• Random Ruminations on Reforming the Right (and Other 'R' Words)
• Surge in fatal shark attacks blamed on global warming
• Wrong house... oh well.

• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• February 2008
• January 2008
• November 2007
• October 2007
• September 2007
• August 2007
• July 2007
• June 2007
• May 2007
• April 2007
• March 2007
• February 2007
• January 2007
• December 2006
• November 2006
• October 2006
• September 2006
• August 2006
• July 2006
• June 2006
• May 2006
• April 2006
• March 2006
• February 2006
• January 2006
• December 2005
• November 2005
• October 2005
• September 2005
• August 2005
• July 2005
• June 2005

« April 2008 | Main

May 8, 2008

Random Ruminations on Reforming the Right (and Other 'R' Words)

Excellent. I hope this works out: The Next Right.

This is somewhat related to an idea that's been on my mind a lot lately. There are certain Righty pundits, namely Mark Levin, who get extremely agitated by Republicans who talk about jumping ship. Levin sees it as a loyalty obligation to stick with the Republican Party and reform her from the inside, instead of casting Libertarian or other opposition votes. For my part, I've had somewhat of a realization over the last few days, spurred-on by a biography on Confederate Partisan Ranger John S. Mosby that I’m currently reading. It occurred to me that it is unhealthy and antithetical to historical precedent to perceive political parties as rigid, non-vacillating, and never-ending institutions. Quite the opposite, we've had not only a handful of varying political parties, but the political parties themselves have evolved over time to become wholly unrecognizable versions of their former selves.

For example, from the aforementioned James A. Ramage book on Mosby, the passage below seems almost surreal by today’s stereotypes (particularly in the modern context of Katrina and the Democrats’ desire for massive Federal reconstruction of New Orleans):

For the first four years after the [Civil] war [Mosby] refrained from politics and then in the summer of 1869, when military rule under Congressional Reconstruction was about to end in Virginia, he came out exactly in the center of the political stand of the majority of white Virginians. The state Conservative Party (later the Democratic Party) that opposed Radical Republican Reconstruction nominated Gilbert C. Walker for governor. When he came to speak in Warrenton, Mosby met him at the train station and hosted and introduced him at the local rally. In his remarks Mosby said that Walker stood for civilization while the Republican Party represented "barbarism." Mosby actively campaigned for Walker and for his friend James Keith, a fellow Warrenton attorney, running for the state legislature. Both won, and the Conservative state legislature ratified the 14th and 15th Amendments, bringing an end to Reconstruction in Virginia. [...] Mosby became an aggressive Conservative Party [meaning Democrat] member, personally taking the offensive against carpetbaggers, Northern men who came into the South and worked from Radical Republican governments.

Does there come a point where enough opposition-party mud has been flung at a political party and subsequently stuck to render the party unsalvageable? The first example that comes to mind is the Whigs, who experienced mass defection because of their stance on slavery. Practically overnight the Whig Party of the mid-Nineteenth century utterly vanished in favor of the Democratic and Republican parties. A few months ago a commenter on the Atlantico remarked that the Republican Party was the party of racism, whereas the Democrats were the "Civil Rights" party. Can you imagine this being heard 140 years ago, when the North, New England, the Abolitionists, and Lincoln's Administration were overwhelmingly Republican and the Democratic Party was prevalent among Southerners, Secessionists, and anti-Abolitionists? We don't even have to go back as far as the Civil War. In 1964, the Democrats had three times the number of dissenters for the Civil Right's Act than the Republicans. And yet, enough mud has been thrown - and stuck - at the GOP that they are the party of racism. They are the party of greed. They are the party for rich, white men. The party of evangelical fanaticism and evolutionists. In general, the forest of concepts upon which the Republican Party was built has been lost for the mud-laden trees.

I think the Republican Party has served a nice, long run, and its time has come. I understand that the Next Right is looking to redefine the Republican Party, to get back to some of its grassroots. And that's great. But I also think that the time has come when we should not shy away from a complete make-over. And not just change for the change's sake, but understanding that the political party system is a fluid and evolving concept. As long as we remain grounded in our principles, then the name and history and baggage of a political party should be irrelevant. Why should I, someone who's trying to promote small-government, pro-capitalism, and traditional liberalism, be encumbered with a century and a half of GOP closeted skeletons? Likewise, I don't feel like today's socialists should be encumbered with the war-mongering likes of John F. Kennedy and FDR. Are we stuck in this rut because Fox News or CNN tells us so, or because of the deep pocketbooks and far-reaching influence of the D/RNC? Today's Democrats should form the New Socialist Party and we GOP train-hoppers should form the New Democratic-Republican Party and we should be going after each other in terms of our ideological differences instead of our historical mud-slinging and baggage pointing.

At the very least, making a serious effort towards a new Conservative Party would hopefully elicit wide-sweeping changes and reform within the current Republican Party: A "Next Right" upon which we can all agree.

May 4, 2008

Surge in fatal shark attacks blamed on global warming

What sensational headline? From the article:

'The one thing that's affecting shark attacks more than anything else is human activity,' said Dr George Burgess of Florida University,

Of course - probably our combustion engines and clear-cutting of the rain forests. Human activity has inarguably endangered habitats, food chains, and many species. Setting aside skepticism over global climate change and its causes, I'm sure that human activity of some sort is causing an increase in shark attacks.

'As the population continues to rise, so does the number of people in the water for recreation. And as long as we have an increase in human hours in the water, we will have an increase in shark bites.'

Oh. That kind of human activity. Where more people are going into shark-infested waters for fun.

Well, that sorta makes the headline look silly. Perhaps it ought to read, "Victims blamed". I don't imagine that would go over well, but it might sell papers anyway.

'What's needed is some kind of system to prevent people and sharks coming together in a dangerous way.'

Hrm. If only there were some way to keep people and sharks apart.

I got nothin'.

May 3, 2008

Wrong house... oh well.

Isabel Llorente said she never thought this could happen here.

I don't know which upsets me more... the fact that this could happen here (and does all the time), or the fact that most people still don't think that it could.