Findings Sure To Create Anger

I remember when the book "The Bell Curve" was released. It created brisk animosity with its' findings. Well, another libertarian has a study that will certainly cause much gloating in some, great anger in others. From a CNN report:

Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.

Kanazawa's biases?

Neither Bailey nor Kanazawa identify themselves as liberal; Bailey is conservative and Kanazawa is "a strong libertarian."

I just made up that libertarians tend to have IQs around 130. It's the only reason I can think of not to have included other worldviews beyond 'liberal' and 'conservative'. There will be enough animosity and jealousy without having to include libertarians and their vastly superior IQs. Only thing that makes sense. Ha!

What Is Palin's Allure?

I don't get it. If you can't hang with Katie Couric in an interview, etc., how do you translate yourself as big-stage political material? Are conservatives that desperate? Apparently, yes they are. A thousand lined up in Noblesville, one town north of me, to get 30 seconds of face time and a book signed. From the Indy Star report:

Best-selling author Sarah Palin pulled in the parking lot of Hamilton Town Center in Noblesville at 5:40 p.m. to a crowd chanting her name.

"Sarah, Sarah, Sarah ..."

She got off the bus holding her youngest son, 19-month-old Trig. At the podium, she thanked everyone waiting in the rain for her arrival. People had initially been in line starting around 7 a.m. today to get 1,000 wristbands, used to limit the number of people getting books signed. They lined up again about 3 p.m. to prepare to enter the store. She called them good hard-working Americans, the people from whom she wrote her book "Going Rogue."

I can see going if you gave money during the Presidential run, although if I had, it might be to demand answers more than anything.

But really, what's the allure? I remember the Couric interview, where she said in essense that the bailout had to be done. That's a deal-killer for me, straight away. I don't get how 'conservatives' can be so excited about a fiscal liberal. Is it that her other 'conservative' bona fides simply cancel out everything else with so many Republicans? I just don't get it.

Souder Begs Of Me?

I was fairly surprised to get a beg letter from Congressman Mark Souder, a Republican representing Indiana's District #3, covering the northeast corner of the state. Surprised, because I live in District #5, in the central part of the state.

The gist of the beg is that Souder is under attack by 'liberals', and that he is a good 'conservative'.

These terms are relative, of course. I consider myself a conservative in that I am to conserve the traditions of the Founders. This is not how most people portray conservatism today, although Souder's letter does site the Founders, so I'll hold him to it.

Souder describes himself as not a 'big spender'. Yet he votes consistently to fund Amtrak, voted to subsidize private health insurance, and votes in favor of farm subsidies- all hallmarks of big spending as far as I can tell. Source.

Mainly, I just don't trust a Republican who voted with George Bush on so many government growing budget items who then turns around and slams the Obama Administration for doing exactly the same things, only at a greater degree. I don't care to shade bad policy in terms of very bad and extremely bad. Bad is bad.

I'd be much happier to see Mark Souder replaced with a Libertarian- a conservative who meets my definitions of the word, conserving the actual principles of the Founders.

No Place For Libertarian Thought In Huckabee's Republican Party

As I was driving Monday afternoon to Nashville, Tennessee, I did a little AM-radio dial hopping to see what was out there. I found a trashing of libertarianism, at the hands of Mike Huckabee and Sean Hannity.

Now, I've long felt that Republicans don't really believe in liberty. They really believe in big government, just as Democrats do, merely using the power of government as an instrument of plunder or oppression for a different set of beneficiaries, or over a different set of acceptable minority victims. It was just interesting to hear it plainly spoken.

Huckabee was promoting his new book, which features a chapter that trashes not the Libertarian Party, but libertarian thought. From Time Magazine:

In a chapter titled "Faux-Cons: Worse than Liberalism," Huckabee identifies what he calls the "real threat" to the Republican Party: "libertarianism masked as conservatism." He is not so much concerned with the libertarian candidate Ron Paul's Republican supporters as he is with a strain of mainstream fiscal-conservative thought that demands ideological purity, seeing any tax increase as apostasy and leaving little room for government-driven solutions to people's problems. "I don't take issue with what they believe, but the smugness with which they believe it," writes Huckabee, who raised some taxes as governor and cut deals with his state's Democratic legislature. "Faux-Cons aren't interested in spirited or thoughtful debate, because such an endeavor requires accountability for the logical conclusion of their argument."

