Sound (but Loaded?) Advice from a Critic
In a recent comment, bob, one of our most regular critics, chimes in with some good advice for conservatives:
rather than spending so much energy on criticizing your political opponents, perhaps you should begin developing more nuanced and thoughtful ideas on how to solve the nation’s problems. in case you haven’t noticed, we’re in quite the predicament these days.
if you want conservatives to remain relevant in our country’s discussion (i, as a liberal, want conservatives to remain relevant to our country’s discussion), you would be well advised to think about how to make things better instead of about how to find a way to put liberals down. i’m not saying you shouldn’t criticize the opposition; it’s just that the criticism should not overwhelm the discussion of ideas and your ideals.
Perhaps, I was particularly sensitive to this criticism because while I sketched out my plan for a needed economic stimulus, I have neglected to turn it into a post.
But, I wonder, as does one of our defenders if the:
implication of bob’s comment is that conservatives – and classical liberals – and you/us on the GP blog – somehow haven’t been making a good case on how to improve things. We/they have. It’s just that bob, and Democrats generally, choose to stay in ignorance of it.
I do hope bob is aware that many Republicans have put forward alternatives to the “stimulus.” And conservatives have articulated how they would improve things if they were in charge.
That said, I particularly appreciated bob’s last sentence, acknowledging that criticism has it’s place so long as it doesn’t overwhelm the discussion of ideas. But, as Camus wisely noted, sometimes opposition affirms a deeply held value or principle.
It’s important that we Republicans recall what we’re affirming when we oppose Obama’s initiatives, articulating those principles along with the opposition. And that we put forward alternatives to the president’s plans as many Republicans did during the “stimulus” debate.
41 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
“instead of about how to find a way to put liberals down”
In other words, we’re not supposed to criticize liberals?
Comment by pst314 — February 21, 2009 @ 12:36 pm - February 21, 2009
The problem is, we have proposed alternatives, but the Obama culties won’t listen.
If you suggest a real stimulus like eliminating the capital gains tax and reducing America’s Highest-in-the-Industrialized-World corporate tax rate to a more competitive 10%, they squeal “tax cuts for the rich.”
When you suggest government get out of the business of telling banks who to lend to and stop socializing the risks of bad loans, they lie that “deregulation is what got us into this mess.” (No, idiots. What got us into this mess was racking up massive debt to pay for things we don’t need… which is the essence of the Obama Spendulus.)
If you suggest that we can create domestic jobs at no cost to government by encouraging domestic energy production, they wail, “But what about the polar bears?”
When you point out that socialism has never worked anywhere, they simper, “But we have to do *something.” That’s like saying if someone’s dying of obesity, you should take them out for a Big Mac and large fries, because it’s better than doing nothing.
When you suggest reining in state employee unions whose gold-plated pension systems are wrecking state budgets, they squeal, “You’re racist!” (Mainly because it’s an all-purpose left-wing epithet.)
When you suggest people who took mortgages they couldn’t afford should just rent if they can’t afford to own a home, the lefties blather on about “predatory lending,” the idiotic belief that banks get rich by loaning money to people who can’t pay it back.
The problem is, you can’t discuss practical economics with lefties, because they don’t understand economics, they refuse to believe the facts of our current situation, and their blind faith in their charismatic cult leader trumps any reason-based discussion.
