CPAC: The Conservative Case for Criminal Justice Reform
"You want to talk about real conservative governance? Shut prisons down." - Texas Gov. Rick Perry, CPAC 2014
CPAC: The Conservative Case for Criminal Justice Reform
"You want to talk about real conservative governance? Shut prisons down." - Texas Gov. Rick Perry, CPAC 2014
The left really isn’t handling the Zimmerman verdict with dignity. From death threats to physical violence, the liberal mob is acting like a spoiled 4-year-old brat throwing a temper tantrum. None of this is about about justice but about pitching a fit.
Case in point: A Houston grandmother, attempting to rush her granddaughter to the hospital after an allergic reaction to some medication, was stopped by protesters in the middle of the street. When she rolled down her window to express to the protesters how urgent her trip was, she got hit by one of them.
Hundreds of people marched in protest to the George Zimmerman verdict on Monday.
"No justice, no peace," they yelled as they walked from the Byrd Funeral Home in the 2500 block of Wheeler to the Southmore Street overpass bridge near Highway 288.
Just after 7p.m. Monday, the demonstrators spilled out onto the road and blocked traffic for about 15 minutes.
"I looked up and I see all the protesters, they’re everywhere," said Georgia, who asked that her last name not be used. “So, we got into the traffic and they’re stopping us and not letting us go."
…”One of them was hitting the windshield and I was just screaming, ‘We’ve got to get to the hospital,’ and they were screaming and chanting,” she said. “All I could think of was, I got to get my granddaughter to the hospital.”
"My mom rolled down the window," said Georgia’s daughter. “She said, ‘We’re trying to get my granddaughter to the hospital,’ and a guy just started hitting her."
Look, I know we say this a lot on this blog but it bears repeating: this is who the left is. If they truly cared about justice, they would demand that NBC and ABC apologize to Zimmerman for purposely misreporting the facts of the case in an attempt to make him look like a racist and a liar. Instead, they block traffic and assault innocent people and use the jury’s verdict to justify their senseless violence.
This kind of behavior is barbaric and un-American.
LTMC: This is pretty weak. I’m willing to bet that 99% of the people who self-identify as left-leaning in this country are home on their couches right now, not rioting in the streets. I’m also willing to bet many of those people feel that the guy who hit the woman above as she was trying to drive through is a douchebag. To wit, here is a Trayvon Martin sympathizer condemning this sort of behavior.
Despicable behavior at political protests is not the unique bailiwick of “the left,” insofar as that term fairly applies to those present at this particular protest. We could, for example, talk about the mosque protest where anti-muslim activists called 5-year old children murderers and threatened to kill their parents. That’s pretty awful. But as one of the victims of the fore-going protest said, it would be unfair to attribute their behavior beyond those involved:
“When I go to school to drop off my kids, everyone is so friendly. They don’t make me feel as if I am intruding or I don’t belong here. So I was shocked that these people hated us so much, but I also realized it’s not everybody — it’s just a few people.”
In other words, your argument here is really just an overbroad, selectively blind non sequitur. It’s fine to call attention to bad behavior. But it’s an overreach to claim that it represents everybody of a particular political persuasion. In fact, here’s a couple of White dudes who show up to a pro-Trayvon Martin protest with a camera and a shirt that says “NIGGER” on the front. What do you think they were trying to do? Probably start a riot (they were unsuccessful). Do they represent everyone who supports Zimmerman and thinks he’s a good human being? Of course not. It would be pretty foolhardy to assert otherwise.
In my experience, this was one of the more interesting episodes of Real Time with Bill Maher.
LTMC: I partially disagree with Maher here. He’s right that Reagan was in many ways the progenitor of the craven political culture that defines the modern Republican party, but I also think that Reagan did things during his presidency that would get him excommunicated from the modern Republican party.
