Pajamas Media

65 Comments

1. stuart Williamson:

I think that the U.S. is about to have a principled leader who can unite the Republican Party, but she’s going to have to start from the outside, with a sort of U.S.I.P.

There’s no way Obama is going to be given 18 to 24 months. By the end of that time, unreigned, he’d have so far down the road to a Socialist Republic, that his brown shirts would be treating us the way the Mullahs handled the Iranian protesters.

Otherwise, excellent counsel.

Aug 4, 2009 - 1:14 am 2. tommy gunn:

Sir:
It is difficult to take anyone in the UK seriously these days since they start from such a misinformed position. Mr Irving is no exception. He is your typical Brit “Never right but never in doubt.” For example he gives us the usual thrashing about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib as great human rights abuses. Excuse me but we are fighting a war on real bad guy terrorists. To take the British approach is what Obama is doing now. Coddle them, apologize to them, perhaps give them reparations and send them home or worse put them in US prisons. The only thing we did wrong on Gitmo is to let idiot leftists win the public relations campaign. Most prisons in Briton, France, and America are worse hellholes than Gitmo. Mr Irving like most other Europeans just repeats the feel good mantras of the left and various alleged human rights abuses. What about the abuses of 3000 Americans dead on 911.

Mr Irving is what he is courtesy of the BBC. How can we take him seriously no matter what he has done in the UK. The UK has lost the battle and the war on liberalism. In spite of his recent success they are headed down the crapper no matter what Mr Irving says or does. His party is too little too late.

Tommy Gunn

Aug 4, 2009 - 2:42 am 3. cedarhill:

tommy gunn is right. The Tories are looking at how to pay for the additional 1.2% of the NHS that will be geezers next year. Any conservative that has an NHS without a plan to end it is just whistling in the dark and singing Gary Owen.

Aug 4, 2009 - 5:18 am 4. Brownie:

Well said, Tommy Gunn.

Aug 4, 2009 - 6:01 am 5. Paul Hsieh:

Like Mr. Irving, I too have found the Ayn Rand Institute (and their DC-based think tank, the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights) to be the most principled defenders of capitalism, free markets, and individual rights out there.

This is because they don’t just make the usual economic arguments for capitalism, but they also make the more fundamental *moral* arguments.

The freedom to pursue our own life’s goals and happiness is one of the founding principles of America. Americans believe that our lives are our own, not the property of the king or the village elders or “society”. This is what has made America the most moral country in history.

And that’s why we need individual rights — because humans require the freedom to think and act according to our best judgment to pursue our individual lives and happiness. Rights aren’t granted to us by God or society, but are instead an objective fact of our human nature, like our need for oxygen. If people are to live together in society, then we require a government that respects our individual rights.

The sooner that our politicians start to really understand this and move towards protecting our individual rights (rather than violating them), the better off we’ll be.

For more information see the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights website at:

http://www.AynRandCenter.org

For a terrific discussion on the nature of rights and the proper functions of government, I can think of no better place to start than Rand’s classic essays:

“Man’s Rights”
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_man_rights

“The Nature of Government”
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_the_nature_of_government

Aug 4, 2009 - 6:22 am 6. Jim Kramer:

I second all of Paul Hsieh’s comments. It comes down to this: we are sinking down a hole because governments violate rights as much as protects them, and the Ayn Rand Institute is the only major voice defending rights. This is the reason they are coming to prominence, and the reason Ayn Rand’s books are selling better than ever.

Read Atlas Shrugged, then fight for it!

Aug 4, 2009 - 7:08 am 7. Graham L.:

Kenneth Irving is right on everything – the GOP needs to reject the religious rhetoric, ditch the whites only strategy and become a big tent if it ever wants to win a national election again.

Of course, instead of following this guy’s advice, the GOP will continute to marginalize itself with “birther” nonsense and brownshirt tactics at townhall meetings, ensuring devastating losses for years to come.

Aug 4, 2009 - 7:21 am 8. Sapwolf:

A UK conservative is an American RINO.

You cannot take anything serious from a “UKCON” because the UK is so Orwellian already. It is so far left and secular that there really is NO true American-style conservative movement of liberty.

I always laugh at people who don’t understand the difference.

The UK is gradually becoming a caliphate as the secular government welcomes Islam with open arms.

Funny thing is, I’d take Islam over their secular tyranny any day.

Aug 4, 2009 - 7:34 am 9. Sapwolf:

“Atlas Shrugged” is the next book in the queue. Anybody know whent he movie comes out?

Aug 4, 2009 - 7:35 am 10. HAH:

To Stuart Williamson above:

Do you have any idea what the name of this female principled leader of the GOP would be? I don’t think Sarah Palin comes even close to being principled–not in the sense of being consistent with *rational* principles.

Aug 4, 2009 - 8:28 am 11. Raman Gupta:

Excellent interview with Mr. Irving. As long as the Republicans are simply “me-too” democrats, with the addition of religious nuttery, they will never have anything of substance to offer the electorate. The vaunted “bi-partisanship” in Washington means the Republicans have bought the moral premise offered by the Democrats and are simply scurrying along behind shouting “wait for me, I want to help destroy individualism too!”.

At least a few Democrats (as opposed to none of the Republicans) are right in one way: the *moral* premises behind government actions are where the debate must be taken. Republicans, rather than conceding this moral ground, must become principled defenders of capitalism, free markets, and individual rights — and as Mr. Irving and a few comments have mentioned, Ayn Rand’s books and essays (the two linked by Mr. Hsieh are must-reads) and the Ayn Rand Institute are excellent resources to learn how to do just that.

If Republicans manage to convey that message consistently and proudly, there may just be enough of an American sense of life remaining that Republicans will become relevant again.

