Mar
12
Open Post 12th March
Filed Under Uncategorized | 5 Comments
Mar
12
Losing The Argument
Filed Under American Politics, General Politics | 3 Comments
Gallup have a poll out showing that Americans are becoming more and more sceptical about global warming. Via Liberal Conspiracy:
“Gallup’s annual update on Americans’ attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question.”
“A majority of Americans still agree that global warming is real, as 53% say the effects of the problem have already begun or will do so in a few years. That percentage is dwindling, however. The average American is now less convinced than at any time since 1997 that global warming’s effects have already begun or will begin shortly.
Meanwhile, 35% say that the effects of global warming either will never happen (19%) or will not happen in their lifetimes (16%).
The 19% figure is more than double the number who held this view in 1997.”
“In similar fashion, the percentage of Americans who believe that global warming is going to affect them or their way of life in their lifetimes has dropped to 32% from a 40% high point in 2008. Two-thirds of Americans say global warming will not affect them in their lifetimes.”
“In 2003, 61% of Americans said such increases were due to human activities — in line with advocates of the global warming issue — while 33% said they were due to natural changes in the environment. Now, a significantly diminished 50% say temperature increases are due to human activities, and 46% say they are not.”
“Roughly half of Americans now say that “most scientists believe that global warming is occurring,” down from 65% in recent years. The dominant opposing thesis, held by 36% of Americans, is that scientists are unsure about global warming. An additional 10% say most scientists believe global warming is not occurring.”
My comment that I left at Liberal Conspiracy:
Doesn’t this poll just add to the evidence that AGW advocates are losing the argument at an increasing level (or at least failing to sell their argument). I’m a sceptic, but leaving that aside, don’t the advocates need to find a new way to make their argument?
And perhaps they could start by having their most public supporters not running up massive carbon footprints. The Copenhagen summit was an orgy of private planes and chauffeur driven cars and it left me thinking as someone else said “When those that tell us that there is a crisis, start acting like there’s a crisis, then I’ll start believing that there’s a crisis”.
None of the politicians, or the Prince Charles and Al Gores are acting like there’s a crisis which makes me suspicious that they have an ulterior motive for their advocacy. This poll suggests others feel the same way.
Mar
12
If you Don’t Like A Rule….Break It
Filed Under American Politics | 8 Comments
This is the progressive way. Yesterday, the Senate Parliamentarian, ie the person who judges the rules by which the Senate can act, ruled that the Democrats could not pass a reconciliation bill ‘fixing’ those aspects of the Senate healthcare bill that House Democrats didn’t like. Instead, the Senate Bill would have to be signed into law by Barack Obama before the Senate could pass the reconciliation fixes. If you recall, House Democrats have to pass the Senate bill as is because their bill differs and this is the only way to get a bill into law right now. House Democrats hoped to get a concurrent fix to the Senate bill passed before this bill went to the Presidents desk but this doesn’t seem likely now (it should be pointed out that the Senate Parliamentarians ruling was communicated verbally to members of the Senate GOP and we only have their word for it that this ruling has been made at the moment).
So here’s an idea from Balloon Juice which sums up why I am so fed up with political discourse right now:
Even if it is true, whatever. Fire the parliamentarian- not like it will be unprecedented to do that. Or have Biden over rule him. Or find another way.
Rules like this and the filibuster exist for a reason, to stop political majorities from exercising despotic power. Democracies only exist as they do because checks on majority power temper excess. The Democrats are becoming more and more desperate to pass this legislation and will sacrifice the rules to achieve their aims. When will they learn that sometimes bills get defeated, it’s how democracy works?
Mar
12
This Is Sad
Filed Under American Politics | 10 Comments
Harry Reid’s wife and daughter were involved in a car accident yesterday. Whilst their injuries aren’t life threatning, they certainly sound serious:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s wife and daughter were hospitalized Thursday after their minivan was rear-ended by tractor-trailer truck on an interstate in suburban Virginia, authorities said.
Reid’s wife, Landra, 69, broke her back and neck in the accident, Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. Mrs. Reid was listed in serious condition at Inova Faifax Hospital in Falls Church, Va., an aide said, but she was not expected to require surgery.
