Bill's Notes

Busy week in the news?

Ed McMahon. Karl Malden. Alexis Arguello.

Farrah Fawcett. (Yeah, I had the poster on my wall.)

Some creepy suspected pedophile who disappeared as a recognizable person 20 years also mercifully shuffled off this mortal coil and stole the news from Ms. Fawcett.

Republican Senator Jim Ensign gets caught in an affair. Republican South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford flies off to Argentina to meet with his mistress.

And to cap it off -- Alaska Governor Sarah Palin resigns from office and doesn't say why.

To paraphrase Lewis Grizzard (a fraternity brother and author), "Farrah is dead and I don't feel so good myself."

It's been a rough week for we Republicans. But that's not so bad. Better this stuff comes out now than later ...

Abstraction consists of taking one thing out of a complex whole and seeing it as distinct. Categorization consists of grouping things in sets, and then talking about the sets.

Categorization, thanks for Godel, naturally points to something higher than itself. Intellectuals who are "stuck" in atheism simply don't realize they've attempted to create a closed categorical system. It's an intellectual impossibility. You need, at a certain point, to point to something outside the system of sets sooner or later.

Abstraction is a little different. It's problem is one of emphasis. Once you've removed a single part of the whole, you change the emphasis, and in doing so, may do violence to the whole. Or at least create selection bias — you start to see the part because you're looking for it. While abstraction can be a normal process of analysis, excessive abstraction can lead to serious thought distortions.

Example: Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina. A Republican. If we note he's a Republican and use his recent adultery as a tool to bash Republicans, we are guilty of both abstraction and category errors. Abstraction because there's no philosophical connection between the GOP political platform and adultery — neither party officially supports adultery. To abstract "Republican" or "Democrat" is not helpful to discuss the situation.

Then, if we condemn Republicanism for Sanford's behavior, we end up with a category error. Sanford is a Republican, but it is not his Republicanism that caused his adultery.

Now, one could say that Republicans are hypocrites, and hypocrisy is the hallmark of Republicanism. This would be a similar category error — hypocrisy, like adultery, is widely distributed.

So what am I getting at? Remember abstractions and categories are mere tools for thinking about things. Categories have fuzzy edges (even Darwin didn't know what to do with the platypus.) Abstractions by nature distort a whole. Try to account for both and you'll avoid lots of errors and reduce the risk of crankdom.

Said I wouldn't, but I'm on deadline, so I did to procrastinate. A quick post here and then it's back to work:

He posted the following:

There really is a Dominionist movement (not a conspiracy, it's out in the open) to establish a Christian theocracy.

I wrote:

Larry,

I really wouldn't worry so much about Christian Dominionism. Not likely to happen.

Cheers.

He wrote:

I'm sure George Tiller, those killed on 9/11, those killed in Oklahoma city, Matthew Shepard, the millions of women losing their reproductive rights, the thousands of people tortured by the Bush administration, the people of Iraq and Afghanistan will take much comfort in your charming and quaint optimism.

In other words: You're a fucktard. Piss off.

I wrote:

Larry,

George Tiller was killed in a Christian Church. Makes it a family spat.

9/11's crimes were caused by Muslim extremists, not Christian dominionists.

Timothy McVeigh was not exactly a good Catholic and was not seeking to build a Christian theocracy.

Matthew Shepard was killed by a defendant who used a "gay panic" defense, which makes the murder a family spat.

Afghanistan — hey, don't attack our cities from your country, and we won't invade.

The Iraq War, and as we now see, torture, appear to be bipartisan affairs, uniting a strange coalition for and against that cut across all sorts of demographic lines.

Reproductive rights? You mean men's reproductive rights or the next generation's? Oh, those rights don't exist in your world.

I'll give you this much, though. At least you're wrong. In many cases, you have things exactly wrong, which is encouraging, because it means you're asking the right questions and logically concluding the exact wrong answer most of the time. That's not what I expected when I clicked through here. I thought you'd just be crazy.

Cheers,

FT (apparently) Bill

Why am I doing this? (Besides wasting time.) I admit I find logical madness fascinating, and this is a great example. Why yes, there are folks who want to establish a Christian theocracy in this country. I don't think, given the current state of affairs, that they're a particular threat to anyone. Neither is this guy a threat, with his theory of "demand-style communism" which will somehow avoid the excesses (my term) of Stalin, Lenin and Mao. In his implementing communism posts (no link), he seems to trust himself to carry out a new communist plan in which reasonableness will prevail through massive re-education of the populace.

That is, he's figured things out logically, and now if everyone just agrees with his thinking, they'll give up their false beliefs and superstitions and we'll all have peace and prosperity and walk in the sun.

See liberal emancipation narrative, below.