Aug 4, 2009 - 8:30 am 12. Calvin Ball:

The right also needs to champion its black advocates, like Tom Sowell. It cannot allow the Democrats to get over 90 percent of the black vote unchallenged. It needs to engage with pro-liberty black groups.

[snip]

This is because they don’t just make the usual economic arguments for capitalism, but they also make the more fundamental *moral* arguments.

Walter Williams made precisely that point several years ago. You’ll never win the argument for freedom unless you can make the case for it’s moral righteousness. Give the man a microphone. Turn it up all of the way. There’s a clarity in his persona and message that can’t be BSed. His race doesn’t change the message, but it does underscore the point that freedom is valuable to all; there are no ‘groups’ who benefit from authoritarianism other than a thin ruling elite.

Aug 4, 2009 - 8:45 am 13. Scott:

Its interesting that he mentions “abandon the religious rhetoric” when the near collapse of the Church of England is a symptom of their own slide into socialism/liberalism. It is also symptomatic of the collapse of Western Culture as a whole in Europe as the Muslims transform it into Eurabia.

I’m not religious, I don’t attend church myself, but I can see the value of the “church” as a cornerstone of the community. Properly run a church can provide social interaction, support to those in the community that need it, counseling and emotional support for its members, community/social cohesion & identity, and many other things of value to a community. The slide of of western society into secularism causes many people and communities to lose these things in part or in whole.

Also too many people (and often the Church leaders) lack an understanding of faith itself, this has contributed to the decline in Christian religion. They cannot effectively combat the assault upon their beliefs by the socialists, communists, and Islamic proxies. They cannot understand the logic from which God’s commandments and teaching arise. Some are outdated due to advancements in human understanding, hygiene, etc. but many are rooted in social common sense. I’ll even go so far as to say there is no such thing as “secular” morality since if you behave morally you are in fact following the common sense social provisions that are a part of nearly every religion.

Even today in the age of near 100% effective birth control solid social and psychological arguments can be made for abstinence prior to marriage. I’m not an abstinence advocate, except where my own daughter would be concerned (I wouldn’t want her dating until she turns 30 ), and I actually think sex in a loving & respectful relationship is important prior to marriage to discover your own sexuality. Knowing what you like, don’t like, and that the person you intend to marry will satisfy your sexual needs/desires is terribly important to a lasting marriage. A good sex life in marriage helps smooth over the rough patches.

Aug 4, 2009 - 8:48 am 14. Anonymous:

Basic Premise foundational to American society: Our rights come to us from our creator. THE God of THE Bible.

Call this religious nuttery and you flush all real morality down the drain. What is moral will be decided by he who has the gold and owns the reigns of power.

The British know nothing of this. Nothing.

Aug 4, 2009 - 8:49 am 15. Scott:

Basic Premise foundational to American society: Our rights come to us from our creator. THE God of THE Bible.

Call this religious nuttery and you flush all real morality down the drain. What is moral will be decided by he who has the gold and owns the reigns of power.

The British know nothing of this. Nothing.

Aug 4, 2009 - 8:51 am 16. heetookuazy:

Gosh! I think we’ve had this advise before, from our own Republican party leadership. Worked great!

The Republican party will only succeed by embracing conservative libertarian principles which were the basis for the founding of the country. Trust and voter confidence is generated by continuity of thought and principle which do not change because they are based upon the immutable truths and facts and not expediency and vote gathering. People then are able to realize, even through the fog of the media, that you represent the truth, regardless of circumstances and will continue to, if they trust you with their vote.

Sadly, things have to get pretty bad before the realization hits most people, that they have been lied to and betrayed. When you have a media that will not tell the truth, and actively supports the lies and even the treason of others.

Aug 4, 2009 - 9:32 am 17. Scott:

Hmmm seems I have an impersonator, the Scott that wrote 13 and this post is not the same as the Scott that wrote 15.

Aug 4, 2009 - 9:42 am 18. mags:

Some posters here need to get over themselves.
You will be telling me next that we are jealous of your freedoms.

2. tommy gunn:
What about the abuses of 3000 Americans dead on 911.

We did support you on 9/11,’shoulder to shoulder’ remember?.
We are still doing it.Are these your ‘average brit’s’
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/7/14/1247559809674/Repatriation-of-dead-sold-001.jpg

Also the U.S is not the only country to suffer terrorism.
We have had a 30yr counter-insurgent war with the I.R.A(ironically funded and supported by Americans)
We have to learn from these events.We interned individuals without trial,used torture, had a shoot to kill policy.
These actions were widely condemned by American’s.Also they didn’t work.

He was asked question’s ,what do you think the answers should of been?

Aug 4, 2009 - 12:35 pm 19. Graham L.:

@18. mags – Apparently you didn’t get the memo that the right wing in this country has gone off the deep end. Anyone who has tried in the last several months to tell them that they need to reform their party’s platform in order to appeal to a wider group of voters has been immediately labeled a RINO and a traitor, and has been kicked out of the party. All that is basically left of the Republican Party now is a regional collection of southern and midwestern ultra-right wing whites who basically hate everyone, hate the government, daydream about armed revolution against fellow citizens, and refuse to acknowledge that the Republican Party has been responsible for any of America’s crises in the last decade.

Good luck having a rational dialogue with that.

Aug 4, 2009 - 2:12 pm 20. David W. Lincoln:

Interesting that Mr. Dodge had nothing to say about
Daniel Hannan. For, it was he who took British Prime Minister Brown to task for those 3 memorable
moments which concluded on a very strong note.

Have principles, and communicate them. This is the
recommendation that is directed towards the Repubs.

Aug 4, 2009 - 2:16 pm 21. donna quixote:

I agree that the far right Republicans need to drop their religious rhetoric in order to attract independents.