Comment by V the K — February 21, 2009 @ 12:45 pm - February 21, 2009
Very good points, V.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 21, 2009 @ 12:47 pm - February 21, 2009
You know when things weren’t going so well with the WOT and the war in Iraq I posted comments that the terrorists would be far less active and confident if half the country didn’t criticise our leaders and the military so much. The resistance in Iraq would have rolled over far sooner had the Democrats in America maintained a united front against the rebels. No that wasn’t to be. Now it is comical to to watch the liberals wonder what could be accomplished if Republicans “joined” with leftists to solve problems. If only conservatives would bury their principles. There is a backlash starting. The 93% of people paying their mortgages, the Americans who are getting up and going to work everyday. A velvet revolution is beginning. On CNBC it was put very well. When the losers in America start pulling their weight again…the producers, in the counrty will feel far better off helping out. Conservatives felt helping out the banking community had to happen. We are all dependent on the financial system. After that, let the weak fall by the wayside. If it’s the car companies so be it. Obama is currently promising everyone their fair share. That can’t happen. A lot of his supporters are going to be disappointed.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — February 21, 2009 @ 1:24 pm - February 21, 2009
…perhaps you should begin developing more nuanced and thoughtful ideas on how to solve the nation’s problems…
In my experience, ‘nuanced’ is a term used to imply that the opposition to an idea doesn’t itself imply ideas and/or that opposition is merely opposition for its own sake and/or those rejecting the idea aren’t capable of understanding the nuance that created the idea they oppose because, after all, we all know that society requires large, complex solutions and all the laws and regulatory trappings that support them and that these solutions are quite beyond the average, less-nuanced person. Believe it or not, sometimes economic problems are best solved by doing as little as possible and usually by getting rid of many of those ‘nuanced’ solutions those more enlightened among us desire — especially close to election time.
If a conservative proposes that we allow a home “owner” who took on a mortgage he could not afford to simply accept his bad decision and learn from it, that conservative isn’t being ‘nuanced’ because the concept of the moral hazard isn’t nearly as nuanced as the mortgage owner’s situation. He has a family and college to save for and his employment is shaky and one of his kids needs braces and this is the American Dream and gosh, he just needs a bit of help and that’s what government is for, isn’t it? He’s merely one homeowner and for that, he’s too little to fail and allowing him to fail lacks nuance and understanding. The government taking over his mortgage or simply bailing him out is so much more nuanced than refusing to enable his bad decision and deterring his and others’ bad decisions, right?
if you want conservatives to remain relevant in our country’s discussion (i, as a liberal, want conservatives to remain relevant to our country’s discussion)…
I don’t consider modern liberalism relevant because there is too much evidence that refutes it. Unfortunately, liberalism is in ascendancy and so I consider it relevant only because it must be politically dealt with. It may be that bob means he wants the right relevant in order to keep the left honest, but if he means his words to be taken literally, I don’t believe him. Any true, honest liberal (as honest as one can be, given the amount of evidence they must reject) is one by choice and that implies he/she has rejected conservatism/libertarianism/rightist thought as … irrelevant.
Comment by Ignatius — February 21, 2009 @ 1:49 pm - February 21, 2009
(sigh) Filtered yet again.
Comment by Ignatius — February 21, 2009 @ 1:51 pm - February 21, 2009
“Nuanced” is simply a kinder, gentler synonym for “moral relativism” and “lack of right and wrong”.
The funny part about liberals who talk “nuance” is how little of it they actually practice. Bush is evil, conservatives are racist, and corporations are all bad. But when you start asking why we should bail out people who took out mortgages that no intelligent or sane person would have ever thought they could pay back, they start rationalizing the lack of sanity or intelligence on this person’s part.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 21, 2009 @ 3:56 pm - February 21, 2009
Critical comment: “…you would be well advised to think about how to make things better instead of about how to find a way to put liberals down.”
This statement by your liberal critic says a lot about his worldview, and, I fear, about liberals in general: they think that nothing is being done unless the government is doing it. We conservatives have known all along how to make things better, and have been stating it loudly and clearly; reduce the size of government, don’t make matters worse with additional programs and regulations, and let the markets sort themselves out. Liberals just pretend they don’t hear it.
Comment by Mike — February 21, 2009 @ 4:18 pm - February 21, 2009
I agree, in general, because we all recall how completely bankrupt John Kerry’s campaign was of ideas when he lost against Bush. His entire platform was “Bush is evil, vote for me.” As the election approached, I got the impression that even Kerry hadn’t really planned much of anything beyond the election itself and there was this hasty scrambling around to put together “John Kerry’s Plan for America” (including his plan to “deal with Iraq” which if memory serves, we weren’t even going to get to hear about until AFTER the election).
