they had him at "I, arlen specter"

"Finally," a friend said upon hearing the news, "we can stop paying to re-elect one of their guys."  My own first thought had been good riddance, and I'd have used that title here if everyone else hadn't already beaten me to it.  (And I mean everyone: Googling "Arlen Specter" + "good riddance" returns about 17,000 hits, and it hasn't even been 24 hours yet.)

I want to talk about the two reasons a person might be conservative.  The first reason is principles.  A principled conservative recognizes that the world works a certain way, bound by realities like supply and demand, and that prosperity comes when man's laws acknowledge the reality he lives in. 

The principled conservative has a fundamental problem with liberalism; namely, that it ignores the realities of economics.  Liberalism results in policies where the economics don't work, forcing people to choose between being punished by supply and demand or being punished by the law.  For a conservative who recognizes its inherent flaws, liberalism is not an option -- it's a form of evil.

The other reason a person might be a conservative is convenience.  Maybe it's a red state, or a red district, and he wants to get elected.  Maybe it's a blue state, but the primaries are a lot easier to win on the red side.  Or maybe someone's just a high earner, and he wants lower taxes.  It doesn't really matter; the point is that for someone who hasn't done the economics, conservatism is just a choice; a coin toss.  The winds could shift at any time, making it convenient to become a liberal.

Conservatives of convenience know all the talking points, but under the hood they are just liberals.  As politicians, they're not bound to economic principles -- they're bound to democratic principles, and they just happen to represent districts where conservative thinking is popular.

Because they don't really "get it," conservatives of convenience will reveal their inner liberal when they are working without a script.  It's the reason John McCain could oppose Bush's tax cuts as "giving too much to the rich" -- because he doesn't actually get it.

And it's not just that they don't get it -- they don't even think you get it.  Consider the minimum wage.  Any conservative can tell you that minimum wages result in higher unemployment -- that's high school economics.  But liberals will tell you that unemployment is just an excuse, given by greedy business owners who don't want to pay their oppressed workers a "fair" minimum wage.  So when a "conservative" like Arlen Specter hears your economic argument against minimum wages, you think you're explaining your position.  But to him, the two of you are just getting your stories straight before he goes out to protect your greedy interests.

I guess my point is that Arlen Specter is no loss to conservatism.  It's obvious that we never had him.  He's really only one more of a bunch of Republicans who didn't belong, a lot of whom were already removed in 2006 and 2008.  And there are plenty more to go.

Unfortunately, I can't say Specter is a wash.  As I said, he's no loss to us, but neither will he be as "moderate" as a Democrat.  It's not that simple.  He's going to shift further left. 

In revealing that he is in it for himself, Specter has revealed a weakness -- one that his friends on the left will now happily exploit.  He has commitments from Democrats, including Obama, to help him hold onto his Senate seat, and those commitments will come at a price.  He will be expected to toe the line, and to demonstrate his loyalty, in order to keep the support of the Dems.

Republicans have long struggled with blue state RINOs.  If you ask me, they're more trouble than they're worth, and Specter will now show us why.  The solution in blue states is not moderate politicians, but good conservative communicators who can reach moderate voters.

That's the John Galt Line.

Comments

[Jayr]

It's sad. When I came across this blog named after one of my favorite books, I would have expected a blogger being able to see beyond partisanship. The modern day Republican party is not a party of small government, which used to be a good platform they had for them.
The problem with 'conservatives' not being supported is because they fail to display philosophies of government without sounding either racist, sexist, or homophobic. Take my word for it, support liberal freedoms, stand up for smaller government, and explain that taxes on businesses and the rich ultimately end up coming out of EVERYONE'S pocket, and it's simply a ploy for the looters to gain public support [the poor] to steal from all.

[John Galt]

Sorry to disappoint you.

Do you really think I sound "racist, sexist or homophobic"?

I make it a point to distinguish between conservatives and Republicans. Do you?

[Leo]

I think this post oversimplifies things a great deal, but I don't see how anything here can be classified as racist, sexist, or homophobic.

[JohnJ]

The Senate can only be fixed by repealing the seventeenth amendment.

What strikes me as odd, though, is that when Republicans are "moderate", they're trashed as hypocrites. When Republicans are consistent, they're trashed as extremists. It's almost like liberals own the media or something.

[Mitoman]

There are many liberal republicans and there are many conservative democrats. This country is ruled by the liberals at the moment, and the looters (no matter conservatives or liberals) are running the entire nation. From Hank Paulson's 700 Billion dollar bailout to Obama's 850 billion dollars stimulus package, and its all coming out of mine and your pocket.