Aug 4, 2009 - 2:40 pm 22. Bohemond:

Graham:

“Apparently you didn’t get the memo that the right wing in this country has gone off the deep end. Anyone who has tried in the last several months to tell them that they need to reform their party’s platform in order to appeal to a wider group of voters has been immediately labeled a RINO and a traitor, and has been kicked out of the party. All that is basically left of the Republican Party now is a regional collection of southern and midwestern ultra-right wing whites who basically hate everyone, hate the government, daydream about armed revolution against fellow citizens…”

Yeah, go on believing that. Please. We want you to think that. You’ll never know what hit you.

Aug 4, 2009 - 3:32 pm 23. smith:

My advice to the GOP is to stop being the stupid party and the Party of No.

Act like grownups, get rid of the insecure religious nutbaggery, and come up with ideas of your own aside from namecalling. Disown Rush Limbaugh and the CEOs. Start working for the common man instead of placating them with religious red meat. Stop discriminating against minorities. Promote an agenda that truly is freedom-based.

Aug 4, 2009 - 3:48 pm 24. pga301:

You can tell comments from people who don’t actually live in the US when their main point is about religion. Sorry but that is Democrat propaganda and it is coming to you through a leftist media filter. I don’t hear any discussion that you need to be super religious to be conservative (I am not and don’t hear a word about it) and even if people are more religious in the Republican party are you people so Anti-religious you can’t stand someone else who is and would rather vote for a list of things you don’t believe in. Whoever is selling you the bag of goods that it is all about religion is full of it. This Kenneth Irving shows no clue as to why minorities vote democrat in America and it is not because they are not welcome to be conservative. Once again that smells of the media spin which is the main reason. The media and left never lets up on the racist tag because the left is DOOMED if they don’t get that vote. No election would have been won by dems without the 90% black vote and the white liberals know that and say anything to keep it. Sadly they are believed.

Aug 4, 2009 - 3:57 pm 25. JasonS:

Some fantastic advice from Irving, even though I thoroughly disagree with his opinion regarding Bush and human rights abuse. What abuses were these, exactly? Bush held the rights of innocent American civilians above the “rights” of sub-human terrorists and was right to do so.

Nonetheless, Irving presents a great plan of attack here. He is absolutely correct that the right must drop the religious rhetoric. While that may anger many religious conservatives, it has to be remembered that the religious right is no less a target for persuasion than any other group. And in this case, they need to be persuaded that the the only legitimate role for the state in religious affairs is to protect the right of any individual to practice religion in the manner he or she so desires, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the rights of others to do the same (or not do the same as the case may be). Since many Christians are quite rightly beginning to feel that Christianity is under attack by the left, I see no reason why this role could not resonate with them given ample persuasion.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why a party’s stance on religion should not satisfy reasonable minds on all sides of the table. Secular Americans quite rightly get their separation of church and state, while religious Americans have the guarantee of the state that their right to practice is inalienable and hence protected, albeit under the wider umbrella of the protection of individual liberty in general.

Irving is spot on about winning the hearts and minds of the young and he is also right that the writing of Ayn Rand (and similar – Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises etc) offers a way to attract young minds to the fold of individualism and the basic premise of the original American philosophy – freedom. At Union Square in New York last year I noticed a group of young guys in their early 20’s – tattoos, piercings, dreadlocks, scruffy punkish attire, – handing out political literature and talking to people. Thinking they were young leftists I moseyed on over to hear what kind of naive nonsense I fully expected such kids to be spouting. To my delight, they were promoting free trade and individual liberty, had copies of Ayn Rand’s “Capitalism – The Unknown Ideal” from which they quoted and were generally articulate and passionate about their cause. One of them told me that Rand’s chapters on individual rights and the fallacy of collective “rights” in the book “The Virtue of Selfishness” had been the most profound, eye-opening words he had ever read. It was great to see such kids fighting against what they saw as impending socialism and America’s biggest threat. Youngsters are generally receptive to Rand as long as the left doesn’t sink its filthy talons too deeply. When I was a young child I experienced, on many occasions, the pang of enlightenment that comes with the realization that one is an individual and as such, is in complete possession of one’s life and is owned by nobody. Usually this came in the form of resentment that I was forced by law to go to school every day. Years later when I read Rand’s non-fiction works for the first time I was ecstatic to see that exact same feeling articulated in the precise language of Objectivism. It was a massive rush of vindication and one I’ll never forget. Rand changed the way I think about politics and society forever. The Christian right needs to get over her atheism and realize that since politics is not about forcing religion on everyone else but about protecting the freedom of the individual, the works of writers like Rand offer us the best way of getting this message across to the young before their minds are trapped forever in the murky swamp of George Soros.

Aug 4, 2009 - 3:59 pm 26. The Apologist:

I got all this the first time around (and with better articulations and arguments) when Micklethwait and Wooldridge wrote it in The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America. They made the same mistake Irving makes in assessing the election prospects of a GOP without the Social Cons. Without SoCons the GOP is DOA. They make up 40% of Republican voters and well over 50% of GOP volunteers and activists. Without them there is no GOP. Ever.

Other than that I wouldn’t disagree with anything he said. But it’s been said better and in more detail by many others before.

Aug 4, 2009 - 4:00 pm 27. Mark:

I don’t think doing away with “religious rhetoric” is the answer – if we start moving closer to the Democrats, the Republican Party won’t win – we will cease to exist and become like the Democrats. It has been said we only win when a true conservative runs, and I agree – John McCain was the lesser of two evils, but he wasn’t coservative enough – the Dems will vote for the devil himself, but unfortunately, too many conservatives sit home on their butss if the Republican isn’t conservative enough – I didn’t like McCain either, but he’d be better than the moron we got.

