Category: Politics

Superintendent Sentance deserves better from our state board of education

Some say don't change horses in midstream. Others say if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.  One of those idioms will likely describe the conclusion reached by our state board of education during today's controversial meeting to evaluate superintendent Michael Sentance. The only question is, which will it be? Mere months after accepting his own form of mission impossible - trying to improve Alabama's government-run schools - our superintendent found himself on the hot seat. And it hasn't gotten any cooler. Sentance sat through a difficult board meeting last March and received a scolding from members for not keeping them informed about changes he was considering. He had created committees to consider restructuring math, science, and reading standards and instruction, taken over Montgomery's government-run schools, and proposed restructuring the state's reading, math, and science initiatives. Rumors of proposed changes began leaking from the education department and constituents began asking board members questions they couldn't answer. "You don't let your board members be blindsided," said board member Jeff Newman, R-Millport, and Stephanie Bell, R-Montgomery, agreed. "There is an extreme lack of communication," she said. And it went on and on. Sentance promised to do better and control the leaks. In fact, he's managed a few major victories. After the board unanimously voted to ditch the ACT Aspire test, it was Sentance who personally convinced bureaucrats at the U.S. Department of Education to grant a waiver for Alabama to use a temporary test while long-term solutions were sought. Without his…

It’s our tradition to value tradition

A survey released last month by the Pew Research Center showed that a steadily increasing majority of Americans now support same-sex marriage. What a difference a few years makes. When the firm began asking the question in 2001, our nation was against legalizing same-sex marriage by a margin of 57% to 35%. As of this summer, 62% support same-sex marriage while only 32% oppose it, and Gallup reports nearly identical numbers. The trend is visible no matter how one segments the population – by age, gender, race, income, political philosophy, and faith – and it shows no signs of reversing or even stalling. In terms of how we’ve long defined the most significant relationship in society – a marriage – it’s nothing short of an abrupt and wholesale revolution. It took millennia to firmly establish the tradition as being solely between one man and one woman, but it was fundamentally transformed in less than the lifespan of a chimpanzee. That’s why conservatives, regardless of their personal preferences, are justified, perhaps even required, to greet this radical departure with skepticism because of our principle of tradition. This principle basically states that our starting position is to defer to that which has been established by immemorial usage. That doesn’t necessarily mean anyone who holds such a view is close-minded or completely resistant to any change. It simply means that conservatives believe that our ancestors slowly created many of our long-standing traditions, like traditional marriage, because they were eventually found to be the…

Big Luther’s big vote on the repeal of Obamacare

When it comes to electing someone to the U.S. Senate, often called the world’s greatest deliberative body, voters rarely have an opportunity to “try it before you buy it.” Alabamians, however, suddenly find ourselves with an appointed senator who is considering a bill that could easily indicate how he’d perform if elected to a full term. Sen. Luther Strange has only been in office a few short months and while his brief tenure hasn’t produced many substantive votes to measure, he has managed to avoid the ire of the conservative movement’s philosophical watchdogs. But that could dramatically change based upon how Strange votes on that phony repeal of Obamacare that’s currently before these Senate. Make no mistake. It’s not the promised repeal-and-replace bill that conservatives have been promised over and over during recent years. Even the architect of Obamacare – the guy who said Democrats had to fool the American people in order to get it passed – said it’s not a repeal at all. In many ways, it’s worse. While there are elements of tax cuts in the bill, the defining element of conservatism – limited government – is nowhere to be found, and it actually further enshrines the federal government’s role in your healthcare decisions. How Strange decides to vote on this mess will tell us everything we need to know about what kind of a senator he’ll be if elected to a full six-year term: a fighter for conservatism or a pawn of the establishment. Simply said,…

Conservatism steers the path between control and chaos

Wisdom, like courage, can be found in the most unlikely of places. Earlier this month NPR aired and interview with a Russian scholar who, while defending President Vladimir Putin’s foreign policy, unexpectedly described the entire purpose of American conservatism. “The traditional Western perception is that the real borderline in … international politics is the borderline between democracy and authoritarianism,” explained Andrey Kortunov, president of a Kremlin-backed think tank in Moscow. Therefore, he said, “If you’re on the side of democracy, you’re on the right side of history. If you’re on the side of authoritarianism … you’re on the wrong side of history.” There are strains within the neoconservative and progressive movements that would certainly agree with those thoughts, but the prudence that guides traditional American conservatism forces its adherents to adopt a wider and longer view. “I think (Putin) would argue that, of course … democracy is good, but the real borderline is the line between order and chaos,” Kortunov said. “And if you intentionally or unintentionally support chaos, you’re on the wrong side. And that’s what he sees the West offering in places like Iraq or Libya or Afghanistan or even Syria.” Kortunov described this borderline between order and chaos in terms of foreign policy, but it exists in all areas of human behavior, stretching from one’s interior moral code to the laws and policies of an entire nation. This borderline is actually the straight path that conservatism seeks to navigate along, remaining on its course and endeavoring to…

How passion preys on both sides of Trumpmania

Last week a conservative columnist for Bloomberg penned a rational and evidence-based article hoping to explain to President Donald Trump’s base exactly why some thinkers in the movement remain troubled by his many missteps. It was a complete waste of ink, of course, but Megan McArdle probably knew that before it was written. That was kind of the point of her argument. “The conservative voters who elected Donald Trump seem to feel especially betrayed when those who document his failures and violations are fellow conservatives. Like me,” she wrote, adding that Trump’s most ardent supporters instinctively push back on all criticism as “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” To the Trump believer, if anyone disagrees with something the president says or does, then they’re either an irrational hater, part of the loathed establishment, or propagating “fake news.” It’s the intellectual equivalent of sticking one’s fingers in their ears, closing their eyes and shouting “lalalala,” or of seeing enemies lurking in every shadow, even one’s own. While there are indeed haters and establishment powers and biased news outlets, they’re not everywhere. There are writers like Ben Shapiro and radio host Mark Levin whose conservative credentials and alliance to our movement are beyond question, yet who will criticize the president when necessary. To think that they’re somehow part of a liberal conspiracy is beyond reason. It’s crazy talk. Yet I’ve seen life-long friends within the conservative movement, friends who are politically educated and with considerable experience, suddenly become blind and deaf to Trump’s mistakes. If…

Will conservatives ever leave the Republican Party?

After the Republicans passed a spending bill that could have been authored by left-wing Democrats (and largely was, in fact), radio host Rush Limbaugh pointedly asked the vice president, “Why is anybody voting Republican, if this is what happens when we win?” I asked myself the same question last week as I walked the halls of Congress with my seven-year old daughter. We were visiting family and I took the opportunity to show her where I lived and worked years ago when I was a press secretary for then-Congressman Bob Riley and later as a Congressional liaison for President George W. Bush’s defense department. “I came here to change things,” I told her. But then I looked around at the same faces in the same places, recalled all that was promised and especially all that wasn’t delivered. Then, quite coincidentally, we arrived outside the White House right when House Republicans gathered there to celebrate the passage of their phony “repeal” of Obamacare. Their spin was repulsive, especially since most of the horrendous law remains intact. That’s when I finally realized … we didn’t change a thing, except ourselves. Republicans have long campaigned upon promises to limit the growth of government, decrease spending, lower taxes, and eliminate the debt, along with a host of other social issues, like protecting the unborn. Republican leaders said they needed the House to get these things done. Conservatives gave it to them, and with a historic majority. Next they told us they needed the Senate.…

Limited government is still worth fighting for

Henry David Thoreau opened his pamphlet “Civil Disobedience” with a quote he attributed to Thomas Jefferson: “That government is best which governs least.” Although there’s no record of Jefferson actually saying or writing those words, they were adopted by generations of conservatives as a motto to succinctly explain our view about the limited roles and responsibilities of government. That view has been under attack since its very beginning, however, and a recent survey from the Pew Research Center indicates that conservatives have been steadily losing ground. “As Congress faces an April 28 deadline to fund government operations, the public is now split in their general preferences on the size and scope of government,” wrote the report’s authors. They added, “48% say they would rather have a bigger government providing more services, while 45% prefer a smaller government providing fewer services.” While this news doesn’t necessarily signal the beginning of the end, it is indeed cause for alarm. Because even though past generations preferred smaller government, they still allowed it to grow well beyond its means. Imagine what will happen now that growth is an actual preference. Some moderate conservatives have even gone so far as to recommend that we surrender and accept big government as a permanent political fact, then simply offer ourselves as the best people to run the system. But they have forgotten – and many Americans have obviously never known – why conservatives prefer limited government in the first place. Limited government is more of a process…

Mo Brooks was correct to oppose phony repeal-and-replace bill

The few conservatives we have in Congress have suddenly found themselves caught in a traditional V-shaped ambush, with bands of intersecting fire coming from both Republicans and Democrats. From the establishment's left, their efforts to repeal Obamacare were called unconscionable, cruel and even corrupt. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said it represented "a merciless assault on working families." But conservatives were only trying to save the healthcare market from an inevitable financial death spiral that'd leave those families with the type of substandard care seen in most European nations. From the establishment's right, their pledge to vote against its poorly written replacement - the American Health Care Act - was also described as too demanding, puritanical, and even disloyal. President Donald Trump, reeling after the bill's defeat, sent this tweet: "Democrats are smiling in D.C. that the Freedom Caucus, with the help of Club For Growth and Heritage, have saved Planned Parenthood & Ocare!" But conservatives were only trying to keep the promise they (and Trump) made to repeal - in its entirety - Obamacare, and not simply tweak the program here and there. Regardless of what the establishment may think, Americans owe a debt of gratitude to most of the members of the Freedom Caucus, and especially to U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks of Hunstville. Brooks, along with every Republican member of our state's Congressional delegation, promised that he'd vote to repeal Obamacare when given the chance. But when push came to shove, only Brooks kept that promise, and…

Conservatism rejects the central planning behind Obamacare reform

Conservatives, don’t be deceived. Any attempt by Republicans in Congress to ensure that all Americans have affordable health care coverage will simply extend and further complicate the mess left by Obamacare. But that’s exactly what’s happening, at least according to House Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers. “Let me be clear,” she said earlier this year when top Republicans were drafting the reform bill behind closed doors. “No one who has coverage because of Obamacare today will lose that coverage. We’re providing relief. We aren’t going to pull the rug out from anyone.” Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price echoed that undeliverable promise last weekend. “I firmly believe that nobody will be worse off financially in the process that we’re going through,” Price said when asked about the bill on Sunday. He added, “We’ll have more individuals covered.” Conservatives know these statements cannot be true for many reasons, but chiefly because they run headlong against one of our movement’s guiding beliefs: our principle of imperfectability. The late Russell Kirk observed that when a society seeks to make things perfect – everybody having excellent health care, for instance – things usually end very badly. The only equality such schemes achieve is by dragging everyone into the gutter together. “To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things,” Kirk wrote. “All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering…

Reports of conservatism’s death have been greatly exaggerated

The headlines after last month's Conservative Political Action Conference seemed to describe less a celebration of our party's complete electoral domination and more a wake for our movement. "RIP, movement conservatism," declared the American Thinker. "How Donald Trump killed movement conservatism," wrote Truthout. "Trump's takeover of conservatism is complete," opined a Washington Post columnist. The rash of obituaries didn't end with the conference, either. Headlines following the president's first address to a joint session of Congress continued the trend. "Trump's speech to Congress killed conservatism," wrote one Mediaite contributor, and the bells continue to toll with each passing day. These types of political eulogies are nothing new, though. Similar headlines ran when Senator Barry Goldwater lost in 1964, when then-Governor Ronald Reagan lost his primary fight in 1976, and also in 1992 and 2006. Four years ago Reuters even asked "Is conservatism going extinct?" and in 2008 The New Republic happily confirmed that, yes, "Conservatism is dead." Ding-dong, the liberals cheered ... then their party went on to lose more than 1,000 elected offices during the next eight years. Who won those seats? For the most part, conservatives. Truth is, our movement was far from dead in 1964 and it's far from dead now. Quite the opposite. Still, these doom-and-gloom articles do illustrate how some people consistently confuse things like principles and policies with mere people. To paraphrase the protagonist in "V for Vendetta" the conservative movement is more than just flesh. It is an idea ... and ideas are…