My brief personal Christopher Hitchens story
December 16, 2011
I first got involved in politics around my junior year in college when I decided to join the Conservatives Club on campus. In the fall of 2004, the club invited Christopher Hitchens to speak on campus and give his rebuttal to the film Fahrenheit 9/11 by Micheal Moore. As a new member, I was fortunate enough to be invited to eat dinner with Mr. Hitchens at a local restaurant (which, we had to ensure in advance, served Johnny Walker Black). In attendance were about 20-25 club members.
At the time I had just heard of Hitchens and was not familiar with his work. Purely by chance, my seat at dinner was right next to him. As he consumed his glasses of whiskey, I remember briefly engaging him in conversation about some trivial topic… I believe it was something like how technology was changing the world and how today’s children would never know a time without computers. Silly, I now know in retrospect, but nonetheless he was perfectly engaging to a young 21-year-old computer science major.
I don’t recall much about the speech itself. And looking back, I’m not sure why he spoke on such a trivial topic. I highly doubt Hitchens himself remembered much about his brief visit to Lewisburg, PA, especially considering his likely blood alcohol content during the presentation. As I recall this brief encounter I feel like, though I did not appreciate it fully at the time, he was certainly an interesting person to meet.
Hitchens was a remarkable fellow, as I’m sure will be communicated by the numerous obituaries popping up from nearly every major news site. He pissed off almost everyone at some point. I don’t think anyone ever shared, or will share, his particular blend of opinions. But they were all unified by his absolute persistence in stating his opinion, no matter what it might be. Let us all take that from him and learn to stick up for our beliefs, even when they may offend.
Unacceptable Candidates
May 16, 2010
Clearly, it is still early on to be speculating about potential 2012 Presidential candidates. We should be focusing on the 2010 elections as much as possible. But, like every other political dork out there, I cannot resist observing and commenting on who appear to be the current frontrunners. I think it can help one tell where the party is currently. In particular, I am curious to see how the Tea Party movement has affected things, and if the party really has taken a step towards truly limited government.
Judging by the results of a recent poll posted at NRO, it would appear that the effect may be smaller than we had thought. For starters, the emphasis the Tea Party has seemed to place on fiscal conservatism, as opposed to social conservatism, has not dented the approval of candidates like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee. One can perhaps see the appeal of Sarah Palin, being the icon she has become to many. But it is very, very worrying that Huckabee is even in the picture. He is both an aggressive social conservative (and, I believe, a bigot), and not a good fiscal conservative at all. He is a populist entertainer, and that’s being kind.
If the Republican Party is going to continue to embrace the style of Palin and Huckabee, we are in big trouble. Both are mainly popular amongst white Christians. Needless to say, that is a major part of the party base but not near enough to win any future elections. To win these elections, the GOP needs to focus on the issues that matter to people at this point in time – things like massive spending, expanding government, unemployment, and energy. In focusing on these over the past couple years, the GOP has regained the help of many previously dispirited Americans and made a good case against those who say the parties are no different.
If, instead, a strong social conservative is nominated, the conservative-libertarian coalition that has powered the Tea Party movement would shatter. Quite simply, libertarians and conservatives are worlds apart on social issues. To the average libertarian, for example, the idea of supporting a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is an absolutely unacceptable attack on freedom, and a gross abuse of power to satisfy a base that is, sadly, largely anti-gay. Yet Palin, Huckabee, and other social conservatives like John Thune find this to be an acceptable use of power. This type of thing shows the existence of the always-present fault line inherent in the GOP. Were the fracture to happen, it would demolish the GOP and any chance of winning anything but the reddest of red states.
We must, then, reject and shy away from any candidate that would further such a break. The above mentioned candidates would all do so to some degree. Huckabee and Palin are just two well-known examples of politicians who believe in a sort of “freedom for me, but not for thee” ideology that makes libertarians’ skin crawl. Their positions on economic issues are largely sound, but when it comes to issues of personal freedom they hold some atrocious views. Their voices are welcome in the party, but they must not be allowed to become seen as leaders, let alone the party nominee. That would be a complete disaster.
Arizona and the alternate universe
April 27, 2010
Sometimes I feel like I’ve stepped through a worm hole. I find myself disagreeing with those I normally agree with, and agreeing with those I almost always oppose. I felt this sensation especially much today during two events that I generally do on a daily basis – listening to the previous day’s Rush program and reading the various op-ed pages. Rush was defending the Arizona immigration law, while I found myself nodding when reading the latest piece by Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post.
