Somewhere In Washington A Conservative Political Action Conference Is Missing Its Idiot

With presidential campaign announcements dropping in recent weeks like fruit from trees, this year's CPAC conference is, of course, generating bunches of bloggy buzz. Everyone's noted that John McCain has opted out of CPAC 2007, predicting that his absence is ruining his ability to connect with "the base." I wouldn't be surprised. Ronald Reagan, for example, addressed CPAC 12 times between 1974 and 1988.

Here's a snippet from Reagan's first CPAC speech. It's the old Ronald Reagan -- and old John McCain -- that we remember with such reverence:

It was a year ago [1973] this coming February when this country had its spirits lifted as they have never been lifted in many years. This happened when planes began landing on American soil and in the Philippines, bringing back men who had lived with honor for many miserable years in North Vietnam prisons. Three of those men are here tonight, John McCain, Bill Lawrence and Ed Martin [see the end of this post]. It is an honor to be here tonight. I am proud that you asked me and I feel more than a little humble in the presence of this distinguished company.

Imagine what the applause sounded like following that humble acknowledgement then. I wonder how exactly John McCain feels today about this distinguished company.

.

.

.

.

.
* * *

Hugh Hewitt has said that John McCain is a great American and a terrible Republican. That sounds about right. Truth be told, John McCain has made a difference in my life and my "political conversion."

His influence on me is small but significant. In February 2004, when I went on the road to Arizona to GOTV for Wesley Clark, I bought and read his memoir Worth The Fighting For. It's the first book by any Republican politician that probably I'd ever touched, let alone read. I didn't know what was behind McCain's reputation as a "maverick," and I still considered him "on the other side," but at the time it sounded appealing. I wanted to learn, not be ignorant about, the opposition. I wanted to respect, not maltreat, it. Besides, one of the few people I grew up with, who had crossed over from Democrat to Republican (around the time I had crossed over from Democrat to New Alliance Party), had backed McCain's candidacy in 2000.

Worth the Fighting For has a lot to teach about how to live in, learn from (and love) this country. His chapters include takes on Teddy Roosevelt's rugged individualism, on Ted Williams's exemplary military service (Barry Bonds is just a pumped up punk by comparison), and on Barry Goldwater's final days. I read it gratefully and, although not openly (that is, not among the  crop of Democratic activists, staffers, and players Iwas working with), I read it with an open mind. It didn't make me a Republican then and there, but it helped me take Republicans -- and our republic --  more seriously.

* * *

On Edward Martin: I couldn't find a link devoted to him exclusively; however, he is quoted at length at the end of this article about fellow POW Vice Admiral James Stockdale:

Still another man inspired by Stockdale is fellow POW Edward Martin, now a retired vice admiral. Martin's imprisonment began October 9, 1965, when his A-4 Skyhawk was hit by anti-aircraft fire 30 miles southeast of Hanoi. "He gave me inspiration and hope, told me what to expect, how to conduct myself," remembered Martin, who went on to command the U.S. Navy's Sixth Fleet and also served as deputy chief of naval operations for air warfare. "He had incredibly strong leadership that provided me with incredible inspiration at a bad time for me." Like Senator McCain, Admiral Martin attributed Stockdale's character to the values that were instilled in him at the academy. "Though I am reticent to speak of the effect anything had on someone else," said Martin, "I will attribute Jim Stockdale's courage to the humility we learned there." Martin also credited Stockdale's courage as the reason he and the other Vietnam POWs survived the brutality they endured on a daily basis: "I was able to leave prison holding my head up high. He is a giant example of what is right in America today."

Comments

[Layla]

Great post and yes-I wonder how McCain feels about his pic with Kerry now. That was a disgusting union. Kerry sold out our POWs and McCain went along for the ride--shame on him considering he once was a POW.

Well, who needs McCain-I loathe him--good riddens. He won't get my vote or that from any of the conservative base. He is a loser all the way around and it is just as well he did not show at CPAC--they would of chewed him up and spit him out--lol, but yah know that would of made for some good commentary now wouldn't it have.....

[Ralph Zig Tyko]

Missing an idiot? Reagan is dead.

[Jeremayakovka]

From a guy who got a 99 in high school Latin to a guy who got a 19 in high school Spanish, I have to tell you, Ralph, that Ronald Reagan profoundly impresses me with what he accopmlished in his life. Reagan was of average intelligence, but of exceptional faith -- both in God's kingdom and in the American republic.

