Rational Passion

Surprising no one who pays the slightest bit of attention, Ron Paul has made it abundantly clear that he is an enemy of liberty.  Here's the text of the resolution he opposed:

"Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes.

"Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

"(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;

"(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and

"(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections."

I've been commenting on the Iranian regime on my Facebook page.  Here, I only want to say "about time!" in response to this admission from moderate lefty Ezra Klein:

"There are a couple things to say about this, all of them depressing. First, those of us who have long argued for the fundamental rationality of the Iranian regime have seen our case fundamentally weakened. A rational regime might have stolen the election. But they would not have stolen it like this, where there is no doubt of the theft. This is like robbers leaving muddy footprints and a home address. Tehran's evident vote-tampering is tempting both domestic revolution and international isolation. That they appear to fear neither says something very unsettling about the mental state of the regime."

Some of us have been saying this for quite some time.  This regime must go!

UPDATE: Or, as Instapundit puts it: "You know, one of the things I thought I’d like about Obama was his gay-rights position. But now I’m wondering if a Cheney administration wouldn’t be more liberal on this subject."  Is it time to start a Cheney For President movement?  (Ultimately, I'd say "no.")

In addition to a long-promised post on "elitism," it is becoming clearer to me that I will have to do a (relatively brief, non-technical) taxonomy of political ideologies--until and unless I see someone else do it better than I could.  For now, here's Dr. Harry Binswanger explaining how racial collectivism is the antithesis of an individualistic, pro-capitalist politics--and how it is the left that takes the side of the Palestinians against Israel.

The Conservatives are crushing Labour.

This gives me a chance to clarify a previous post on the Stupid Party (the GOP) and the Evil Party (the Democrats).  (I'm not sure to what extent those terms fit the corresponding parties in the UK, though they certainly do to some extent.)  Anyway, to the clarification: the Evil Party is actually more stupid than the Stupid Party. That's why if Olympia Snowe (more stupid than the average Republican but less than the average Democrat) left the Stupid Party, she would increase the average IQ of both parties. The Democrats get the title "Evil Party" because their massive evil is what distinguishes them from the Stupid Party.  Similarly, the Stupid Party is also somewhat evil, but it's not nearly as evil as it is stupid. In short:

Evil Party: extremely evil and very stupid
Stupid Party: pretty evil and very stupid (less stupid than the Dems but still very stupid)

I know it makes lefty heads explode, but yes, non-white non-males can be racists and/or sexists.  Sotomayor is both--she has repeatedly said, using slightly different words, that a Latina woman should be a better judge than a white male because of her life experiences.  This is a wanton embrace of racism, sexism, and, more deeply, subjectivism.  But it should be no surprise that the left has leaped to the defense of this woman: subjectivism (and racism and sexism) are a-okay with leftists, so long, of course, as the subject (in this case, Sotomayor) subjectively prefers the right sorts of people (racial minorities, women, the powerless) to the wrong sorts of people (whites, men, the powerful).  Here is an example of a leftist proudly embracing the subjectivism David Brooks is so fond of--not only embracing it, but also expressing incredulity that anyone could think that objectivity is possible:

"Reading David Brooks' 'case for an emotional justice' (sure to draw sneers from 'purer' conservatives), it occurred [sic--should be a "to" here] me: What's troubling me about the Sotomayor critics rambling on with such arch intellectual piety about how a jurists' emotions and experiences shouldn't inform her interpretations of the law isn't that I suspect these grumblers are racist or sexist or hard-hearted; it's that they really seem to believe that certain people (themselves included, of course) operate largely free from such messy, imprecise, irrational influences.

"Not to state the obvious, but an upper-middle class white guy reared in the suburbs is shaped by his experiences, carries certain assumptions, and views the world through a particular prism as much as a working-glass Puerto Rican gal from the Bronx, or, for that matter, the half-black son of a single mom raised in Hawaii. The person belonging to the cultural/ethnic/religious/gender/racial demographic that has traditionally dominated a field (and thus whose perspective has long been the default) may not have given as much thought to his prism as a member of a non-dominant group. But that does not make his prism a neutral one. It aimply allows him to more freely indulge his delusions of pure rationality and objectivity.