The logical conclusion of our economic argument is self-sufficiency and non-dependence. Is that what Huckabee is afraid of? The logical conclusion is to not reward failure, and to not punish success. I guess that's what the Republican Party is done with. Just in time for the bailouts.

Not interested in spirited or thoughtful debate? That's something libertarians are actually accused of- too much debate. He does get one thing right, and that's calling libertarians "Faux-Cons". That's because we're not 'cons'. Libertarianism is classic liberalism. It's only conservative in the sense that the tradition extends back to Thomas Jefferson, and libertarians intend to maintain, i.e.: conserve, that tradition.

Jon Henke has much of value to say on his blog:

We've come quite some way since 1975, when Reagan said "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."

Oh, and it happens that Huckabee does, in fact, take issue with what we believe. In May of 2008, Huckabee called blamed election losses on Republicans being too "libertarian" (this is obviously some strange usage of the word "libertarian" that I was previously unaware of), accused us of being un-American (my response to that is unprintable, but I would be glad to say it to his face if he wanted to repeat his comment to my face) and then proceeded to make the standard, cartoonish Democratic argument against libertarianism.

and

Huckabee is a Rawlsian liberal + social conservative: Mike Huckabee describes his political philosophy as (a) the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto to you", and (b) a passage from the Bible ("Inasmuch as you have done to the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me"). This is not "conservatism"; it is basic Rawlsian liberalism.

and

Social conservatives have to realize that they need the fiscally conservative, socially moderate/tolerant voters if they want to be a part of a winning coalition. The limited government message won revolutionary victories for Republicans in 1980 and 1994; it is the only viable organizing principle for the current Republican coalition.

Well, the weak, tenous link between the Republican coalition is finally exposed. Social conservatives wish to use goverment to oppress minority groups they don't like. Fiscal conservatives want government to get out of the way of business and the economy. How is it that one can reconcile the desire for a heavy-handed government in one area of life with a desire for a relative absence of government in another? It doesn't make any sense.

There is actually a better chance, in my estimation, of the fiscal liberals joining forces with the social conservatives, then of small-l libertarians staying with the GOP long term. After all, social conservatives and fiscal liberals both believe that freedom produces bad results, and only the wise, heavy hand of government can force people to act more 'correctly'.

They have their leader. His name is Mike Huckabee, the anti-libertarian who would raise taxes and interfere in your bedroom. I'm glad he thinks libertarians should be cast out. Nobody who believes in liberty can support his brand, the Republican brand, of conservatism.

Left Talk Radio

(Woodstock, IL)- Being on the road today throughout the Chicagoland area, I've had the radio pegged to 820-AM, WCPT. It bills itself as Chicago's "progressive talk station". It's kind of novel to hear, what with the general absence of liberal talk radio in Central Indiana. A few observations:

It sounds just like conservative talk radio. Being at the Democratic convention yields a cast of hundreds to interview, from Dennis Kucinich onward. The hosts are utterly non-critical of their guests.

The hosts are full of rah-rah for the speakers thus far, but the callers haven't been. They wanted Hilary Clinton to attack John McCain and throw herself at the feet of Obama.

There are some of the same ads ("Facing foreclosure?" and "Credit card debt out of control?") but many others that are rather tailored for a liberal audience. The Teamsters had an ad, and there were ads from left interest non-profits. Conservative radio seems to lack this.

Same general result, though. I can listen for ten minutes before it gets tiresome, and the music is turned on. I repeated the process about 10 times throughout the day. All the same, I wish there was a liberal talk station in Indy. When it comes to dialogue, the more the merrier.

Update: So, I was driving home from Woodstock, and I turned to WCPT again for their coverage. Bill Clinton was giving his speech, when suddenly, at 8:15 local time, the station cut the former President off and announced that their broadcast day was over! With no further ado, they played the national anthem, gave the station's legal ID, and then there was static. I couldn't believe it.