Hasta la vista, boobie.

[Ralph Zig Tyko]

Ronald Reagan was a prop. He, Bush The First and Ollie North were treasonists [Iran-Contra]. His administration spawned the fascist pigs we have in office today. As Governer of California he closed the mental hospitals. That act, combined with the government's refusal to take care of our returning veterans from Viet Nam, is why there is rampid homelessness today.

As for our grades in our respective languages; Since you are not a doctor or a pharmicist and I don't ride the NYC subways, we both get by just fine in English [my speling not withstanding]. No matter your superior intellect, we both remain college drop outs [undergaraduates, if the term makes you feel better].

[Jeremayakovka]

Reagan was a great leader. Iran-Contra was not treason. Ted Kennedy working with the Soviets is treason. Reagan did not cause homelessness. Many "homeless" peple flock to California because of the weather and the public benefits. It took a Democrat, SF mayor Gavin Newsom with his "Care Not Cash" campaign, to overhaul the public assistance payout system that enables these unproductive moochers to pollute, for example, San Francisco.

But what would you know about hard work?

[Ralph Zig Tyko]

Yes, it took a Democrat to overaul the system... That's my point. Ollie, the scape-goat, served time in federal prison for said treason...Over.

[loshon hara]

-J

Not sure you are getting my trackbacks either -- Pam doesn't get mine so I always leave a link for her--I am doing the same for you.

Here you go!

http://tinyurl.com/2mc9de

-L

[Jeremayakovka]

Thanks so much, Layla! (Was offline, I have to approve each tb, that's all.)

Oliver North's timely and incisive political commentary available here:
http://townhall.com/columnists/OliverNorth

Wish he were in the Senate!

[Ralph Zig Tyko]

Wish he were dead!!

[Jeremayakovka]

I wish you would give more thought to what you say here, Ralph.

[Layla]

LOL! Sorry for the double trackback--ah but thats double the fun! Great link you left me. Thank you.

[Ralph Zig Tyko]

J, Mr. North is a convicted felon who "fell on his sword" to protect Reagan and Bush Sr. As a result, thousands of American G.I.s have been killed in two illegal wars. Tens of thousands have been maimed. Countless innocent civilians are dead. Human rights have been violated. Personal freedoms obliterated. The deficit at an all time high. Haliburton flurishes, [as Yule Brenner would have put it] etc., etc., etc. You wish he were in the Senate and emplore me to give more thought to what I say here. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[Jeremayakovka]

I luv ya, Ralph, you're an old friend, I just think you're on the wrong side.

[Ralph Zig Tyko]

Ditto, Jeremiah.

[Jeremayakovka]

Correction: I *know* you're on the wrong side.

[Ralph Zig Tyko]

You know jack.

[Jeremayakovka]

XCIX: That's Latin for "99"

[Ralph Zig Tyko]

Du bist fardrecht. That's Yiddish, bubala.

[JMK-II]

"Reagan was a great leader. Iran-Contra was not treason. Ted Kennedy working with the Soviets is treason." (J)

Absolutely 100% RIGHT.

We were duty-bound to continue the fight in the Cold War.

Yes Carter and others warned that a select few Americans (Reagan & Co) were risking annhilation, rather than seeking peace though capitulation)...I believe the vast majority of Americans would've rolled the dice with Reagan back then.

We NEEDED to win the Cold War, NOT "peacefully coexist."

Our forays into Nicaragua to help the Contras against the evil, Soviet-backed Sandinistas, can only be reviewed in hindsight - from the vantage of the USSR collapsing in 1989, it was the right thing to do for America...and for the world.
<
<
"Reagan did not cause homelessness." (J)

Again 100% RIGHT!

The massive de-institutionalization that occurred during the 1970s, the last of it, under Carter, caused "homelessness."

De-institutionalization was a real dipshit idea. In fact, instead of de-institutionalization, we should've been institutionalizing all those who cannot fend for themselves - sure, the institutions should've been improved and work camps created to form a large unskilled labor pool, the wages paid going to offset the costs of this program, but the problem by the late 1960s wasn't that America had too many people institutionalized, it was that NOT ENOUGH of the hopeless, useless and non-contributing people were institutionalized.