[JonJedi]

I don't know what dictionary you use but the definition of conservatism centers around 'held to tradtional beliefs' 'opposition to change' etc... It has little or nothing to do with 'economics'

Had conservatives held constant power over the world throughout history, the New World would never have been discovered due to the 'traditional' belief that the earth was flat.

In U.S. politics, 'conservative' was adopted en masse during the Reagan era and has been exploited since. That conservative movement was an attempt to take America backwards to the rosy 50's. The moral majority as they called themselves was out to undo civil rights, put gays back in the closet etc...

The economic principles which your piece focuses on are more in line with variants of 'capitalism' which is a horse of a different color. I know many liberals who are capitalists. The difference between a liberal capitalist and a conservative capitalist is usually ones view of their societal obligations.

Current conditions highlight such. The conservatives saw no problem with bailed out banks shelling out gianormous bonuses to those who caused the systematic financial problems while at the same time justifying the auto companies reneging on their contractual obligations to their workers. A feed the rich, starve the poor 'tradition' much like slavery.

[John Galt]

JonJedi,

Conservatism, of course, is culture dependent. While some conservative movements are trying to conserve a culture of Sharia law and beheadings, this one is trying to conserve freedom. And freedom is simply the ability to live within the laws that define reality -- including those pesky laws of supply and demand -- rather than being bound by the laws of men in denial of reality.

Gays do not live in the closet for political or legal reasons, but for social reasons. Conservatism does not call for the political persecution of gays, (or blacks, or what have you) but it rightfully resists the political advancement of social "causes."

Welcome to freedom: being valued is up to each individual. All men are not tall, dark and handsome, and all women are not trophy wives. The rest of us have to work to be valued, and some of us have to work even harder to overcome "unfair" social disadvantages -- this is what we've always meant by "life is unfair." Did you think we meant something else, or are you living in denial in a world where life is fair???

"The economic principles which your piece focuses on are more in line with variants of 'capitalism' which is a horse of a different color."

No, it's the same horse, with a different name. More here.

"The difference between a liberal capitalist and a conservative capitalist is usually ones view of their societal obligations."

I find that the difference is usually their definition of "freedom." People who seek to impose their "societal obligations" on others invariably hold no regard for it. Instead they spew Orwellian terms like "Employee Free Choice Act," while hiding behind Orwellian labels like "liberal" or "progressive."

"The conservatives saw no problem with bailed out banks shelling out gianormous bonuses..."

Doesn't sound like anyone around here, but the first names that come to mind, in all honesty, are Chris Dodd and Tim Geithner.

"those who caused the systematic financial problems"

Including Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Fannie, Freddie and the CRA?

"while at the same time justifying the auto companies reneging on their contractual obligations to their workers."

Not me. I want those contracts strictly enforced -- and the full force of the results that arise of it. Don't you...?

BTW, the rich feed themselves just fine, and if you want to know why poor people can't afford to work for themselves I suggest you look at regulatory (political) barriers to entry. The poor aren't slaves to the rich -- they're slaves to government at all levels.

[JonJedi]

First and foremost, while it is obvious we have some or possibly lots of disagreement. I must commend you for your civility in this discourse.

I don't have the necessary time to address your reply currently, you have made many good points as well others seem a bit umm..contentious, which I would like to expound upon when I get my day finished.

Being the first time I've had any encounter with you, while disagreeable, your thoughtfulness and courtesy are greatly appreciated.

[JonJedi]

I have to start this by pointing out the contradictions in your reply with respect to the definition of freedom. On the one hand you have inserted a definition which I can't find in any dictionary as being 'the ability to live within the laws of reality' which I must assume is your definition of it and later on you disparage others definition of freedom.

Freedom simply defined is 'lack of (undo) restraint.'

So by definition, conservatives tend to oppose freedom by imposing limitations on it. Be it social, moral, religious etc... in order to maintain traditional customs or mores.

A great current example of this is opposition to gay marriage. By striving to maintain the status quo definition of traditional marriage, social conservatives are restricting the freedoms of those who don't hold the same view.

None of this has anything to do with economic policy.

Capitalism as you stated was a term first coined by Marx but its roots go way back to the system of mercantilism. The theory of modern capitalism was first advanced by Adam Smith. (The Wealth of Nations)

The theories of economic systems (capitalism, socialism, communism, facism) are just that, theories. In practice none have ever been implemented in pure form, rather national economies are based on a mutation or combination of these theories. Some more socialistic, some more capitalistic.

