|
|
|
|
When the Democrats control the United States Senate,
Teddy Kennedy (Democrat -- Massachusetts) is Chairman
of the Senate Judiciary Committee. When Republicans
control the Senate, Kennedy is the Ranking Democrat
on the Judiciary Committee and the Chairman is Orrin
Hatch (Respectable -- Utah).
In 1994, Republicans won the Senate and Orrin Hatch
became Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Last year, there was an important bill pending before
the Senate Judiciary Committee. Chairman Hatch asked
Strom Thurmond what amendments he planned to offer
in Committee. Strom replied, "Hell, Orrin,
I might as well tell Teddy Kennedy directly as tell
you." Orrin gives Teddy anything he wants.
National Review had a lead article last year about
Hatch's infatuation with Teddy. In a later issue,
National Review quoted a POEM Hatch had written
to Kennedy. It used language that no heterosexual
male should address to another.
What happened was this: When Republicans won control
of the Senate in 1994, Teddy Kennedy lost the chairmanship
of the Judiciary Committee to Hatch. Kennedy decided
he had better get in good with Hatch, so he said
some nice things to Hatch about how smart and reasonable
he was.
Poor little Orrin couldn't believe that a KENNEDY
suddenly admired him! He went absolutely nuts.
Poor little pencil-neck Orrin Hatch is a Mormon
with an inferiority complex the size of Texas. He
is from a poor working class family in Pennsylvania
and represents a small Western state. To little
Orrin, a KENNEDY, an Easterner and a liberal icon,
is very nearly a god.
Little Orrin is an extreme example, but the phenomenon
is familiar. We see pathetic little Southern Crawlers
who live for some sign of approval from an eastern
liberal. In my club, there is a Southern Crawler
who tries desperately to get everybody to notice
that he reads the New York Times. Every one of us
knows a dozen people like him.
Liberalism has totally discredited itself. Liberals
have never advocated anything that actually WORKS.
The fact that liberalism is still taken seriously
is entirely the result of the pathetic servility
of little people like Orrin Hatch.
Lake High had his usual penetrating explanation
of why there is so much liberalism among newly affluent
people in Columbia, South Carolina. As Lake points
out, if you scratch a monied liberal in Columbia,
you will find a person who is about one generation
removed from white trash. His only concern is to
prove that he is not a right wing redneck.
By now, with leftism so totally discredited, the
only people who feel it necessary to take leftism
seriously do so to deal with their own psychological
problems. I suggest that we tell them so. The more
often we tell them that, the better (See February
6 article, "The Left Repeats, So We Lose").
|
|
I recently came across a year old
article by George Will. In it, Will discusses the
growing secessionist movements around the world.
Will is a Lincoln worshipper, so he demands that
the Union be enforced, no matter what anybody wants.
He concludes, "In the light of the worldwide
waxing of centrifugal forces, America's unique combination
of vast size and equitably distributed prosperity
makes American pre-eminence seem even more likely
to be prolonged."
Sounds good. But does it mean anything?
How will America be "pre-eminent?" Does
Will think Americans will be richer because we are
under the rigid regulatory controls of Washington
from coast to coast? That is what our present "vast
size" means. Does Will think we will be better
off because Federal judges in Washington dictate
all our important social policy decisions from coast
to coast? That is what his glorious Union means.
In terms of ECONOMICS, an America broken down into
smaller POLITICAL units would be at least as big
as the United States is now. We would have free
trade agreements with countries outside the present
United States, which would give us an even larger
trade area. We could have free trade with practically
the entire world. Our free trade area would be much
bigger than the United States.
What we would NOT have would be the choking micromanagement
congress and regulatory agencies impose in the name
of "interstate commerce."
So would an America broken down into smaller POLITICAL
parts be less productive than one run by Washington
bureaucrats? Will says so, and he says so flatly
and absolutely. Every liberal, and therefore every
respectable conservative, assumes this. Their thinking
is totally out of date, as always.
Must a political unit be big to be part of a big
free trade area? Is it true that Belgium and Luxembourg
can't have free trade because they don't have the
same government?
The fact is that, in the real world, Belgium and
Luxembourg DO have free trade with each other. But
George Will just ignores that. No Lincoln worshipper
can let reality intrude on his politics.
So Will's idea that the Union is still good for
economics is not only incorrect, it's silly. But
Will is a respectable conservative, and respectable
conservatives are always silly.
Will is always desperate to say something, no matter
how absurd, that will get liberals to think he is
too sophisticated to stick with reality. In the
1980s, when Reagan was fighting for tax cuts, Will
said that, "America is the most undertaxed
country on earth."
But is economics all that Will had in mind? Remember
that we are dealing here with a real Lincoln fanatic.
When Lincoln used words like "pre-eminence,"
he didn't have economic well being in mind. When
Lincoln used words like "pre-eminence,"
he didn't have anybody's well being in mind.
He meant power. And power is all that respectable
conservatives like Will have left of a conservative
philosophy.
Respectable conservatives spend their entire political
lives selling out in a desperate, hopeless attempt
to get liberal approval. To gain liberal approval,
they have abandoned every conservative principle.
During the Cold War, conservatives wanted a big
military. We thought that was to fight the Cold
War. But the Cold War is over, and professional
conservatives still want more troops. During the
Cold War, we paid most of the cost of Europe's defense.
Today, conservatives want to keep on paying the
cost of Europe's defense.
Against WHAT? What is the PURPOSE of this giant
military conservatives are always demanding? No
conservative asks that question. Conservatives want
a big military because they want a big military.
Professional conservatives want a big military because
the military lobbies give them big bucks. Professional
conservatives don't care what the troops or military
money is used for, all they care about is serving
their lobbies.
Yes, Virginia, the military-industrial complex is
real. And yes, the American political right serves
it blindly.
So all that is left of the old conservative philosophy
is two words:
MORE TROOPS!
But there is also a psychological reason respectable
conservatives love to make loud demands for a big
military.
Respectable conservatives know they are wimps. They
call it "being reasonable," but some part
of their brain registers what they are really doing.
I think the constant demands for MORE TROOPS helps
a little by making them feel macho. They may be
wimps by profession, but they are war heroes by
proxy.
In Kosovo, George Will is right there with Senator
McCain (Respectable-Arizona). The liberals want
war, so he wants it even more. Like McCain, Will
has no idea why we got into that war, but he knows
what liberals want. So Will's policy on Kosovo was:
MORE TROOPS!
When Will talks about "pre-eminence",
he means what his idol Lincoln would have meant.
He means more troops! He means enforced Union. He
means a big, powerful America that can kick anybody
around that liberals want kicked.
I want none of this. I said what I thought of this
kind of imperial thinking in my January 9 article,
"The Way To Ruin: Being
'The World's Last Remaining Superpower."
|
|
|
|
|
Home
| Current Articles | Article Archive | About
Bob Whitaker | Contact Bob | Links
| Privacy
Policy
|
|
|