Well, I just don’t think this is much of a danger for conservatives, even with such gross incompetents in charge from the opposition party. The fact is, I’m a conservative because conservative ideas work, they are right, they benefit all Americans when implemented, and they are always handy because they are based on solid rational principles. In contrast, liberal ideas SUCK, fail every time they are foolishly attempted, bring horrible distress and misery to our country, and are based upon irrational “principles” that change from moment to moment, depending upon which special, chosen group liberals are currently trying to appease.
So, I’m not concerned that being out of power is going to turn us into a bunch of negative Obama-haters with nothing to offer beyond criticism of the current administration. If we were in power tomorrow, we could immediately start turning this Titanic around by slashing the federal budget, lowering taxes, leaving the economy alone, keeping Gitmo open, taking on Iran, etc. and these things could be implemented without an 1100-page “bill” that nobody has read. We will always be the true “party of ideas,” because we actually have good ideas in our back pocket, ready to go. Liberals will never anything more than irrational criticism of conservatives and horrible ideas that they tell us will work, but really only further their bigger-government, less-freedom agenda.
Comment by Sean A — February 21, 2009 @ 4:21 pm - February 21, 2009
P-o-l-i-t-i-c-i-a-n-s are always saying that we can’t cut the b-u-d-g-e-t because it would be “too painful?” How do we know? No government has ever significantly reduced actual spending, so how do we know it’s going to be so painful?
Comment by V the K — February 21, 2009 @ 4:29 pm - February 21, 2009
Because, V the K, Obama Party politicians know what happens when you don’t pay off the correct number of welfare voters — they lose power.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 21, 2009 @ 5:02 pm - February 21, 2009
pst said: “In other words, we’re not supposed to criticize liberals?”
i’m going to go ahead and guess that you didn’t read my whole comment.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 21, 2009 @ 6:46 pm - February 21, 2009
NDT said: ““Nuanced†is simply a kinder, gentler synonym for “moral relativism†and “lack of right and wrongâ€.”
actually, that’s not what “nuanced” means. at all. in any way. and that’s not what i was talking about. dictionary much?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 21, 2009 @ 6:49 pm - February 21, 2009
v the k said: “The problem is, you can’t discuss practical economics with lefties, because they don’t understand economics, they refuse to believe the facts of our current situation, and their blind faith in their charismatic cult leader trumps any reason-based discussion.”
oh really? then why are the vast majority of phd economists democrats (something like 70 percent to <30 percent for republicans)? why did the vast majority (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/10/which_candidate_do_economists.cfm) of the top american economists say that obama’s economic plans were better than mccain’s? why does the economy in general, and total income, perform better under democrats (http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2008/03/american-politi.html)?
http://anotherdamnblog.com/index.php/economic-performance-by-party-in-the-white-house/
Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 21, 2009 @ 7:01 pm - February 21, 2009
#10: “P-o-l-i-t-i-c-i-a-n-s are always saying that we can’t cut the b-u-d-g-e-t because it would be “too painful?†How do we know? No government has ever significantly reduced actual spending, so how do we know it’s going to be so painful?”
Right, V the K. And painful for whom? The analysis always (inexplicably!) starts with, “how much money does the government need to accomplish all of its important, essential duties?” Step 2: hand it over. Step 3: survive on what’s left as best you can. The assumption is that ALL OF OUR MONEY belongs to the government and they decide what we get to keep, instead of US deciding what the government will receive and has to get by on, based on what we expect to get back in protection, services, etc. When on Earth did that get reversed?
If this keeps up, I think what we will see is not some militaristic, call-to-arms tax revolt, but rather, at some point, individual Americans are just going to decide to take as many exemptions as possible on their W-2s, let the government keep what’s withheld, and just stiff ‘em on the tax bill. The way this administration is headed, I see huge masses of law-abiding citizens finally saying “enough.” The feds can’t throw everyone in jail and there is a tipping point. Working Americans are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens so I think the threshold is quite high, but there is one and I eventually see a lot of people just telling Obama and this worthless Congress to go fu*k themselves.