And to the person who trashed Sarah Palin – “HAH” – she would make a ton better president than Obama – I still believe the reason the liberals won’t let her alone, is they are scared to death of her – they have never gone after ANY candidate the way they did with her – they never went after the VP of the loser of the campaign – if she was so bad for the Republican party, they should be happy – but they weren’t – and aren’t – conservatives love her – I am very conservative and in the circles I travel – don’t know of any true conservative who doesn’t like her. I would vote for her in a heartbeat.

And I don’t think some guy from England needs to be giving us advice – they don’t have their act together

Aug 4, 2009 - 4:10 pm 28. Paul A'Barge:

…Bush’s abysmal record on civil liberties and human rights (Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib)…

OK, stop right there. Dude has his head completely up his arse. I mean totally.

We need someone to lead the Republicans to victory. Not the international association of beta metrosexual euro pussies.

Shove bloody off, mate. G’wan, yah git.

Aug 4, 2009 - 4:18 pm 29. Michael Lonie:

I have to admire the cleverness of those who propose that the GOP make its comeback by purging the religious believers from its ranks then recruiting an irresistable majority of voters. We’ve been hearing a lot of that lately from American (and Canadian) pundits. Now we get the same message from UK libertarians.

This strategy basically proposes to drive out of the ranks the current basis of the party, that gave it 46 percent of the vote in the last election. So when you have gutted the party do you really think you will then be able to better that percent? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.

Instead of proposals to build outreach on the basis of adding to the present support, we get airy demands that the GOP be built anew without those who have been its major support for decades. The arrogant disdain of libertarians for religious people comes across clearly. They have the same contempt for the religious people that Obama and his consiglieri have, a contempt for people they consider hopelessly lower class and ignorant. Many such disdainful people seem to have voted for Obama in 2008. It was so clever of those libertarians to vote for a socialist, because the other side was just too blue collar for them. We can do without such aristocratic wannabes much easier than withour the religious voters.

As for minority outreach don’t just blather about it but make some serious suggeations how to do that. The GOP has been trying for a long time, albeit with little success. Do we hear any realistic suggestions based on UK libertarians’ wonderful success wooing British Sikhs, Hindus, and others away from Labour? Anybody? (Crickets chirping). Oh well. Incidentally, appealing to Blacks through religious principles may be the best way to make such outreach. As long as the vast majority of Blacks and Mexicans are convinced that the welfare state is their rice bowl and that it trumps any questions of principle they will hardly vote against the Democrats, now will they?

As for standing on priciple, that is an excellent idea. The GOP lost in the last two eelctions primarily because when in power it failed to communicate effectively, restrain spending, and shrink the useless and counterproductive parts of government. That is it was not conservative enough in its actual exercise of power.

Spare us the assertions about libertarian rationality as opposed to conservative irrationality. Libertarians will only accept explicitly articulated logical reasoning from only the premises they specify. Hayekian unarticulated rationality based on long societal experience is as unwelcome to them as it is to the socialists. That is part of the basis of libertarian hostility to religion, so common among the commenters on this thread. In that respect most libertarians seem to stand with the socialists and their disdain for the “bitter clingers”.

Aug 4, 2009 - 4:25 pm 30. Jeremy:

Good gosh, you would think this was posted on DailKos, for all the anti-Religious rehetoric around here. I am both a Christian and Conservative, and the Republican Party is at the peril if they bail on Christian Conservatives (anyone who doesn’t live in the US and says differently doesn’t really understand our culture or history).

Anyway Religious Rhetoric (”Code word”) from the Liberal Media for Abortion, and Homosexuality (and Religious 1st Amendment Freedom) should not be given up by Republicans, it WAS the left through the courts which imposed the culture war, they are the advocates for BIG Government here, not religious conservatives. It is our constitution that is the glue which holds together traditional American conservatism with libertarianism.

Have you all forgotten that Roe v. wade isn’t law- it’s merely judicial fiat, same with homosexual marriage?

Aug 4, 2009 - 5:00 pm 31. David W. Lincoln:

Instead of looking only through one end of the telescope, which is what those who have been thoroughly Gramsci-ized, why not look at the other end as well.

As long as there is only room for what has been created, those who follow that path are cheating themselves and ultimately everyone.

For those who say that religion causes problems, why don’t you be more honest to say, “conclusions
about religions cause problems.” For isn’t that true regarding politics?

Very few of my comments have been responded to because I see the dangers of government being too
powerful, just like the role of the church got too large during the 30 years war. Differences in interpreting the scripture saw that the realm
of the church wound up larger than it was supposed to be.

So, as one who backed the likes of Ledeen, and still does, I get the impression from too many Americans that what I have to say is not wanted,
and thereby to be ignored.

Like it or not, the United States is in very deep
trouble, and ignoring what you do not want to hear makes the hole you are in deeper.

Aug 4, 2009 - 5:04 pm 32. Craig from Maine:

Graham L, you are an ignoramus !! Religion is the bedrock upon which EVERYTHING is based and does fuel many conservatives which is why most of our stances are morally based, unlike the Brits and liberals whose decisions are based on the pursuit of power and money. We conservatives will NOT compromise our ethics, principles, and/or “religion” which will ensure our victory in the end. Just look at what is happening to the party of “death” (democrats) who support abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research (the creation of life for the destruction of life for the potential improvement of life), removal of God from everything, etc. You folks are going down so quickly because of your corruption and absence of religion that it is hard to measure your precipitous demise.

Scott, Bohemond, and Tommy Gunn, you are absolutely right in your assessments and comments.

Aug 4, 2009 - 5:13 pm 33. callingallcomets:

Please please please ignore anything said by anyone from UKIP. They always do well in Euro elections (meaningless events with about 30% turn out) but they never win any seats in our Palrliamentary elections nor do they control any cities or counties.
The article gives the impression that Irving is a national political figure – in fact he is a total unknown.
Republicans/conservatives – you need to have a leader who has sound conservative principles but is not either a traditional “suit” or some sort of wonkish freak. That person must be able to connect with ordinary everyday folk (not political junkies)and fire people up so they would crawl over broken glass for them.
Are you aware of anyone who fits that description?

