Right Opinion
The best of conservative opinion and commentary, updated daily.
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
The Right Caves on Social Issues, Then Loses
This week, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed a significant drop in the number of Americans identifying as conservative, and a significant rise in the number of Americans identifying as liberal. As the Journal described, "For the first time since 2010, conservatives are no longer a plurality: 38 percent identify as moderates, compared with 33 percent who identify as conservative and 26 percent as liberal." The Journal, like Gallup, attributes the drop in conservative identification to increased allegiance to leftist social positions, particularly among young people and women. Predictably enough, the Republican establishment agrees with this analysis. For years, they have been claiming that the only path to national victory stands in de-emphasizing social issues and emphasizing fiscal ones. After all, as they point out, Gallup shows that conservatives beat leftists on economic issues by a margin of 39 percent to 19 percent. If Republicans simply drop social issues altogether, the logic goes, voters will be able to move into the economic realm, where conservatives dominate.
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
Obama Can't Be Trusted With This Trade Deal
Most common-sense people rightly assume that establishing stable uniform rules of engagement and reducing trade barriers is good in and of itself. But it's a mistake to think that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) involving 11 countries in addition to the U.S. — which is close to being concluded after six-plus years of negotiation under the Obama administration — is only a free trade pact. It's also a misstep to grant the Obama administration with fast-track authority and the attendant secrecy on all details of this trade pact. The experience with Obama's Affordable Care Act, his executive order on immigration and his ongoing nuclear agreement negotiations with Iran remind us that the devil in the details, once passed and implemented, can be harmful and problematic to correct.
Are Media Just Hillary's Fair-Weather Friends?
Don't you find it a bit odd that two glaringly contradictory narratives surround Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency — inevitability and "she's in trouble"? I've never been convinced, as I've written before, of Hillary's inevitability. In fact, I rarely believe the media or members of the establishment of either party when they anoint any candidate as inevitable. These people tend to live in the Northeastern power corridor but are often oblivious to what the rest of the country is thinking. I attended an influential confab prior to the 2008 primary season and listened to numerous GOP establishment honchos explaining why Mitt Romney's nomination in 2008 was virtually guaranteed — statistically, among other things. As I recall, he didn't win the nomination that year.
Hillary on the Right to Vote
Those Republicans! Here's the lowdown on 'em — and on their lousy, lowdown approach to governing. They don't want the wrong people voting. They're "scared of letting citizens have their say." They're engaged in "a sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchise people of color, poor people, and young people from one end of our country to the other." Don't you just want to kick 'em? Don't you just want to vote for Hillary Clinton? Which after all is the point of Clinton's demagogic tirade last week — getting you to vote for her so she can launch new and better demagogic tirades. Moving up the road from this latest Clinton tour de force shouldn't be hard. The Clinton view of the right to vote is that it exists to put Clintons in office, rather than to affirm faith in the power of free, unimpeded voter choice.
Differences Between Left and Right: Part III
'Does it do good?' vs. 'Does it feel good?'
The CDC's Abstinence-Minded Professors
When it comes to self-control, the government has a hard enough time practicing it — let alone promoting it! That's why last week's announcement from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was so important. After years of burying its head in the sand and throwing billions of dollars at an STD problem it helped create, the government finally admitted what the Bible and common sense made abundantly clear: abstinence and monogamy are the only ways to avoid disease. In its 2015 "Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines," a two-word change made all the difference. Five years ago, the CDC used to say abstinence and monogamy were "a reliable way to avoid disease." As of last Friday, the agency agrees it's "*the* most reliable way." That may not seem like a radical edit to most people, but in this administration, moral purity is as foreign a concept as political transparency.
The TPP Will Destroy America's National Sovereignty
Last week, during a radio interview, I was asked to describe the mood of the nation in one word. That's a tall order, but the host of the show inadvertently provided me with the answer: powerless. And nothing contributes to that sense of powerlessness more than a Washington D.C.-based ruling class seemingly determined to undermine our national sovereignty. That's why members of both parties are foisting the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal on a beleaguered public. I'd like to give you the details of the TPP, but a contemptuous Obama administration has decided to keep such information top secret. So secret that, even if you're a member of Congress and want information, you have two choices: you can attend a classified briefing that requires you to leave your staff members and cell phone at the door, or you can amble down to the basement of Capitol Visitor Center for a read. Again one's cellphone must be surrendered. And only one section at a time is provided, with someone watching over you as you read. If you take any notes they must be surrendered prior to leaving. After you leave, you are forbidden to discuss any aspects of the bill in public.