Comment by Sean A — February 21, 2009 @ 7:27 pm - February 21, 2009
^^ just a tad radical, don’t ya think?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 21, 2009 @ 7:33 pm - February 21, 2009
My velvet revolution has begun with businesses not hiring and actually laying off non essential workers. Also postponing business re investments that can wait for a more business friendly envirnment. Next steps include less people participating in the voluntary tax system in the US. More bartering for services, less declarion of income. The suggestion above for more people to declare more deductions will begin to starve the government of funds as well. If the govenment won’t listen to the producers, the people who play by the rules, we do have some powers left. We can not participate. And the net effect will be to shut down the govenment. In addition, we should organize peaceful demonstrations of the workers and producers in front of govt buildings. It is now the producers vs the losers. Obama has made the choice pretty stark.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — February 21, 2009 @ 7:44 pm - February 21, 2009
I don’t think it was radical at all. What’s radical is Mr. Obama’s approach to patriotism, islam, economy, war, defense systems, offense systems, troops, education, health care, awe screw it, everything.
There isn’t a thing I think this administration can do half right let alone have success on any one thing.
I do have hope though and I pray for change as well. I hope he changes his mind on all his extreme ideas.
Comment by EDinTampa — February 21, 2009 @ 7:47 pm - February 21, 2009
Free money with no accountability or results necessary.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 21, 2009 @ 7:47 pm - February 21, 2009
For our leftists friends….
One of the problems the left won’t admit is demonstrated by His Honor Mayor Bloomberg of NYC. Last week he let out the dirty secret. In a city of 7 million people, 40,000 households pay 50% of the taxes in NYC. That’s an amazing statistic. Even the Mayor said we simply can’t tax those 40,000 any more than we are or they will start to leave the city, then we’ve got total collapse. Imagine the budget problems NYC would have if even 10,000 of those producers left and moved to CT or fled to the south. The USA is approaching the same level of taxing the producers. The top 1% in America pay 39% of all Federal Income taxes, the top 25% pay 86% of Federal income taxes ( that figure has been climbing btw). The left wants everyone to think it is the people on the bottom rungs of the ladder that need a break, need a step up. No where in the world do the poor have a better life than in America. And the producers would at least appreciate a thank you instead of being told we sux.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — February 21, 2009 @ 7:55 pm - February 21, 2009
I’m not advocating it, bob. I’m only saying that as more and more of Americans’ money is taken away from them, it will begin to seem less and less “radical” to stiff the federal government on any additional taxes owed at the end of the year. If you add: (1) excessive taxation to begin with and it only going up from there; (2) the stimulus package producing no discernible improvement in the economy (and it won’t); (3) the exposure of Obama’s “tax cuts” and foreclosure plan as freebie government money giveaways for the least productive segments of our society (and they will be exposed as such); and (4) the fact that Obama’s Senate-approved Cabinet is teeming with tax cheats who will face no consequences for their deeds;…it’s not unthinkable to imagine an average law-abiding American looking at a tax bill for $3,000 (in addition to 1000s already withheld), and saying “screw it, I’m taking my family to Disneyworld for a vacation with this money.” I’m an attorney–it’s never a good idea to break the law and I would never advocate it. But is it really all that difficult to imagine it beginning to occur and the administration having no way to deal with it except prosecuting the few cases they have the resources for?
Comment by Sean A — February 21, 2009 @ 7:56 pm - February 21, 2009
^^ just a tad radical, don’t ya think?
Notice how boob openly states that not paying taxes is “radical”, but fully supports and endorses the Obama Party and its leadership like Obama, Rangel, Daschle, Solis, Geithner, and others who refuse to pay theirs and get away with it.
The rule should be this: if Obama Party members don’t have to pay taxes, I’m not paying mine.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 22, 2009 @ 12:15 am - February 22, 2009
Appeal to authority isn’t a persuasive means of argument, and furthermore, whoever chooses the pool of economists to survey can get whatever result he wants. What no lefty here can do is lay out what exactly Obama is doing and then make a case for why it will work, especially since it has never worked anywhere before.
But boob illustrates a key difference between the left and the right. On the right, we think for ourselves, and we want to be empowered to make decisions for ourselves. Those on the left just want to be good little sheep, and let their betters in government and their chosen “experts” decide for them.
