The Conservative Revival

Peter Berkowitz in the WSJ pens an eloquent articulation of conservatism, highlighting its strengths that progressives often ignore: 

Progressives like to believe that conservatism's task is exclusively negative—resisting the centralizing and expansionist tendency of democratic government. And that is a large part of the conservative mission. Progressives see nothing in this but hard-hearted indifference to inequality and misfortune, but that is a misreading.

What conservatism does is ask the question avoided by progressive promises: at what expense? In the aftermath of the global economic crisis of 2008, Western liberal democracies have been increasingly forced to come to grips with their propensity to live beyond their means.

It is always the task for conservatives to insist that money does not grow on trees, that government programs must be paid for, and that promising unaffordable benefits is reckless, unjust and a long-term threat to maintaining free institutions.

But conservatives also combat government expansion and centralization because it can undermine the virtues upon which a free society depends. Big government tends to crowd out self-government—producing sluggish, selfish and small-minded citizens, depriving individuals of opportunities to manage their private lives and discouraging them from cooperating with fellow citizens to govern their neighborhoods, towns, cities and states.

It really is a must read-all piece, for Berkowitz reminds conservatives they must accept the political realities of the New Deal, and demonstrate how they will dedicate government to "effectively discharge" duties of reigniting the economy, making health care more affordable, and getting people back to work. He points out to conservatives that free markets and liberty, for all their benefits, can also bring instability and erosion of respect for tradition. When conservatives recognize these disruptions can have profound impacts to people's lives, and convey to voters they want to preserve a safety net to help one navigate capitalism's potholes while preserving its best effects--innovation, a continual raise in standards of living, and most of all--opportunity for the American dream, voters will gravitate back to these principles. It's a timeless message that reminds us that economic freedom is inextricably entwined with individual freedom, and an attractive reflection of traditional American values that imparts that with freedom comes responsibility.

Chart of the Day: Housing Price Trends Since 1890

From the Atlantic's Daniel Indiviglio:

Conclusion: Indiviglio believes home prices may drop by another 25%:

This is a pretty fascinating picture. First, it shows just how incredibly absurd the housing boom was. Beginning in the 1940s, inflation-adjusted homes prices have settled around the 110 value according to the Case-Shiller index. Yet, the index value exceeded 200 in 2006. Prices began a descent when housing collapsed, but as of May the index remained well above the natural value of 110. 

Eyeing the chart, the value looks to have hit around 147 in May. For it to drop back down to 110, home prices would have to decline another 25%. That's still a pretty long way to fall.

More homebuyer tax credits are not going to solve this.

Ammo Check

Yup, the EPA is considering a petition to ban all lead based ammunition.  According to the Washington Examiner:

NSSF [National Shooting Sports Foundation]  is springing into action, as the public comment period opens on EPA considering a regulation that will ban all traditional lead ammunition. This would basically end the shooting sports as we know it. Remember this is a no-win situation for us, because bullets made of materials other than lead are often considered armor piercing by law. Copper is your basic material, and copper is expensive, and has much poorer performance properties than lead.

Hotair discusses:

As NSSF has pointed out, there’s no real scientific basis for restricting lead ammunition. Just about all shooting ranges at this point are recycling their lead (it’s too valuable to just leave in the ground). California’s ban has not been shown to reduce lead levels in Condors, and has driven more people away from hunting. Additionally, it’s interfered with lawful self-protection in parts of California that are considered condor habitat.

The date the comments period ends on the EPA website is two days before the midterms. And you thought the culture wars have simmered down in favor of fiscal sanity, didn't ya?

Update: EPA decides not to hear the petition, stating it doesn't have the jurisdiction to weigh in on controversial Second Amendment issues.

Sunday Reflections

Felicidade (A Very Happy Boy)

20 April 2006

Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez

Who's Up for Some Ground Zero Mosque Ads?

You knew it was inevitable.  The first is from Liz Cheney's group, Keep America Safe (updates via Hotair).




The second one is from the National Republican Senatorial Committee. It's part of a larger theme in trying to convince voters that Democrats are the extremists. One of the examples included is the One's words of support to the mosque.





Now even Howard Dean is taking a page from Harry Reid, who's in the election fight of his life against Sharron Angle. Dean says the mosque should be moved.

