25 April 2010

A Matter of Ballots.

Many believe that the TEA party movement should remain non-partisan in the sense of not becoming a political party. This site disagrees. We think it's high time to get TEA Party candidates on the ballot — in every state and at every level.

A TEA Party political party should take as its model the Conservative Party (CP) of New York. Most of the time, CP runs the Republican slate. However, should the Republican nominee lack conservative credentials, there's always the option of running someone else. CP nominees often wind up losing three-way races; but not always, the most notable instance being the election of Jim Buckley to the U.S. Senate in 1970. That year, the left-liberal vote split between the Democrat and a liberal Republican, and Buckley won with 39% of the vote. More recently, CP House candidate Doug Hoffman came within a couple of percentage points of defeating Democrat, Bill Owens. In fact, Hoffman would probably have prevailed, but for the perfidy of Dierdre Scozzafava, the Republican nominee who, trailing badly in the polls and a sore loser to boot, withdrew shortly before the election and endorsed Owens.

Banking on the GOP to do the right thing is an invitation to disappointment. Especially at the national level, Republicans have time and again betrayed conservative principles. Mmes. Snowe and Collins, Messrs. Graham and McCain, to give four better-known examples, differ from the Democrats they run against in degree, not kind. To ensure Republican fidelity to conservative principles in the choice of nominees, the fat cats, the apparatchiks and, yes, the voters too must be given proper incentive. To this end, we propose the choice shown in the accompanying figure: Nominate conservative candidates or lose.

America is a center-right country. Among the electorate, if not the media-concocted caricature thereof, conservatism is on the ascendancy. Let liberal Republicans and Democrats squabble, like stray dogs for a handout, over the diminishing abundance of left-liberal votes. Attractive TEA Party candidates running against a Democrat and a business-as-usual Republican should have a good chance of winning. If short-term considerations be one's guide, this is a good time to stand on principle; if long-term considerations, it's always a good time.
Read more ...

23 April 2010

Will Israel Stand with Us?

On the occasion of Israel's 62nd Independence Day, Caroline Glick lays out the case for America's maintaining its historic alliance with Israel. Glick approaches this question from the American point of view. Among her arguments are the following:
  • "Only Israel [by virtue of its democracy, and unlike other states in the region] ... is a reliable, permanent US ally."

  • "The US and Israel share the same regional foes ... Israel['s] successes redound to the US's benefit."

  • "Israel remains the US's most reliable source for accurate intelligence on the US's enemies in the region."

  • "In both military and non-military spheres, Israeli technological achievements ... are shared with America."

  • "A strong Israel is the best guarantor of ... [America's permanent strategic] interests[: 1] ensuring the smooth flow of affordable petroleum products from the region; [2] preventing the most radical regimes [and other entities] ... from acquiring the means to cause catastrophic harm; and [3] maintaining the US's capacity to project its power to the region."
Ms. Glick's reasoning is impeccable, but unlikely to resonate with the present administration. To see why, consider the following possible interpretations of BHO's behavior toward the Jewish state.
  1. By virtue of stupidity and / or inexperience, he really doesn't understand what he's doing.

  2. He's a people's republic kind of guy bent on transforming the U.S. from a representative democracy into a dictatorship of the proletariat. As such, and like Lenin, he will avoid the distraction of foreign entanglements.

  3. He's a black supremacist who views the Arab-Israeli conflict through the prism of white, European exploitation of non-white, indigenous peoples — hence his sympathy for the Palestinians, whom he regards as the legitimate occupants of what is now Israel.

  4. As imagined by some on the Right, he's a closet Muslim and sees Israel's enemies as his natural allies.
The first possibility, I believe, can be rejected out of hand. Obama may, indeed, be the "affirmative action President," but, his fondness for the teleprompter notwithstanding, he is obviously intelligent and politically adroit. To suggest that he is naive, that he doesn't recognize what the likes of Ahmadinejad, Abbas and Assad are about, is to strain credulity.

The remaining propositions are more plausible. Note that if even one of them holds true, appealing to BHO's sense of American self-interest is beside the point. Obama's America, the one that he is straining to bring into being, bears little relation to its historical antecedents. What is in its interest has little to do with American interests as they have been viewed traditionally, say since the end of World War II.

If one accepts the foregoing analysis, the question is not if Obama will stand with Israel, but rather if Israel will stand with the American people who are just now beginning to appreciate the true nature of "Hope and Change." Israel can do this by being brave, strong and independent, above all, by surviving. The inspiration afforded thereby will allow the real America to again one day be "a light unto the nations." For the present, that task defaults to others.
Read more ...