Comment by V the K — February 22, 2009 @ 7:53 am - February 22, 2009
#23: V the K, given bob’s disciplined reliance on the opinions of experts, I wonder if we can expect him to exhibit the same amount of zeal defending the report on Gitmo ordered by Obama and prepared by experts at the Pentagon he chose? As you probably already know, the findings were that the detention center is fully compliant with the Geneva Conventions, just as Bush represented throughout his Presidency.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/21/official-pentagon-report-defends-guantanamo/
Comment by Sean A — February 22, 2009 @ 9:07 am - February 22, 2009
Help! Filter Attack! Please release comment! Thanks.
Comment by Sean A — February 22, 2009 @ 9:08 am - February 22, 2009
actually, v the k, despite historical revisionism deployed by the right, the new deal (massive gov’t spending) helped the economy a great amount. it brought unemployment down from 25% to 13% in a few years. unemployment went back up briefly in 1937 when FDR halted the spending program (requested by repubs). WWII then took the economy the rest of the way. in case you didn’t know, war is a form of massive gov’t spending (it’s just the kind of massive gov’t spending conservatives love).
Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 22, 2009 @ 9:54 am - February 22, 2009
and what i was referring to as “radical” was not so much an individual’s decision to not pay taxes, but more of what came across as a ‘call to arms’ of sort.
and for the record, i never defended geithner. he seems like a loser to me, frankly, regardless of how smart he allegedly is.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 22, 2009 @ 9:56 am - February 22, 2009
There is no question in my mind that Americans will start using any method possible to cut their taxes.
Having lived in Israel for years, where the taxes are way too high, there was a vibrant black market in services and trade.
None of us paid for small home repairs with a check – it was always under the table, with cash.
The larger the repair or renovation, we’d all get creative and pay a portion ‘legally’ and the rest under the table.
It was strange to come here and have everything above board. Though I must say, I use a number of Israeli repairmen, and they never got out of the habit of being ‘creative’.
The higher the tax burden the more creative the population, especially when it is clear that tax laws only apply to the average citizen, never to our ruling class. Who knew that in Representative government in America, we would now be subjected to a ruling class?
Comment by Leah — February 22, 2009 @ 11:25 am - February 22, 2009
Gee, BOB, being endlessly critical of their political opponents for the last 8 years seems to have paid off for the democrats. Don’t ya think?
Comment by Tarquin — February 22, 2009 @ 11:43 am - February 22, 2009
actually, v the k, despite historical revisionism deployed by the right, the new deal (massive gov’t spending) helped the economy a great amount.
Nice try, boob, but not even Obama’s own economic advisor agrees with you on that one.
Obama economic adviser Christina Romer has studied 20th-century recessions and concluded that monetary tools, not fiscal spending, produced recoveries. Even in the Great Depression, monetary expansion, not FDR’s public works, opened the way toward recovery beginning in the spring of 1933.
Meanwhile, economists also agree that what worsened the Great Depression were protectionist actions like the Smoot-Hawley tariff and vastly-increased business and individual taxes. So what’s the Obama Party demanding? Protectionism (get rid of NAFTA) and increased taxes.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 22, 2009 @ 12:22 pm - February 22, 2009
Unemployment spiked in 1937 because of the tax increases FDR leveled in 1936. (The propagandists tend to leave out that part of the story). FDR’s policies prolonged the Depression by seven years. Other industrialized nations where the government did not intervene as much as FDR recovered much more quickly.
Logic says that you can’t maintain full employment by perpetual expansion of the public sector. You can’t get to prosperity by bureaucrats taxing other bureaucrats to pay still more bureaucrats.
Also, maybe some people haven’t looked out the window lately, but it’s a very different global economy than in 1933. Capital is much more fluid. If you’re a company and the USA is going to confiscate 40+% of your earnings and Ireland is only going to take 12.5%… gee, where should a smart business locate its operations. If Obama is going to hit my company with massive carbon dioxide regulations and unionize my workforce through card check, am I going to expand my operations in the USA, or am I going to expand in China, Mexico, or Brazil where I don’t have to put up with that crap?
Comment by V the K — February 22, 2009 @ 12:27 pm - February 22, 2009
“Don’t do that!” and “Rescind things that are like it!” is a plan, and the right one.