Aug 4, 2009 - 5:30 pm 34. Odysseus:

I think the GOP should adopt a single statement concerning social policies like abortion or gay marriage: “Let the people decide, not the courts.” They can still oppose Roe v. Wade and gay marriage often fails when put to a vote. This position however will bring in independents and conservative Democrats.

Aug 4, 2009 - 5:49 pm 35. D'oh!:

“The right needs to abandon the religious rhetoric”

This dude must mean typical reactionary crap like this:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Abandon that BS, America, because British (Kenneth Irving) and Russian (Ayn Rand) atheists, neither of whom have ever faced a voter in America (where even liberals go to church if they want to get elected), say you should. Yeah, that’ll work.

Aug 4, 2009 - 6:00 pm 36. Virginia11775:

America is founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and the Republican party is not ditching its social conservatives. The voters who turn up to the polls religiously to vote their conscience are the lifeblood of the party and the only ones who have not been disappointed by the Bush administration.

UKIP has no message but racism, and that’s the way they came to power. Young voters were tired of being outrageously taxed to support a bloated entitlement program abused by Muslim immigrants. They were tired of unemployment and debt, and they wanted to see the economy improved, even if it meant steering sharply to the “right” to approach center from the far left. The UKIP won for those reasons, not because they ditched God or had any message about civil liberties.

Now this sanctimonious limey wanker comes here preaching to us about how to win. We just need to stay on message about Obama’s policies and let the lunatic left running the Democratic party continue their ritual hari kari. Congress and the same old corrupt lobbyists and thieves are driving Obama’s policy, and the scales are falling from the public’s eyes. 2010 is already looking good according to recent polling, so we can take it from here, thanks.

Aug 4, 2009 - 6:57 pm 37. L.N. Smithee:

I must echo those who said get rid of the religious red meat.

While it might sell well in the sticks where religion is all anyone knows and all their neighbors think gays should not be seen nor heard, it really does alienate people who actually live among other people and have friends from different walks of life and nationalities.

I’m not saying this to be anti-religious, since I’m a Christian minister myself (albeit a progressive one). I’m saying this to offer realistic advice. Drop the religious wedge issues. And stop discriminating against your fellow man. Truly act like the party of Lincoln you once were.

Aug 4, 2009 - 7:13 pm 38. narciso:

So after a baker’s dozen years out of office. which is the a long time, Labor’s stint in the 50s, and the Thatcher/Major period is next logest, Wake me up when you get Prime Minister Cameron, and how long he lasts. we’re supposed to jettison all our principles as a solution.

Aug 4, 2009 - 7:34 pm 39. jic:

Why are we taking advice from a fringe figure who almost nobody in his own country has actually heard of? Somebody who’s party will not win a single seat in the next British general election? Somebody who thinks that Abu Ghraib had *anything* to do with Bush’s human rights policy? Is it really just because his party did relatively well in European elections that had less than 35% UK voter turnout, and the lowest turnout across Europe since records began?

Aug 4, 2009 - 8:07 pm 40. classical-liberal:

The National Republican Party could easily adopt a domestic platform that would placate both social conservatives and libertarians.

While advocating free-markets and limited government on economic issues, the national party should embrace federalism on social issues. Social issues should be decided at the state level, not in D.C.

If California wants to be socially liberal while Texas is conservative, so be it. If one state wants gambling, or prostitution, while others don’t, let them decide. Same with pot, abortion, and a host of other social issues. Let the states decide, they are the one who enforce such laws.

The combination of free-markets and federalism is the tonic for the party’s ills and is key to uniting both fiscal and social conservatives.

The audience for such a pairing is growing by the day.

Aug 4, 2009 - 8:11 pm 41. Anonymous:

We are victims of our own success. Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach … or become politicians.

I suppose once we were a people so strong and free we really did not need great leaders most times. No more.

We need the next RWR and he must sell truth, reality, self reliance and individual responsibility to just ten percent of the Obama voters. Just 10% would swing the balance and bring this nation back to sanity. Perhaps the naked truth of this sick administration now in power will bring some to their senses.

I pray there is time. I pray my poor poor country can hold its head up in the end and be found standing against evil across the globe as it has done in days of old … when The Shepherd comes to separate the sheep from the goats.

Aug 4, 2009 - 9:15 pm 42. Scott:

We are victims of our own success. Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach … or become politicians.

I suppose once we were a people so strong and free we really did not need great leaders most times. No more.

We need the next RWR and he must sell truth, reality, self reliance and individual responsibility to just ten percent of the Obama voters. Just 10% would swing the balance and bring this nation back to sanity. Perhaps the naked truth of this sick administration now in power will bring some to their senses.

I pray there is time. I pray my poor poor country can hold its head up in the end and be found standing against evil across the globe as it has done in days of old … when The Shepherd comes to separate the sheep from the goats.

Aug 4, 2009 - 9:16 pm 43. Hindu:

With the minority populations surging,and the anglo-celtic/germanic matrix shrinking due to low birthrates, the conservatives should see the writing on the wall (pardon the cliches; they are dime a dozen):
unless proactive measures are taken to sweep conservative-leaning minorities into its fold, GOP may not see a majority or win the presidency anytime soon.

Everytime a racialist(it doesn’t have to be KKK-level hatred) harangue is made by the firebrands of the rightwing, the sensible middle should proactively step forward and denounce them; otherwise even I, a slighty-to-the-right-of-dick-cheney conservative brown immigrant, may not be enthused enough show up to vote for Romney in 2012.
Democrats at least have the IQ to pretend they are inclusive. From my personal experience I know the limitations of that inclusiveness. The typical white democrat simply wants you to be thankful and appreciative of their condescension.