In our current environment I fail to see where conservatives are trying to maintain freedoms, that is what the libertarians do, rather they are trying to limit the freedoms of those who might disagree with their moral or social views.

There is a huge difference between imposing ones view of societal obligations on others and realizing ones own and living up to it. However in pure captialism, making a profit is the sole motive. Making a profit by destroying or poisoning the environment, for example, is a failure to pay the full cost of doing business. To risk the health and well being of mankind in order to just make a buck is hardly noble.

Society as a whole is left with the true bill. Our constitution has this little noted obligation of government "to promote the general welfare" which is where regulatory statutes come into play. Our government over and over has failed its responsibilities to this end.

Conservatives wish to maintain this tradion as well.

[John Galt]

"you disparage others definition of freedom."

Example, please.

"Freedom simply defined is 'lack of (undo) restraint.'"

To which I say that the restraints of supply and demand, gravity, and the weather are natural, and man must work to overcome them. And men who would violate the rights of others through force or fraud are also duly restrained by man's law. But man-made restraints -- imposed to compel one man to serve another -- are simply, to use your own word, "undue."

"So by definition, conservatives tend to oppose freedom by imposing limitations on it. Be it social, moral, religious etc... in order to maintain traditional customs or mores."

No, that's not "by definition." Conservatives (or, more accurately, the libertarian ideals that conservatives are trying to conserve) rely on social rather than political means to regulate society. I'm hard-pressed to find a discriminatory law supported by conservatives. Yes, the exercise of one's freedom of association can be discriminatory, but that is not contrary to freedom. Racists, sexists, blacks, women and gays -- all should be free to associate (or to refuse to associate) as they see fit, as long as they do not express their values with force.

What is contrary to freedom is imposing anti-discrimination laws (and thus bringing in the threat of force) to subvert society's free expression of values simply because it does not produce results satisfactory to liberals. I bring all this up not because I'm some kind of skinhead, but because that is what most of the political struggle in America really is: liberals claiming that free people acting by their own free will, and without the threat of force, are somehow opposing other people's freedoms, and then forcibly removing the freedoms by which those values are expressed.

And the frequency with which I hear this gay marriage bullshit only proves that liberals have run completely out of legitimate claims of discrimination to levy against society.

In fact, gays have a pretty good equal protection argument since they find themselves in arrangements where the most appropriate next-of-kin is not recognized as such by the law. That, however, does not mean the solution needs to be called "marriage." And, of course, we'd have had civil unions long ago if the libs gave a flying flip about equal protection.

But we all know the real goal here is forced acceptance of homosexuality. Using the law to facilitate a social change which free people will not freely make. Or, as we call it around here, more liberal BS.

"In our current environment I fail to see where conservatives are trying to maintain freedoms, that is what the libertarians do, rather they are trying to limit the freedoms of those who might disagree with their moral or social views."

Such as...?

"Making a profit by destroying or poisoning the environment, for example, is a failure to pay the full cost of doing business. To risk the health and well being of mankind in order to just make a buck is hardly noble."

Conservatives have no problem paying for true externalities. Elevated carbon dioxide, measured in parts per million, does not translate into "poisoning the environment." And little to none of the proceeds from such fees are used to actually offset the externality claimed.

"Conservatives wish to maintain this tradion as well."

Conservatives want people to enjoy the hard-earned fruit of their labor, unlike libs who want them to imagine contrived "societal obligations."

[JohnJ]

Liberals, of course, can't tell the difference between saying that someone shouldn't do something and punishing or restraining that person. Actually, it seems like they tend to switch those things. They suggest that people shouldn't do things when they should be punished or restrained, such as violating others' rights, and they punish and restrain when people should be told not to do things, like discrimination.

Liberals have it totally backwards.

[JonJedi]

Oh my god, I take back any commending I gave you.

You're a whacked out nut who can't stick to a subject or accept what facts are.

I'll leave you to your crack pipe or Rushycontin Kool-Aid or whatever it is that's got you so twisted.

[John Galt]

Darn.

I was sure you were good for two or three more rounds of hasty generalizations and strawmen, and at least one round of deflection. I'm disappointed that you went straight for the ad hominem departure!

Oh, and don't worry about the commending thing. Coming from a liberal, it never really had much value -- in fact, I thought it something of a liability.