In The Name of Science!

Obama doesn't agree with pro-lifers, but he respects them. He respects them so much, he doesn't have to prove it with silly things like compromise.

Obama's latest proclamation of respect for pro-lifers came as he repealed Bush's eight-year restriction on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. According to Obama, ideology had nothing to do with his decision. He certainly didn't want to offend all those nice religious people.

He only did what he had to do for science.

The pervasive narrative on the left is a simple one: for years, Bush and his savage horde of fundamentalists pillaged the scientific establishment, confining research to an ideological prison. Now, Obama has come to liberate American science, restoring the sacred art to its proper place by making scientific policy based on "sound science."

This little tale is flawed on two points.

First of all, science is a system of rational enquiry, not a system of ethics. In and of itself, the scientific process is amoral. As such, science is a poor guide when it comes to determining our policy towards science.

(During Obama's statement on stem cell research, he promised to stand against human cloning. Was that a decision based on scientific research, or his own moral beliefs? Score one for hypocrisy.)

But in any case, Bush's stem cell policy wasn't an ignorant attempt to send America back to the dark ages. It didn't ban research on embryonic stem cells, or even ban federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. It merely restricted federal funding to research on existing lines of embryos. States and private organizations were allowed to take things further if they wished. Some did.

Far from being a heavy-handed research "ban," the Bush policy was a nuanced acknowledgement of a complex issue. Obama, on the other hand, refuses to throw the opposing side anything beyond a few token words of appreciation.

We've come to expect this from Obama. While Obama frequently preaches the gospel of bi-partisanship, he rarely gives conservative voices a fair hearing. In many cases, he blatantly dismisses them as the "failed policies of the past" or "old ideas." Republicans who pulled the lever for Obama because he sounded reasonable may quickly come to regret their decision.

If Obama wants to bridge America's ideological divide, he should back up his kind words with a bit of substance.

Drive-By Democrats.

As my last post demonstrated, I'm not a fan of Rush Limbaugh.

Or at least, not of his style.

But to be fair and balanced, I'll say this: the Democratic Party's bizarre Limbaugh-fixation is petty and cowardly.

Rush Limbaugh isn't an elected official. He isn't the leader of the Republican Party, even though many Republicans happen to agree with him. When Limbaugh says something offensive, Republicans aren't obligated to denounce him.

Setting up a controversial talk-show host as a punching bag is diversionary politics at its worst. As Karl Rove inappropriately put it: "In the face of our enormous economic challenges, top White House aides decided to pee on Mr. Limbaugh's leg."

And the DNC's latest anti-Limbaugh stunt is simply idiotic:

(From CNN)

National Democrats plan to unveil a new theme Thursday in their ongoing campaign to portray conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh as the true leader of the Republican Party.

The slogan, "Americans didn't vote for a Rush to failure," will be splashed across a billboard in Limbaugh's hometown of West Palm Beach, Florida, and printed on T-shirts, a Democratic National Committee official told CNN.

Limbaugh has said several times that he hopes President Barack Obama fails, a sentiment that has put elected Republicans in a tight spot during the nation's economic crisis.

The official said more than 80,000 slogans were submitted as part of a contest on the DNC's Web site, and more than 50,000 people helped narrow the list to the top five.

Ha! Taste the wrath of our mediocre puns!

Close, But No Cigar.

On Saturday, Rush Limbaugh gave a little speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). It was about conservatism. In his typically populist style, Rush inserted plenty of jabs at his favorite targets: the media, big government, bureaucrats, and Barack Obama. His enthusiastic audience of conservative activists ate it up; they applauded constantly and laughed at all the right spots.

 
Rush Limbaugh believes that the future of conservatism should look a lot like the past of conservatism. Or, in his own words: "Conservatism is what it is and it is forever." Rush's recipe for conservative success is simple:

"The American people may not all vote the way we wish them to, but more Americans than you now live their lives as conservatives in one degree or another. And they are waiting for leadership. We need conservative leadership. We can take this country back. All we need is to nominate the right candidate."

In the real world, things aren't so simple. Polling has consistently shown that most Americans want lower taxes but more government services. Consistent conservatives are hard to find. 

If they want their glory days to return, conservatives need to do more than preach to the choir. This doesn't mean that conservatives need to abandon their principles -- but they do need to abandon Limbaugh's rhetoric.

Limbaugh's schtick works well on the radio. It generates ratings, controversy, and money. It is not, however, a winning electoral strategy.

The Limbaugh formula is defined by a sustained negative tone. Conservatives are always the victims of the "Drive-By Media." Democrats are to blame for the nation's ills, even if Republicans are in control. The Clintons are always secretly pulling the strings somewhere. A vast liberal conspiracy seeks to create a Stalinist dictatorship.

Limbaugh derides government solutions to national problems, but rarely offers alternatives. Sometimes he doesn't even acknowledge that the problems exist.

The end result is a product that sells to a certain audience, and infuriates everyone else.  

Sarah Palin's train-wreck of a Vice Presidential run illustrated the hollowness of Limbaugh conservatism. In her role as McCain's lipstick-adorned pit bull, she sarcastically attacked Obama for working as a community organizer, for being a socialist, and for "palling around with terrorists." Most of all, she continually disparaged the "elites", that elusive group of evil liberals that lurks somewhere in the sewers of San Francisco. She was not a policy expert. Her main role was that of a demagogue, firing up crowds that already agreed with her message.

When she made a fool of herself on network television, she blamed the liberal media.

Nationally, she became a laughingstock. But Limbaugh and his ilk are still convinced that Palin represents the future of the Republican party. On the other side, liberal commentators have pronounced that Palin failed because she was too conservative on social issues.

Both sides are wrong.

Palin and other Limbaugh Republicans will consistently fail on the national scene because they present a stale combination of negativity and overused buzzwords instead of solid leadership.

It isn't enough to rail against big government and socialism. The size of government is irrelevant to the concerns of average people. They just want a society that works. If smaller government achieves that goal, make a reasonable case for it. Republicans can no longer assume that everyone agrees with them on the fundamentals. 

American healthcare is very expensive. Lots of people are uninsured. Saying that we have the "best healthcare in the world" doesn't help anyone. Optimism is a good thing -- but there's a fine line between optimistic and out of touch. 

Sarcasm can be beautiful, but not when it's a major component of a political campaign. Americans like being inspired. Ronald Reagan used plenty of soaring rhetoric; making fun of Obama when he does the same isn't winning any points.

Beating up on the media is a dead end. When you lose a game, don't blame the referee. Play harder next time, and win. 

The East and West Coasts are a part of the U.S.A. If you want to expand your party's reach, it might help to stop demonizing large geographical regions of your own country.

Government can only shrink if community involvement grows. There is nothing liberal about volunteering to perform community work. Apathetic individualists who hide behind their white picket fences ensure the necessity of government welfare programs. 

These truisms could go on forever. But it comes down to this: we need conservative leaders who can present conservative principles in a fresh way. Conservatives shouldn't be content to merely disagree with the other side; they need a bold plan for the future that can rival Obama's ambitious liberal agenda. 

Rush Limbaugh can keep on doing his thing. He's certainly making enough money. But if conservative politicians want another Reagan revolution, they'll have to blaze a new trial.

He Has Found The Enemy, And It Is Them.

On Tuesday, former senator Rick Santorum made an appearance at UNL.

His mission?

To warn of the impending danger posed by Islamic extremists.

In a speech that blended history, current events, and theology, Santorum contended that Muslims "who take their religion literally" are threatening Western civilization as we know it. He condemned both Bush and Obama for refusing to acknowledge this.

A key problem in Islam, according to Santorum, is a lack of seperation between church and state. Mohammed was not merely a spiritual figure; he was a leader, and a ruthless conqueror. In contrast, Santorum identified Jesus's command to "render unto Caeser what is Caeser's" as the beginning of a long tradition of secular government in the Christian world.

Santorum believes that Islamic teachings on civil authority are incompatible with the democratic ideals of the West. The consequences of this are seen in Western countries such as the UK and the Netherlands, where critics of Islam are falling victim to what Santorum labeled "creeping Sharia" -- a gradual surrender to Islamic law.

The lesson was timely and informative, but not without flaws.

Santorum's analysis of the differences between Islam and Christianity was shallow. To say that Christiandom has been defined by a seperation of church and state is to ignore a history in which popes frequently held kings in their sway. Likewise, his invectives against Muslims who, unlike Christians, take their scriptures literally seemed strange indeed, considering that millions of Christians view the Bible in the same light.

Practical policy was also hard to come by in Santorum's speech. One of his suggestions for "defeating" radical Islam was to drastically reduce the price of oil, thereby crippling the economic engine of the Middle East. Even assuming that America has the power to magically manipulate oil prices, this seems like a bad policy. While poverty may not be the primary root of Islamic terrorism, it's hard to imagine a scenario in which poverty would make people less prone to religious extremism. Funding from wealthy sheiks may bolster some terrorist organizations, but as long as there are people willing to blow themselves up for a righteous cause, they'll find ways to do so. 

However, the core of Santorum's message -- that differing religious beliefs can produce societies with radically different values -- was a solid one. On college campuses, where the dogma of diversity can silence meaningful discussion about the substantial differences that exist between cultures, we could use a few more Rick Santorums.

Obama: People Still Like Him.

Is the Obama brand tarnished? Not so, sayeth Ben Smith:

With Barack Obama’s victory in passing a massive stimulus package marred by days of bad press — as not a single House Republican backed the bill, his health czar went down in flames and his second pick for commerce secretary walked away — the administration has been cut down to size, and lost some of its bipartisan sheen.

Such, at least, has been the beltway chatter, but so far the numbers don’t back it up.

Obama’s approval rating remains well above 60 percent in tracking polls. A range of state pollsters said they’d seen no diminution in the president’s sky-high approval ratings, and no improvement in congressional Republicans’ dismal numbers.

Nothing surprising here. Obama has been president for less than a month; Americans are reserving judgement until they have something to judge. But if the economy is still in the tank a year from now, the numbers may be a bit different. Fair or not, the current President is always blamed when the money trees refuse to bear their succulent fruit.