This is somewhat anecdotal, but 5 of my family members decided not to vote for McCain because of Ms.Palin. Was it either due to the perceived unsuitability of the lady in question or due to the perceived xenophobia of her SUPPORTERS? They didn’t feel comfortable voting for the ticket, despite my repeated canvassing. 5 votes right there. I know other non-white friends who backed away from voting for the ticket as well.

Does this mean Palin or her followers are racists of the KKK-caliber? I personally don’t think so – I voted for her anyway. But the majority of Palin-supporters sound so harsh, jingoistic and xenophobic , no wonder its scaring most non-whites away, INCLUDING potential GOP-voters. Sidelining naughty WASP new england “patricians” like Tancredo would help. I would still vote for Palin, if she spends the next 3 years studying and incorporating Buckley’s language, Obama’s temperament and Kissinger’s state-craftiness. (yes i coined the word)

This brings me back to my “thesis”: unless the sensible conservative “middle” steps up with stern denunciations of the rowdy racialist crowd, sheer numbers will overwhelm any chance of GOP’s resurrection for the foreseeable future. McDonnell may win in VA; Christie in NJ- but the brand is completely tainted at the _national_ level.

Of course this thesis assumes there IS a sensible conservative “middle”.

Aug 4, 2009 - 9:25 pm 44. Donna V.:

Kudos to Michael Lonie: that’s the most sensible rebuttal of the anti-religious libertarian argument I’ve read. I once considered myself a libertarian – I think it’s a phase some of us pass through when we leave liberalism behind but are afraid to call ourselves conservatives. Libertarianism seems much cooler. Well, after a certain point in your life, worrying about “coolness” is pretty pathetic.

It’s a bit rich to see libertarians presuming to lecture conservatives on how to win elections. One would think they actually know something about it.

It’s even funnier to see L.N. Smithee, a “progressive pastor” give conservatives advice. ‘Cause we know how eager progressives are to see conservatives win elections. Of course, the Right (or Left) Rev. Smithee’s advice is: don’t be conservative, be progressive, just like me! Stuffed to the noseholes with liberal sanctimony and conceit!

Aug 4, 2009 - 9:37 pm 45. Donna V.:

Oh, and Rev. Smithee, you do know that Jesus came from the sticks? Galileans were considered to be country bumpkins with funny accents by the Jerusalem sophisticates. Of course, you’re a progressive pastor, so you might be “post-Christian” and so completely over all that New Testament stuff.

In 20 years, you’ll be able to fit the remaining membership of the mainline Protestant churches into my living room – that’s how fast they’re losing members. You’re hardly one to talk about how to win friends and influence people either.

Aug 4, 2009 - 9:54 pm 46. The Apologist:

“The combination of free-markets and federalism is the tonic for the party’s ills and is key to uniting both fiscal and social conservatives.”

Amen and amen.

“While it might sell well in the sticks where religion is all anyone knows and all their neighbors think gays should not be seen nor heard, it really does alienate people who actually live among other people and have friends from different walks of life and nationalities.”

Not only are you a “progressive minister”, you’re a deluded “progressive minister”. 50% of this country opposes abortion. Support for gay marriage has never polled over 35%. Methinks you’ve harangued your flock into silence. The majority of them oppose gay marriage even if they don’t tell you that on Sunday. Does California count as “the sticks”? Prop. 8. Look it up. And frankly, your condescension and contempt for “country bumpkins” brings my memories of Sunday school to mind…something about “motes” and “beams”. But you’re the “minister”, I’m sure you already know what I’m talking about.

Aug 4, 2009 - 11:14 pm 47. L.N. Smithee:

Donna V.,

My comment wasn’t for meant for small brains.

Aug 5, 2009 - 12:36 am 48. Andrew Ian Dodge:

“Interesting that Mr. Dodge had nothing to say about Daniel Hannan. For, it was he who took British Prime Minister Brown to task for those 3 memorable moments which concluded on a very strong note.”

I didn’t mention him in this piece because I interviewed him for PJM a few weeks ago.

Aug 5, 2009 - 2:40 am 49. Donna V.:

My comment wasn’t for meant for small brains.

No, I guess it was meant for the large-brained, aging, oh-so green and p.c. hipsters I see emerging from the Unitarian Church down the street on Sunday mornings – all 7 of them. The savvier youngsters have figured out that if pastors sound no different from liberal pundits, why take the trouble to drag your rear to church when you can just watch MSNBC instead.

Aug 5, 2009 - 4:21 am 50. Kenny:

Hi everyone

Thanks for commenting on the interview. I would like add a few comments and respond to some of posts above.

Firstly, this interview is based on a quick Facebook exchange between Andrew and I a few weeks ago. Andrew asked me a few questions and I responded with immediate responses. It was only at the end that Andrew asked to publish them.

Secondly, I am not opposed, per se, to religion. My family are very active in the Church of Scotland and I respect the Church and those in it. My “beef” is with those, e.g. ex Senator Rick Santorum, who use religion to demonise gays and others who do not share their religious beliefs.

Politically, I am supporter and advocate of individual rights. If such advocacy is to form the basis of a political movement, there needs to be an alliance of Aristotelians, Randians, Lockeans etc.

Secondly, the Bush administration did not believe in individual rights. Everyone has the right to legal representation and a fair trial. Military tribunals are no substitute for trial by jury.

Prisoners should not be tortured. It is an abuse of individual rights and does not work. Prisoners will make up information to end the torture and Guantanamo produced a lot of misinformation.

Thirdly, to answer Michael Lonie, the British Libertarian Party is in its infancy and I have doubts whether it will become an electoral force. However, both the Conservative Party and UKIP have been successful at wooing black and Asian voters from the Labour Party. UKIP had several black and Asian candidates standing in the recent European elections. We attracted a lot of new voters from those communities too.

