The end of race baiting?

When people on the left want to curtail debate, they frequently hurl one of two epithets: fascist or racist. This is designed to silence people with whom they disagree, rather than engage them on the merits of whatever topic is under discussion. This tactic has been much in evidence of late.

"Fascist" isn't working terribly well these days, however, in no small measure because Jonah Goldberg, in his book, Liberal Fascism, has convincingly demonstrated that fascism is a doctrine of the left. "Nazi," after all, is shorthand for the National Socialist German Workers Party. Benito Mussolini was named after a prominent Socialist leader. This fact does not make modern-day lefties fascists of course, but it severely undercuts their reflexive claim that modern-day conservatives are.

This week, the left has been trotting out the "racist" canard. If you oppose a government takeover of the government healthcare system or Charlie Rangel defrauding the American taxpayers or Acorn using taxpayer money to aid and abet child prostitution rings, you're a racist. The aforementioned Jonah Goldberg also has a recent article on this tactic, entitled a Tackle Box Full of Race Bait.

Frankly, I am glad that the left has resorted to this sordid tactic so early in the debate, precisely because the charge is so ridiculous and unsupported that it too is losing its power to intimidate. Yes, President Obama is black, but, as he himself recently noted, he was black before he was elected President. And the country rejected government-run healthcare when the Clintons proposed it, even though the Clintons are white folks. In short, conservatives know that the charges of racism are malarkey, and they are saying so.

Now I am not so naïve as to believe that race baiting will end any time soon. It is a cheap and convenient tactic, and people with nothing constructive to say will continue to resort to it. But I am hopeful that race baiting's capacity to intimidate conservative voices will continue to decline. Then we can get back to debating the merits of the important issues that confront us.

Republicans need to grow a spine.

The latest kerfuffle regarding the CIA and congressional notification appears to be the mother of all fluff. According to press reports, the CIA allegedly failed to notify Congress of a program to kill Al Qaeda leaders that it thought about but never tried to implement. Big whoop.

Andrew McCarthy and Jonah Goldberg have already posted excellent articles about this: see respectively Another Phony Scandal and The Mother of All Nothingburgers.

Dick Cheney doesn't need anyone to come to his defense (certainly not me). And if he did, his daughter, Liz, seems more than equal to the task. But it would be nice if the Republicans responded to this cynical political ploy by calling it what it is: an attempt to provide political cover for Nancy Pelosi, who has accused the CIA of lying to her ("they do it all the time") with no supporting evidence.

Obama's priorities

Although President Obama has warned us repeatedly that the country is facing an economic "crisis" that could turn into a "catastrophe," numerous commentators have noted that his stated priorities do not address, much less solve, the underlying causes of the economic downturn. In his State of the The Union address, the President stressed that we need cap and trade for carbon emissions, universal healthcare, and education reform . Each of these policy initiatives can be debated on their merits, but none of them address our core economic problems. So, is the Administration tackling our economic problems?

The British are beginning to wonder (HT: Jonah Goldberg). The head of the British civil service, Sir Gus O'Donnell, made a rare complaint about the new Administration. Sir Gus and his minions have been trying to consult with the US Treasury regarding the upcoming G20 world economic summit. But he can't get anyone to answer the phone. "There is nobody there," he said. "You cannot believe how difficult it is."

Obviously, this does not bode well for the country or even for the world economic order. Moreover, it reinforces the impression that this Administration is not ready for prime time. Saturday Night Live may wish to take notice.

Is the federal bailout working?

If you believe the answer to the question in the title is yes, please post a comment and tell me why. I have to agree with Jonah Goldberg's recent article essentially characterizing the government's response as a financial panic. See link. We've gone from TARP to CARP to an auto company bail out. And others on both sides of the aisle are claiming that we are not doing enough to aid people who can't pay for the houses they've "bought."


Big Bill Tilden, a tennis great before my time, had a simple approach to the game: "Never change a winning strategy, always change a losing strategy." But that presupposes you have a strategy. If Paulson has a strategy, other than throwing as much money as he can get his hands on against the wall, I haven't seen it. And of course, now every one has their hand out asking for federal money.