matter what, liberals rob us of two vital aspects of what it means to be human--- the need to constantly improve and the motivation to overcome and to persevere. Most of the great achievements involve those things. And if we stop rewarding people that seek to improve and to overcome and persevere, and we turn the “safety net” into a chaise lounge, we are dooming ourselves to a mediocre society, where nothing great is ever achieved. Worse, we are depriving ourselves of some of the most wonderful and inspirational stories that are part of what it means to be truly human.

I heard a successful Montana rancher recently say, “Most people divide the world into the Haves and the Have Nots; I divide the world into the Will Work and the Will Not Work.” My guess is that Mr. Varney would agree with this assertion.

The Boogeyman

“Bigoted,” “Intolerant,” “Small Minded,” “Fearmongering,” “Assisting Al Qaeda in its Recruiting,” and even “Hateful.” These were some of the charges leveled at me directly by some of my left wing friends and indirectly by the op-ed writers at the New York Times for my stance against the building of the Ground Zero Mosque.

When my liberal friends don’t have much to counter with, they dredge up the old bigotry charge. Immediately prior to the ’08 election, they had the “Bradley Effect” arguments at the ready. Obama was leading in the polls and it was inconceivable that someone as wise, wonderful and articulate (and, according to Joe Biden, clean) could lose. It would have had to have been latent racism. Only he got elected and that ended that. They have tried to pin the racist moniker on the Tea Party movement, too, but so far, it has not gained much traction. The Tea Party movement is simply made up of patriotic, limited government voters, and no hard evidence of racism has been unearthed. With the heated debates over health care reform, the liberals again attempted to trot out racism charges, but, again, there was no evidence to support that at all, even though Nancy Pelosi made a valiant attempt to provoke an incident by walking arm in arm with black congressmen after its passage.

Once again, the left is attempting to tar us with those ugly labels, and they are dead wrong. While I do not dispute the legal right of this group to build, I oppose the Ground Zero Mosque on the grounds that this site is sacred and because of the nature and reach of Militant Islam.
It is true that we enjoy religious freedom of expression here in the United States to an extent found in almost no other place on earth. Here, you can worship in any place and in any way you like, and there is almost no religious bigotry of any kind. Except for a few lunatics in the hills of Tennessee or the woods of Oregon, not only are different religions tolerated, they are accorded a great deal of respect. Heck, I don’t care much if you practice Santeria, as long as your chickens don’t bleed on my side of the fence. And we get a little queasy when folks like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell got too close to the mechanisms of government.

But Militant Islam is different. In many ways, it is an enemy uniquely adapted to our weaknesses. We do well against large armies on a battlefield. Our forces are designed to defeat people like Saddam Hussein or Soviet tanks rushing through the Fulda Gap, not bands of suicidal jihadists. Second, and more importantly, Militant Islam is uniquely designed to exploit our religious tolerance. Unlike our society’s relationship between religion and government, which, for the most part occupy separate spheres, Militant Islam’s view is that they are necessarily intertwined, and that makes it difficult. You simply cannot tell the difference between a “moderate” or a “radical” or discern who will morph from moderate to radical. While it runs counter to our society and culture to limit the rights of Muslims to worship in any reasonable way, it is also offensive to common sense to have a mosque built so proximal to Ground Zero when the perpetrators of that atrocity did it invoking the name of Islam. We’re not saying you can’t build a mosque. We’re not curtailing your ability to worship in any way. We’re just asking that you don’t build this center on this particular piece of real estate.

Several left leaning writers have said that opposition to the mosque gives Al Qaeda a propaganda tool. I assert that just the opposite is true. It is more likely that Al Qaeda will interpret our willingness to accept a mosque at Ground Zero as a huge propaganda victory. It will be seen as a monument to their martyrs and will be celebrated throughout their ranks. They will see the U.S. as a weak willed “weak horse” and that will be a recruiting tool. What other country would permit this to happen? Even pusillanimous France won’t permit women to wear hijabs. If headscarves were similarly banned here, the ACLU would go into convulsions.

Second, the location and political controversy gives rise to legitimate security concerns. Militant Islam has been very adept at mixing terrorism with mosques and charities. Imagine the propaganda victory if the next big terrorist attack on the U.S. was planned out of the basement of the Ground Zero Mosque. Further, at least one of the donors has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent holding company of Al Qaeda.