Wholescale engineering of economies and human behavior is like trying to control the weather. But given Al Gore’s role in the latter, I doubt the left finds the former convincing. Besides, being that both enginieering and controlling economies, people, and weather are such basic contradictions to what is in reality possible, liberals will (have) rejected such “notions” and lacking, er, ah, nuance.
Not that the recent $1,000,000,000,000.00 spending bill was all that nuaunced, not to mention the blitzkrieg in which it was passed and signed.
Comment by Max Schadenfreude — February 22, 2009 @ 12:44 pm - February 22, 2009
V the K and NDT: well, paul krugman disagrees w/ you on the great depression recovery. somehow i think he’s a bit smarter than you both. combined.
oh, and good try, but obama has never said he wants to GET RID of NAFTA.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 22, 2009 @ 12:53 pm - February 22, 2009
Snide condescension and appeal to authority, but no ability to actually refute an argument. Typical.
Comment by V the K — February 22, 2009 @ 1:23 pm - February 22, 2009
#32: Bob, instead of citing to Paul Krugman as authority for anything, please just save as all some time and type the following: “I am officially out of arguments, I have zero credibility, and any further gibberish I manage to squirt out should be rejected out of hand.” Bob, seriously,…Paul Krugman?! Really?! You do realize that he is a columnist for a publication whose stock price has now slipped below the cost of a Sunday edition, right? The man actually titled one of his books “The Conscience of a Liberal” without a trace of irony. Krugman’s opinions carry the same weight and authority as the following: “Only a controlled demolition could have brought the WTC towers down;” “Bush stole the 2000 election;” “War for Oil;” “Tax Cuts for the Rich;” and “Nothing happened between Brad and Angelina until after Brad was legally separated from Jennifer.”
Comment by Sean A — February 22, 2009 @ 2:34 pm - February 22, 2009
nobel. prize. in. economics.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 22, 2009 @ 4:57 pm - February 22, 2009
Yasser Arafat. nobel. peace. prize.
your point bob?
Comment by The Livewire — February 22, 2009 @ 5:03 pm - February 22, 2009
Al Gore. nobel. peace. prize. (for his pathetic and tireless campaign to convince the world that by changing lightbulbs we will one day control the weather and the heavens above)
Jimmy Carter. nobel. peace. prize. (for “his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights” [BY SUPPORTING HAMAS])
Mikhail Gorbachev. nobel. peace. prize. (for, get this, “his leading role in the peace process which today characterizes important parts of the international community”)
Kofi Annan. nobel. peace. prize. (for his “work for a better organized and more peaceful world”)
The Employee of the Month award at the Piggly-Wiggly has more prestige.
Comment by Sean A — February 22, 2009 @ 5:50 pm - February 22, 2009
Leftists really aren’t using the nobel prizes as justification for anything are they? They’ve been politicized now for 30 years or more. Prizes going to socialists, communists, thugs and dictators.
Huge government spending, freezes businesses in place. Business becomes afraid to reinvest not knowing what shoe will fall next. A $10 minimum wage, price controls, card check. It is more responsible to hold on tight and hope for the best as a business person. Thus no hiring, no re investments, and the whole country stops…..except government make work. In Pennsylvania we are use to driving by road projects and finding 8 out of 9 overweight PennDot workers leaning on their shovels while the one young new worker does some work. With Obamas plan, it will now be 11 out of 12 workers standing around. Right thinking Americans should take Obama up on his promise to spend the new windfall responsibly and tape such examples. Put it up on You Tube and send a copy to the RNC. Let’s start the revolution.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — February 22, 2009 @ 10:23 pm - February 22, 2009
What was the spending as a percentage of GDP?
Same excuse by the same assholes who love to quote the “military industrial complex”, from Eisenhower’s speech, but ignore the message in the following paragraphs.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 23, 2009 @ 6:19 am - February 23, 2009
in case you didn’t know, war is a form of massive gov’t spending (it’s just the kind of massive gov’t spending
conservatives lovethat is enumerated in the Constitution).Fixed
Comment by The Livewire — February 24, 2009 @ 8:53 am - February 24, 2009