A good criticism of the Bush administration from the right

[Tarkan]

Mark Steyn
Politicians not giving us much of a choice

September 25, 2005

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Advertisement

American politics seems to have dwindled down to a choice between a big government party and a big permanently-out-of-government party. The Senate Democrats had two months to cook up a reason to vote against John Roberts and the best California's Dianne Feinstein could manage come the big day was that she'd wanted to hear him "talking to me as a son, a husband and a father." In that case, get off the judiciary committee and go audition for ''Return To Bridges of Madison County,'' or ''What Women Want 2'' ("Mel Gibson is nominated to the Supreme Court but, despite being sensitive and a good listener, is accused of being a conservative theocrat").



That slab of meaningless emotive exhibitionism would make a good epitaph for the Democratic Party. The reality of life as a bigshot Dem is that what John Roberts is like "as a father" is less important than what George Soros is like as a sugar daddy. The more money shoveled at the party by Moveon.org, Hollywood, NOW and other unrepresentative fringes, the less it's able to see over the big pile of green to the electorate beyond. A party as thoroughly Sorosized as the Democrats is perforce downsized.

To be sure, they have many institutional advantages: If you watch the TV news, you'd still think Cindy Sheehan was an emblematic bereaved army mom, rather than a pitiful crackpot calling for Bush to pull his troops out of "occupied New Orleans." Her Million-Moan March washed up in Washington on Thursday to besiege the White House. As the Associated Press put it, "Sheehan, Supporters Descend On The Capital." There were 29 supporters. Can two-and-a-half dozen people "descend" on any capital city bigger than the South Sandwich Islands'? Surely her media boosters were cringing with embarrassment at their own impotence. Since its star columnist Maureen Dowd got the hots for Mrs. Sheehan's "moral authority," the New York Times has run some 70 stories on Cindy -- and every story they ran attracted another 0.4142857 of a supporter to her march on the capital.

Nonetheless, Hillary Rodham Clinton has yielded to "pressure" from all those 0.41428s and agreed to meet with Mrs. Sheehan to "explain" her vote for the Iraq war. The dwindling stars of today's Democratic Party expend most of their energy jumping through the ever smaller hoops of an ever kookier fringe.

These days one party raises a ton of money from George Soros and the other raises a ton of money from you. George Bush has committed to spending $200 billion on Gulf Coast "hurricane relief." The Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore put the figure in perspective: There are supposedly half-a-million families displaced by Katrina. For $200 billion, you could give every family 400,000 bucks, and they could build their own beachfront home virtually anywhere in America except next door to Barbra Streisand's pad.

For 400 grand, they could all move into the Plaza Hotel -- with a view of Central Park, not the cheap rooms looking out on 58th -- and live off the 30-dollar Snickers from the mini-bar. Oh, sure, some might blow the $400,000 on beer and strippers, as several hurricane "victims" have already done with their complimentary Fedit-credit cards at the Baby Dolls Club in Houston. "You lost your whole house," said Abby, one of the eponymous dolls, "you might want some beer in a strip club."

But even Abby, skilled as she no doubt is, would have a hard job taking as much off as the "public servants" of Louisiana will once that $200 billion starts sluicing through the sewers of its kleptocrat bureaucracy. Even taking the gloomiest view of human nature's partiality to beer in a strip club, giving every displaced Gulf Coast family an instant 401(k) with an instant 400k would be unlikely to be as economically wasteful as a 200 bil government program -- unless, that is, it's going straight to the Army Corps of Engineers to build the world's highest seawall out of unused Sacagawea dollar coins.

Big-time Republicans tell me Bush's profligacy is doing a great job of neutralizing the Dem advantage in the spending-is-caring stakes. This may have been true initially -- in the same sense as undercover cops neutralize a massive heroin-smuggling operation by infiltrating it. But, if they're still running the heroin operation five years later, it looks less like neutralization and more like a change of management.

Savvier GOP types say, ah, well, Bush is the war president, his priority's the war, and he doesn't want a lot of domestic nickel-and-diming to distract from his prosecution of it. I like that argument even less. One lesson of Sept. 11 is that a government that tries to do everything is likely to do most of it badly. You could make the case that the government simply doesn't have the resources even to read the immigration applications of young single men from hotbeds of terrorism -- but not if that same government apparently has no problem finding the resources to fund Congressman Young's now famous "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska. If a thousandth of the care lavished on the Don Young Bridge had been lavished by U.S. Immigration on the 9/11 killers' visa paperwork, things might have gone very differently.