Third, Imam Rauf, the leader of the Cordoba Project and self-proclaimed “bridge-builder” has been anything but in this process. “Bridge builders” acknowledge the concerns of their opposition. Rauf has done nothing of the sort. He has stubbornly pushed ahead with his wife on national media circuit denouncing the bigotry of the opposition. His earlier statements on terrorism have been equivocal. He has not condemned Hamas and his statements indicate his belief the U.S. is just as culpable for discord around the world as the terrorists. His renouncement of terrorism and Hamas has been equivocal but his support of Sharia has not.
Fourth is its symbolism, which I touched on earlier. Ironically, liberals are in a frenzy over the symbolism of Glenn Beck’s rally at the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of his “I have a dream” speech, even though MLK was referred to in the most respectful terms and slavery was singled out as a terrible blight on our history. Yet they insist that nothing of the sort is going on with respect to the Ground Zero Mosque. Hmmm.

I reject this charge of bigotry in most stark terms. Like most Americans, I do not care who, where or even if people worship. My opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque is rooted in the propaganda victory it will hand Al Qaeda, the equivocal approach to terrorism and Sharia law that Imam Rauf has taken, and a legitimate concern of a “mixed use” property. We are not at war with Islam, but we are at war with Militant Islam. In war, symbolism is important. Our marines raised an American flag on Mount Suribachi on Iwo Jima and that image is part of our national lore. It would be a travesty if the Ground Zero Mosque became a similar symbol for Radical Islam.

More on Cordoba House

So today, House Speaker Pelosi calls for an investigation into those providing financial support for opposition to Cordoba House. Madame Speaker, given the events of 9/11, the Fort Hood shooting, the underwear bomber, Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, does it even occur to you that you might consider investigating the source of funding for the Ground Zero Mosque instead?

Just a few more months........

Cordoba - NO!

Once again I suspect Political Islam is using our Constitution as a shield to make a statement. In a highly inappropriate and controversial move, an Islamic group is attempting to build a mosque in the shadows of Ground Zero in New York.
Clearly, they have the legal right to do so. We do not distinguish between religions when granting private property rights. Imam Rauf, the leader of this project, describes himself as a “bridge builder.” However, Muslims all over the world howl when their “sensitivities” are offended. They rioted across Europe when a cartoonist portrayed Muhammed with a bomb in his turban. A bounty was put on the head of Salman Rushdie’s head for the unconscionable act of writing a book. Film director Theo Van Gogh was murdered for offending Islam after being condemned by a local imam. Offend the sensibilities of Islam and you will get a reaction.
But now, it seems the shoe is on the other foot. Many of us are now having our sensibilities offended by the audacity of this group to put a mosque in the shadow of the place where 3,000 of our fellow citizens were murdered by fundamentalism Muslims that did so while invoking Allah.
If Imam Rauf and his group are truly dedicated to interfaith harmony, I dare them to prove it. I would take their claims to be “bridge builders” more seriously if they said, “We understand the pain that was brought by this errant group of young men that murdered in the name of Islam. They were wrong and they did not in any way represent Islam. We understand the painful association of that day with Islam and we will do everything in our power to distance Islam from it. We will build our mosque in another place.”
But that is not their approach at all. The governor of New York has offered to find another, more suitable, location. But this group wants none of it. One can only conclude that they mean to put salt in the wound.
Symbolism is important. Flying a confederate flag on one’s car antenna on Martin Luther King Day would say something very bad about you even if you have every right to do it and even if you are claiming solely to be proud of your Southern Heritage. The symbolism of the name “Cordoba House” (commemorating Muslim conquest of Cordoba in a bloody battle) is not lost.
As a legal and Constitutional matter, there is not much that can be done if this group doesn’t voluntarily come to its senses. But I am in New York frequently and if they do built it (I still have my doubts), I plan to stop by. I will park in front of it, pop open a beer and flip through a Playboy magazine. Maybe I’ll even find a girl in a bikini to sit on my lap. It would also be great if I can find a couple of friends that are gay, so that I might have them join me while they hold hands in plain eyesight. I’m all for celebrating tolerance.