Mar
11
Would Reagan Vote For Palin
Filed Under American Politics | 17 Comments
This is a good article from a Reagan biographer, Steven Hayward, not so much for what it says about Palin, but the insight it gives into Ronald Reagan. Moreso than the article (which should be read first), is this interesting subsequent question and answer session that Hayward conducts with his readers.
A wonky day on the blogosphere and I’m too tired for wonking, so ‘m afraid this is all I can leave you with today.
Mar
10
Sullivan takes Scott Rasmussen to task for saying this:
One of the more amazing aspects of the health-care debate is how steady public opinion has remained. Despite repeated and intense sales efforts by the president and his allies in Congress, most Americans consistently oppose the plan that has become the centerpiece of this legislative season.
In 15 consecutive Rasmussen Reports polls conducted over the past four months, the percentage of Americans that oppose the plan has stayed between 52% and 58%. The number in favor has held steady between 38% and 44%.
In response, Andrew Sullivan cites one poll (Yougov) which shows a majority favouring healthcare reform whilst ignoring almost every other single poll taken this year that shows more Americans opposed to healthcare than supportive. In fact, 38 polls taken into 2010 asking whether Americans approve or disapprove of the Democratic proposals for reform show them disapproving whilst only three polls show Americans approving.
And he then offers this chart from Pollster.com to prove Rasmussen wrong (he takes out Rasmussen polls to get this effect):
What it shows is that in the last four months, the range of people disapproving is 6%, exactly what Rasmussen shows and the range of those approving is 6%, again exactly as Rasmussen shows.
And then Sullivan critiques the Rasmussen poll itself:
And Pollster’s poll of polls, excluding Rasmussen’s outlier numbers, favoring the old, white and Republican, show a dramatic rise in support this past month, as the consequences of getting nothing at all begin to sink in:
Or voters as they are also known (it will be the white middle-aged and elderly who will make up the vast majority of the voters in November).
I could ignore polls to get an impression I wanted too, but then that would be dishonest wouldn’t it?
For example, here’s Obama’s approval measured by registered and likely voters (ie those that actually matter and can be arsed to vote):
7% more disapprove than approve of Obama. Here’s the same poll aggregation (both aggregations are for 2010 only) with all polls thrown in (ie polling all Americans, not just those prepared to vote):
It’s not difficult to create your own reality, the problem is, no-one else shares it.
Mar
10
David Brooks wrote an article in the NYT comparing the Tea-Party movement to that of the American New Left movement in the 60’s.
There are many differences between the New Left and the Tea Partiers. One was on the left, the other is on the right. One was bohemian, the other is bourgeois. One was motivated by war, and the other is motivated by runaway federal spending. One went to Woodstock, the other is more likely to go to Wal-Mart.
But the similarities are more striking than the differences. To start with, the Tea Partiers have adopted the tactics of the New Left. They go in for street theater, mass rallies, marches and extreme statements that are designed to shock polite society out of its stupor. This mimicry is no accident. Dick Armey, one of the spokesmen for the Tea Party movement, recently praised the methods of Saul Alinsky, the leading tactician of the New Left.
It was a somewhat disingenuous comparison. Alex Massie offered his two pennies also.
But I have just had the pleasure of reading this brilliant critique of Brooks’ article by Lee Harris at The American and he makes what should have already been an obvious point, that there is little merit in the elites critiquing a populist anti-elite movement.
First he dissects Brooks’ “Wal-Mart hippie” comparison. The New Left were not hippies:
But Brooks is not really comparing the Tea Party movement to the hippie movement of the ’60s. Instead, he is comparing it to the New Left of the same decade. In one respect he appears to have made an honest mistake. In his mind, the New Left and the hippie movement have strangely merged. Members of the New Left “went to Woodstock”—didn’t they? Actually, no, they didn’t. We should not confuse the carefree, frolicking hippie movement of that era with the mirthless and dour New Left of the same period. Hippies were whimsical spirits. The New Lefties were mirthless zealots. Hippies smoked pot and had fun. New Lefties read Lenin and plotted revolution. New Lefties regarded hippies as frivolous and fatuous. Hippies looked on New Lefties as the ultimate downers.