What Will They Think of Next? 'Female Viagra'
An advisory committee to the Food and Drug Administration has recommended approval of a drug created to raise a woman's libido. It's called flibanserin, but it is popularly known as "female Viagra." The 18-6 committee vote does not guarantee the FDA will give final approval to the drug (it has been rejected twice before), but the agency has a record of mostly going along with the committee's recommendations. Men of a certain age may rejoice at such a breakthrough. Imagine the possibility of no longer hearing "not tonight, honey, I've got a headache." Think of the time and money this pill could save men. No more expensive dinners. No more mandatory chick flicks. No remembering birthdays or sending flowers. No back rubs or faked sensitivity. Just a simple pill and she'll be "ready," as the male enhancement commercial euphemistically calls it. Cut to the chase, except there would be no need for a chase. No romance. No "getting to know you." It sounds like the 1973 film "Westworld" where lifelike android women fulfill any male fantasy and never say "no."
Who Lost Iraq?
After the pro-Western government of China was forced to flee to the island of Taiwan in 1949, when the Communists took over mainland China, bitter recriminations in Washington led to the question: "Who lost China?" China was, of course, never ours to lose, though it might be legitimate to ask if a different American policy toward China could have led to a different outcome. In more recent years, however, Iraq was in fact ours to lose, after U.S. troops vanquished Saddam Hussein's army and took over the country. Today, we seem to be in the process of losing Iraq, if not to ISIS, then to Iran, whose troops are in Iraq fighting ISIS. While mistakes were made by both the Bush administration and the Obama administration, those mistakes were of different kinds and of different magnitudes in their consequences, though both sets of mistakes are worth thinking about, so that so much tragic waste of blood and treasure does not happen again.
Hillary Clinton's Slide in Polls Leaves Her Vulnerable
"Despite everything," the often interesting analyst Jamelle Bouie writes in Slate — "everything" includes "the email controversy, foreign donors and the Clinton Foundation" — "Hillary is in good shape." Good enough to leave her party "still positioned for victory." Bouie is writing in response to the ABC News/Washington Post and CNN/ORC polls released last week, which show Hillary Clinton's favorable/unfavorable numbers plunging. ABC/WaPo puts them at 45-49 percent negative, the lowest since April 2008. CNN/ORC puts them at an almost identical 46-50 percent negative, the lowest since March 2003. The most significant thing about these results is that Clinton evokes favorable feelings from less than 50 percent of respondents. Bouie is right to say that it is unrealistic to expect Clinton to be as favorably regarded as she was when she held the relatively unpolitical office of secretary of state. But it's a stretch to say that a candidate with 100 percent substantive recognition but less than 50 percent favorables is "positioned for victory." Such a candidate could win, especially if her opponent has exploitable flaws. But there is a nontrivial possibility she will lose.
Monday, June 8, 2015
This State Created Jobs and Surpluses Through Tax Cuts
Four years ago, North Carolina's unemployment rate was above 10 percent and the state still bore the effects of its battering in the recession. Many rural towns faced jobless rates of more than 20 percent. But in 2013, a combination of the biggest tax rate reductions in the state's history and a gutsy but controversial unemployment insurance reform supercharged the state's economy and has even helped finance budget surpluses. As Wells Fargo's Economics Group recently put it: "North Carolina's economy has shifted into high gear. Hiring has picked up across nearly every industry." The tax cut slashed the state's top personal income tax rate to 5.75 percent, near the regional average, from 7.75 percent, which had been the highest in the South. The corporate tax rate was cut to 5 percent from 6.9 percent. The estate tax was eliminated.
Let's Bring the Voice of the Iranian People Into Our Iran Policy
If you're paying attention to the Middle East today, you're paying attention to Iran. The Islamic Republic has its hand in a number of regional conflicts, in addition to its long-standing support for Middle Eastern terrorist groups. And of course this comes at a time when Iran could also be on the verge of potentially inking an agreement with six world powers that would give it relief from sanctions related to its work on nuclear weapons technology. If you are paying attention to the Middle East, and thus to Iran, it would be prudent to also pay attention to France later this week. If you keep your eyes on Paris on June 13, you will witness to a powerful demonstration of opposition to Tehran's clerical regime. The rally organized by the Iranian Diaspora in support of the opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran is enormously relevant to questions about how Western policymakers should be dealing with the Islamic Republic during this complex time.