But even if Obama can't resuscitate the GDP, we'll always have a larger national debt to look forward to. It's so beautiful, floating out there in space, cloaked in a shroud of incomprehensible majesty. I'm pretty sure it's already being worshipped by some celebrity-saturated cult in L.A.

The Meaning of Obama.

Barack H. Obama is now the President of the United States of America. For thousands of Americans, this means more than just a pretty new face in the White House. They believe that the Obama administration will fundamentally transform the character of our Nation. In the minds of these starry-eyed followers, Barack Obama's America will be a wondrous place where teenagers reject apathy, divisive political arguments are banished to the nether-world, marriages are strong, and public broadcasting is enjoyed and beloved by all.

It's a nice dream. It's also sheer nonsense.

When you wake up tomorrow, you probably won't be thinking of Obama's smiling face, and how swell it is that he wants to reach across the aisle. If your mind is running at all, it's far more likely to be focused on the concept of syrup-drenched waffles, and the deliciousness thereof. Soon enough, your daily routine will kick in, and you'll continue to live your life much as you did four months ago.

You'll work.
You'll talk with friends.
You'll spend too much time on YouTube.

If you happen to be the kind of person who volunteers at soup kitchens, participates in canned-food drives, and attends community meetings, you will keep on doing so. If you're a disengaged citizen who thinks that homeless people are worthless junkies, and enjoys kicking small animals, you'll stay on your dark path. The man who happens to occupy the White House doesn't even enter into the equation of your everyday choices.

This isn't to say that people can't change. They can. But speaking in a broad sense, personal change is a gradual process that originates from two main sources: our contact with God, and our contact with those who are closest to us.

Contrary to popular belief, Obama is not divine. And no matter how friendly he may look, Obama is not your friend. If given the opportunity, he probably wouldn't even want to hang out with you. It's true that Obama's inspirational speeches provide millions with an emotional high, but a surge of emotion is hardly enough to spark genuine change in an individual. In order for one man to change another, the element of regular, personal contact has to be present. The human mind is a collection of rigid patterns that can only be altered with the introduction of new, more powerful patterns. Watching a nice man talk about hope on TV hardly does the trick. 

However, Obama and his supporters can't be blamed for the faulty notion of the President's transformative power. Every four years, voters fall hard for the big lie of American politics: the notion that the President has the power to control the culture of our Nation.

Conservative icon Barry Goldwater pioneered the concept of placing "the social issue" at the center of a presidential campaign. He didn't just propose a set of policies; he promised moral renewal, and a return to a simpler time of tradition and order. While Goldwater's pitch was unsuccessful, Nixon, Reagan and Dubya used similar themes to appeal to the country. Even Bill Clinton called on his fellow Americans to "take more responsibility" for their families and communities. Ultimately, each of these presidents did change the country -- but almost solely in the realm of policy. The cultural fabric of America travelled on its own trajectory, one that politicians could neither predict nor control.

If America is a different place in 2012, there may be some things that Obama can take credit (or be blamed) for. After all, the President can have a profound effect on things like the economy, and America's relationship with the rest of the world. On the other hand, the attitudes, habits, and beliefs of 300 million individuals can't be altered with an executive order. Life goes on, regardless of whether there's a Bush or an Obama in the Oval Office. 

Real change happens. 

But it doesn't come from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. 

The Rick Warren Nontroversy.

It's been almost a month since Obama announced that evangelical megastar Rick Warren would deliver his inaugural invocation. Some people are still mad. But what exactly are they mad about?

Most of Rick Warren's detractors cite his conservative views on gay marriage, including his support for California's proposition 8, as well as his religious beliefs concerning the immorality of homosexual behavior. For many liberal Democrats, these views are simply beyond the realm of acceptability. They applaud Obama's incessant talk of bridging the divide between the right and the left, but offering the spotlight to a "divisive bigot" like Rick Warren is apparently a bridge too far.

Outside of the liberal bubble, things look a little different. While gay marriage is a polarizing issue, it's far less polarizing than many assume. In contrast to the recent failures of two ballot initiatives banning abortion in conservative South Dakota, gay marriage bans have been almost universally successful in states across America. And as proposition 8's victory in deep-blue California proves, opponents of gay marriage aren't defined by party lines. In many cases, America's diversity works to the disadvantage of the "gay rights" lobby. Members of racial minorities may vote overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates, but many hold the same conservative views on homosexuality and gay marriage that white evangelicals like Rick Warren espouse.

Same-sex marriage certainly doesn't face same-sect opposition.

But you could throw all that out the window, and the uproar surrounding Rick Warren's selection would still be ridiculous. Just in case anyone missed it, Barack Obama never supported gay marriage in the first place. Sure, he doesn't believe that homosexuality itself is sinful, or support constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, but when it came to the biggest political issue on the "gay agenda", Obama refused to explicitly give his blessing. Instead, Obama repeatedly expressed his belief that "marriage is between a man and a woman." 

This isn't a case of betrayal. This is a case of a mainstream politician who took a mainstream stance on gay marriage and selected a mainstream pastor to say a nice little prayer at his inauguration.

Nothing else.