Elsewhere on his blog, he talks about what will stand in the way of the New and Improved Proletariat Revolution: Paraphrasing, it's the Christians who have all the guns. Oh, so that's what's he's so worried about. Christians might fight back and stand in the way of his plan for mankind's salvation.

Emotionally sensitive. Childish. Grandiose. I suspect an addiction somewhere in there.

Well, here it is in all its self-congratulatory glory.

"Liberals ended slavery, liberals got woman [sic] the right to vote, liberals created Social Security, Medicaid and a minimum wage, they wrote the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, they have done all of those things in at every moment, for every one of those things in this country, what did conservatives do, they opposed every one of those things, including your right to vote (pointing at Mika)."

See? To a liberal, it's constant emancipation ... A liberal would read the above paragraph, and say, what's wrong with that?

Well, the abolitionists were devout Christians, for starters. The exact sort of people who are cursed today for opposing abortion-on-demand. Liberals fear people like the abolitionists and follow the arguments, unwittingly, of the anti-abolitionists. So, no, liberals don't get this one.

Liberals got women the right to vote, indeed.

Social Security — a multi-generational Ponzi scheme. Privatized, it might've had a chance.

Medicaid and minimum wage ... yep, liberal ideas and good ones, depending where you put the minimum wage.

Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were geographical disputes more than liberal/conservative, and in fact, more Republicans supported these bills than Democrats.

Clean Air Act — first one signed by Eisenhower (R). Second one signed by Nixon (R). Third one signed by George H.W. Bush. So shut the fuck up.

Clean Water Act — first one signed by Nixon (R). Second by Carter (D). Third by Reagan (R).

Note also that today's liberals would be unrecognizable as such in the 1960s, much less today. They are far to the left of Hubert Humphrey, John F. Kennedy, Adlai Stevenson and similar folks. And let's not pretend Woodrow Wilson would be recognizable as liberal in today's world. OSHA and EPA, btw, that was Nixon.

But to many liberals, this emancipation narrative is what's in the back of their mind. Anything they like that happened — that was progressive. Anything not — that was conservative.

And where the conservatives right about anything. After all, we conservatives have apparently lost every battle.

Cold War — liberals wanted unilateral disarmament. Ronnie Reagan was going to kill us all, liberals solemnly opined. And then the wall came down.

The cities — decades of liberal rule and welfare statism made them hell holes. Then voters elected folks like social liberal/economic conservative Rudy Giuliani, who turned the NYC around despite constant vilification from liberals.

Supply-side tax cuts and Friedmanesque economics. They worked, until both parties got cute and decided to create a credit bubble that inflated the price of housing to unrealistic levels. But let's be fair — the idea to force banks to lend to folks they didn't want to lend to — that was a liberal idea. And conservatives tried to reign it in, and were called chicken littles by Barney Frank. Then conservatives tried to exploit the bubble, and it blew up in their face.

Abortion-on-demand? Ultra-sound proved them wrong, but they blithely ignored it.

Global warming? Changed it to "climate change" when the earth began cooling.

Currying up to dictators? Liberals backed Stalin.

What else worldwide did liberals bring? Oh, socialism throughout Europe. The enervation of the British. Cowardice before communism.

And by the way, since the Democrats returned to Congress in 2007, the economy has kinda tanked, hasn't it?

Every battle — no. Some battles. But conservatism isn't about avoiding change altogether. It's about prudent change. It's about sticking with core conservative values that make sense and are time tested.

A former colleague of mine took his wife's last name after getting married. I googled the internets to see if this was some kind of trend. Apparently, a few other guys have done it — enough for a few feature stories on it. Smash the patriarchy and all that.

I feel weird talking about him behind his back. So I'm not gonna. I'm just gonna ask: Have you heard of this? Know anyone who's done it? Thoughts? Observations?

Chris, our host, wrote in a recent comment, "When I was young, I wondered what it was like during the fall of the roman empire. I don't really wonder that much, any more.

America may well turn itself around; as Yogi Berra supposedly observed, "it ain't over till it's over".

But yeah, I don't wonder any more."

Me neither.

If one were to create a taxonomy of bloggers, there would be a substantial genus of assholes, species, total. Most people are occasionally assholes, or people who are assholes on one topic. But asshole-dom simply consumes some people. Their most tolerable statements involve insincere modesty and their worst drip with contempt.

This guy, for example. To save you reading time, this is a guy one of those "raving atheists" types, a fanatic at heart, even when trying not to be. He also considers himself a philosopher, hates Christianity (duh, of course) and considers communism the truth. More importantly for our purposes, he is an autodidact.

Now, anyone who is an autodidact on a specific topic risks terminal intellectual sphincter-itis. However, some self-taught subjects lend themselves to moderating influences. Say you are a self-taught plumber. You start with a how-to book. You follow the steps, and lo and behold, something didn't quite work ... ok, you take another look at the book, you take a look at your plumbing, and you apply your mind and hands and figure it out. There is a result. As you repeat these experiences, you learn new things (tested by reality) and eventually you have re-invented the wheel (i.e., plumbing). It probably took you 10 times as long as it would have had you simply asked someone with knowledge of plumbing, but alas, you'll probably miss some stuff, but at the end of the day, the toilet flushes, and you probably won't have contempt for others.

Unfortunately, not all topics lend themselves to this kind of testing. Becoming self-taught "expert" almost guarantees intellectual rectosis. Most of the humanities, for example. You do not want to teach yourself philosophy. Or political science. Or even something seemingly as harmless as English literature. That doesn't mean you can't read widely and broadly on these topics, but it's important to remember that without subjecting yourself to cross examination and lots of real-world application, it's a hobby. Lots of stuff sounds good in our minds. Lots of stuff seems perfectly logical that is complete BS. And sometimest the truth is more difficult to explain and harder to defend than BS, but the truth nonetheless passes the real-world test.

So, back to the Barefoot Bum. He's obviously well-read. He's obviously intelligent. And he's attempted to address all the obvious objections, and many of the not-so-obvious ones, to his worldview. Wouldn't want to argue with him. Chesterton warned, famously, that a madman has lost eveything but his reason. If you argue with such a person, you'll likely get the worst of it because they've carved out an internally logical worldview that's practically impermeable to outside influences. And they've got a lot more at stake at defending that worldview — after all, they're emotionally committed to it, even if it sounds like it's all about reason. Even if you called him on his contempt, he'd just probably explain why it's justified. See Alice Miller, Drama of the Gifted Child.

Plus, he's childish. Suffers temper tantrums, defaults to name-calling, that sort of thing. Tends to refuse to engage on a concrete level. He's nuts, which would be OK if he wasn't so contemptuous.

When it comes to God, for example, you can argue forever, or you can just tell someone to pray. They'll object intellectually, but to someone who has intellectually rejected God and built a philosophical foundation, well, they need to experience God directly before they get it.

So my challenge to any atheist is to pray the Lord's Prayer every evening for three weeks. Pour out your heart to God — tell Him your innermost thoughts, worries, concerns, even crimes. Confess the times you've hurt someone else. Ask for forgiveness. Pray for faith, understanding and wisdom. Hey, if you're just a meat-machine, it can't hurt. Or maybe the atheist will discover that there's more than one way of knowing, and that some of us know something he or she doesn't.

Or, as an autodidact, you can listen to no one but yourself ... and not get it.

Kathryn Jean Lopez links to a series of NY Times stories. The Times' articles report the story of a young woman who's been accepted into a prestigious graduate school. She had unprotected sex with a man whom she knew to be an unfit father, and became pregnant. What should she do?

The Times' writer proceeds to write two articles on the "dilemma," and asks for reader comments. In the third article, she reveals the woman's decision.

People of course praise her and themselves for their own wisdom, both before and after her decision. She ultimately decides to rationalize the murder of her baby, and then the applause really starts because of her "thoughtfulness" and "seriousness" at pondering the decision. Woman chime in that they had abortions and got their education and now live wonderful lives and are happy and never regretted it.

Wow. It's sickening. Maybe 10 percent of the commenters noted that the baby didn't have a choice and recognized her decision for the moral monstrosity it is.

Is this who NY Times readers are? I mean, these people's consciences are seared. Do they have any idea what they're saying? To applaud another's moral seriousness in choosing to kill?

I used to have this secular mindset. I used to understand it. But as Christ has shown me more and more, I recognize it as thoroughly depraved. So much so that the commenters on that article thoroughly sickened me.

The aborted children don't go away. They still live with God. We will have to answer to them, the most innocent and helpless members of our society, who've been declared property. Your right to life, liberty and property do not come from the government, and not from your mommy. They come from God.

To paraphrase blogger Mark Shea, the more I look on things like this, the more I understand the need for the desperate measure of the crucifixion. Even with Christ, we behave like this. God help us all.

I just realized something. On the issue of abortion, my beliefs are not what they say. They are a pretense. I had bought into the federalist position — that states ought to decide for themselves the abortion question. That's what Justice Scalia says — in fact, that's the GOP's argument. Let the people decide.

No wonder we pro-lifers can't win. The federalist position is simply a recycled version of Stephen Douglas' "popular sovereignty." I quote from the first Lincoln-Douglas debate:

"The next question propounded to me by Mr. Lincoln is, Can the people of a Territory in any lawful way, against the wishes of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a State constitution?

"I answer emphatically, as Mr. Lincoln has heard me answer a hundred times from every stump in Illinois, that in my opinion the people of a Territory can, by lawful means, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a State constitution ... It matters not what way the Supreme Court may hereafter decide as to the abstract question whether slavery may or may not go into a Territory under the Constitution, the people have the lawful means to introduce it or exclude it as they please, for the reason that slavery cannot exist a day or an hour anywhere, unless it is supported by local police regulations. Those police regulations can only be established by the local legislature; and if the people are opposed to slavery, they will elect representatives to that body who will by unfriendly legislation effectually prevent the introduction of it into their midst. If, on the contrary, they are for it, their legislation will favor its extension. Hence, no matter what the decision of the Supreme Court may be on that abstract question, still the right of the people to make a Slave Territory or a Free Territory is perfect and complete under the Nebraska bill. I hope Mr. Lincoln deems my answer satisfactory on that point.



I think, in the back of my mind, I figured first things first. We'll get Roe overturned, then we'll fight in the state legislatures. But now, I recognize, that I find the federalist solution inadequate. It is identical to the position of Douglas' Democrat Party and the disintegrated Whig Party. That's the problem with the GOP: If we truly mean our pro-life arguments, then we'll never be satisfied that our unborn brothers and sisters can be subject to arbitrary and violent death. That means we must be unapolegetically pro-life and that means all states must become anti-abortion.

If unborn humans have rights, and of course they do, then they have rights that we must be willing to defend. The Democratic Party is of course reprobate. The GOP's wimpy compromise isn't much better. We can wait and try to solve this peacefully in order to preserve the civil order while we work out this moral blindness on part of about three-quarters of our countrymen. But we pro-lifers can never be satisfied with a federalist solution to the abortion question.

We're all gonna die! Help! Help! There's no place to hide ... nowhere to run ... all over if we don't do something RIGHT NOW about GLOBAL WARMING!

If you accept manmade global warming, then I imagine things will unfold pretty much the way they said. As I've written in other posts, man isn't going to give up fire.

But this got me thinking ... you know, there's a lot of apocalyptic thinking going on lately. I mean, these last few years haven't exactly been Jack Kerouac heading up to Big Sur and, if not thinking the Big Thoughts, certainly thinking the Rapid Thoughts.

This apocalyptic thinking extends to ... well, me. First of all, we're in the first decade of a new century. That gets us thinking about the new century. It ain't like the 90s, when we were thinking, well, maybe we can get through these last few years without killing ourselves. It was a peaceful, prosperous decade, those 90s, a simpler time ... except for the genocides in Rwanda and Yugoslavia. Those were sure unpleasant.

So we're thinking the last century, and it seems the demons are still haunting us: Communism. Fascism. Carterism. Lots of -isms.

There are a group of folks on the Left who are petrified of Global Warming, Capitalism, White Males, and a strange puritanical fear that somewhere, someone might be having a good time.

But lately I've noticed a group of folks on the right who are turning into right-wing caricatures of those on the left.

But it's not just limited to the left and right. And religious zealots of all types. We're gonna end up in camps (pick who's running the camps.) We're gonna starve to the death in the dark. It's all going in the shitter unless you follow my agenda.

LIGHTEN UP PEOPLE!

Granted, there is a sense of foreboding. I've had it for years. A sense the party's over. But shit, as Americans, it's not like it's been that hard for us. I've been near homeless, broke for years, lonely, depressed, etc., and yes, it sucked. But there's always hope.

I'm now going to tell you a piece of truth. You may not like to hear it, but it's the ultimate political truth. There is no permanent political solution to mankind. Say a virus kills off all the liberals. Tomorrow, the libertarians and the conservatives start dividing.

There is one solution ordained by God: That is the Gospel of Christ.

"If you are the son of God, make these stones become bread."

"Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the living God."

That's the political error. Cultural change must precede political change. The reason we're in this mess is we're shitcanned a whole lot of terrific cultural values in the name of emancipation, and the ancient demons are coming out of their haunts to ... yes, haunt us. We are suffering, as a country, from a crisis of conscience. Left and right. An apocalyptic desire comes from a desire to be destroyed ... from a perverted sense of justice. We are bad, we must be punished, we all need to be punished.

Why do we, as Americans, suffer from a crisis of conscience. Because we've been bad, and we don't feel forgiven. That's why. But if we follow this or that agenda and we're all good, maybe our consciences will give us a break.

It don't work that way.

We need the life that comes from the Word of God. And live it. We must learn from God, and carry out His commandments. If we think the right thoughts, and don't carry it out, we fail. If we act the right way, but don't communicate the right values, we fail. If we seek to feed the world without cultural change that allows people to feed themselves, we fail.

Lately, you know, I've been thinking about the undermining of cultural values, and my own role in undermining them. Hey, I thought I was having a little fun. I didn't realize what was really going on.

Lighten up. Me included.

Deep breath. Gratitude. Faith. Hope. Charity. These are the answers.

George Tiller, a medical doctor who made a career out of slaughtering children in the womb, thought he was going to church this morning. Nope. He went directly to God, gunned down like a rabid animal in a church lobby.

Tiller's murder is of course a crime. But let's remember his victims today, who finally got to confront him.

And let's remember that we can't go around shooting abortionists. In Paul's words, "Repay no man evil for evil, but do what is right in the sight of all. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."

I started writing the conservative narrative in my head ... found myself thinking there are several. The various liberal narratives are usually similar to one another -- one may see reason as the thing that dispels the darkness, another may admit, finally, that reason has failed, and that we're up in the air.

Progressives in the political sphere, however, are almost always people who deny the failure of the Enlightenment project -- to come up with a source of rationality and morals independent of God. I would've thought Godel would've taken care of that. (He proved, mathematically, that a system cannot be defined within its own terms -- it needs to point to something outside it to define its terms or becomes incoherent.)

Some didn't get the message, though; in fairness, I know a few that do. A couple of friends I know have mentioned that if you ask why enough times, eventually you come to the answer, "Because Jesus wants it that way." However, one is an independent and the other is a progressive, and both have senses of humor, which is rare in true progressives.

So I'm thinking about the conservative narrative, and wondering to myself -- why am I have trouble with it? ('Cuz Jesus wants it that way :) )

The issue is you need to know what it means to be conservative. When we Americans say "conservative," we mean "classical liberal." I understand a conservative philosophy, but not necessarily a conservative narrative. Progressive narratives seem to transcend nationality and culture -- but the conservative narrative I think in is western, Christian, and even Catholic.

I can tell the Catholic or Christian narrative. But at some point, you have to say what you're trying to conserve, which requires it, glancing at history, between choosing what to preserve and what was actually progressive. Which is a more complicated tale.

Perhaps it's this: Human nature has no history. Essential human nature involves both sublime virtue, lofty aspirations, mind-boggling brutality and wickedness. These virtues and vices run through all men.

The natural state of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. To rise above barbarism and improve man's "being," there are specific tools: technology, government, law, economics, science, engineering, art, music, etc. These tools give mankind knowledge, pleasure and power. These tools, thus, are a double-edged sword, knowing mankind's nature.

For mankind not to destroy himself, he must use these tools wisely, cultivate virtues, and become civilized. However, every generation, civilization is invaded by barbarians; in Hannah Arendt's term, they care called children. Unless mankind passes on these virtues each and every generation, the entire artifice of civilization collapses amid distraction and triviality (Huxley's theory) or a power-mad elite puts a technological boot on every man's neck (Orwell's theory).

Thus, the battle continues. The virtues must be preserved -- the whole thing depends on it. But progressives often attack virtues as benighted. They also tend to switch which virtues they like and which are wrong-headed generation after generation. As C.S. Lewis put it, licentious generations condemn violence and violent generations condemn licentiousness.

In Chesterton's formulation, the virtues themselves, when separated from faith, become like walking monsters -- and one is emphasized at the expense of others, creating all sorts of problems. Progressives, so eager to demonstrate their open-mindedness, are blind to the need to respect these virtues, to beware of replacing them easily, and from ignoring the lessons of the past. Tradition is democracy of the dead -- it usually has a time-tested social function. It may be unfair, need questioning, need altering, but change must be prudentially considered, especially in light of the new incentives and disincentives it will create. Otherwise, we'll discover the hard way what the social function was of the thing we just scrapped.

And at all times, mankind, when considering change, must remember who we are and what we are made of -- that we are sinful, fallen creatures made in the image and likeness of God. We will never be gods. We will always have limits on our being, pleasure and knowledge. We must remember are limitations can destroy our aspirations.

******

That's probably a start.

What do you think?

When I heard this kidnaping story yesterday, I thought, "Uh, that doesn't sound right." Sure enough, today the truth comes out:

The frantic search for Bonnie Sweeten and her 9-year-old daughter - which began after she called 911 Tuesday to report that they had been kidnapped in Bucks County - ended yesterday at Walt Disney World.

Sweeten, 38, and daughter Julia Rakoczy were taken into custody at Disney's Grand Floridian Resort & Spa about 8:40 p.m., the FBI said. Sweeten was being held by authorities in Orange County, Fla., and her daughter was safe.

Sweeten will be extradited to Bucks County, where she faces charges of making a false report and identity theft, both misdemeanors. The investigation is continuing into possible theft charges, said Bucks County District Attorney Michelle Henry.

[]

The efforts to track down Sweeten - which included an Amber Alert and massive local and national media coverage - began when she told a Philadelphia 911 dispatcher about 1:45 p.m. Tuesday that she had been abducted by two black males and stuffed into the trunk of a Cadillac.

Emphasis mine. It was the "two black males" that got me thinking ... and the Cadillac ... plus the whole TV-movie feel of the story. Too stereotypical. When certain types of suburban white people commit crimes, such as trying to kill their spouses, or kidnap their own kid to flee a marriage, they blame generic "black males."

Pairs of black men don't go around stuffing suburban white women and their children into trunks of Cadillacs. Sorry if I'm stereotyping as well. If you end up in the trunk of two black dudes' car, it's because you and your spouse owed them money, or you were involved in a drug deal, or otherwise tried to mess with them.

My two cents. YMMV.

For centuries, malevolent authorities oppressed mankind and set up the world for the benefit of a few rich, usually white males. Superstition and lies kept people in their lowered station; when that didn't work, the power used force. Unfortunately for The Man and His minions, a few brave souls, interested only in truth, questioned the authorities, invented science and reason, and began to dispel the superstition, lies and dogma.

As the darkness subsided, these truth seekers showed us the way to emancipation from ignorance and want. This emancipation threatened the privileges of the elite, and thus began five centuries of struggle between progressives and conservatives — progressives seeking to shine light on ignorance, folly and oppression of the past, and thus dissipate its power, and conservatives seeking to suppress and silence this truth-seeking, in order to protect their economic interests and preserve their illusions.

Galileo. Copernicus. Kepler. Again and again, the truth-seekers pierced the veil of ignorance (not in the Rawlsian sense) and pushed back conservatives, creating a new, more just and better civil order. The Church and its heirs, the source of many of these superstitions and oppressive institutions, was forced over generation after generation to concede point after point — on gravity, on geo-centricism, on the divine right of kings, on witches, on reason and mathematics, on philosophy, on the creation narrative, on slavery and on serfdom. The rise of capitalism created a new class of oppressors, and capitalisms excesses pit the progressives on the side of labor, safety, and environmental protection against the conservative defenders of monetary privilege, environmental devastation, child labor and impoverished labor.

Again and again the progressives told the truth, and the conservatives were forced to retreat each and every time when the truth came out. Conservatives were forced to retreat on segregation and racism. Progressives then turned to emancipating women, and conservatives were forced to retreat on sexism, women in athletics and the workplace, and women's equality. Even on matters of taste, such as art, music and literature, progressives forced conservatives to retreat because of their creativity, leaving conservatives' clinging to ignorant old ways and at best outdated culture.

This trend has continued to this day. Progressives seek to correct the inequalities of capitalism and still seek to end poverty and ignorance, opposed still by conservatives who in each case, eventually lose. Progressives noticed that antibiotics and the pill changed the old need for institutions to control human sexuality, and they eagerly embraced that liberation, extending the emancipation program to homosexuality, transgendered people and bisexuality.

Emancipation also continues through detailed source-based criticism and social change within all the old, formerly hidebound institutions that used to oppress — everything from the churches, to the universities, to the mass media. All values and assumptions, from what men and women are like and what their conditioned to believe about themselves (and who benefits) are open to question, and require change ti improve equality and justice between the sexes, the differently abled, the races, and well, everyone. Progressives embrace change and technology, and even greater human progress could be made if the conservatives would just get out of the way and let things take their course, and not cling to their ancient ignorance, superstition and racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, and hegemonic hatreds.

Not only that, but given this great 500-year-old narrative of progressive emancipation from ignorance and want, only someone with psychological problems could seriously disagree with any of this, and only the stupid and the ignorant could remain a conservative ... or someone who's trying to protect their privilege. The former group deserve our efforts at consciousness-raising; the latter deserve our scorn. In any case, history is on our side, as always, progress continues, even if a few stubbornly cling to the darkness and miss the train. But there's a new dawn ahead for mankind, if we can overcome these conservative obstacles in time. In that new dawn technology will reverse Adam's curse and liberate us from work, greater healthcare from disease, raised consciousness from war, and reason will liberate us from jealousy, anger and strife, and we will live like literary Indians in peace and harmony with one another and the earth, returning to an almost child-like simplicity.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? was a play about an abusive couple who made up a story about a non-existent son. For years, apparently, George and Martha have worked together to pretend they had a boy. They have an agreement that neither is ever to mention the "son" to others. When Martha violates this rule, George alters the narrative -- he kills off the boy in a terrible accident. Martha is shattered by the change. Apparently, she takes a lot of comfort in this illusion.

When it comes to politics, controlling the narrative is crucial. If one side finds itself in the other side's narrative, it's all over -- one side is the hero, and the other side is the villain.

From about 1932 to 1980, the Democrats flat-out controlled the American narrative. They didn't control the facts, but they controlled how the facts were told. And we humans tend to remember stories and to tell the story of our own lives in the sense of these over-arching narratives. We see ourselves as characters in a larger story. We become committed to our characters, we develop our own storylines, and they affect how we see the world, how we act, and what we think is important.

In 1980, a masterful storyteller named Ronald Reagan came along and interrupted the liberal narrative. Some were so convinced by his retelling of the American story that they changed sides. Others, like myself, waited to see how things would work out -- when the facts clearly showed that Reagan was correct on economic and national security policy, we changed sides belatedly.

However, Reagan didn't triumph. He merely started an argument. On economic policy and issues like statism, however, the GOP gained the upper hand. Liberals needed to talk into our narrative, our story, and by 1994, we had control of Congress.

But at no point did liberals entirely concede the narrative. They kept telling stories, especially in Hollywood, in the press, and in the universities, and refused to concede. The GOP, however, still struggled with certain aspects of the cultural narrative -- the Dems have always been able to paint the GOP as racists, sexists, xenophobic ... and the GOP has largely been on the defensive, and sought instead to inhabit the liberals' narratives -- that is, work within the terms established by liberals. The result, for about 20 years, was that liberals found themselves having to prove they weren't tax-and-spend (that is, trying to work within the GOP's story) and conservatives tried to show they weren't racist, sexist or otherwise mean-spirited (that is, trying to work within the liberals' story.)

I am speaking of how the story plays out in the media and in people's perceptions -- not how people actually are, if you follow. In fact, both political parties talk about the importance of "the narrative".

Both Bush presidencies, among their other failures, were failures to maintain and strengthen the conservative narrative bequeathed by Reagan. And folks who did continue the conservative story simply weren't as good storytellers as Ronald Reagan. It didn't help that certain regional voices dominated. Clinton, however, was often our best friend, repeatedly stealing conservative themes and trying to insert them into the liberal story -- a sign of victory that certain conservatives took offense to, out of sheer stupidity.

After Dubya busted the paradigms with his big-spending conservatisms, the movement is really in the shit, as far as storytelling, both on cultural and economic grounds. Events (the economic meltdown) didn't help. And then a photogenic, smiling candidate with an atrocious background has taken control of the narrative, enabled by a compliant media and Hollywood stars who hated that Reagan proved them wrong and were eager for vindication.

Conservatives first step to rebuilding needs to involve re-casting the narrative. But before we take power again, we need to look at the demographics. There are two groups of natural conservatives -- Hispanics and blacks, who should be our allies. We have the Asians and the whites, particularly white males, but that's no longer enough. We are on the verge of checkmate and permanent minority status.

What is the new narrative? That's the question. I'm still mulling it over.

There's been a robust debate around the blogosphere about what we Republicans need to do to win. Americans are stupid. Americans are easily led. They're easily manipulated. The corporatist masters are all on the sides of the Democrats. In fact, a lot of what I'm hearing on the right, I rejected when I heard from the left back eight years ago.

Some proposed solutions: Republicans need to fight as dirty as the Democrats. It's those darned Christians and social conservatives' fault -- let's jettison their ass and we'll be competitive. I've even read that Republicans need to be more entertaining.

I'm not buying any of that. At least, not completely.

I think we have three main problems: One concerns competence, and the lack perceived thereof. Two concerns principles. And three ... it's hard to explain, what we might call, a counter-cultural problem.

I think that the GOP, if it wants to regain power that lasts and be capable of governing effectively when we regain power, need to take a long-term strategy. As I've said before, governance isn't a game of Yankees versus Red Sox, where the fans of one are pleased and the others are despondent, but nothing of serious value is at stake, and we play again by the same rules next year.

To formulate a long-term strategy, we need to be truthful about the past 14 years. There were several grievous errors that need to be corrected. First, our economic policy was a mess. Second, impeachment of Clinton destroyed a lot of our credibility. Third, we went for a "name brand" with George W. Bush, instead of going with a better communicator who could handle the national press. Fourth, the Republicans didn't govern as competently as we should have. Fifth, we got confused about principles.

Our problem now:

1. We have to live down the presidency of George W. Bush. He was a good man and a fair president in difficult times, but was tarred as the worst president ever because he was unable to rise above the hyper-partisan environment or deflect/answer criticism. He just wasn't good enough -- and a Republican, because of the cultural disadvantages, needs to be twice as good as a Democrat to seem half as good.

2. We have to describe what we stand for, and why, when we had power, we didn't follow through enough. What will we do when we get power back?

3. We need to seriously rethink our economic policy.

4. We need to stop kidding ourselves about what's politically possible.

5. We need to be ready when the time comes.

In other words, we need to think in terms of the Long March than a quick come back.

Now, before we get too pessimistic, we need to remember a couple of things: The facts of life are conservative. Democrats may embrace conservative values ... not yet, but eventually.

For example, the Democrats can't muster up the votes to impose the liberal viewpoint on gun control. Why? Because they know they'll get slaughtered at the polls. Maybe they'll try again, but they know the risks.

In other words, we the people, not necessarily we the Republicans, may still get our way. Even hopelessly liberal Canada has not reduced its spending to where it's near ours. And that's an entire nation of Democrats. Every county in California just rejected a tax bill on a referendum. Every one.

We conservatives may just have to work through Democrats for the time being. And Democrats are so power hungry they may do anything, including the right thing, to stay in power.

More on this later.

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll: On the issue of abortion, would you say you are more pro-life or more pro-choice?

Pro-life 49%
Pro-choice 43%

That's good news. If we can win the cultural war on abortion, there's real hope for this country. Two pro-life parties would a great thing. Now, if we could just turn that into political change, we could stop the holocaust.

Oh, I get how it's gonna be under Obama.

“It will be a different business,” said Edward L. Yingling, the chief executive of the American Bankers Association, which has been lobbying Congress for more lenient legislation on behalf of the nation’s biggest banks. “Those that manage their credit well will in some degree subsidize those that have credit problems.”

I understand the new incentives in our Brave New World. The incentives are pretty clear.

Banks are expected to look at reviving annual fees, curtailing cash-back and other rewards programs and charging interest immediately on a purchase instead of allowing a grace period of weeks, according to bank officials and trade groups.

I understand passing a law to get rid of gouging. But then to turn around and screw your best customers ... um, we're the ones with options. Including not doing business with you.

Noted Democratic strategist James Carville claims in a new book that the 2008 election was a watershed election for Democrats, and the Donks will be in power for the next 40 years. I might point out that the Democrats have been the dominant party since 1930.

The Democrats controlled the House:
1930-46
1948-52
1954-94
2006-present

R-16 years, D=60 years +

The Democrats controlled the Senate:

1932-46
1948-52
1954-80
1986-94
2000 (a week)
2001-02
2006-present

R-21 years, D=55 years

The Democrats controlled the Presidency
1932-52
1960-68
1976-80
1992-00
2008-present

R-36 years, D-40+ years.

There has been Democratic control over both houses of Congress and the Presidency:

2008 to present
1992-94
1976-80
1960-68
1948-52
1932-46.

That is, 28+ years in the lifetime of most Americans.

There has been Republican control over both houses of Congress and the Presidency:

1952-54
Jan. 20-June 6, 2001
2002-06.

That is, less than seven years in the lifetime of most Americans. And in all that time, the GOP had only a slight majority in the Senate.

Granted, the GOP has controlled the Presidency 36 of the past 56 years, but often balanced by a Democratic Congress.

Potential GOP control of the judiciary has been mitigated by Democratic dominance of the Senate, and has failed to either nominate or confirm conservative Supreme Court justices. (I count five: Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito; Byron White, a JFK appointee, was a sixth. Failed GOP picks include: O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy, Stevens, Powell, Burger, Blackmun, Warren and Brennan.)

Not only that, but two of the GOP presidents -- George W. Bush and Richard Nixon, were some of the biggest spending presidents in the past 76 years. The joke going around now is that Nixon couldn't be nominated as a Democrat today because he'd be too liberal. (Nixon put in place wage-and-price controls, and vastly expanded the federal budget, added EPA and OSHA.)

Further to the Donks' advantage: The Democrats have had more registered Democrats than Republicans virtually the entire 76 years. They've dominated the media, the universities, the "soft" professions such as literature, music and the arts; the teaching professions, the mainstream Protestant churches, and held a steady majority in the Catholic Church. Ethnically, they've been the overwhelming favorite of all minority groups, single women, and for most of that time, the youth culture. And in the past 30 years, Democrats have started to dominate the finance industry, the upper middle class, and rich elites, especially on cultural issues.

Despite its disadvantages, the GOP has managed to fight the good fight. The GOP managed, just before electing Dubya, to set the stage for a major revival. But the GOP wasn't able to land a knockout blow. Now things are back to the Democrats, that is, normal.

James Carville's thesis is that the GOP has controlled the presidency for 28 out of 40 years, and thus was dominant, and it's now the Democrats' turn to dominate. Perhaps that's the future -- but the GOP was never dominant during the past 40 years. It never had a 60 vote senate majority, a solid majority in the house, the presidency, and never got a five-vote majority on the Supreme Court. In this sense, Carville is wrong. There may have been a GOP moment, but it went by awful quickly.

Now we're listening to Democratic triumphalism. It would be a little like the Yankees winning the World Series this year and saying, "Finally, we've overthrown the Red Sox dynasty."