Pelosi: Investigate Opposition to Ground Zero Mosque

First the President steps in the fracas, creating an enormous backlash. As Powerline points out, the tone of his remarks supporting the mosque was not designed to persuade. It was another lecture from a law professor, and ends up belittling those who oppose the mosque. Now witness the perverse moral logic of the Left (h/t: RedState). Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on San Francisco radio:

"There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded," she said. "How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we've been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City." (h/t Kristinn)

It's symptomatic of how completely out of step the Left is with the rest of America. And in breathtaking denial of what's coming in the November.

Update:
Pelosi and Obama need to take a page from the director of Al-Arabiya:

"The Muslims never asked for this [mosque], and even the angry Muslims do not want it. This is one of the few times when the two opposing sides are in agreement. Nevertheless, the dispute flared up. It made the front pages of newspapers and [featured on] the major television programs. Demonstrations were held in the streets, and large posters were plastered on New York buses, demanding that the construction of the mosque be prevented and reminding everyone of the 9/11 crime. This really is a strange battle!

"I can't imagine that Muslims [actually] want a mosque at this particular location, because it will become an arena for the promoters of hatred, and a monument to those who committed the crime. Moreover, there are no practicing Muslims in the area who need a place to worship, because it is a commercial district. Is there anyone who is [really] eager [to build] this mosque?...

"Those pushing to build this mosque may be construction companies, architect firms, or political groups who want to exploit this issue. The individual who submitted the building application – I do not know whether he [really] wants [to build] a mosque that will promote reconciliation, or whether he is [just] an investor looking for quick profits. Because the idea of a mosque right next to a site of destruction is not at all an intelligent one. The last thing Muslims want today is to build a religious center that provokes others, or a symbolic mosque that people will visit as a [kind of] museum next to a cemetery.

"What the citizens of the U.S. fail to understand is that the battle against the 9/11 terrorists is not their battle. It is a Muslim battle – one whose flames are still raging in more than 20 Muslim countries... I do not think that the majority of Muslims want to build a monument or a place of worship that tomorrow may become a source of pride for the terrorists and their Muslim followers, nor do they want a mosque that will become a shrine for the haters of Islam... This has already started to happen: [the Islamophobes] are claiming that a mosque is being built over the corpses of 3,000 U.S. citizens who were buried alive by people chanting 'Allah akbar' – the same call that will be heard from the mosque..."

Even Al-Arabiya gets it.

Classic: Reagan on Government

A timely video from the Republican Study Committee (h/t: Powerline):

More Muslims Speak Out Against Ground Zero Mosque

From the WaPo, Neda Bolourchi lost her mother on Sep 11 at Ground Zero. She was on United Flight 175 that the terrorists flew into the south tower of the WTC. She is a Muslim who left Iran during the revolution, and eloquently expresses that she has no grave site to visit, nor was she able to bury her mother in a proper funeral. On the Ground Zero mosque, she says:

On the day I left Ground Zero shortly after the tragedy, I felt that I was abandoning my mother. It was like being forced to leave the bedside of a loved one who is dying, knowing you will never see her again. But I felt the love and respect of all those around me there, and it reassured me that she was being left in good hands. Since I cannot visit New York as often as I would like, I at least want to know that my mother can rest in peace.

I do not like harboring resentment or anger, but I do not want the death of my mother -- my best friend, my hero, my strength, my love -- to become even more politicized than it already is. To the supporters of this new Islamic cultural center, I must ask: Build your ideological monument somewhere else, far from my mother's grave, and let her rest.

Raheel Raza, a board member of the Canadian Muslim Association, bluntly tells Bill O'Reilly why a mosque near Ground Zero does not heal Muslim relations with the west (H/T: Hotair):







These are the type of moderate Muslims we should be turning to--they understand the sensitivities regarding Ground Zero and acknowledge that terrorists attacked us in the name of Islam.

61% of NYers Oppose Mosque Near Ground Zero

In light of NYC's Landmarks Preservation Commission's unanimous decision to allow a building to be torn down to clear the way for the building of a huge mosque 2 blocks from Ground Zero, Sienna Research conducted a survey of over 600 NYers.  For registered voters, here's the breakdown:

17. Supporters of the proposed community center, known as the Cordoba House, say it would demonstrate the presence of moderate Muslims in New York as well as serve as a monument to religious tolerance. Opponents say the project is an offense to the memory of those killed in the attacks on 9/11 and displays unacceptable insensitivity. Do you tend to agree with the supporters, the opponents or do you think they both have a legitimate position?

Agree with supporters:  21%

Agree with opponents: 37%

Both have a legitimate position: 38%

Don't know/refused: 4%

18. Do you support or oppose the proposal to build the Cordoba House, a 15 story Muslim Cultural Center in lower Manhattan 2 blocks from the site of the World Trade Center? 

Support: 27%

Oppose:  61%

Don't know/refused: 12%

Seems as if NYers understand the nuance of the arguments as the majority are able to see both sides of the issue. However, they still ultimately oppose the mosque by a large majority. If you review the breakdown, even self-described liberals oppose the building of the mosque by 52/36. Opposition cuts across all categories: gender, education levels, age, ethnicity, and region.

In the North Star National, Tina Trimble Belliston writes:

A seed of peace would be the understanding by so-called moderate Muslims of exactly why a mosque so very near Ground Zero is hurtful, insulting and degrading to so many Americans.  One would think that if the Cordoba Initiative truly had a “seed of peace” in their collective hearts, they would halt this project out of respect for the wishes of the American people, those who died in the attacks, and those who lost loved ones that day.

Perhaps they could erect a memorial to those who died rather than building a place to worship the very religion that inspired the attacks. But no, they will forge ahead with the blessing of those who cower beneath political correctness and a fear of being called a hypocrite, racist or bigot if they speak out against this atrocity.

While some will say this is a freedom of religion or freedom of speech issue, I say it’s a common decency issue. It’s an opportunity for Islam to show the same tolerance that it demands of everyone else for a change. A mosque at Ground Zero is, in a sense, the ultimate irony – our freedom of speech and freedom of religion are being used to force us into complying with this assertion of authority at the very hands of the religion that inspired the terror on 9/11.

It's an excellent oped so read it all.  The religious freedom issue is a red herring--there are over 100 mosques in NYC.  In such a pluralistic city, there's no burden on its residents to "prove" their tolerance.  Building a mosque near Ground Zero may be legal, but that doesn't make it right. While it was legal for Westboro Church to protest military funerals with their twisted logic that American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are punishment for the nation’s tolerance of homosexuality, most Americans recognized their protests were highly offensive and indecent. This isn't over yet.  I think people will become even more determined to stop the project and may even engage in a civil disobedience campaign (let's hope peaceful) to call attention to the hypocritical in-your-face "tolerance" of the founders of this project. Or some of the families of 9-11 victims may do what one father of a fallen solider did in the Westboro Church situation: sue the group for emotional distress.

 

Chart of the Day: Homeowners with Negative Home Equity

From Marginal Revolution.

 

Calculated Risk chart that shows negative equity by state:

The financial reform legislation didn't touch Fannie and Freddie. About that, the WSJ reports Paul Volcker says:

[SmartMoney]: What’s missing [from the financial-regulatory overhaul]?

Mr. Volcker: People talk about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That’s a challenge for next year and year following. We are going to have to reconstruct the whole mortgage market and you can’t do that overnight. The mortgage market now is almost a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States government. Almost all the mortgages made now are insured by the government, bought by the government, and the guys at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the market.

Not much exists without the government running it. I don’t think that’s what we want. A lot of problems surround the whole mortgage market. It’s clear Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac need to go. [emphasis added]. We don’t need these hybrid institutions. You don’t know whether they should be responsible to the government or to stockholders. It’s an unfortunate invention.

On the legislation, the IMF released its assessment summarized in the NYT:

The financial overhaul bill signed by President Obama last week failed to simplify the complicated regulatory architecture that oversees the banking and securities industries, according to an assessment by the International Monetary Fund.

The assessment, which is being released Friday along with a periodic I.M.F. review of the American economy, found that the effectiveness of the Wall Street reform act will rely heavily on how it is carried out.

The assessment also found that the United States faces hard choices in determining the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two mortgage-finance entities that were seized by the government in 2008. It suggested that the government break up and privatize current portfolios of the companies while transferring their responsibilities for promoting home affordability to a new government agency.