And comparisons between the Tea-Partiers and the New Left are invalid too:
Second, Brooks completely ignores the most striking feature of the New Left—the very quality that distinguished it from the Old Left. The Old Left, in good Marxist fashion, based its revolutionary hopes on the men and women who must work for a living, while the New Left went out of its way to culturally alienate working-class Americans by supporting the Black Panthers, attacking patriotism, insulting the police, and demeaning military service. Drawn largely from major universities, and often springing from privileged and affluent backgrounds, the adherents of the New Left were elitist to the core, assuring that the appeal of the New Left would be narrowly limited to only a tiny segment of the American population. But that is precisely the point at which Brooks’ comparison between the New Left and the Tea Party movement falls to pieces. The Tea Party movement has mass appeal; the New Left did not.
And Harris’ conclusion?
But too many of those currently involved in “analyzing” the Tea Party movement seem to have no genuine interest in grappling with its potential historical significance. They are content to ridicule and scoff at it. They are delighted to draw analogies between the Tea Partiers and various inconsequential fringe movements of the past, such as hippies or the New Left. But no approach could possibly be more counterproductive than a policy of conspicuous disdain. There is no surer way of convincing the Wal-Mart crowd that America really has fallen into the hands of arrogant elitists than to show contempt for working people like themselves. It is one thing to preach to the choir. It is another thing to spit at the congregation.
Harris is spot on. The elites are floundering in trying to understand what it is that the proles are complaining about and that only leaves them one avenue; to ridicule. And the more they fail to engage, the greater the fuel to fire up the populists further. It is the start of a new culture war that has the potential to resonate in future elections.
This is one of the best articles I’ve read in recent times, I strongly urge you to read it in full.
Mar
10
I Am An American!
Filed Under American Politics | 10 Comments
Well I’m not obviously, but if I was and I was presented with a census that asked me what my race is, I would ignore the usual suspects of “white” or “black” etc and call myself “other – American”:
Fully one-quarter of the space on this year’s form is taken up with questions of race and ethnicity, which are clearly illegitimate and none of the government’s business (despite the New York Times’ assurances to the contrary on today’s editorial page). So until we succeed in building the needed wall of separation between race and state, I have a proposal. Question 9 on the census form asks “What is Person 1’s race?” (and so on, for other members of the household). My initial impulse was simply to misidentify my race so as to throw a monkey wrench into the statistics; I had fun doing this on the personal-information form my college required every semester, where I was a Puerto Rican Muslim one semester, and a Samoan Buddhist the next. But lying in this constitutionally mandated process is wrong. Really — don’t do it.
Instead, we should answer Question 9 by checking the last option — “Some other race” — and writing in “American.” It’s a truthful answer but at the same time is a way for ordinary citizens to express their rejection of unconstitutional racial classification schemes. In fact, “American” was the plurality ancestry selection for respondents to the 2000 census in four states and several hundred counties.
So remember: Question 9 — “Some other race” — “American”. Pass it on.
Mar
10
The Three Ways Of Politics
Filed Under Conservatism, General Politics | 15 Comments
Here is a Vanity Fair piece on David Cameron. To be honest, I neither care about the views of Vanity Fair, or in any great way David Cameron. But there was a sentence I found interesting:
There are, in both countries, three political directions, a toxic right, a statist left, and a third way—the trickiest approach—which involves complicated role-playing, ideological legerdemain, and marketing acumen.
I’m not sure I really buy this analysis but it does have elements of truth. But how about a fourth way. A principled yet pragmatic, positive and hopeful right. A right that doesn’t see the value in underwriting the ruinous liberal behemoths of massive entitlement programs as Cameron does with the NHS, but also a right that recognises the anomic dangers of an anti-statist slash and burn program. A right that celebrates the positive benefits of “we” conservatism represented by our allegiances to family, faith and nation. A right that brings values to the head of debate, recognising that the modern erosion of values is ruining society. But also a right with a vision for a more positive future that celebrates the dynamic nature of society.
Conservatism is about inclusion, integrity, the recognition that a rights based culture is a construct, a belief in responsibility, both personal and shared, and a commitment to self-improvement. It recognises that hate is ugly, but that universal love is unrealistic and that we are as equally defined by our flaws as we our by our strengths.
I’m proud to consider myself a conservative, I’m just not necessarily proud of some of the current forms of the philosophy.
Mar
10
Open Post
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Again apologies for me absence – things for me to deal with.