The recently passed law has caused quite a stir, to put it mildly. Conservatives have largely defended the law, saying it takes necessary and logical steps to stem the illegal immigration problem. Liberals have mostly opposed it on civil rights grounds. But in both camps, sizable portions of usual allies have dissented from the majority ranks. On the right, this is often an area I find myself as a libertarian. On many issues, largely social ones, libertarians tend to disagree with conservatives. And immigration is another subject where usual allies can find ourselves on wildly different sides.
To put my own feelings simply, I strongly opposed this law and still have many problems with it. I think it is a terrible approach to the illegal immigrant problem that gives great new power to police, encourages racial profiling, alienates Hispanics of both illegal and legal statuses, and is open to abuses most likely against otherwise harmless people. I thought I would outline a few of these ideas.
Right from the start, anyone who tells you this the new law will not be employed primarily against Hispanics is, I feel, being dishonest or naive. The fact is, when most people use the term “illegal alien,” they mean those of Mexican origin. The vast majority of the illegal immigrant problem comes from aliens of this descent. No one is talking about closing the Canadian border, after all. So to suggest that the law is not targeted against this population is silly. Of course it will be, and that’s how it is intended. The question is, do we really want to label an entire group as potential illegal aliens, when the majority are not?
In a similar way, do we really want to place the duty of enforcing immigration law in the hands of police? I am for the most part a big supporter of cops, but I don’t want to give them power they are not trained to use. How exactly do we expect your average officers to tell when someone is an illegal alien? The only possible way is to go by things like race and accent, which brings up the problem described above. Please forgive me if I find it hard to believe police will be asking for “papers” from your average white, black, or Asian person. And when the police do suspect a person of being illegal for whatever reason, how can we really expect everyone to have sufficient paperwork on hand at all times to prove legitimacy? Do we want to haul in thousands of innocent people for “looking illegal” just because they don’t have these papers?
The whole think stinks to high heaven in my view. It reeks of potential for abuse and is, to boot, a bad way to deal with the problem at hand. The likely results of this law are the apprehension and prosecution of the most harmless illegals. The big drug dealers don’t deal with police anyway, and there are already laws designed to punish and deport them. Ordinary residents who might not have the necessary documentation will be reluctant to cooperate with police, and many people will be wrongly arrested. I simply don’t buy the idea that most illegal aliens are a terrible threat. The ones who are are already covered under existing laws – if they were just enforced, this Arizona law would not be needed.
I realize this will go against many of my conservative friends. They will say that it is good that something was done to address the illegal problem. But I would remind them of Arlen Specter’s rationalization for supporting the wasteful “stimulus” package back when he was a Republican. His reason? The government had to “do something.” Just “doing something” isn’t a reason to do anything at all. You have to do the RIGHT thing, not just SOMETHING. And this law is NOT the right thing. It is a dangerous move that goes after many innocent people. When a law passes, you must ask yourself a simple question: “Does this law increase freedom and protect rights, or does it decrease freedom and limit rights?” And the answer is this case is the latter. I’d encourage all my freedom-loving friends to carefully look at this law.
An apology to future generations
March 23, 2010
As the health care bill was being voted on Sunday night, I looked at my mother and remarked that I was fortunate enough to be born while America was a superpower. Though I only managed to really experience it for a couple decades, my lifetime began in the Reagan’s first term, and has included such events as the falling of the Berlin Wall, the dissolution of the USSR, and the victory of America in the Cold War. While I was growing up, the world seemed to revolve around America. We were so much richer, more powerful, and more influential than any other power.
Unfortunately, such good times must come to end it seems, and the events of Sunday night, and Obama’s subsequent signing of the bill today, surely must mark some turning point. We have been on this path for some time but the health care bill truly marks a new era in our history, one in which government will play a huge role in nearly every aspect of life. Already unsustainable entitlement spending will continue to explode even further, meaning other areas, most crucially defense spending, will have to suffer. This is all intentional – the architects of this bill fully know that it will reduce American influence, cripple us economically, and change the character of the American people. That’s the whole point.
In light of this, then, I see no way that today’s children, including any I may have in the future, will grow up in an America similar to mine in any respect. The nation they experience will still retain some vestiges of our former greatness, but at the core of it will be a people that has been lulled into dependency and weakness. Unable to project force around the world in any meaningful way, they will live in a country that has a limited role in the world. They will experience all of the wonderful things Europeans are living now – declining population, a stagnant economy, a lack of any real drive or innovation, and a government that has come to involve itself in every part of life.
Sadly, I don’t see much hope of this really changing. Now, some of my fellows will balk at that, saying that if the people come together and fight for American greatness, that we can restore it. While we may make some progress, we must face the fact that a sizable portion of the country either does not care about, and may even support, some of these changes. The Democrats have a huge factor in their favor – once a new entitlement takes root, it is nearly impossible to stop. This is why they wanted this bill so badly – it is truly a game changer, and barring unprecedented electoral victories in the next few years, a giant new middle-class welfare system will go into effect. Once it has, we are essentially finished as a great power.
As Mark Steyn points out in this excellent piece, it isn’t likely to be pretty. The powers that are rising to replace America are nothing like us. If counties like China assume our role in the world, the planet is sure to be less free. In history ours truly is an exception – a superpower that still retains some humility and a love for freedom. China has none of that, and even a place like India, a former British dependency, has no tradition of liberty that comes close to ours. In short, the coming world is a scary place, where much of the safety, freedom, and prosperity we have taken for granted is by no means permanent. We will no longer have a vibrant, strong America to protect them.
All of this is depressing, but it’s also true. And for this, I offer our apologies to future generations. We had a great run, but we fell asleep, and let people like Obama and Pelosi gain power. We became complacent and lazy. We forgot our history and our country’s founding. And it is on our watch that freedom lost its greatest defender.
Interesting developments in PA
February 14, 2010
This past week I had the opportunity to hear from Sam Rohrer, a candidate running to be Governor of Pennsylvania. Or, more specifically at this point, to be the GOP nominee for such. I found Sam to be inspiring and intelligent – he clearly understood the predicaments our country and state are in, and had some good ideas to fix them. Long story short, the state will soon become insolvent if we don’t fix things, and Democrat Ed Rendell actually wants to INCREASE spending.
Anyway, the real point of this post is to point out what happened this weekend – the state GOP endorsed Tom Corbett, Rohrer’s primary opponent to be the nominee. This comes more than three months before Pennsylvania’s Republican voters have to decide who we want to be the nominee. The effect of this endorsement comes down to this – Corbett will now have access to oodles of money, free campaign workers, and national support. The full weight of the establishment machine will be pushing for Corbett to win, and that is a very strong foe to face.
The problem is, no one knows what Corbett stands for other than running on his record as Attorney General. Now, I can’t say I follow the actions of the AG all that much, and he may be fine at it, but that does not mean he is a good candidate to be governor. In contrast, Sam Rohrer is the “principled” candidate in the fight. He has taken strong stands on many issues, and really understands the need for serious reform and restoring balance between the state and federal governments. Washington has gotten its hands into every facet of our lives, and we need someone who understands the corruption and bribery that have served to effect this situation.
So this comes down to a true battle between the party machine and what is commonly referred to as the “tea party” types for the choice of who will be the GOP nominee for PA Governor. The machine has been drastically wrong before (they did endorse Arlen Specter), and they very likely will be too this time. The GOP just cannot seem to understand that running candidates that offend no one, also give no one a reason to vote for them. In a time where conservative activism is on the rise and thousands have already been attracted to Rohrer, the GOP instead took the cowards way out.
They, and all establishment Republicans, must be made to understand this is NOT how we want things to be done. We do not want politically connected, but mediocre, candidates chosen by the “powers that be” as opposed to the people. We do not want another GOP politician who will stand for nothing and get nothing done in Harrisburg. We DO want a smart, principled leader like Sam Rohrer to have a chance. I think all people interested in Constitution-based leadership need to get behind Sam and give the state party a message. I encourage all residents of the Commonwealth, and all other interested parties, to check out Rohrer and see what you think.
I think we all need to take an active role in retaking the Republican Party. Together we can restore it to a party with principles.
Tea Party's Choice
January 12, 2010
Amongst all the comments about Harry Reid’s gaffes, the other big news in the world of Twitter and the blogs is the fact that Scott Brown, Republican candidate to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts, raised over $1M in 24 hours. Polls over the weekend showed him neck-and-neck with his opponent Martha Coakley. While many other polls have shown Coakley with a sizable lead, the closeness of the one provided a massive boost to Republicans hoping to shock Democrats and take over a very safe seat. Conservatives and other activists have rallied to Brown’s cause, hoping that a victory would shatter the 60-vote majority needed to pass the ugly beast known as ObamaCare.
Now, the truth is Brown likely won’t win, though it may be closer than Democrats would wish. And even if he did, Democrats have promised not to seat him until after ObamaCare comes to a final vote, if they can manage it. So in reality the hopes for taking the 41st seat and killing ObamaCare are slim. But the reaction from conservatives is the real story here. Facing the seemingly insurmountable task of turning Ted Kennedy’s seat red, and a less than ideal candidate, money and support have been pouring out for Brown. The “tea party” engine has been turned on in this freezing January and is helping push out the votes for the mid-winter special election, generally a very low-turnout affair. Democrats in turn have gone full-bore for Coakley, producing some very nasty ads.
I think this distills a major decision for tea party activists, and one it appears they are making correctly. Brown is far from being a pure-bred conservative – among other things, he is pro-choice – but he seems to get the idea that opposing big government is the right course. True hard-core conservatives could find plenty of other things to not like about Scott Brown, but the point is this – the movement, by and large, has decided that the most important thing now is not Roe v. Wade (which isn’t coming up to a vote any time soon) but fighting Obama-style massive government. They made the correct decision on another important case, in rejecting Dede Scozzafava, a figure so far from resembling anything like a Republican that she ended up endorsing the Democrat. There is a line to be drawn, for sure, and for now it appears the tea partiers are making the right one.
More choices like this are surely on the horizon. And thus distills the constant battle many of us endure, as people who stand on the ideological end of the GOP, calling ourselves libertarians, conservatives, or whatever other label one might use. The temptation will always be there to swallow the establishment line and support the machine candidate, even if he stands for nothing. I believe such is our choice in the upcoming Pennsylvania gubernatorial primaries, in choosing between mediocre “party” candidate Tom Corbett and principled conservative Sam Rohrer. It’s my hope we will choose wisely there and elsewhere. But at the same time, we mustn’t be too purist either. We can’t kick someone out just for being pro-choice or supporting civil unions. We’ve got to stand for something and be rational at the same time. If we do so, we can restore responsible leadership to Washington.
A welcome, and some thoughts
December 2, 2009
Hello all, to the new and improved Brain Lemon! The new site comes with a number of benefits, including a new domain name, superior WordPress hosting, and hopefully more reliable uptime. TypePad did its job for a while, but eventually I grew tired of paying $9/month for an inferior blogging platform that was down many times. The new format gives me much more control while still being easy to use, and will save me money to boot.
I will be writing on this blog more frequently as I try to establish a place to come and discuss the issues of the day in a respectful, reasonable manner. To this end I am planning to launch a new website, though a time horizon for that is unclear as I am still in the planning stages. My hope is to create a forum for those who favor a reason-based approach to politics and the world, and who wish to meet others sharing that view, as well as debate those who disagree. My feeling is that any number of positions can be reached by each person’s own internal logic. The point is to understand the logic of both your views and others.
I hope this blog is enjoyable. I may decide to turn the previous domain, www.brianlehman.net, into a separate blog but only time will tell about that. In the meantime, enjoy the new, and soon to be much improved, BrainLemon.com!
Glenn Beck – a good leader?
September 13, 2009
Without a doubt, Glenn Beck has been an important figure in recent times. He can fairly be credited with strongly supporting the tea party movement, helping to fight ObamaCare, and taking on a number of radicals and corrupt officials in government. Surely, he has become something of a banner carrier for hordes of disaffected, freedom-loving Americans, myself included. Some developments, though, have got me seriously thinking about who this man actually is. Not his sincerity, but rather his methods and behaviors.
For one, Glenn has always been a passionate guy who can tend to get emotional at times. For a while this was just one facet of his persona, and it made his discussion of intense issues, like his past or his special needs daughter, all the more genuine. Lately, though, you can count on Glenn to start breaking up just about every time he talks about America or the founding fathers. The other day, he started losing it just talking about reading Thomas Jefferson. Needless to say, 9/11 made him a mess, which is perfectly understandable. The other times, though, have got me thinking that either it is an act, or this man is seriously unstable. I can't imagine trying to talk to him. If I met him I'd be tempted to insult the Constitution or Benjamin Franklin just to see him weep. I seriously think he might. Or if he didn't, he would prove that it was all an act. It's really a no-win situation.
That tendency, in fact, brings up the other main area that has been bothering me about Glenn. He has always been a religious man, which is fine, regardless of my feelings about Mormonism. Increasingly, though, nearly everything he talks about has taken on a religious feel. He reveres the founding fathers as virtual gods, and talks about the Constitution as being "divinely inspired." His method for dealing with our present crisis? Getting on your knees and praying. Only then will we defeat the forces of evil (literally, he calls them evil) and witness "mighty miracles." For someone who is not especially religious, all of this can get pretty damn uncomfortable. What am I, and thousands of others like me, supposed to do if we don't pray or go to church? Are we hopeless, Godless heathens who are powerless to do anything? Is that really the only thing we can do, sit around and beg God to save us?
All of this points to what I believe are core questions about Glenn. Is the man a suitable leader for me and all the other people who love liberty but don't share his religious views or emotional nature? Is he in fact putting on an act, or is he being genuine? If he is being serious, is he really psychologically healthy? And with all of this considered, should conservatives and libertarians continue to support him, or does there come a point where we realize that he is too dogmatic, unstable, or fake to listen to? I'm not saying I'm anywhere near that point… but I do want to figure some things about about this man. I think we should be constantly perspicacious regarding who we follow and support. For all of Glenn's great qualities, I think we have to take an objective look.
Four types of people
August 18, 2009
Driving home today, I had the thought that there are basically four types of people. Obviously this is a generalization of sorts, as any categorization is liable to be, but I think it sums up the main types you deal with in the political world. This system stems from what I believe to be the fundamental conflict that divides our political views. That is, the conflict between freedom and control, between liberty and equality, between individualism and collectivism, or one of many other formulations. Using these two competing forces, four types are created, which are detailed below. In this list, the first term describes how people wish to be treated, i.e. the conditions under which they wish to live. The second describes how people wish others to be treated, i.e. how the government/state should treat them.
Freedom/Freedom – This would describe me, and many others described as libertarians, classical liberals, and some conservatives. These are people who generally like to be left alone, and thus largely favor a limited government and minimal social controls. They also would like others to be free, and are willing to accept that this means others will do and say things objectionable. Clearly there must be limits and laws, but by and large "live and let live" is the motto here.
Freedom/Control – This describes a lot of liberals, as well as some conservatives. These people wish the enjoy relative freedom on their own, but want the government to exert control over "other people" by means of things like progressive taxation, redistribution of wealth, social controls, etc. The liberals that fit here are largely the "progressive" types who have no problem succeeding on their own, but resent the success of others. Think people like Micheal Moore, or even Barack Obama, who enjoy living luxurious lives but also long for government control of the "little people."
Control/Control – These people are the rest of the liberals, as well as the remaining conservatives. They desire a strong structure in their own lives, or they desire much to be provided to them by the government and others. They are sometimes willing to accept dependence and even virtual slavery if it means a more comfortable life. Many Obama supporters fit this description, as does anyone who favors an expansive welfare state with many entitlements. These people often also wish to impose their preferences on others.
Control/Freedom – I don't know how many people fit here. I suppose they would be those who wish to be controlled themselves, but see no reason why others shouldn't be free. Most people who wish to be controlled think control is good in general and should be imposed on everyone the same.
Clearly some groups can fit into two or more categories. Social conservatives are one such group that comes to mind. Some simply live life as they choose but accept the rest of the world doing its own thing, while others are more control-oriented and wish to see censorship and social controls. They thus can fit into both Freedom/Freedom and Freedom/Control. Liberals in general favor control of others, and thus would fit into either Freedom/Control or Control/Control. Average moderate types would probably fit in between groups. But largely, the end result is that some people are simply inclined to individualism and freedom, even if it means they have to take responsibility, while some value comfort and security even if it means they lose freedom. Similarly, some see government as a necessary evil, and others see it as a tool for social engineering. Both of these traits speak to a person's basic conception of government and their relationship with it.
An actual post, and update
March 6, 2009
For anyone still reading this, I wanted to post and give an update on this blog and its future. Firstly, I am planning on buying the domain brainlemon.com and switching the site over to that address. Secondly, I am planning on actually promoting the blog once I have established it as an identity of its own, rather than being directly tied to my name. Finally, I am planning on updating it more frequently. I have no shortage of posting ideas, just the effort needed to actually write them up.
I'm hoping to make this blog something worth reading. I am itching to get involved in politics more and I'm hoping this will help make that more possible. I know every blogger in the world believes this, but I actually have some reason to believe that I have something to contribute to the community. Or at least, I want to see if that's true!