That problem still remains with us today.

[Jeremayakovka]

Ralph is this blog's in-house Alan Colmes. -:)

[Ralph Zig Tyko]

I'm honored, J...

[Jeremayakovka]

You should be - Colmes is smarter than you (though not by much).

[JMK-II]

I find how our persepctives and experiences differ very interesting.

I came out of College during the early part of the Carter administration and it was the worst of times. All Carter could do was say things like, "I guess we're all just gonna have to tighten our belts."

Great leadership, as his Cabinet members (Ham Jordan and others) coked it up at Studio 54 in NYC.

There are those that say that STAGFLATION wasn't ALL Carter's fault...and it wasn't. It was the result of a near two decade-long affair with Keynesianism that started with in 1964 with LBJ and ended in 1981 with Reagan. Keynesianism posited that "Government spending is good, especially social spending." LBJ adhered to it, Nixon followed along ("We are all Keynesians now") as did Ford and Carter.

That failed economic theory developped by a non-economist (J M Keynes) imploded in the late 1970s with double digit interest rates, unemployment and inflation. Compare that to today's 2.2% inflation rate, 4.5% unemployment rate and interest rateshovering near 6%! In fact, since we've moved to Supply-Side economics in 1981, we've had an increasing prosperity among an increasing productivity.

For me, Carter's debacle showed me very clearly the failure of Liberalism and Keynesian economics. When I saw Milton Friedman's 10 hour "Free to Choose" on PBS in 1980, I became a believer and read all I could (Hayek's great books, and von Mises' "Human Action," etc.).

More prosperity was brought to more people by Supply-Side policies and more pain brought to more people via Keynesianism.

The political policies were also vastly different in impact - Liberal political policies brought us things like the ill-fated and ill-conceived "de-institutionalization," saving government tons of money, but tossing people who couldn't care for themselves out onto the street, in a cold-hearted human experiment.

Supply-Side policies brought us things like welfare reform, which immediately dropped NYC's welfare rolls (under Giuliani) by a third (all the "double dippers" dropped off) and by half a few years later, as more people got off the dole and into some form of productive work.

Two different visions, one promises utopia (Liberalism) and delivers great pain, while the other only promises the drudgery of more responsibility and less assistance (Supply-Side & Conservatism) and delivers less pain and far more productivity to the vast majority of people.

[Mary-Beth]

JMK II,

It's refreshing to read your post. I'm an economist with a conservative socialist bent. I have hands on experience living and working in developing nations such as Estonia which emerged from a failing communist system of governance by placing more economic power in the hands of the people while incentivizing consumer confidence to invent, create, grow. In effect, big daddy government was pushing them steadily down the road on training wheels as economic reforms were introduced publicly with plenty of advance notice until the training wheels of a newly freed market could be removed.

From what I've witnessed, economies grow best when the government is thoroughly represented in all sectors while remaining steady but silent behind the scenes as people gradually assume more and more responsibility for developing productivity in efficient and ethical ways. Pride in one's nation state coupled with proofs of policy effectiveness certainly do help.

Ultimately, there is no ideal system in place today which can promise long term stability in the world. There are lesser evils which each nation grapples with in an effort to sustain healthy competition in the marketplace but issues of supply and demand depend upon such variables as taxation and inflation both of which affect consumer sentiment since an optimistic, self-empowered people ultimately will ensure the overall success of those very policies and practices which require long-term adherence in order to see quantitative and qualitative results.

Just singing to the choir. Unless of course, you have an alternative viewpoint or experience other than history in 20/20.

Cheers,
Mary-Beth

[JMK-II]

I'd agree that there is "no ideal system in place today," nor probably any possibility of an ideal system, given human nature being what it is.

I've always found it kind og ironic that as the U.S. moved toward much greater direct government involvement in the economy, places like Hong Kong, Taiwan, Australia and Chile moved away from that, followed by much of Eastern Europe when they got the chance.

Moreover, the second half of the 20th Century's greatest champions of economic liberty/free markets were not found in America (though Friedman and others were that), but in "the Austrian School" of Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises.

The market is certainly not perfect, but it IS an economic democracy where each of us, as customer/consumer, is king.

The state run economy, in a nutshell, seems to fail because it makes the worker the centerpiece of the economy and not the consumer...and that makes all the difference.