More to the point, domestic policy isn't a distraction from the war, it's a key front in it. Alaskan oil is part of the war on terror, so is increased refinery capacity. One reason why half the country's tuned out Iraq, Afghanistan and all the rest is because they can't see any connection between Bush foreign policy and their own lives. Way back in the summer of 2002, I wrote, "Sept. 11 is not just an event, hermetically sealed from everything before and after, but a context. Everything that's wrong with the environmental movement, with the teachers' unions, with the big-government bureaucracies can be seen through the prism of their responses to that day."

Ambitious presidents seize on extreme events to change the culture, as FDR did, using the Depression to transform the nature of the federal government. In allowing the eco-crazies to get away with prioritizing the world's biggest mosquito herd over Alaskan oil, and the teaching establishment with insisting that there's nothing wrong with the most overfunded public education system in the world that can't be fixed with even more wasted dollars, and the bureaucracy with creating an instantly sclerotic jobs-for-life federalized airport security (that just walked off the job in Houston), the Republicans missed their post-9/11 opportunity.

Instead of changing the nature of the federal government, the Republican majority in Washington seems to be changing the nature of the Republican Party. The Democrats' approach to government has been Sorosized, the GOP's has been supersized. Some choice.

[Prodigal Son]

What's the right's beef with Soros? I mean, really? The guy escaped from communist Hungary and enriched himself in the United States. He near-single-handedly forced the devaluation of the pound sterling in the 1990s. He's sponsored democracy organizations in Eastern Europe. His life has been the epitome of capitalism.

Seriously, why does the right hate him so much?

[kilroy]

uh, yeah, except that the 200 bil dont go directly to hurrican victims. there's that whole thing of 'rebuilding the city of new orleans'. you know, police stations (though the way the NOPD has been so far you might say 'why bother'), fire depts, hospitals, schools, etc. and stuff like 'roads' for instance and lets not forget about pesky little things like the levies that keep the water out of NO in the first place. and hey, that's just one city. whatabout the rest of the places where shit has to get all fixed up?

[docwatson]

What's the right's beef with Soros? I mean, really? The guy escaped from communist Hungary and enriched himself in the United States. He near-single-handedly forced the devaluation of the pound sterling in the 1990s. He's sponsored democracy organizations in Eastern Europe. His life has been the epitome of capitalism.

Seriously, why does the right hate him so much?

Prod,

Well to some it's because he funds nutcases. To others it may be that, given his ability to rise from nothing to someone in the USA, he seems to be biting the hand that has helped feed and clothe his fat ass.

Then again, that brings us to a core argument of the Left versus the Right and who thinks they should be able to call themselves the 'true voice' of the American People. Folks on my far side of the isle call themselves Patriots, carry guns openly and concealed, worship God and Jesus without apology, homeschool our children, and beleive that the core values of our country are based in Judeo-Christian law and traditions.

The folks on the other side think we're nut jobs and that we don't matter because we live in 'flyover country', they mock our beleifs or dismiss us as 'antiquated and out of touch with science' , they think we're dangerous and want to take away our guns 'for the safety of the children' and think that Scientific Humanism is the only acceptable academic method that should be taught our children and that we should surrender our children to the State mind-creche.

Soros supports those people with material support and therefore he is the enemy as much as MOVEON.org, Micheal Moore, or the looney Left.

....or Penta! ;)

[kilroy]

The folks on the other side think we're nut jobs and that we don't matter because we live in 'flyover country', they mock our beleifs or dismiss us as 'antiquated and out of touch with science' , they think we're dangerous and want to take away our guns 'for the safety of the children' and think that Scientific Humanism is the only acceptable academic method that should be taught our children and that we should surrender our children to the State mind-creche.

no, no, seriously, i only think you're antiquated and out of touch with science.

[Tarkan]

I guess part of the criticism of Soros from the right is that he's basically buying influence.

Say what you will about big business and Republicans, but most of the money that flows into Republican coffers comes from small donations from average people. The Democratic party is much more dependent on large contributions from small numbers of very wealthy donors like Soros.

Regardless of what side of the political spectrum you side with, most people believe (however hypocritically) that you shouldn't be able to nakedly buy influence in the manner that Soros is.

And in a sense, that's what "Campaign Finance Reform" (which was really "Incumbent Protection Reform"), which was championed mainly by Democrats, was supposed to limit, right? And here you have the Democrats lining up for money from $oro$.

Now, personally, I don't have a problem per se with what Soros is doing because I think Campaign Finance Reform is unconstitutional, and if Soros wants to spend money on political causes, that's his right. I do not, however, think it's very ethical for Democrats to champion campaign finance reform and then immediately subvert the very thing they were championing.

[ROB]

most of the money that flows into Republican coffers comes from small donations from average people. The Democratic party is much more dependent on large contributions from small numbers of very wealthy donors like Soros.

