The Blog of Record

A Pew Research Center phone survey has found that Republicans have more political and economic knowledge than Democrats.

Leigh Scott’s article starts as a review of the new “V” mini-series (his conclusion: it compares the Obama administration and the Democrats to flesh-eating reptiles) but reaches deeper:

When you get right down to it, the reason there are so few “conservative” films out there is because most films are inherently conservative.  Any film that champions the rise and strength of the individual is conservative.  Any story that tells of the triumphs of good over evil is conservative.  The subtext of films that resonate, films that capture our imaginations, are based on the romantic ideals of conservative thought.

We all know the classic romantic comedy formula.  Boy meets girl, boy gets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back.  The backbone of this formula is individual achievement.  Note that it isn’t boy meets girl, then boy gets government to force girl to be with him in the interest of “fairness.”

How many films end with the hero submitting to the collective?  Did the audience cheer at the end of the “Invasion of Body Snatchers” remake?  Were they happy that Donald Sutherland had given up that pesky individualism thing and joined the alien hive mind?  When Jean-Luc Picard temporarily became Locutus of Borg did we all breathe a sigh of relief because we could finally root for the lead character of the series?

I’m sure everyone who serves in Palpatine’s galactic empire gets free health care.  I don’t think Darth Vader had to pay an HMO for his suit.  Yet, didn’t we all cheer when the rebels destroyed the Death Star?

The very funny and underrated film “The House Bunny” features a bunch of ugly duckling girls who find inner confidence and give each other makeovers to better their situation.  They emerge from a snappy montage as a group of knock-outs.  Again, this is conservatism.  The girls rise to the occasion.  They elevate themselves through achievement.  Anna Faris’ character isn’t forced to make herself ugly in order to fit in with the awkward sorority.

Yet, in real life, Hollywood creative types advocate bashing all of us with an economic “ugly stick.”

Like many, I find it tedious and distracting when films and television shows delve into non sequiturs to bash Republicans, Christianity, and Conservatism in general.  It’s not because I am religious (I am a devout Agnostic) nor because I call myself a Republican (I do not).

I despise it because it’s bad storytelling.

Progressive ideology does not fit well with classic narrative structures.  The greatest stories are ones that champion things like individualism, freedom and faith.  Big governments, collective thought, and cold scientific secularism make better villains than heroes.

Instinctively, we all know this.

So we can take solace in the fact that “V” is a classic validation of our ideology.  We can also take away the fact that even the most die-hard, kool-aid drinking leftists know deep down inside that we are right.  They might not say it with their voices, but they say it with their hearts.

And that’s enough for me.

Except that, as many commenters point out, back in 2007 “V”’s author was probably thinking he was writing an indictment of the Bush administration.

(Via Tom McMahon.)

By dumbing down the conservative brand and failing to stand up to Republican excesses like George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism”:

There is nothing wrong with lowbrow conservatism. Ideas must be marketed, and right-wing talk radio captures a big and useful market segment. However, if there is no thoughtful, rigorous presentation of conservative ideas, then conservatism by default becomes the raucous parochialism of Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, and company. That loses us a market segment at least as useful, if perhaps not as big.

Conservatives have never had, and never should have, a problem with elitism. Why have we allowed carny barkers to run away with the Right?

Plus, why reinstating the Fairness Doctrine may not be necessary to kill conservative talk radio:

Obama is known to have strong feelings about “localism,” the FCC rule that requires radio and TV stations to serve the interests of their local communities as a condition of keeping their broadcast licenses. “Local community” invariably turns out in practice to mean leftist agitator and race-guilt shakedown organizations—the kind of environment in which Obama learned his practical politics. Localism will likely be the key to unlock the door through which conservative talk radio will be expelled with a presidential boot in the rear.

(Via the Orange County Register.)

Update: Victor Davis Hanson: “All these highbrow conservative attacks on Limbaugh keep missing the point.”

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s biographer, Joe Mathews, reports that the California governor considered leaving the Republican Party a few months ago.

(Via Hot Air.)

We can learn a bit about Schwarzenegger’s politics from his own words:

“I think that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman.”
Arnold Schwarzenegger

“That was another thing I will never forgive the Republican Party for. I was ashamed to call myself a Republican during that period.”
Arnold Schwarzenegger on the Clinton impeachment

“My relationship to power and authority is that I’m all for it. People need somebody to watch over them. Ninety-five percent of the people in the world need to be told what to do and how to behave.”
Arnold Schwarzenegger in a 1990 interview with U.S. News

“I was always dreaming about very powerful people, dictators and things like that. I was just always impressed by people who could be remembered for hundreds of years, or even, like Jesus, be for thousands of years remembered.”
Arnold Schwarzenegger in the 1977 film Pumping Iron

“You have to do everything possible to win no matter what.”
Arnold Schwarzenegger

“I was born to be a leader. I love the fact that millions of people look up to me.”
Arnold Schwarzenegger

“The public doesn’t care about figures.”
Arnold Schwarzenegger discussing his economic views

Definitely independent.

I guess when Barack Obama calls on Americans to do more for the nation, he’s talking about liberals, because conservatives don’t seem to need to be reminded:

Over the past several years, studies have consistently shown that people on the political right outperform those on the left when it comes to charity. This pattern appears to have held — increased, even — in 2008.

In May of last year, the Gallup polling organization asked 1,200 American adults about their giving patterns. People who called themselves “conservative” or “very conservative” made up 42% of the population surveyed, but gave 56% of the total charitable donations. In contrast, “liberal” or “very liberal” respondents were 29% of those polled but gave just 7% of donations.

