Jeff Pelline's Sierra Foothills Report

Yesterday I published a rebuttal to an item on George Rebane’s blog “American Progressivism: EPIC failure.” It was titled “Why conservatism fails”? by “Justin.” In short, it suggested that a staunch conservative ideology had sometimes become too intolerant, simplistic and inflexible in our complex and changing society — “dogma” that was just as naive as “Marxist utopianism.”

Our family has conservative values, but we are raising a 10-year-old in this complex and changing society, so we like to keep open minds.

Now Justin — who said he is no fan of ideological liberalism either — is no less known to America than “Rebane’s Ruminations,” but some sharp personal attacks followed on George’s blog — smacking of “limousine conservative” intellectual elitism.

Less than 24 hours later, however, comments by some hard-right conservatives to issues that confront us seem to suggest that Justin was onto something.

Social policy

“Justin”:
 It is in social matters that conservatism most clearly seeks to “conserve” tradition and established norms. Often this effort at conservation is based not on any rational thinking, but on the perceived value of keeping tradition alive for its own sake. This idea is destructive and necessarily inhibitive of human progress.

One local hard-right blogger:
The support for Chick-fil-A has been extraordinary and (we) regret that we did not join the long line of supporters on [Chick-fil-A Appreciation day]. However, Chick-fil-A will our lunch spot the next time we are in Roseville. It is important continue the support over time. See you at the Chick-fil-A.

Another:
Funny how upside down and backwards our culture has become. Deviancy is now the PC norm and decency is considered intolerant.

Economic Policy

“Justin:”
Any ideology that sees free market capitalism as the sole requirement for human prosperity leads to a pie-in-the-sky faith in the free market and an excessively negative attitude toward government action.

Congressman Tom McClintock:

Dear Robin:

Thank you for contacting me regarding genetically-modified food. I appreciate hearing from you.

Over the last ten years, genetically modified crops have become more common in the United States. Farmers have used genetic modifications of plants and animals to improve growth rates and yields, create varieties resistant to pests and diseases, and infuse special nutritional or handling characteristics. These types of modifications have helped meet growing demand for agricultural products. The approval process for genetically modified crops is very extensive in order to ensure the safety of our food supply.

Each individual and family is free to choose what food they will purchase and consume. Imposing new government mandates to restrict this choice can only result in higher costs and fewer options for all consumers. Instead, we should allow the free market to continue to present products as demand warrants.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please don’t hesitate to do so again regarding any issue that concerns you or your family.

Sincerely,

Tom

It seems Justin is wiser than “Rebane’s Ruminations” gives him credit for. There must be a middle ground in there somewhere.

P.S.—
Here’s an interesting comparison between how Marriott and Chick-Fil-A’s management wear their social values on their sleeve — or don’t. “God and Gay Marriage: What Chick-Fil-A could learn from Marriott,” from Business Week is here.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 9 Comments »

Editor’s note: I missed the “meet the candidate’s night” sponsored by the Tea Party at the Vets Hall in Grass Valley in April. But I did question the wisdom of a newspaper participating in a forum where the tea party was vocally endorsing some of the candidates. Some had donated money, were listed in the endorsements and signed judicial recall petitions – hardly nonpartisan.

Now I stumbled across this photo that shows The Union and Tea Party banner side-by-side — a peculiar sight for any journalist or, I suppose, liberal reader of The Union. Let’s hope the new publisher of The Union exercises better judgment come November. Exit question: How come the two intrepid fellow bloggers pictured below did not mention this? It would make a good political cartoon.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 22 Comments »

“Strong support among women and Latinos and doubts about Mitt Romney’s business background have boosted President Obama into a lead in two swing states, according to a poll released Wednesday,” the L.A. Times is reporting.

“Obama leads Romney among likely voters 51%-45% in Florida and 50%-44% in Ohio, according to the poll by Quinnipiac University, the New York Times and CBS News. The poll also showed Obama with a 53%-42% lead among likely voters in Pennsylvania, a state that some Republicans have touted as a possible swing location. Both campaigns have stopped advertising in Pennsylvania, indicating that neither feels it currently makes the battleground list.”

The rest of the article is here.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Editor’s note: “American progressivism: an epic failure,” according to a post on hard-right blogger George Rebane’s website this morning.

To lend some balance, here’s “Why conservatism fails” by a commentator named Justin from New York. The commentary is here. It helps explain why people “in the middle” struggle with politically extreme views such as George’s, which occupy inordinate air time on KVMR and in The Union. It’s astonishing. Back at you, George et al!

“There are 3 components of American political philosophies: social policy, economic policy and foreign policy. Modern conservatism is a theoretical failure in each. I say this as a former conservative, and as someone who has no sympathy for ideological liberalism (but that is another article).

I talk here of conservatism, as a political ideology or philosophy. Not the Republican party or its policies, which may or may not be truly “conservative.”

Social policy
It is in social matters that conservatism most clearly seeks to “conserve” tradition and established norms. Often this effort at conservation is based not on any rational thinking, but on the perceived value of keeping tradition alive for its own sake.

This idea is destructive and necessarily inhibitive of human progress.

Tradition does not have value in its own right. If it did, then the modern American conservative must explain why he supports women’s right to vote, since this is a concept totally at odds with almost all human tradition, including his own society’s tradition until the early 20th century.

Economic Policy
Conservatism defers to the free market, against “big government,” excessive regulation or high taxation, and in favor of “consumer choice” and “business freedom.”

The assumptions of modern economics are astonishingly unrealistic. This makes any free market capitalist dogma just as naive as Marxist utopianism.

Any ideology that sees free market capitalism as the sole requirement for human prosperity leads to a pie-in-the-sky faith in the free market and an excessively negative attitude toward government action.

Economic conservatism (not to be confused with fiscal conservatism or good fiscal management, which both Republicans and Democrats have failed miserably at in recent years) is a theoretical and practical failure.

Foreign Policy
Foreign policy conservatism is based on the fantastic premise that the US is such an inherently good country that any American military or diplomatic action abroad is ultimately to the benefit of the whole world. Basically, America can do no wrong. If this sounds like a simplistic characterization, I invite the reader to suggest one major military intervention that conservatives disapprove of in recent history.

The default position of conservatism is toward more American involvement in other countries, more military interventionism–not less.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 6 Comments »