Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ron Radosh

NeoCon_IrvingKristol_2

What we need is an agreement by conservatives on behalf of a conservative welfare state; the hope of Andy McCarthy for a turn-back to before the New Deal is not politically realistic, and would be a futile and self-defeating program for Republicans to adopt. We should be, as Voegeli argues, “against the regulatory state rather than the welfare state.”  Or in the words of the late godfather of neoconservatism Irving Kristol, “in our dynamic, urbanized, industrial society, some kind of welfare state is a permanent feature of the industrial landscape.” Voegli also cites the words of the late James Q. Wilson, who wrote:

Telling people who want clean air, a safe environment, fewer drug dealers, a decent retirement, and protection against catastrophic medical bills that the government ought not to do these things is wishful or suicidal politics.

Indeed, one of the very problems about Obamacare is that it regulates too much, and does not allow people to pick and choose from plans that offer catastrophe major medical insurance, but forces people to sign up for plans that include items an applicant does not want or need. Why, for example, would a 60-year-old woman need a plan that forces her to buy one that costs more because it includes coverage for childbirth?

So, let me return to the debate between Krauthammer and McCarthy, and the issue of whether it was wrong for Krauthammer to cite and praise the liberal achievements of the past. Here, Voegeli makes the essential point: “whatever philosophical commitments or policy proposals they bring to the table, the American experiment in self-government is the precarious undertaking conservatives defend. The past and, in many ways, astounding triumphs of that experiment do not guarantee its perpetual success going forward.” And to do that, wise conservatives understand that “defending self-government more often requires opposing than accommodating liberalism,” which explains the consensus to oppose ObamaCare.

It does not, however, entail an all-out assault against the welfare state and many of its popular programs enacted in the past with bi-partisan support. What conservatives must do is show the populace that there are points of no return, and there can be no limitless, ever-expanding welfare state that will leave our nation financially overextended. To the liberal and the leftist, the welfare state is never enough. It must be expanded forever, despite the costs. The conservative knows this is suicidal, and can explain that to the American people. There is a point long past beyond which it must stop. But to oppose the entire liberal project from its beginning is political suicide. This course, which Andy McCarthy proposes, is wrong, and Charles Krauthammer, I argue, wins against McCarthy hands down.

****

Cross-Posted at PJ Lifestyle – Visit for additional comments and more debate!

<- Prev  Page 5 of 5   View as Single Page

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (16)
All Comments   (16)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
my neighbor's half-sister makes $87/hour on the internet. She has been out of a job for five months but last month her pay was $12080 just working on the internet for a few hours. pop over to these guys======================= www.fb29.com
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
So why is this character assassin being given a platform here? http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2008-01-01.html
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
They let you on, didn't they?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I beg your pardon?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Beg away, you won't get it. You call Ron Radosh a character assassin and then link to an article that calls Ron a "half-wit"? Coulter complains that Ron questioned her character, but for all her bluster and bluff, offers no evidence of that at all. So I restate, the only one engaged in character assassination on this thread is you. I expect that won't remain the case, because the far right now has little other than character assassination left in its idea-less crusade to role back everything to Cal Coolidge and beyond. The list of victims knitted into the sweaters includes not only McCain, Graham and the usual suspects, but now Rubio, Scott Walker, Ron Johnson, Paul Ryan, Christie, and many other once true blue conservatives now deemed beyond the pale and subject routinely here to character assassination as RINOS, sell-outs, even traitors. Routinely. I wish it would stop. It is thoroughly destructive of any real conservatism. But don't give me "I beg your pardon."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Thanks for demonstrating that Radosh's sycophants aren't all that good with facts or reading comprehension. Though the article is posted on Coulter's site, she didn't write it. M. Stanton Evans, the victim of Radosh's smear, did. It's inane that you falsely claim he "offers no evidence," which the piece is jam-packed with, but here's the key passage for the character assassin charge:

"At one point, discussing the Amerasia case of 1945 in which official documents were funneled to a pro-Red publication and the facts about this hidden from the public, Radosh writes, 'Evans tries hard to make it appear the cover-up was something he discovered.' (No evidence is presented for this snide assertion, nor could it be, for none exists.) Even worse, in referring to a book he and Prof. Harvey Klehr published on the Amerasia case in 1996, Radosh parenthetically says this was 'a book from which Evans takes virtually all of his material and which he does not acknowledge.' This vicious statement is an astounding, and outrageous, lie. My documentation of the Amerasia fix, cover-up, grand-jury rigging, wiretapping, and so on is derived from the files of the FBI here in Washington, several thousand pages of which I have in my possession, accumulated over a span of years. It owes nothing to the Klehr-Radosh book, as may readily be seen by scanning my end-notes and comparing these to their annotations, which are based on an entirely different indexing system, so that one isn’t transposable to the other.

"On the merits of the Klehr-Radosh book itself, I should add that I have the utmost respect for Harvey Klehr, an eminent scholar of these matters, and gave the book a favorable review when it appeared a decade ago — even though I am personally criticized in it (a rare experience, I should think, in book-reviewing circles). But I derived none of my FBI documentation from it, provide material that isn’t featured in it, and conversely don’t cover matters that it covers because my materials differed in form and content from those collected at Emory University, which has its own archive of FBI files pertaining to Amerasia, a main source of the Klehr-Radosh data.

"(A single overlapping item from this source, unrelated to the fix or the FBI, is a photo of Lattimore et al., obtained by my publisher from Emory with full and proper acknowledgment given.)"
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yes, so it was Evans not Coulter who called Ron a "half-wit." (Coulter only facilitated the smear.)

None of what you provide here about what Evans says Ron Radosh says, all mere assertion on Evans' part anyway, describes Ron Radosh making a stupid ad hominem attack such as yours and Evans' in labeling Radosh a "character assassin" or a "half-wit." That you cannot distinguish between substantive criticisms of the work someone does from attacks on that person's character suggests you should ease up on the snide remarks about MY reading comprehension problems. As for calling me a "sycophant," well, par for the course from someone so bothered by character assassination. Go look in the mirror, friend.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"all mere assertion on Evans' part anyway"

Perhaps, though (a) Evans provides more than enough detail to verify his defense by going back to the relevant books, and (b) considering how much Andy McCarthy's responses to this post show Radosh getting wrong, when forced to choose between the two, Evans has more credibility.

And if you're seriously suggesting that Radosh falsely accusing Evans of stealing work isn't character assassination against Evans, or that it doesn't reflect badly on Radosh's character......well, then you're even dumber -- or more dishonest -- than I thought.

Call that an ad hominem attack if you wish; that doesn't make it untrue.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"The New Deal was, whatever its flaws, a response to an overwhelming catastrophe, national as well as international in scope. The states were all but powerless to contend with it by themselves, as FDR knew well, having been governor of the most powerful of the states and having tried to cope with relief and employment programs in that state to little avail. Roosevelt himself was as ideologically opposed to the mere dole and to welfare dependency as any conservative and resisted mightily pressures to dole out cash and unbalance budgets.

As to Republicans back then being opposed only to federal constitutional overreach, I would like Mr. McCarthy to detail for me the conservative Republican state programs of the 1930s to revive the economy and help the destitute. In fact, as Charles Krauthammer correctly put it, they opposed FDR's program vigorously while offering NOTHING in its place but bromides and platitudes, a tragic fact that is now being repeated by the Tea Party wing of the movement. It is dismaying in the extreme to see what was in fact a potentially break-through moment for a rational conservatism (the Krauthammer-Stewart interchange) get this shabby treatment on NRO"


Well, WWII had high manufacturing demand, and this is what brought the US out but in those
days no outsourcing or heavily use of robots or automation. Think the political heyday of Repbulcians in places like San Deigo and Orange County was when they supported aerospace firms.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There is more moderation and progressivism remaining in Krauthammer, in my view, than this essay suggests. CK is still opposed to the Tea Party. See http
The problem with the Tea party is some like Ron Paul and other libertarians, defense cut radicals. Some defense spending is stupid but as I mention below Reagan was able to do better in the west with it.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Well Reagan was the last beside George H to do good in California. Ronnie did higher in the OC at 67 percent while Romney got only 53 percent in Orange County Ca. Ronnie pushed defense spending thru the root and in 1990 La had 189,000 people working in Aerospace, Orange 42,000 and San Diego 28,700 thousands by 2011 La down to 59,200 and Orange to 15,000 and San Diego to 11,500. Aerospace direct pays 30,000 more than regular manufacturing, why not support a reversal of the sequestarion on military and streamline commerical aircraft for more producation and developed private space like Space X and so forth. In fact in 1990 1,105,800 aerospace versus 2011 in 663,800. Most aerospace companies pay health benefits. Granted, there is some outsourcing and automation but why not counter the left with jobs that pay decent.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I got to this excellent take by Ron Radosh after reading McCarthy's piece earlier and commenting on it. So to save trouble, I will post the same comment here - just so I can get attacked in the same way by the same rightwing knee-jerk current that is running strongly there. sadly.

To McCarthy on NRO
Aside from being plain wrong to claim that the New Deal was a fraud "designed to create permanent dependency on government," this claim is also fanciful beyond belief to say the least in its political implications now. To the degree the conservative movement clings to a rhetoric of rolling back the New Deal and all welfare state functions of the federal government, it will cling to its increasing marginalization and ultimate demise.

The New Deal was, whatever its flaws, a response to an overwhelming catastrophe, national as well as international in scope. The states were all but powerless to contend with it by themselves, as FDR knew well, having been governor of the most powerful of the states and having tried to cope with relief and employment programs in that state to little avail. Roosevelt himself was as ideologically opposed to the mere dole and to welfare dependency as any conservative and resisted mightily pressures to dole out cash and unbalance budgets.

As to Republicans back then being opposed only to federal constitutional overreach, I would like Mr. McCarthy to detail for me the conservative Republican state programs of the 1930s to revive the economy and help the destitute. In fact, as Charles Krauthammer correctly put it, they opposed FDR's program vigorously while offering NOTHING in its place but bromides and platitudes, a tragic fact that is now being repeated by the Tea Party wing of the movement. It is dismaying in the extreme to see what was in fact a potentially break-through moment for a rational conservatism (the Krauthammer-Stewart interchange) get this shabby treatment on NRO.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Powerful, because of propaganda support by the media, Leftist Presidents faced with recessions and helpless to beat them, because of their ideology, only prolong and sometimes worsen them. For proof see the Administrations of Roosevelt and Obama.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
McCarthy thinks that the USA is in the Death Star's garbage compactor, and that the course Krauthammer proposes is slow suicide, in that it does not even try to stop, let alone escape crushing walls of the Progressive ratchet but merely seeks to slow it down in the hope of... what miracle Krauthammer cannot say.

Radosh thinks the course that McCarthy (who understands his own proposal to be a desperate measure with iffy chances for success) is quick suicide for the Republican Party.

Perhaps they are both right.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
To expect a radical rollback of the state is political folly. Acceptance of an imagined status quo state is suicide.

Krauthammer runs nigh, McCarthy inevitable.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There is more moderation and progressivism remaining in Krauthammer, in my view, than this essay suggests. CK is still opposed to the Tea Party. See http://clarespark.com/2013/10/26/krauthammer-fox-news-channel-and-the-search-for-unity/.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All