Aug 5, 2009 - 5:02 am 51. narciso:

Please, and what did the Brits do in Northern Ireland, and Malaya, and Yemen, give me a break. Is KSM entitled to any consideration, no,
neither is Abu Zubeydah, or Bin Laden, they have forfeited any claim of Geneva Convention protections. The repetition of claims of zenophobia don’t cut in any way either. Bill Ayers, is so white he’s practically Albino, but he’s a trust fund marxist. There’s nothing wrong with her English, unlike warning of the socialist inclinations of the incoming administration, is somehow ungrammatical. Kissinger’s realpolitik, in retrospect, was a way to disguise a solid hand. He has in later life, embraced the Chinese gerontocrats, Baathist kingpins, Saudi oligarchs in the name of expediency how has that worked out.

I’d say having sidelined Lady Thatcher and the principlers she represented probably has had a fair amount to do with the Tories dozen years in the wilderness. Most of this was over European integration, a point you’ll concede she was right on.That and some of the hypocrisy shown by the Tory counterparts of Gingrich, Sanford, and Ensign. Cameron, doesn’t appear to be an improvement on that score, just judging from the latest Parliamentary scandal

Aug 5, 2009 - 6:36 am 52. Craig from Maine:

Kenny, terrorists and enemy combatants do NOT deserve trials or habeus corpus rights afforded to citizens of the U.S. These are evil people (for the most part) and belong exactly where they are held. President Bush set up a prison with more rights for these Muslim extremists than our prisons here at home.

As for the torture issue, stop reading the liberal blogs and editorials, The NYT cannot be trusted in any of their news stories being proven time and again that they are liberal, anti-Bush hacks more interested in advancing the liberal Democratic agenda of hate and calumny than printing the truth.

President Bush is a religious man of high principles, morals and ethics who would never condone torture and did what he thought was right regardless of political outcome. I disagreed with him on many things as a staunch conservative, but never questioned his morals or intentions.

As for “gays”, that is another calumnous attack (as is the “racist” allegations purported by the left) as we respect all individuals as creatures of God with the same rights and standing in His eyes as heterosexuals. However, marriage is a SACRED union and sacrament between a man and a woman and thus should be respected as such. It is the immoral, public and flagrant actions by many gays which brings condemnation (of their actions, not the person) from many of us on the right just as we would if it were heterosexuals acting the same way.

I do want to pay you a compliment Kenny for the gracious and non-defensive response posted after the many attacks on you and your country in these blogs. May God bless you and bring you success in your public office.

Aug 5, 2009 - 6:39 am 53. narciso:

I missed the detail trying to ignore Norquist’s tie to the Alamoudi’s, which were running Salafi
supporting efforts, that’s not a problem in the U.K., after 7/7 and Glasgow and the Trans Atlantic bomb plot. It’s a shame that there aren’t more people of the caliber of Thatcher and Churchill in the Tory party, more Chamberlains and Heseltines by the look of it.

Aug 5, 2009 - 7:23 am 54. Charles T.:

Ayn Rand is indeed the most consistent defender of individual rights and capitalism. She understood that the moral IS the practical, as opposed to the two being at odds, and that free-market capitalism is the only system that allows for the complete respect and protection of individual rights. I’m afraid many more people need to become familiar with and accepting of her ideas before there is sufficient awareness to effect any cultural/political changes. The Ayn Rand Institute is doing their damned-est to introduce more people to Rand’s ideas, and if individual rights are ever properly enshrined and defended in law, it will be to the individuals of that organization that humanity will owe their thanks for making possible their freedom and prosperity. I salute them. Please read Ayn Rand if you have not.

Aug 5, 2009 - 8:34 am 55. tanstaafl:

Tips for the GOP ?

Avoid permanent members of the Senate whose intellect can’t pass above pontificating about “reaching across the aisle” or who don’t seem together enough to want immigration lawsenforced and refer to people in the country illegally as “children of God, too” (John McCain)

Avoid putative Republicans who switch their vote at the 11th hour so that they won’t be left out of the DC social circuit when it looks like Obama will be The Won™ (Colin Powell)

There are a few guys & one girl right now who seem to have the right stuff & understand that returning to original, founding values is the only route… Eric Cantor, Jim deMint, maybe Paul Ryan, Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal…Sarah Palin…(names)

It’s a little aggravating to read from the fellow you interviewed that Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib represent “Bush’s abysmal record on civil liberties and human rights”, a rather tired and not particularly true cliché, pathetic as what went down at (especially) Abu Ghraib might have been.

Aug 5, 2009 - 8:52 am 56. Anonymous:

Anyone who cannot see that the western world is spinning right off its societal axis is not paying attention. Going back is the only path to survival.

Granted there are aspects of yesteryear that have to be abandoned, racism especially, but the West will not survive command-and-control-socialism. That we are even flirting with it is proof positive we are mentally diseased.

Yes we can bring in new ideas and attitudes. Although conservation is nothing new. It is just good management. Neither is green energy new. We always knew oil was a finite resource. We could have been well on our way toward cleaner forms of energy such as nuclear if not for the ‘monkey wrench’ tactics of the Left.

The newest idea of all given the depth and breadth of human history is the concept of human individualism and individual freedom under a system of law as set forth in our founding documents. The very apex of human societal evolution and it cannot be improved upon. The insanity that this can be bettered by marxism is sick.

That America cannot or will not see that Obama and his minions are blatant marxists is insane. Or perhaps simply evil embraced.

Aug 5, 2009 - 9:45 am 57. scott:

Anyone who cannot see that the western world is spinning right off its societal axis is not paying attention. Going back is the only path to survival.

Granted there are aspects of yesteryear that have to be abandoned, racism especially, but the West will not survive command-and-control-socialism. That we are even flirting with it is proof positive we are mentally diseased.