These disparities were not due to differences in income. People who said they were “very conservative” gave 4.5% of their income to charity, on average; “conservatives” gave 3.6%; “moderates” gave 3%; “liberals” gave 1.5%; and “very liberal” folks gave 1.2%.

But here’s where the charity gap really starts to make a difference for the recession of 2009: Conservatives don’t just give more; they also decrease their giving less than liberals do in response to lousy economic conditions.

Ironically, few environments are less tolerant of conservatives and their ideas than the nonprofit world. The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported in October of 2008 that employees of major charities favored Democrats over Republicans in their private political contributions by a margin of 82% to 18%. Among the employees of major foundations, the difference was an astounding 98% to 2%.

Kasey S. Pipes on what modern Republicans can learn from Ike’s presidency.

As Republicans look to the future, perhaps they should also look to the past. And not only to the 1980s. Too many Republicans assume that a renaissance begins with re-creating Reagan.

But in large part, Reagan’s greatness comes from having fought and won his battles. The issues Reagan confronted no longer exist: massive inflation, 70% marginal tax rates, aggressive communism-they’re gone. It’s time to confront new issues and new challenges.

Perhaps it’s also time to look back to another Republican who was a successful, popular two-term president.

Reinventing conservatism, somewhat belatedly, one tweet at a time.

Conservatives don’t need to figure out how to promote conservatism on Facebook; they need to figure out what it is they’re promoting. To the extent that a new media strategy is part of opening up that conversation, great, but it had better not become a substitute for engaging in some of that painful introspection.

It’s today’s version of Ronald Reagan’s nine most terrifying words in the English language: “‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help”. Only now, it’s Republicans who are urged to adopt them as their program:

Gingrich says the Republican Party must transform itself into the “’better solutions’ party,” rather than remaining just an opposition party. He says it’s the “only way Republicans will ever regain the trust of the voters to return to the majority.”

I used to have a modicum of respect, and even fondness, for Newt, but apparently he’s decided to swallow the non-partisan, bi-partisan Kool-Aid and become just another oatmeal-brained stalwart of the power-grabbing pragmatists.

Here’s a clue, Newtnik: We don’t need any more solutions. The whole damned country is collapsing from the solutions dreamed up by the two political parties.

So do us both a favor, and spare me from any more of your “We’re the government, and we’re here with a solution for you” bilge. Okay?

What ever happened to just being the party for people who want to be left alone by the government offering help and solutions in return for things they don’t want to give up? Why do today’s Republicans think it won’t serve them as well as it served Reagan (and the country)?

It was the behavior of her opponents, wich was civilized and honest while that of her comrades was “end justifies the means” dishonesty and fraud.

Plus some harsh words about her generation, the Baby Boomers:

The brown-shirt style antics on campuses these days? My generation started them with their stupid take-overs of administration buildings and riotings at Democratic Conventions and such. Alas, everyone caved to us. They appeased us. My whole spring term at Dartmouth we were “on strike” and didn’t attend class, but we were all “passed” our courses. Just about every campus across the United States was on strike that spring. We were the ones who threw out the canon. Who coined the words “Dead White Men” and repudiated them.

I repent. I deeply regret the legacy my generation has left the Western world. We bequeathed an intellectual amnesia that allows Jason Cherniak to think Trudeau created our rights to free speech with the Charter. We have left stupidity in our wake.

From a cool blog called Architecture + Morality:

Barrack Obama epitomizes, and personifies, so many of the values that have come to define almost two generations: flexibility, open-minded, post-racial, post-partisan, maybe even post-American. Scores of Americans are over the past, over history, or at least over a sense of history. Since American history is mostly negative, they might say, it’s time to move on to bigger and brighter things. In that regard, McCain never had a chance. Even though he has been a rare individual among the groupthink in D.C., he was a product of a bygone generation that most young Americans would prefer stay that way: gone.

It’s a long post but it is worth reading.

Religious conservatives have reason to believe that once gay marriage is legalized, it will become a weapon to criminalize the expression of their fundamental moral beliefs. For them, their free speech is at stake.

He argues that the conservative agenda has largely been accomplished:

Quite frankly, the Right is in many ways a victim of its successes. [...] The public in democracies has never been particularly generous to parties or candidates once they fulfil the goals that they were elected to achieve; there’s a reason Winston Churchill lost his post-World War II election.

When one looks back on what the Right was initially installed to do, at various times from 1968-2004, it becomes clear that it has achieved the vast majority of what is was sent to do (this does not equate with what it wants to do).  Communism is more-or-less wiped from the place of the Earth.  Al Qaeda has been largely dismantled, and Iraq has stabilized.  Tax rates are well off their Post-World War II highs of 90%, and are even well below the rates brought about after Reagan’s initial tax cuts; our present debate is over whether the top rate should be 35% or 39% and whether capital gains should be taxed at 15% or 20%.  The crime spike of the 1960s and 70s is over, and now even a true-believing leftist like Obama professes support for the death penalty. [...]

Having accomplished most of what modern conservatism set out to do, the Right is left with issues with a pretty narrow range of appeal.

And thus all it will be able to do over the next few years is fighting to keep as many of these achievements as possible, which Sean does not see as a strong strategy.

Should conservative bloggers engage in activism like the netroots? Does the Right need its own Soros? And does it really need a rightroots movement? James Joyner doesn’t think so.

It’s from 2006 but not much has changed:

Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists. As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families.

And when the kids start growing up,

some members of the rising generation may reject their parents’ values, as often happens. But when they look for fellow secularists with whom to make common cause, they will find that most of their would-be fellow travelers were quite literally never born.

Or aborted.

Add the global warming worshippers who’d rather get sterilized than burden Gaia with another polluter, and liberals do seem to be breeding themselves out of existence.