Posted by
Andrews on Tuesday, June 23, 2009 2:25:25 AM
I doubt this will come as a surprise to anyone, but it seems
Thomas Sowell agrees with the position I put forward in "
Need to Change Direction?", as well as "
Conservatives and the "Big Picture"" and "
Winning By Losing? Not A Chance!", that being that the Republicans are foolish if they follow "conventional wisdom" and try to "be
FOR something", by becoming essentially "Democrat Lite", or the party of "smaller big government" (or worse still, try to hide this position by reviving "compassionate conservatism"). Then again, as I argued in "
Hurrah For Murchison", if the Democrats, especially Obama, cause enough economic chaos, this may be a moot point, as economic collapse will, almost inevitably, push the party into a more small government, less activist position, forcing them to select a minimal government candidate in 2012.
Or so I hope.
POSTSCRIPT
By the way, for all those who argue Republicans are "never FOR anything", I would argue quite the opposite. As I wrote in "
The Party of 'No'?", I am FOR the individual, FOR freedom, FOR liberty. Yes, that means being against every Democrat assault against autonomy and freedom, but that is what being FOR freedom means.
Do you criticize doctors for always being "against" disease? Or do you recognizing that being FOR health means being AGAINST illness? Well, being FOR the individual means always being AGAINST big government. It is not my fault that the Democrats are consistently opposed to the individual and liberty. If they set themselves up as the party which wants to crush the individual, steal his dignity and remove his freedom, then I guess I will always be against them. Why is that a sign something is wrong with ME?
POSTSCRIPT II
I can't resist quoting my closing words to "
The Party of 'No'?", describing the voters' attitude toward those who argue for limited government:
You see, this is the same nonsense as those who argue against
libertarians for promoting a "night watchman" government, as if that
were something bad. But that is precisely what the state should be. Do
you hear people criticizing the police for "being negative" as "all
they do is say no"? Or firemen for "just putting out fires" and not
starting anything? No, they perform useful tasks which are entirely
negative, fixing and preventing. Is your doctor "negative" when he
tells you what not to do?
So why is it negative to say "the state is not the right tool to do
this"? Because people wish it were different? I wish I could fly and
live on nothing but air and go without sleep and turn invisible and age
one year every century, but wishing doesn't make it so. So why should
we appease those who think the state can solve all our problems? Saying
that the state has a few tasks for which it is suited and that should
be the limit of its power is not being "the party of no" it is being
adult.
Sadly, in our present age, being adult is actually grounds for criticism.
I think that says it all. When you try to speak the truth, rather than pander to people and tell them their wishes and fantasies are absolutely true, you end up being criticized as "negative". When did we all turn into spoiled children?
It is for this reason I wrote in "
What We Deserve" (as well as "
A Reason to be Afraid", "
The Wrong People", and "
Why Term Limits Will Fail (And Should)" and suggested in "
Conservatism, Incremental Change and Federalism" and "
Envy Kills") that the parties are not our problem, we, the voters, are our biggest problem. Until we grow up, it won't matter which parties are running things, we will still get pandering politicians selling us nonsense, because those who don't get run out of office.
POSTSCRIPT III
As I asked when we turned into spoiled children, it may be a good time to point out the many posts cited in "
An Interesting Article", as our growing cultural immaturity clearly plays a part in our uniform inability to accept reality as it is, especially when it thwarts our desires to have what we want the moment we want it. If we accept the values of teens as our cultural standard, is it any wonder we no longer have the stomach for deferred gratification? Or for suffering now to gain advantage in the future? Or even to simply avoid a worse crisis in days to come? Why should I be shocked to find us behaving like teens when we set our values by what appeals to the all-important 16 to 25 demographic?