Yes we can bring in new ideas and attitudes. Although conservation is nothing new. It is just good management. Neither is green energy new. We always knew oil was a finite resource. We could have been well on our way toward cleaner forms of energy such as nuclear if not for the ‘monkey wrench’ tactics of the Left.

The newest idea of all given the depth and breadth of human history is the concept of human individualism and individual freedom under a system of law as set forth in our founding documents. The very apex of human societal evolution and it cannot be improved upon. The insanity that this can be bettered by marxism is sick.

That America cannot or will not see that Obama and his minions are blatant marxists is insane. Or perhaps simply evil embraced.

Aug 5, 2009 - 9:45 am 58. L.N. Smithee:

Donna V.,

My comment wasn’t meant for the small-minded.

Aug 5, 2009 - 9:58 am 59. narciso:

Well you could certainly add Michelle Bachman to that group, and a few others. But the likes of Collins, and Snowe, really don’t do much for the GOP’s prospects. That doesn’t mean we don’t have room for the likes of Congressman (Colonel)
Simmons. I don’t mean to be that critical of our British cousins, they needed the likes of Long Kesh and the Maze, to break the IRA, but don’t reproach us for Gitmo and Bagram.

Aug 5, 2009 - 10:05 am 60. tanstaafl:

Michelle Bachman

She is admirable. She says, among other things, that she’s not going to feed the 2010 census takers (gathering all kinds of extraneous data on behalf of ACORN/community organizin’ agendas) any information they’re not constitutionally entitled to gather, which is, basically, name & number of persons in household.

An extraordinary and bold statement, coming from a member of the federal government itself.

Aug 5, 2009 - 11:03 am 61. Kenny:

I should like to respond to some comments.

My comments on torture are based on detailed discussions with those with inside knowledge of what actually went on. I do not read liberal blogs (apart from Andrew Sullivan if you consider him a liberal) or media (including the New York Times).

My comment on gays relate to those American conservatives who demonise as them as no better as paedophiles or perverts. I regard marriage as an issue for individuals who want to marry and the Church, not the government.

Finally, I wish to clarify my role as being Campaign Director rather than candidate or Parliamentarian. I no longer seek election or appointment to public office. My interests and career are focused on policy and communications.

Aug 6, 2009 - 3:43 am 62. tanstaafl:

My comments on torture are based on detailed discussions with those with inside knowledge of what actually went on.

Then you know that the perpetrators at Abu Ghraib were a rouge reserve unit, not regular army.

And you’d know there is no evidence that authorization for their outrageous treatment of prisoners came from the highest levels of the Bush administration and that Janis Karpinski was an especially poor administrator at Abu Ghraib, not just the fall person for the “Bush administration” trying to cover up its own perfidy.

You’d know that Guantanamo and the issue of treatment of prisoners there has morphed into a great big extension of ACLU types/the hate America movement trying to bring American society down to their level and that some individuals inside the current justice department (in the name of furthering their President’s ideology) go so far as to make ignorant allegations like…maybe Khalid Sheikh Mohammed didn’t perpetrate all those horrendous acts after all !

I read the London Timesonline regularly, and note how some “opinionists” get American society quite wrong. I also read the Telegraph & the Guardian, one of whose writers (Tony ?…I can’t recall the name) has amazed me with his astute and spot on insights into American politics & culture.

However, much of the European press seems saddled by predictable and classical assumptions, e.g., that the conservative movement in America is dominated by the religious right, that the right demonizes gays as a matter of course.

I agree that the issue of marriage lies outside the domain of government. However, government at all levels has been inserting itself into areas where it has no business being for a very long time now.

We do look to Thomas Sowell (and other black thinkers & writers) as a very astute observer of process in America. Unfortunately, the bulk of our citizens, right and left, aren’t interested anymore in such lofty principles.

And, as I think mentioned above, we rather do like listening to Mr. Hannan.

As for Andrew Sullivan, his writing, analysis and insights have signigficantly deteriorated over the past few years.

Aug 6, 2009 - 7:54 am 63. Andrew Ian Dodge:

I want to thank Kenny for getting involved in the discussion. It makes it much more interesting if the subject is involved with the commenters.

Aug 7, 2009 - 12:52 am 64. mags:

#59 narciso,

The point he is making is that torture doesn’t work. We tried it in northern Ireland.

Internment without trial caused hundreds to sign up.
We have to learn from our history.

It might of been different if our closest allie didn’t fund the I.R.A. with money and weapons.

In Boston drinks called,’kill a brit’ and ‘car bomb’ could be drunk.
Giving visa’s to known I.R.A leaders so they could collect money for ‘the cause’ against our governments request.

Refusing to extradite wanted I.R.A terrorist’s didn’t go down very well here.
Senator peter king was/is a cheerleader for these terrorists.

It was the people of northern Ireland that won.
There wasn’t a military answer to the truobles,it was through hearts and minds and intelligence that was more successful.

It took 9/11 for Americans to question their support.
The funding went down,when the politicians in the U.S turned their back on the I.R.A it meant they had no choice ,they had to stop.

Imagine if that was done sooner.

Aug 7, 2009 - 8:37 am 65. L.N. Smithee:

Imagine my surprise at seeing someone calling himself “L.N. Smithee” — my nom de Internet since April 1998 — being used by someone on this page who doesn’t represent my opinion.

Don’t be confused — the REAL L.N. Smithee is NOT a “[politically] progressive minister” and would never write “My comment was not meant for the small-minded.” If you want to know what the REAL L.N. Smithee believes, visit http://lnsmitheeblog.blogspot.com.

I didn’t think I was significant enough a figure to have an impostor. In the words of Bullwinkle, “Oooh! Don’t know my own strength!”

Get your own nick, pal. Mine is taken.

Aug 25, 2009 - 6:53 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: