Comments on: SOTU Thoughts Part II: A Defense That Is Really Offensive

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 15:06:35 +0000

I think the GOP should twist this idiotic move for “universal pre-K” (actually, a move to massively expand the influence of the public school system that is already broken for the least among us, and also to hugely enrich the teacher unions, and hence the Democrat Party) to their favor by moving to add something like a $10K/year tax credit for children under 5, instead of (NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT along with) whatever bureaucratic and regulatory nightmare the Dems have in mind. This would go along with eliminating day care FSAs, which would be superfluous, and would probably at least for now go along with eliminating the $1K/year credit for all kids. This would empower parents to do whatever they like with the money, which admittedly may not be what Americans these days actually want. It needs to be seen whether people actually want a personal-responsibility-centered society or not.

By: That Seventies President » Postmodern Conservative | A First Things Blog

Fri, 15 Feb 2013 03:42:00 +0000

[...] In this thread, Peter Lawler wonders if maybe Obama if Obama’s “progressivism isn’t rhetorical (like Wilson wanted) but stealthy.” Now any attempt to abstract a person is going to be of limited utility, but I let’s try this one. Maybe Obama is, on domestic policy, a mostly unreconstructed 1970s upper middle-class left-liberal who after decades of defeat (as he sees it) is more focused on accomplishing his goals than venting his opinions (unless he feels it is advantageous to do so.) I think that many of Obama’s moves to the center are best understood in this context. His long-term policy preferences haven’t changed, but he needs to pretend they have shifted (and he might even need to carry out policies he disagrees with) in order to move policy in his direction at all. [...]

By: Kate Pitrone

Kate Pitrone — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 23:08:43 +0000

I keep hearing from friends on the Right, especially the Tea Party crowd, that the president has a hidden agenda (you call that hidden?) to transform America into a socialist nation. What I find most depressing is that so many Americans seem delighted with the idea. “What’s wrong with socialism?” is a question I keep hearing from the young and it seems only an echo of what we hear from college campuses. “The that was wrong with socialism was the repression!” is what I hear and argue with.
Does that mean that what the Right has gotten wrong is being right when that is an unpopular position?

Here’s a question; have Obama’s policies been popular because they seem good to the American people or because so many of the American people want to like Obama?

By: Pete Spiliakos

Pete Spiliakos — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:12:50 +0000

Carl, Peter, no time today. Actually complementary (Levin and me) interpretations I think. Obama a cautious and slippery transformational president from one perspective (a dated one I would argue, but one that he shares) and a reactionary from another. A little more tomorrow.

By: Peter Lawler

Peter Lawler — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:50:48 +0000

This does seem more astute than Yuval’s post. I would have gone with “A Defense That Is Really Offensive.” It’s very possible you attribute more “intentionality” to our president than he really has. But if you’re right, his progressivism isn’t rhetorical (like Wilson wanted) but stealthy.

By: Carl Eric Scott

Carl Eric Scott — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:00:54 +0000

Wow Pete. Yes, this seems more astute than Yuval’s post…

…and loved the line about “one slip in the shower!” Let us hope there is some secret society of flush conservatives somewhere making sure that Scalia, Alito, and co. get the very best doctors money can buy. Normally I’m of course obliged to be against transhumanism and such, but in this case…