For example, remember the 47% line? The idea that 47% of Americans have no tax liability, and that’s a problem? That’s actually something Reagan is responsible for. Here’s what the Joint Committee on Taxation said about the Tax Reform Act of 1986:
An overriding goal of the Committee is to relieve families with the lowest incomes from Federal income tax liability. Consequently, the Bill increases the amounts of both the personal exemption and the standard deduction…so that the income level at which individuals begin to have tax liability will be raised sufficiently to free millions of poverty-level individual from Federal income tax liability.
Here’s what Reagan himself said about the bill:
When I sign this bill, America will have the lowest marginal tax rates, and the most modern tax code among major industrialized nations…in our lifetime, we’ve seen marginal tax rates skyrocket as high as 90%, and not even the poor have been spared…taxation [has fallen] most cruelly on the poor, making a difficult climb up from poverty even harder…millions of working poor will be dropped from the tax rolls altogether, and families will get a long overdue break with lower rates and an almost doubled personal exemption…i’m certain the bill i’m signing today is not only an historic overhaul of our tax code…but the best anti-poverty bill…ever to come out of the Congress of the United States.
Reagan wanted the poor to pay no federal taxes. Yes, his tax policies did help widen the income gap between rich and poor, but the guy also thought that the poor shouldn’t have to pay income taxes. Today, that’s generally viewed as a “liberal” position, and he would get nowhere in a modern Republican primary with that view.
Here’s a decent summary of the rest of Reagan’s sins:
Reagan raised taxes 11 times, gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, smuggled weapons to Iran, and “cut and ran” from Lebanon after 299 American and French servicemen died in a barracks in Beirut. He also had a bad habit of regularly compromising with democratic lawmakers, which would probably get him uninvited from Eric Cantor’s birthday party. One wonders how a list of accomplishments like this would fare in today’s political zeitgeist. Not well, I’d imagine.
Reagan also expanded Medicaid and infamously stated that "Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit." He also would’ve been much more open to compromise on deficit reduction than his modern peers, who infamously said during the 2012 Republican primaries that they would not accept a deficit reduction deal even if it was composed of 10-to-1 cuts vs. tax increases. As Pete Wehner notes at the link above:
[I]n 1982 Ronald Reagan was willing to sign what was then the largest tax increase in American history (TEFRA) because he believed he’d get three dollars in cuts for one dollar in tax increase. Reagan came to regret his tax increase — but not because the ratio was wrong but because Democrats never delivered on the spending cuts. If Reagan had gotten the cuts he asked for — and the York/Baier question pre-supposes the spending cuts would be real – he would have taken that deal. Are Republicans in 2011 saying that a deal that would be far better than one Reagan expected and agreed to is simply beyond the pale? If so — if taxes cannot be raised under any circumstance — then we have veered from economic policy to religious catechism[.]
Maher’s right that Reagan was “patient zero” for a lot of the terrible politics that define modern American Conservatism. I’m definitely not a fan of Reagan, and am in no hurry to excuse him for the terrible policy choices he’s made. Maher is wrong, however, that Reagan would have a comfortable place in the Republican party today. He was much more open to compromise than many of his successors, despite his less savory aspects (and when I say unsavory, I mean downright atrocious).
RedState’s Erick Erickson, making a frank but much-needed plea to his colleagues on the right. While Erickson still sees a liberal bias in the media, he doesn’t think conservative journalists are attempting to overcome it the right way: “There is an institutional media bias against the right, but we must also honestly acknowledge that conservatives have also screamed ‘Wolf’ these past few years more often than there was one. Conservatives must start telling stories, not just producing white papers and peddling daily outrage.” A lot of conservative outfits will probably be upset at Erickson’s manifesto, but those are probably the ones that need to hear it the most (we’re looking at you, Daily Caller). The whole post is worth giving a read. source (via shortformblog)
LTMC: It’s nice to see a prominent Conservative writer finally admit that the Conservative media’s generally shitty journalism is not the result of a liberal conspiracy, or the inevitable consequence of liberal media bias. We’re definitely a long way away from Will Buckley’s National Review— which despite its parochialism could at least boast that not every article was dedicated to writing about how liberals and/or democrats are responsible for every terrible thing that’s ever happened in the world.
David L. Nathan, Clinical Professor at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, discusses a recent op-ed from David Frum, in which Frum states that he supports decriminalization of marijuana, but wants to keep it as a fine-worthy violation to “send a message” to kids that society still disapproves of the drug:
Frum would reduce the punishment for marijuana use for adults but nominally maintain its illegality in order to send a message to young people that pot is a “bad choice,” as if breaking the rules wasn’t as much an incentive as a deterrent for adolescents.
Kids are smart enough to recognize and dismiss a “because I said so” argument when they see one. By trying to hide marijuana from innately curious young people, we have elevated its status to that of a forbidden fruit. I believe a better approach is to bring pot into the open, make it legal for people over the age of 21, and educate children from a young age about the actual dangers of its recreational use.
Frum’s proposal is a good example of the ethical backflips that people perform in light of the collective insanity that the drug war produces. In this case, Frum fears that without a legal ban of some kind, parents won’t be able to convince their kids not to smoke marijuana. Yet it strikes me as terribly unconservative to assume that the government is better at instilling morals in people than parents are. What kind of conservative thinks that we can’t trust families to teach their kids about the dangers of drug use without government intervention? Put differently, what kind of Conservative trusts government more than family values?
Frum might respond by making the obvious point that Conservatives don’t oppose laws per se, just unnecessary ones. But that of course, is the point: after forty years of drug prohibition, marijuana is the most ubiquitous black market drug in the United States. In most American cities, it is easier for a teenager to acquire marijuana than alcohol or cigarettes. This is a textbook example of a law that is not only unnecessary, but actively undermining the very purpose it exists for.
When viewed in this light, Frum’s proposal contains a law that Conservatives should be railing against, rather than for. Yet even a smart guy like David Frum still apparently cannot bring himself out from under the collective hysteria of “Reefer Madness.” He’s so afraid of marijuana that he can’t imagine a world in which parents can successfully teach their kids not to smoke marijuana without the help of government. The fact that we’re hearing this from a self-described Conservative shows just how subversive the effects of drug prohibition are on public discourse in America. It shows how relatively intelligent public thinkers have to tie themselves in ideological knots to make room for prohibition in their worldview—even when those knots create internal contradictions that are difficult to reconcile.
Jonathan Krohn, discussing his move away from political Conservatism.
Michael Fumento, who worked for the Reagan administrations and has written for Wall Street Journal, National Review, Weekly Standard, and Forbes, no longer wishes to associate himself with the modern Conservative Movement. He views the contemporary American Right as caught up in “Mass Hysteria,” which he says is completely antithetical to traditional Conservatism:
Civility and respect for order – nay,demand for order – have always been tenets of conservatism. The most prominent work of history’s most prominent conservative, Edmund Burke, was a reaction to the anger and hatred that swept France during the revolution. It would eventually rip the country apart and plunge all of Europe into decades of war. Such is the rotted fruit of mass-produced hate and rage. Burke, not incidentally, was a true Tea Party supporter, risking everything as a member of Parliament to support the rebellion in the United States.
All of today’s right-wing darlings got there by mastering what Burke feared most: screaming “J’accuse! J’accuse!” Turning people against each other. Taking seeds of fear, anger and hatred and planting them to grow a new crop.
Fumento’s article names quite a few of today’s most prominent Conservative pundits and politicians as part of the problem:
Last month U.S. Rep. Allen West, a Florida Republican recently considered by some as vice-president material, insisted that there are “78 to 81” Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party, again with little condemnation from the new right.
Mitt Romney took a question at a town hall meeting this month from a woman who insisted President Obama be “tried for treason,” without challenging, demurring from or evencommentingon her assertion.
And then there’s the late Andrew Breitbart (assassinated on the orders of Obama, natch). A video from February shows him shrieking at peaceful protesters: “You’re freaks and animals! Stop raping people! Stop raping people! You freaks! You filthy freaks! You filthy, filthy, filthy raping, murdering freaks!” He went on for a minute-and-a-half like that. Speak not ill of the dead? Sen. Ted Kennedy’s body was barely cold when Breitbart labeled him “a big ass motherf@#$er,” a “duplicitous bastard” a “prick” and “a special pile of human excrement.”
Fumento’s article is extraordinarily difficult to excerpt. Needless to say, he leaves few of America’s most well-known right-wing shock-jocks untouched. On Breitbart:
There was nothing “conservative” about Breitbart. Ever-consummate gentlemen like Buckley and Ronald Reagan would have been mortified by such behavior as Breitbart’s – or West’s or Heartland’s. “There you go again,” the Gipper would have said in his soft but powerful voice.
Ann Coulter & Michelle Malkin:
A single author, Ann Coulter, has published best-selling books accusing liberals, in the titles, of being demonic, godless and treasonous. Michelle Malkin, ranked by the Internet search company PeekYou as having the most traffic of any political blogger, routinely dismisses them as “moonbats, morons and idiots.” Limbaugh infamously dispatched a young woman who expressed her opinion that the government should provide free birth control as a “slut” and a “prostitute.”
More Michelle Malkin:
Malkin, who revels in playing the victim, says that she’s been called all sorts of horrible things, many based on her Filipina heritage. But most of what she cites come from email or anonymous comments on blog sites. It wasn’t usually from paid professionals with large audiences, like her, aimed at paid professionals like her. It’s thus hard to compare with the host of the most popular talk show host in history taking shots at an unknown 22-year-old woman [Sandra Fluke]. (She’s hardly that now; Limbaugh himself promoted her to a national spokeswoman.)
And a bit of irony:
In the grief-fest at Breitbart’s death, forgiven (and indeed practically forgotten) was his crucial role in building the single most popular liberal website, the Huffington Post. Some of Breitbart’s friends admitted he was absent of ideology. “I don’t recall Andrew Breitbart ever mentioning electoral politics,” wrote Tucker Carlson. “It bored him.” Breitbart’s inspiration, then? George Washington through Benjamin Franklin – printed in primarily green ink on cotton stock.
It’s worth reading in full. Fumento joins the likes of Bruce Bartlett, David Frum, and of course, Andrew Sullivan (who spotted the story before I did), all of whom were excised from Right-wing zeitgeist for committing the cardinal sin of taking policy stances and/or social stances that were out of step with the party line.
This phenomenon, of course, is symptomatic of the American Conservative Movement’s increasing Epistemic Closure, wherein GOP moderates are being excised from the party, just as Conservative thinkers are being thrown to the wolves for daring to criticize a Republican president, or worse, point out that liberals may have been right about something.
None of this is new, of course. But it will be interesting to see if more public Conservative intellectuals abandon their Conservative credentials in the name of sane discourse and re-establishing an intellectually vibrant Conservativism. Only time will tell.
Tim Suttle, The Truth About the Democratic Party
These are admittedly vague platitudes that everybody will interpret through the lens of their own political positions, and then weigh the countervailing statements contained therein accordingly. But it helps sometimes to remember that the impulse towards progress, and the impulse towards preservation of existing, reliable orders, are both real things and worth considering in equal measure. Progress achieved too hastily can lead to unintended consequences. Yet old orders must sometimes give way as society develops and old, reliable hierarchies cease to be touchstones of stability, but rather becomes beacons of oppression. To quote Oliver Wendell Holmes:
It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past.
Both impulses serve us well. Knowing which fences we ought to keep or tear down, of course, is the essence of political discourse; a dialectic that will exist as long as humans breathe.
Ugh why must I be such a fuckup all the time.
I’ve been thinking about what I want to say on this topic all day; it’s been discussed to comedic effect on Facebook and Twitter, amongst the people...