Bullshit

[Prodigal Son]

Then again, that brings us to a core argument of the Left versus the Right and who thinks they should be able to call themselves the 'true voice' of the American People. Folks on my far side of the isle call themselves Patriots, carry guns openly and concealed, worship God and Jesus without apology, homeschool our children, and beleive that the core values of our country are based in Judeo-Christian law and traditions.

The folks on the other side think we're nut jobs and that we don't matter because we live in 'flyover country', they mock our beleifs or dismiss us as 'antiquated and out of touch with science' , they think we're dangerous and want to take away our guns 'for the safety of the children' and think that Scientific Humanism is the only acceptable academic method that should be taught our children and that we should surrender our children to the State mind-creche.[/quote]

This is so funny. You're response is right out of Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter With Kansas" book.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_t ... ith_Kansas

It's like you were channeling him or something.

[Tarkan]

Prodigal, the problem is most people on the right don't have a problem with the left, per se, doing what they do to and in California and New York. But the people in California and New York aren't happy with the rate of adoption of their great ideas and want to force their vision of enlightenment to places like Kansas and Alabama, largely through undemocratic processes (lawsuits in conjuction with support from Carter and Clinton era judges).

One person's vision of enlightenment is another's vision of enslavement. People who want creationism taught in the classroom can move to Kansas. People who want no mention or reference of the Judeo-Christian God in any public place can move to California.

Choice is good. By and large, people should be allowed to make choices with regards to themselves and their families, even if you disagree with them.

[Sri Lanky]

Wow Tarkan....the more I read your posts the more I am convinced you are employed by the Republicans. I'll refrain from calling you a whore though......oops.

[Captain_Solo]

Say what you will about big business and Republicans, but most of the money that flows into Republican coffers comes from small donations from average people. The Democratic party is much more dependent on large contributions from small numbers of very wealthy donors like Soros.

Yah, and David Duke wants to start an organization to promote interracial marriage between whites and blacks.

[Captain_Solo]

Then again, that brings us to a core argument of the Left versus the Right and who thinks they should be able to call themselves the 'true voice' of the American People. Folks on my far side of the isle call themselves Patriots, carry guns openly and concealed, worship God and Jesus without apology, homeschool our children, and beleive that the core values of our country are based in Judeo-Christian law and traditions.

Actually the whole "Judeo-Christian" thing is a fairytale. It would more correct to say Hellenistic with a dab of Christianity here and there. The founding fathers were more influenced by John Locke, Cicero, Seneca, Virgil, Cato, and Socrates than by Jesus, St. Paul, or St. Peter. It is a dillusion of the Christian Right that this was founded as a "Christian Republic" rather then a by a bunch of secular Deists. A real Judeo-Christian law would be stoning adulters or not letting people work on Saturday.

[illman]

What is completely lost in all of this is that the American people have soundly rejected Soros/Moveon.org etc. Since 1994, the House has been ruled by the Republicans ...first time since 2d world war. The Senate is ruled by republicans. The president is republican. The Republicans run the show.

IMO, this came out of the first 2 years of Clintons presidency, when the dems ruled the roost. 3 moves by the democratic party doomed them ... 1. support of gays in the military (the first week of the presidency). Practically, this had no effect. Politically, it convinced people that the dems were far-left. 2. The largest tax increase in US history. 3. An attempt to socialize medicine.

Result ...1994. Cokie Roberts breaking down on network tv.

What does this mean ? It means that George Soros/Cindy Sheehan/moveon.org do repubs good. By coming from the far left, it reinforces the idea that the dems are out-of-touch liberals, and ensures the democrats will remain in the minority party.

BTW, I find it funny when people claim Tarkan is a "whore" for the republicans when they are spewing rote nonsense that sounds like it came straight from Ted Kennedy.

[Tarkan]

Wow Tarkan....the more I read your posts the more I am convinced you are employed by the Republicans. I'll refrain from calling you a whore though......oops.

Interesting thread to throw that in considering the first post was a criticism of the Republican party...

[kgb]

Prodigal, the problem is most people on the right don't have a problem with the left, per se, doing what they do to and in California and New York. But the people in California and New York aren't happy with the rate of adoption of their great ideas and want to force their vision of enlightenment to places like Kansas and Alabama, largely through undemocratic processes (lawsuits in conjuction with support from Carter and Clinton era judges).

It's a bit of stretch to claim that the judicial process is "undemocratic," even if you disagree with the political viewpoints of the judge. Furthermore, just because a judge was appointed by a Democrat does not automatically mean that they will choose to usurp the the law at any opportunity.

Finally, if NYC and CA are so intent on forcing their vision of utopia on the the rest of the country, why is it that Bush is pushing for a Constitutional amendment on same sex marriage?