"In his column, Brooks wonders if Sotomayor 'is aware of the murky, flawed, and semiprimitive nature of her own decision-making, and has she accounted for her own uncertainty.[sic--should be an end-quote here.] It's a sensible question--and one that many high-minded legal experts, politicians, and other members of the chattering class clearly could stand to ask themselves."

What's troubling me is the extent to which lefties think that they can get away with being racists and sexists because they feel "empathy"  for the "oppressed."  Maybe they can get away with it and get Sotomayor onto the court, given the rotten state of our culture, but I won't let it pass without comment.  Whether they know it or not, anyone who supports the moderately racist and sexist Sonia Sotomayor has no case against the moderately racist Lawrence Auster.  Of course, lefties don't think they need to make a case for their views since shouting "racist" at all of their opponents, racist or not--while nominating an actual racist to the Supreme Court--has proven so effective.

UPDATE: I've broken my pledge to stop mentioning Auster, but I do think his case and that of Sotomayor are analagous: I doubt very much that he ever dons a white hood or that she says "kill whitey!" when among her comrades, but both are racists nonetheless--hence my claim that they are both "moderately racist."  In a rare move for me, I'll solicit opinions from my readers: is my pledge appropriate?

UPDATE II: Bob Sanders has some thoughts in the comments.

Must-see:

President Obama gave a 6000 word speech.  I can give you the essence of it in only 6 words: Death to Israel! Death to America!

UPDATE: This piece, from an Australian paper, captures my attitude reasonably well, although it is still far too soft on Obama:

"Obama’s demands are most specific when they detail what Israel must surrender or offer - an end to West Bank settlement, better living conditions in Gaza (which it does not control), a Palestinian state, 'concrete steps' to improve life in the West Bank. Yes, there are also demands made of Hamas - which 'must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist' - but these are standard demands made of a terrorist organisation that has shown not the slightest interest in obeying, and which Obama offers not the slightest hint of enforcing.

"To sum up: Obama’s speech is designed to tell Muslims he understands and empathises. He wants them to trust him so they will hear him. But to get that trust he tells them they are actually victims of the West Obama represents, and of the Jews. Or so he will be understood.  Of actual proposals to solve anything he has few. He’s offering not plans but himself. He is the Healer.

"Will this work? Will Muslims, having been told they are victims, resolve to take more responsibility for peace and good governance? Will the West, having had reaffirmed a sense of their own guilt, keep any remaining resolve to defend their own interests and rights?

"As you can tell, I’m deeply sceptical. I think Obama has given in, and, hoping to be liked, will earn only contempt."

This piece by Amity Shlaes is by no means perfect. Two specific criticisms: 1.) Ayn Rand was not a "libertarian." 2.) Ms. Shlaes describes the story as "beyond dated"--but the rest of Ms. Shlaes's column contradicts this charge.

In any event, the book is indeed selling faster than ever as the world we live in looks ever more like the one described in Atlas Shrugged.  Who is John Galt?

Andrew Dalton at Witch Doctor Repellent shows why my hope that Brooks was starting to face reality was a foolish one.  At the end of the day, much like Andrew Sullivan, Brooks is an emotionalist.

I present here two quotes from Lawrence Auster.  One shows how an actual racist--as opposed to a "racist" as defined by the left, namely: anyone who disagrees with "affirmative action," "hate crimes" laws, and anti-discrimination laws in particular or with left-wing views on race in general--deals with Sotomayor's nomination.  The other states Auster's view of Objectivism.  Having presented these quotes, I'm finished with Auster.  I may continue to read him, but mentioning him at all on this blog is too much of a sanction of him, even if it's only to denounce him in the strongest possible terms.

In a thread on the Sotomayor nomination, Auster wrote:

"Yes, this country was formed by whites--specifically Anglo-Saxon Protestant men. And they formed, over generations, an impersonal, non-tribal justice system under which people of all backgrounds would be treated equally under the law. But the fact that the law is procedurally neutral and race-blind, doesn't mean that the conditions that allow for such a system to exist are race blind. Change America into a brown and black country, and that new population will not only not have much regard for that impersonal, non-tribal system of justice, because they themselves are tribal, but they will seek to overthrow that system of justice, along with all other historical aspects of America, because they were made by whites whom the nonwhites are now replacing. From which it follows that to maintain its universalist and impersonal system of justice, America must remain a particularist, predominantly white country."

Auster is usually less explicit in his racism than he is here.  His argument seems to be: to keep our neutral and race-blind system of justice, we must keep out "brown and black" people who are by their very nature "tribal" and undoubtedly "will seek to overthrow that system of justice."  In short, to maintain a race-blind system, we must have few, if any, non-whites around.  Wow.  Just...wow.

A few days earlier, in a thread on "tyrannical atheism," Auster wrote:

"I just realized: of all the ideologies in existence, Randianism is the purest opposite of traditionalism. The key idea of traditionaism is the recognition of the larger 'orders' of which we are a part and which formed us, the natural order, the social order, and the transcendent order. Traditionalism--obviously in my treatment of it--is not against the principle of individuality, it upholds and defends it. Our individual consciousness/selfhood is both part of the larger reality in which we live and the means through which we experience and participate in it. The Randians explicitly reject any notion of a larger natural, social, or spiritual reality and say that the individual--unadorned Randian man, without a God, without a religion, without a society, without a civilizational tradition, without a family, without a culture, without a race--is the ONLY reality, and that any assertion of or defense of any larger reality of which we are a part is as evil as Communism. Randianism is thus the most explicit, thoroughgoing attack on the order of existence, and the diametrical opposite of traditionalism."

While I object to the use of the term "Randianism" in place of "Objectivism," I totally agree with Auster's basic point: on a fundamental level, despite our few, superficial agreements--Auster also opposes Sotomayor's nomination--his philosophy is the purest opposite of mine.

Ta-Nehisi Coates, an African-American left-liberal, has a post that, despite its flaws, makes an important and true point.  He writes:

"The problem with this reasoning is it implicitly accepts the logic (made for years by white racists) that there is something essential and unifying running through all white people, everywhere."

The problem with the "wise Latina" comment is its rejection of objectivity and its embrace of racism, as long as it is racism of the right kind--i.e. against the oppressive white male and for the oppressed Latina woman.  Sotomayor is unfit to be a judge in any court.  Then again, given that our President is unfit to hold any office, her nomination is no surprise.  They are unfit not because they threaten "white privilege" or, in Sotomayor's case, "male privilege," contrary to vulgar lefty feminist Amanda Marcotte's claim, but because they reject objectivity in favor of "empathy" and thus prefer the judgment of a "wise Latina woman" who has "empathy" for "oppressed" peoples, having been "oppressed" herself, to that of a white male oppressor.  In so doing, they reject the rule of law--in favor of the rule of "wise Latina woman"--and ultimately the Constitution itself.

Much like "social justice," "empathy" in a legal context is more accurately described as injustice.  Krauthammer on this point (starts 2:44 from the end of the video):

All those comedians complaining about how there's no jokes to be made about Obama are themselves a punchline.  Laughing at this administration is easy--until one realizes that it is wrecking this country so quickly and thoroughly that one feels compelled to conclude that wrecking the country is the "change" Obama "hoped" for.  As Bret Stephens writes in the WSJ:

"In Gnome-speak, then, Mr. Obama's energy policy goes something like this: Phase One: Inaugurate the era of 'green' energy. Phase Two: Overturn the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Phase Three: Carbon neutrality!

"Take any number of Mr. Obama's other initiatives. Rescue Detroit? Phase One: Set a national mileage standard for passenger cars of 39 miles per gallon and force auto makers to make the kind of cars that drove them to bankruptcy in the first place.

"Reduce the deficit? Phase One: Approve $3.5 trillion in government stimulus, and then await the mythical Keynesian multiplier.

"Pay for a $1.2 trillion health-care reform? Phase One: scrounge around for about $60 billion in new 'sin tax' revenue.

"Actually, we can easily guess how Mr. Obama intends to make up the difference on this last item: To wit, by taxing health benefits. Taxes, subsidies funded by taxes, regulations and mandates will also fill in many (though not all) of the other blanks. Underpants gnomes: meet Phase Two. Say, what happened to profits?"

Though he's easier on Obama than I would be--in four short months, Obama has already joined Jimmy Carter and the Roosevelt cousins at the top of my list of the worst Presidents--for David Brooks, this is pretty harsh.  An excerpt:

"A few weeks ago, we were privileged to see a gathering of health care executives standing behind the president as he announced that they would be donating $2 trillion in future revenue to the cause of health care reform.

"Recently we were uplifted when the president informed Chrysler’s secured creditors that they had agreed to donate their ownership stake in the company to the United Auto Workers. Just last week, we were enthralled to see a group of auto executives beaming with pride as the president announced that in order to reduce gas consumption, they would henceforth be scaling back on all those car lines that consumers actually want to buy.

"These events have heralded a new era of partnership between the White House and private companies, one that calls to mind the wonderful partnership Germany formed with France and the Low Countries at the start of World War II. The press conferences and events marking this new spirit of cooperation have been the emotional highlights of the administration so far."

Really, you should watch the whole talk by ARI's Yaron Brook at the Adam Smith Institute in the UK.  (Link goes to part 1--find the rest under "Related Videos."  Video below is the end of the talk.)

Here's why:

Though, as always, Sullivan's emotions are guiding him more than his reason is, he has begun to see that Obama's game, like Bill Clinton's game in the 1990s, is the accumulation of power for the state--and for himself as the head of state--and that civil rights are meaningless to him, except insofar as being seen to support them helps increase his--and the state's--power.  Sullivan says:

"I recall my old, now dead, friend Bob Hattoy, who toiled in the Clinton administration. He was going to write a memoir of working with people who thought of homosexual rights as wonderful things to say you support (especially if you're fundraising or at a Hollywood dinner party) but far, far too controversial to ever do anything about, let alone risk anything for. In the end, of course, the Clintons enacted a slew of brutally anti-gay measures - passing DOMA, doubling the rate of gay discharges from the military, signing the ban on HIV-positive tourists and immigrants - and expected standing ovations as pioneers of civil rights. The pathetic gay rights leaders gave it to them, so delighted were they to have their checks cashed. The proposed title of Bob's book was a summary of the priorities of the Clinton years: It's The Economy, Faggot."

I am reminded of Ayn Rand's characterization of "conservatives" and "liberals" from Philosophy: Who Needs It:

"The conservatives want freedom to act in the material realm; they tend to oppose government control of production, of industry, of trade, of business, of physical goods, of material wealth. But they advocate government control of man’s spirit, i.e., man’s consciousness; they advocate the State’s right to impose censorship, to determine moral values, to create and enforce a governmental establishment of morality, to rule the intellect. The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with 'academic freedom'). But they advocate government control of material production, of business, of employment, of wages, of profits, of all physical property—they advocate it all the way down to total expropriation.

"The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories—with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington. The liberals see man as a soul freewheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe—but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread.

"Yet it is the conservatives who are predominantly religionists, who proclaim the superiority of the soul over the body, who represent what I call the 'mystics of spirit.' And it is the liberals who are predominantly materialists, who regard man as an aggregate of meat, and who represent what I call the 'mystics of muscle.'

"This is merely a paradox, not a contradiction: each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises. Observe that the conservatives insult and demean the rich or those who succeed in material production, regarding them as morally inferior—and that the liberals treat ideas as a cynical con game. 'Control,' to both camps, means the power to rule by physical force. Neither camp holds freedom as a value. The conservatives want to rule man’s consciousness; the liberals, his body."

Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science, says:

"The goal must be nothing less than to break the cycle - to make intellectualism a permanent value of American culture. A two-term presidency would help. So would maintaining those early pledges of support to science. And most of all, there is leading by example, continuing to extol thinking, and not being afraid to come to its aid now and again."

The claim that Obama represents "intellectualism," "science," and "thinking" is ludicrous.  What I fear is that even if Americans one day wise up enough to see through the vacuous emotionalism of Obamaism, they will not be wise enough to embrace an actual intellectual opposition.  They will instead conclude, based on the claims of Mooney and his ideological fellow-travellers, that America needs the most anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-thought leadership possible, which means some combination of Huckabee and Palin on the GOP ticket in 2012.  God help us.

I hereby retract my "support" for Joe the Plumber.  Why?  This nonsense.