The Case for Israel Is Rooted in More Than Security
Noses went out of joint and knickers got in a twist when Israel's new deputy foreign minister delivered her inaugural speech to the Jewish state's diplomatic corps. "We need to get back to the basic truth of our right to this land," said Tzipi Hotovely, who is running the foreign ministry's day-to-day operations, while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu retains the title of foreign minister. The land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people, she declared, and their claim to it is as old as the Bible. "It's important to say this" when making Israel's case before the world, and not to focus solely on Israel's security interests. Of course security is a profound concern, Hotovely observed, but arguments grounded in justice, morality, and deep historical rights are stronger. She even quoted the medieval Jewish sage Rashi, who wrote that Genesis opens with God's creation of the world to preempt any subsequent charge that the Jewish claim to the land was without merit.
Air Force Pilots Policy Change on Transgenders
"Gay Pride Month" is just beginning — but we can't say the same for the administration's pandering. In the last seven years, Americans have witnessed an almost perpetual parade of deviance, with the President grand marshalling them all! Now, the government's rainbow love fest is spilling over into the military, where each branch is racing to out-sexualize the other. After [Thursday's] announcement, the Air Force is taking its radicalism to new heights — announcing that it was easing the discharge policy on transgenders in advance of the pride event next Tuesday. (Apparently, we're now relaxing U.S. security standards in conjunction with P.C. holidays.) The move isn't a surprise to those familiar with new Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James, who was the first service chief to openly lobby for the gender confused to serve. "Times change," she said in December. "From my point of view, anyone who is capable of accomplishing the job should be able to serve."
A Bush-League Candidate
When Megyn Kelly asked Jeb Bush if he would, knowing what we know now, have invaded Iraq in 2003, it was not a gotcha question. She is not a liberal shill looking to eviscerate every GOP presidential candidate. She was actually giving him the opportunity to separate himself from his big brother, even though big brother George had already said that absent faulty intelligence, he would not have gone after Saddam Hussein. Jeb's problem was that, like most politicians, he prefers the sound of his own voice to that of all others. He was so anxious to give his canned answer that he tuned out the all-important "Knowing what we know now." The fact is we have all misheard and misspoken on occasion. The problem is that he didn't immediately say, "Oh, sorry, Megyn, I was preoccupied, worrying about my father's failing health" or something equally self-serving. Instead, he and his people wasted a few days trying to make sense of his response.
Sunday, June 7, 2015
The Challenge: Life Narrative
Have you ever stopped to consider why "story" means so much to us? Why do great books and great movies enrapture us the way they do? When you pick up your empty popcorn bag and slowly — almost mournfully — make your way out of the theater, or when you finally lay a dearly loved book down after you turn the last page, the deep sense of longing you experience suggests that we crave far more than mere entertainment. In *A Million Miles in a Thousand Years*, Donald Miller writes about the parallels between storytelling and living, teaching that the elements that make a story compelling are the same elements that comprise a meaningful life. It's all in the way we are wired.
The Super PAC Minuet
Campaign finance "reformers" think America would be better governed if the government could thoroughly regulate campaign speech, which is speech about the composition and comportment of the government. Reformers scold the Supreme Court for construing the First Amendment as though it says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." Reformers say government can limit campaign money without limiting what most such money funds — political speech. And since the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, reformers have been lamenting a predictable consequence of their success in imposing limits on contributions to candidates and campaigns. The consequence is the rise of super PACs dedicated to the support of single candidates. So now, reformers insist that super PACs' spending is not really "independent" because it is, in effect, "coordinated." Well.
Social Injustice
A few years ago, I gave a talk at a local Rotary Club. During the Q&A session, a member of the audience identified himself as a liberal and took me to task over something I'd said about Muslims. After trying, and no doubt failing, to set him straight, I asked him why he was a liberal. He puffed himself up, as these jerks are prone to do, and said it was mainly because he believed in social justice. I'm not sure if I called him a fool or only thought it, but I did point out to him that justice is justice, and doesn't require any adjectives. In fact, once you begin to modify it, you're perverting its meaning. The ideal, I explained, was one set of rules for rich and poor, black and white, men and women, young and old, liberals and conservatives, Muslims and Christians. It was bad enough having to explain all this to a fellow American. What made it worse is that he had identified himself as a lawyer.
How Much Does Paul Krugman Want to Tax LeBron James?
What tax rate should rich people pay? A working paper by Fabian Kindermann from the University of Bonn and Dirk Krueger from the University of Pennsylvania advocates taxing the highest 1 percent of earners at a marginal tax rate that is "somewhere between 85 and 90 percent." As reported by Ben Walsh at the Huffington Post: >Krueger described the phenomenon like this: "How much less hard would LeBron James play basketball if he were taxed at a much higher rate? The answer is not much. "James knows he only has five years," or so of peak earning potential, Krueger said, and so he will work to make as much as he can during that time. When asked about the study in a Huffington Post online video, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman agreed with the conclusion wholeheartedly: