Friday, August 15, 2014

The P.O.'s name is going to be released at 8:00 A.M.


And the first suit will be filed by 9:00 A.M. This guy is going to be fed to the wolves regardless of the facts. 

The governor is running for cover as Obama critiques law enforcement from the comfort of Martha's Vineyard. 


It's time to speak up about what is going on in Missouri.

Something about this woman makes me feel uneasy about the future of our city.

Karen Lewis Defends Six-Figure Salary: 'I'm Not Going to Apologize For It'

The fiery Chicago Teachers Union boss affirms she's "solidly middle class"

View Comments (
)
|
Email
|
Print
http://media.nbcbayarea.com/images/Karen_Lewis_8-13.jpg
8/13/2014: Karen Lewis answers questions about her over $200 thousand dollar a year income and real estate holdings. NBC 5's Mary Ann Ahern reports.
Chicago Teachers Union boss Karen Lewis is defending her six-figure salary and three homes -- one of which is in Hawaii -- as "solidly middle class."
The Sun-Times reports that Lewis, who frequently busts Mayor Rahm Emanuel for hanging out with rich people like himself, commands a combined salary of $201,047 for her CTU position as well as her union gig as executive vice president of the Illinois Federation of Teachers. (Emanuel, meanwhile, earns $216,200. But he's got millions in his bank account.)
According to the paper, Lewis and her retired teacher husband own a Hawaiian condo, which they bought several years ago for $240,000, in addition to their home in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood, purchased in 2007 for $405,000. She and her sister share ownership of a vacation property in Union Pier, Mich., priced at $305,000.
"I don’t live extravagantly. But if you look just at the numbers, then, absolutely, I am in the 5 percent," she tells the paper. “We are comfortable. We are not poor. We have never been poor. Does that mean I don’t have the pulse of (the poor)? I don’t live in luxury. I don’t hang out with wealthy people. I have always been solidly middle class. You cannot put me in the same class with Rahm Emanuel or Bruce Rauner."
(Good point. You can't accuse Karen of collecting nine homes that include a gazillion-acre ranch in Big Sky Country.)
As for her CTU salary -- she makes a base of $136,890 -- Lewis makes no apologies. Lewis' previous vow not to earn more than Chicago's highest-paid teacher relates to the school year, not her 24-7 full-time post, she explains.
"I’m not going to apologize for it. I don’t think that’s wrong," she asserts. "I did what we are told to do. You are supposed to go to school, become educated. I have an Ivy League diploma. I have two master’s degrees. I’m a board-certified teacher.”

Thursday, August 14, 2014

EBOLA, nothing to worry about. The government told us so.


How in the world is it possible that more than 170 health workers have been infected by the Ebola virus? That is the one question about Ebola that nobody can seem to answer.  The World Health Organization is reporting this as a fact, but no explanation is given as to why this is happening.  We are just assured that Ebola “is not airborne” and that getting infected “requires close contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person”.  If this is true, then how have more than 170 health workers caught the disease?  These workers are dressed head to toe in suits that are specifically designed to prevent the spread of the virus.  So how is this happening?  I could understand a handful of “mistakes” by health workers, but this is unlike anything that we have ever seen in the history of infectious diseases.  These health workers take extraordinary precautions to keep from getting the virus.  If it is spreading so easily to them, what chance is the general population going to have?
Overall, more than 1,700 people have been officially infected and more than 900 people have officially died so far.  But an official from Samaritan’s Purse says that the real numbers are probably far, far higher
Ken Isaacs, the vice president of Program and Government Relations for Samaritan’s Purse, painted an even bleaker picture. According to the World Health Organization, West Africa has counted 1,711 diagnoses and 932 deaths, already, which could represent only a small fraction of the true number. “We believe that these numbers represent just 25 to 50 percent of what is happening,” said Isaacs.

In a six-hour meeting with the president of Liberia last week, Isaacs said workers from Samaritan’s Purse and SIM watched as the “somber” officials explained the gravity of the situation in their countries, where hundreds lie dead in the streets. “It has an atmosphere of apocalypse,” Isaacs said of the Liberia Ministry of Health’s status updates. “Bodies lying in the street…gangs threatening to burn down hospitals. I believe this disease has the potential to be a national security risk for many nations. Our response has been a failure.” Isaacs says that the epidemic is inciting panic worldwide that, in his opinion, may soon be warranted. “We have to fight it now here or we’re going to have to fight it somewhere else.”

Monday, August 11, 2014

Been working hard.


Last week, President Barack Obama authorized targeted attacks not only to protect Iraqi minorities from ISIS' murderous rampage, but also Americans stationed in the Kurdish regional capital of Irbil.
Hundreds of U.S. military personnel are in Iraq, including advisers sent in recently to coordinate local military officials fighting ISIS. Many of them and U.S. consular staff are based in Irbil.
Obama cautioned that the campaign will be a "long-term project." "I don't think we're going to solve this problem in weeks," the President told reporters Saturday as he left for vacation at Martha's Vineyard.
But he reiterated his vow that no U.S. combat troops will join the fight.
Striking ISIS also defends the United States' interests at home, the President said Saturday. Terrorists massing in Syria and Iraq could lash out at Western targets, he said.

Thursday, August 7, 2014

Global Warming is an attempt to divert everyones attention away from Fukushima


All we hear about from our government is the danger from global warming and how it is the greatest threat to mankind.  Strange we never hear even a mention of the radiation which continues to leak from the Fukushima Nuclear Powerplant and could possibly be poisoning the U.S. food supply.
According to Maxim Shingarkin, deputy chairman of Russia’s State Duma Committee for Natural Resources, “Currents in the world ocean are so structured that the areas of seafood capture near the U.S. northwest coast are more likely to contain radioactive nuclides than even the Sea of Okhotsk, which is much closer to Japan. These products are the main danger for mankind because they can find their way to people’s tables on a massive scale.”
This is an issue of significant importance to the United States since, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. imported almost 45 million pounds of fish from Japan in 2012.
There is evidence the radioactive water emanating from the plants starting two years ago has made its way into the ocean currents and will soon start to affect the ecosystems in North America as early as the spring of 2014.
Some say it is already here.
Reports are coming in that the North American food supply is already being affected by Fukushima.
Bluefin tuna caught off the San Diego coast is showing evidence of radioactive contamination. This is the first time that a migrating fish has been shown to carry radioactivity 3,000 miles from Fukushima to the U.S. Pacific coast. It is a nutrition source that accounts for approximately 20,000 tons of the world’s food supply each year.
So the next time the state media or the guy from city hall starts lecturing you about global warming, ask him about Fukushima. Watch the blank look on their faces. 

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/japan-radiation-poisoning-america/#3Xf0B0Akje5wOTlP.99

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Guess which 19th Ward politician is getting a new street this week?

They're out there this week.

guess who?
Guess Who?
Guess?

How is it that this block was selected for a new street when so many blocks around there also need new streets? What is the criteria for a new street?

Go to 115th place west of Longwood Drive. They would like a new street. They would like to get some curbs too. 

How about using some of that money to get the dead ash trees taken down? Or must we continue to use our limited resources for the pleasure of the elite. 

Victim or Bullshitter? You decide.


Deidre Green accused former Chicago Fire Commissioner John Brooks of sexual harassment. | Sun-Times file photo

Fire Dept. worker sues city after sex-harassment claim upheld

A $63,048-a-year payroll auditor for the Chicago Fire Department has filed a federal lawsuit against the city — armed with a finding of discrimination by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that upheld her sexual harassment charge against former Fire Commissioner John Brooks. 
“Every time I think about it, it brings tears to my eyes. I just want to be made whole because I feel I was so wronged,” Deidre Green, 47, said Tuesday. 
“I was sexually harassed. They tried to fire me. I had a semi-nervous breakdown and was off work for two years on medical leave. I only got 67 percent of my pay. I wasn’t the first to go through this and I won’t be the last. If I get some restitution, maybe this behavior will stop. Or maybe other women will have the courage to report it.”


Brooks abruptly retired in 2010, two months after Green accused her boss of coming on to her sexually and targeting her for layoff when she refused his repeated advances. 
“He would call my cellphone and say women wanted to feel on him and suck on him and why didn’t I like him. He said I probably didn’t have anybody of his caliber. He said he liked big boobs and would like to look down my top,” Green recalled Tuesday.
Then-Office of Compliance chief Anthony Boswell was accused of quashing an investigation into the woman’s claims.
Brooks vehemently denied Green’s allegations but added fuel to the fire with his politically incorrect response.
“I do not proposition women. I don’t have to. Women usually proposition me. God has blessed me like that,” Brooks told the Chicago Sun-Times at the time in response to Green’s harassment allegations.
Then-Mayor Richard M. Daley subsequently asked former Judge Patricia Brown Holmes to conduct an independent investigation of the harassment claims against Brooks and the cover-up allegations against Boswell.
Holmes concluded that Brooks’ “behavior and comments were inappropriate for the workplace.” But she also ruled there was no wrongdoing by either man.
The U.S. EEOC reached a far different conclusion, setting the stage for Green’s lawsuit against the city. On Sept. 19, 2012, district director John Rowe ruled that Green’s complaint “establishes reasonable cause to believe” that she was a victim of sexual harassment. 
Rowe further concluded that Brooks “retaliated” against Green for filing racial and sexual harassment allegations against her boss with the city’s now-defunct Office of Compliance.
Brooks could not be reached for comment on Green’s lawsuit. According to Rowe, the campaign of “harassment and intimidation” against Green included having her vacation denied, merit pay raise delayed, being targeted for layoff and being subject to disciplinary actions that reduced her seniority.
The alleged harassment got so bad, Green was forced to go on medical leave in early 2010, records show. 
Brooks could not be reached for comment on Green’s lawsuit. 
The complaint seeks lost wages, liquidated double-damages, compensatory and punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys fees on grounds that the city should have taken action to stop the alleged harassment. 
Instead, Green claims she was reassigned twice — from Fire Department headquarters at 35th and Michigan to district offices because department brass “didn’t want to work around me.”
Green said the EEOC’s finding vindicated her claims against Brooks after the city report that amounted to a whitewash. 
“When he first approached me, I was kind of stunned. I had never gone through anything like this before. He was just becoming commissioner. He had authority over my job. I didn’t know what to say,” Green recalled. “It was humiliating, horrific and sad. I don’t want anybody else to have to go through this.”
The city says her lawsuit should be dismissed because she doesn’t identify a city policy or practice that led to the alleged constitutional violations against her.

Sunday, August 3, 2014

Liberalism

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE MENTAL ILLNESS KNOWN AS ‘LIBERALISM’ 



In this searing and personal Firewall, Bill Whittle talks about his Brief History of Mental Illness, how he managed to avoid going Full Progressive, the famous author who helped bring him back to sanity, and asks the fundamental question: "What if I'm wrong?"

Saturday, August 2, 2014

Do government workers need union representatives?

Are the days of collective bargaining in the public sector numbered?

unions-cropped-internal.jpg
March 20, 2013: Culinary Union workers demonstrate along Las Vegas Boulevard, protesting against their contract negotiations with Deutsche Bank in Las Vegas.AP
Unions representing government workers are expanding while organized labor has been shedding private sector members over the past half-century.
A majority of union members today now have ties to a government entity, at the federal, state or local levels.
Roughly 1-in-3 public sector workers is a union member, compared with about 1-in-15 for the private sector workforce, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Overall, 11.3 percent of wage and salary workers in the United States are unionized, down from a peak of 35 percent during the mid-1950s in the strong post-World War II recovery.
The typical union worker now is more likely to be an educator, office worker or food or service industry employee rather than a construction worker, autoworker, electrician or mechanic. Far more women than men are among the union-label ranks.
In a blow to public sector unions, the Supreme Court ruled this week that thousands of health care workers in Illinois who are paid by the state cannot be required to pay fees that help cover a union's cost of collective bargaining.
The justices said the practice violates the First Amendment rights of nonmembers who disagree with stances taken by unions.
The ruling was narrowly drawn, but it could reverberate through the universe of unions that represent government workers. The case involved home-care workers for disabled people who are paid with Medicaid funds administered by the state.
Also in June, a California judge declared unconstitutional the state's teacher tenure, dismissal and layoff laws. The judge ordered a stay of the decision, pending an appeal by the state and teachers union.
"The basic structure of the labor union movement has changed, reflecting changes in the economy," said Ross Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University. "Manufacturing is a diminishing segment of the economy. Also, a lot of the manufacturing that's being done today is being done nonunion."
Union members continue to be a powerful political force in politics, and Baker said he didn't see the role of unions diminishing. "I just think the colors of the collars are changing," Baker said.
In 2013, 14.5 million workers belonged to a union, about the same as the year before. In 1983, the first year for which comparable figures are available, there were 17.7 million union workers.
The largest union is the National Education Association, with 3.2 million members. It represents public school teachers, administrators and students preparing to become teachers.
Next is the 2.1-million Service Employees International Union. About half its members work in the public sector.
The American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees has 1.6 million, followed by the American Federation of Teachers with 1.5 million and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters with 1.4 million.
There are 1.3 million members in the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.
Until four years ago, the unionization rate was far higher in the private sector than in the public sector. Now the roles are reversed.
But it's been a bumpy road for public unions in some Republican-governed states.
In 2011, Gov. Scott Walker, R-Wis., took on public sector unions forcefully soon after he was swept into office. He got enacted a bill effectively ending collective bargaining for most public workers in the state. He withstood huge labor demonstrations at the state Capitol and then became the first governor in U.S. history to defeat a recall attempt. The law has been challenged in court, and continues to be. But its main thrust so far has been upheld.
A sign of the decline of traditional labor unions came in May when the United Automobile Workers raised its membership dues for the first time in 27 years to help offset declining membership. Also, the defeat in February of the UAW's effort to unionize workers at Volkswagen's Chattanooga, Tennessee, plant was a setback to labor.
A 2013 Gallup poll showed that 54 percent of Americans said they approved of labor unions, down from the all-time high of 75 percent in both 1953 and 1957.
"Labor unions play a diminishing role in the private sector, but they still claim a large share of the public sector workforce," says Chris Edwards, director of tax studies at the libertarian, free-market Cato Institute.
"Public sector unions are important to examine because they have a major influence on government policies through their vigorous lobbying efforts. ... They are particularly influential in states that allow monopoly unionization through collective bargaining."
Since 2000, factories have shed more than 5 million jobs. Five states — Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina Georgia and Texas — ban collective bargaining in the public sector.

10th Annual Play for Maeve


1.00 PM today at Beverly Park. Bring your kids. 

For for information go to http://www.maevesfoundation.org/

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Walgreens

WHY A 113 YEAR-OLD ILLINOIS COMPANY WANTS TO BECOME SWISS

Reeder, ScottBy Scott Reeder - 
SPRINGFIELD – I picked up my vacation photos at Walgreens the other day.
And I didn’t hear any French, German or Italian spoken.
How surprising.
I’ve read that the Deerfield, Ill.,-based drugstore chain is considering becoming a Swiss corporation.
I’ll admit the thought of a company that is essentially an American icon becoming a foreign corporation gives me pause.
After all, Walgreens is one of Illinois’ premier companies.

It was founded here in 1901 and is headquartered in Deerfield, Ill.
And now they are talking about moving their headquarters to Switzerland.
But what exactly does it mean when a corporation becomes Swiss?
Will they start having complimentary fondue in the checkout lanes?
Will the pharmacist yodel instructions to customers in the drive through?
Or is it a matter of some incorporation paperwork being filed in an office in the Alps rather than Springfield?
I would hate to see Walgreens – or any other corporation – renounce its U.S. citizenship.
Every time that happens, it reminds us that the business climate in this country is not what it should be.  
One has to ask, why would a corporation founded in Illinois 113 years ago want to become Swiss?
The answer is as obvious as the Matterhorn.
Corporate taxes in Illinois and the United States are too high.
Way too high.
The United States has the highest corporate tax rates on the planet.
And, you guessed it, Illinois has one of the highest state corporate tax rates in the U.S.
Business corporations exist to make money by serving people. And when government makes it harder to earn in one place, they will look elsewhere.
We can spend a lot of time bemoaning that fact, or simply acknowledge that is the case and work to create a climate that attracts business and doesn’t repel jobs.
Still the idea of Walgreens leaving is a bitter pill to swallow.
But here is the deal, when a company switches in what country it will be incorporated, as Walgreens is considering, it still pays taxes to the U.S. government on its U.S. earnings. And it would be paying them at the same rate that it always has.
On money it makes overseas it would pay that country’s rate.
Seems fair, right?
Unfortunately, the U.S. expects companies headquartered here to pay the equivalent of the full U.S. rate on money earned elsewhere.
So U.S. companies that do business overseas choose to move their headquarters elsewhere.
So what’s the solution?
The answer would seem to be to lower the corporate income tax rate so that it is competitive with other western nations. In fact, if the U.S. had the same tax policies as Switzerland — or most Western nations — Walgreens would pay billions less in taxes and wouldn’t be considering moving.
The billions saved could go to shareholders in the form of dividends, to employees through higher pay and customers through lower prices.
And what could be more American than that?

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Conservatism Explained

The Origins of the Modern American Conservative Movement

While this is my first visit to Mainland China, I have visited Hong Kong and Taiwan many times over the last 30 years, drawn to this nation and its people by their important place in world politics and human history.
Much of what I know about China I learned from Walter H. Judd, who was a medical missionary in China in the 1920s and the 1930s. Dr. Judd is relevant to our discussion because he was a major influence on the American conservative movement from the 1950s through the 1980s. Indeed, what he said about China was very nearly the gospel for many conservatives.
After a year's study at the University of Nanking, Dr. Judd was posted to the Shaowu mission in the town of Shaowu, Fukien Province, so far into the interior that it could only be reached by a 10day boat trip up the Min River. He spent the next five years in Shaowu, caring for the sick and the dying, facing death at the hands of bandits, criticizing the Nationalists, debating with Communists, including Gen. Lin Piao, going for months without seeing another white face, and falling deeply in love with China until, his life threatened by persistent bouts of malaria, he reluctantly came home to the United States.
Dr. Judd had many Communists as his patients in Shaowu, and he was always impressed by their discipline. They first came through his town in 1926 when they were part of Chiang Kaishek's united front against the warlords. "They were the first military outfit I ever saw," said Dr. Judd, "that never had a case of venereal disease."
He returned to the Middle Kingdom in 1934 to take charge of a large hospital in Fenchow, Shansi Province, in the North where he would not be exposed to malaria. During his second tour of duty in China, he often found himself under martial law as Communists and Nationalists vied fiercely for control of the area before forming an uneasy united front against the invading Japanese. In early 1938, Fenchow fell to the Japanese, and Dr. Judd was a "guest" of the occupying Japanese forces for five tense months.
Miraculously, Dr. Judd was allowed to leave Fenchow and return to the United States after treating the Japanese commanding general for a sexual disease he had contracted from a Chinese woman. The embarrassed general sought help from the American physician because he did not want to lose face by revealing the nature of his illness to a Japanese doctor. And he made sure that none of his countrymen would learn about his problem by sending the American who had treated him back home, 10,000 miles away.
For the rest of his long life, Dr. Judd gave many speeches about Asia, always emphasizing the central importance of China. He would hold up his hand, palm out, and say:
This is Asia. My palm is China and my fingers are the nations extending from the continent Korea, Japan, IndoChina, the Philippines, and Indonesia. When China is at peace and under a government that truly represents the interests of the Chinese people, all of Asia is at peace. But if China is at war and under a government that does not represent the true interests of the Chinese people, all of Asia is in conflict.

Russell Kirk and The Conservative Mind

It is a striking historical coincidence that both the People's Republic of China and the modern American conservative movement were born a little over 50 years ago, the PRC in 1949 with the coming to power of Mao Zedung and modern conservatism in 1953 with the publication of Russell Kirk's masterwork, The Conservative Mind.
Chairman Mao famously declared that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. While that may be true for certain regimes in certain circumstances, such political power cannot be sustained permanently, for it requires ever larger barrels and ever more guns. Political power that depends exclusively for its survival upon force inevitably degenerates into military power and leads to an authoritarian and usually a totalitarian state. Chairman Mao's aphorism in fact denies the reality that lasting political power grows not out of a gun, but out of an idea.
The central idea of The Conservative Mind, upon which American conservatism is essentially based, is ordered liberty. It is a blending of the sometimes contending requirements of the community and the individual, of individual freedom and individual responsibility, of limited government and unlimited markets.
Kirk described six basic "canons" or principles of conservatism:
  • A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society;
  • Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing uniformity;
  • Civilized society requires orders and classes;
  • Property and freedom are inseparably connected;
  • Man must control his will and his appetite, knowing that he is governed more by emotion than by reason; and
  • Society must alter slowly.
The Conservative Mind was an impressive feat of scholarship a synthesis of the ideas of the leading Conservative AngloAmerican thinkers and political leaders of the late 18th century through the early 20th century. The work established convincingly that there was a tradition of American conservatism that had existed since the Founding of the Republic. With one book, Russell Kirk made conservatism intellectually acceptable in America. Indeed, he gave the Conservative movement its name.
However, the intellectual pedigree of American conservatism goes much farther back in time than the 18th century. In a subsequent book, Russell Kirk wrote that the roots of American order were first planted nearly three thousand years earlier.
Kirk used the device of five cities Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, London, and Philadelphia to trace their development. The roots first appeared in Jerusalem, with the Hebrew perception of a purposeful moral existence under God. They were strengthened in Athens, with the philosophical and political selfawareness of the Greeks. They were nurtured in Rome, by the Roman experience of law and social awareness. They were intertwined with the Christian understanding of human duties and human hopes, of man redeemed. They were joined by medieval custom, learning, and valor.
The roots of American order were then enriched by two great political experiments that occurred in London, the birthplace of parliaments and the guardian of common law, and in Philadelphia, where both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were written. The miracle of Philadelphia was that the delegates were able to resolve, for the most part, the conflicting demands of freedom and order. They created a true national government but not an absolute government. They designed something new under the political sun a federalism which carefully enumerated, separated, and restrained the powers of the national government.

1953: A Critical Year

1953 the year of The Conservative Mind was a critical year in American politics and conservatism. Dwight Eisenhower was inaugurated as President, signaling an end to the New Deal era. Conservatives such as Russell Kirk, Robert Nisbet, Richard Weaver, Clinton Rossiter, and Leo Strauss published works that could not be ignored. It was the year that conservatives began to coalesce, arguing and disputing all the while, into a political movement.
Over the next 50 years, a succession of Conservative philosophers, popularizers, philanthropists, and politicians marched across the American political stage. First came the philosophers, who presented their ideas usually in an academic forum. Next came the popularizers, journalists and the like, who translated the often obscure language of the philosophers into a common idiom. Finally came the politicians, whose attention was caught and whose imaginations were fired by the popularizers and who introduced public policies and campaign platforms based on Conservative ideas. Throughout this period, prescient philanthropists underwrote the thinking of the philosophers, the journals of the popularizers, and the campaigns of the politicians.
The history of American politics suggests that a political movement must experience these successive waves of ideas, interpretation, and action along with sufficient financial resources to be successful.
The rise of conservatism was also helped significantly by the decline and fall of American liberalism, which lost its way between the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Great Society of Lyndon B. Johnson, between the anticommunist Korean War, which it supported, and the Sandinistas' Marxist takeover of Nicaragua, which it also supported, and between the earthy populism of Harry Truman and the cerebral elitism of Al Gore.
In large measure, the success of the American conservative movement rests on its role in two epic events one foreign, one domestic that have shaped much of modern American history. The first was the waging and the winning of the Cold War. The second was the American public's rejection of the idea that the federal government should be the primary solver of major economic and social problems.
Conservatives declared that communism was evil and had to be defeated, not just contained. And they said that the federal government had grown dangerously large and had to be rolled back, not just managed more efficiently.
Because conservatives played a decisive part in ending the Cold War and alerting the nation to the perils of a leviathan state, they reaped enormous political rewards, such as Ronald Reagan's sweeping presidential victories in 1980 and 1984, the Republicans' historic capture of Congress in 1994, and George Bush's capture of the White House in 2000.
But the Conservative revolution that remade American politics was a long time in the making. In the mid1950s, Conservative ideas did not seem to be taking hold in many Americans' minds. Similarly, Conservative politicians found themselves far from the center of the public square.
Senator Robert Taft of Ohio died in the summer of 1953, and Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, after his Senate censure in December 1954, was as good as dead. President Eisenhower was offering a "dimestore" New Deal at home while Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was accused by some conservatives of failing to pursue an aggressive enough anticommunist foreign policy.

William F. Buckley Jr. and National Review

In the early 1950s, in fact, the Conservative movement could claim only a few publications and fewer organizations. Conservative victories, wrote William F. Buckley Jr., were "uncoordinated and inconclusive" because the philosophy of freedom was not being expounded systematically in the universities and in the media. A new Conservative journal was needed, he argued, to combat the liberals, to compensate for "Conservative weakness" in the academy, and to "focus the energies" of the movement.
In the first issue of his new magazine, National Review, Buckley sounded the clarion, averring that conservatives lived, as did all other Americans, in "a Liberal world." National Review would not submit but would stand "athwart history yelling Stop!" confident that "a vigorous and incorruptible journal of Conservative opinion" could make a critical difference in the realms of ideas and politics.
National Review, then, was not simply a journal of opinion but a political act which, like the publication of Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind, shaped the modern Conservative movement.

Barry Goldwater and The Conscience
of a Conservative

Along with the publication of The Conservative Mind and the founding of National Review, a new political star was rising in the West in the 1950s. Barry Goldwater was the grandson of a Jewish peddler who became a millionaire; a college dropout whose book The Conscience of a Conservative sold 3.5 million copies and was for a while required reading for history 169B at Harvard University.
Goldwater delighted in challenging conventional wisdom but always used the Constitution as his guide. He said that the future of freedom in America depended upon the election of public officials who pledged to enforce the Constitution and who proclaimed, "My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them." He also called for victory over communism in the Cold War.
All the ingredients of a national political movement seemed to be coming together: a charismatic political leader, Senator Barry Goldwater; widely known popularizers like Bill Buckley; thinkers like
F. A. Hayek, Russell Kirk, and Milton Friedman in their intellectual prime; and farsighted "golden" donors.
These were heady times for the Conservative movement, capped by a Time magazine article that reported: "A statebystate survey of Time correspondents indicates that at least Republican Barry Goldwater could give [President] Kennedy a breathlessly close contest." The American conservative movement was prepared to help Goldwater capture the Republican presidential nomination and then perhaps secure the most soughtafter prize in American politics the presidency.
And then, on November 22, 1963, a smiling, tanned John F. Kennedy settled back in an open limousine to parade through downtown Dallas.
The bullet that killed Kennedy also killed Goldwater's changes to become President the American people did not want three different Presidents in a single year. And yet, the Arizona Conservative still announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination, unwilling to disappoint the millions and there were millions who looked to him as a political savior. Rarely does a presidential candidate run knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that he cannot win.
President Johnson demolished Barry Goldwater in the presidential election, receiving 61 percent of the popular vote and carrying 44 states. Liberal commentators declared that the Conservative movement was dead. James Reston, Washington bureau chief of The New York Times, concluded that "Barry Goldwater not only lost the presidential election...but the Conservative cause as well."
Conservatives emphatically disagreed.
  • "The landslide majority did not vote against the Conservative philosophy," wrote Ronald Reagan; "they voted against a false image our liberal opponents successfully mounted."
  • National Review senior editor Frank Meyer pointed out that, despite the liberal campaign to make conservatism seem "extremist, radical, nihilist, anarchic," twofifths of the voters still voted for the Conservative alternative.
  • Human Events stated that the Goldwater campaign had accomplished three critical things: "The Republican Party is essentially Conservative; the South is developing into a major pivot of its power; and a candidate who possesses Goldwater's virtues but lacks some of his handicaps can win the presidency."
This last insight came to pass in the person of Ronald Reagan, who delivered a nationally televised address for Goldwater in the waning days of the 1964 campaign and became, as a result, a national political star overnight. Prominent California Republicans later admitted that they would not have approached Reagan to run for governor of their state if it had not been for his TV address, entitled, "A Time for Choosing."

An Enduring Legacy

There was another critical legacy of the Goldwater campaign I want to mention the entry of thousands of young people into American politics and policymaking. These young conservatives now sit in Congress and on the Supreme Court, manage campaigns and raise millions of dollars, head think tanks like The Heritage Foundation and write seminal books, edit magazines, and anchor radio and television programs.
In addition, Barry Goldwater addressed in a serious and substantive way issues that have been at the center of the national debate ever since Social Security, government subsidies, privatization, morality in government, and communism. Campaign strategist John Sears summed up that Goldwater changed "the rhetoric of politics" by challenging the principles of the New Deal, "something no Democrat or Republican before him had dared to do."
There were several milestones in the first 20 years of the Conservative movement, such as the publication of The Conservative Mind and the founding of National Review, but none equaled the political salience of Barry Goldwater's seemingly quixotic run for the White House. His candidacy was "like a first love" for countless young men and women, never to be forgotten, always to be cherished. It was the beginning rather than the end of conservatism's political ascendancy.

The Rise of Ronald Reagan

Although he had never before run for public office, Ronald Reagan trounced the incumbent Democratic governor of California, Edmund (Pat) Brown, by 1 million votes in the November 1966 election. By the following July, after only six months in office, Governor Reagan was ranked in opinion polls as a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination.
Over the next eight years as governor of the most populous state in the Union, Reagan cut and trimmed government wherever possible, kept government income and outgo in balance (as required by law), used business and professional experts to make government more efficient, and did not hesitate to make unpopular decisions, such as instituting tuition for the state's university system. His most important accomplishment was welfare reform. In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed into law a welfare reform program that relied in large measure on the California plan that Reagan had engineered a quarter of a century earlier.
While Ronald Reagan was finishing up his second term as governor of California in the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon was sinking deeper and deeper into the mire of Watergate. In July 1974, the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment. Any possibility and it was slight that Nixon might evade impeachment disappeared in early August with the release of his "smoking gun" conversations with White House aide Robert Haldeman. The President had deliberately participated in an unconstitutional coverup of Watergate.

The New Right and the Neoconservatives

During this chaotic period, two new and influential branches of conservatism came into being. The New Right was a reaction to the attempted liberal takeover of the Republican Party epitomized by President Gerald Ford's selection of Nelson Rockefeller as his Vice President. The neoconservatives similarly responded to the liberal seizure of the Democratic Party, represented by the nomination of George McGovern as President.
The New Right and the neoconservatives were not a natural alliance. The New Right was deeply suspicious of government, while the neoconservatives embraced it. The New Right loved the mechanics of politics, while the neoconservatives preferred the higher plane of public policy. But both hated communism and despised liberals the New Right for what they had always been, the neoconservatives for what they had become.
In the end, it was the neoconservatives' anticommunism and resistance to the counterculture that won the approval of the conservatives and led to a pragmatic marriage. The minister who presided over the nuptials was Ronald Reagan, who needed the brainpower of the neoconservatives and the manpower of the New Right, especially the Christian Right, to be elected.

Reagan as President: Defining a Decade

In 1980, at the age of 69, Reagan bested six of the GOP's brightest stars in the Republican primaries, including George Herbert Walker Bush, who had served as U.S. envoy to China among other assignments. In the fall campaign, President Jimmy Carter attempted to portray his Republican opponent as a rightwing extremist opposed to peace, arms control, and working people. Reagan refused to be thrown offcourse and went on courting the bluecollar, ethnic Catholic vote, concentrated on Carter's sorry economic record, and reassured the voters that he could handle the weighty duties of the presidency.
Although most of the national polls said it would be a close election, Reagan won by an electoral landslide and more than 8 million votes. Observers agreed that the results constituted a broad mandate for Reagan to change the direction of American politics. Newsweek called Reagan's plan to cut both spending and incometaxes a "second New Deal potentially as profound in its impact as the first was a half century ago."
The new President and his advisers were well aware they had to act, and quickly in presidential politics, as in the 100yard dash, a quick start is everything. Their domestic cornerstone was the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA), which cut all incometaxes by 25 percent, reduced the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent, and indexed tax rates to offset the impact of inflation.
As a result, beginning in the fall of 1982, the economy began 60 straight months of growth, the longest uninterrupted period of expansion since the government began keeping statistics in 1854. Nearly 15 million new jobs were created during this period, and just under $20 trillion worth of goods and services, measured in actual dollars, were produced.
From intelligence reports and the insights gained over a lifetime of study, President Reagan concluded that communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern and Central Europe was cracking and ready to crumble. In one of the most memorable utterances of his presidency, the President in 1982 predicted (before the British Parliament at Westminster): "The march of freedom and democracy...will leave MarxismLeninism on the ashheap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the selfexpression of the people."
A critical part of what came to be called the Reagan Doctrine was the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), the development of a comprehensive antiballistic missile system. The only people who hated it more than its liberal detractors in America (who ridiculed it as "Star Wars") were the Soviets. In 1993, General Makhmut Gareer, who headed the department of strategic analysis in the Soviet Ministry of Defense, revealed what he had told the Soviet general staff and the Politboro in 1983: "Not only could we not defeat SDI, SDI defeated all possible countermeasures."

The Reagan Legacy

Biographer Lou Cannon wrote that "no president save FDR defined a decade as strikingly as Ronald Reagan defined the 1980s." But Cannon did not go far enough. Reagan left an indelible mark on American politics, starting in the 1960s, when he was governor of California and continuing through the 1980s and to the present day. I predict that just as the first half of the 20th century has been called the Age of Roosevelt, the last half of the 20th century will be called the Age of Reagan.
Just as Roosevelt led America out of a great economic depression, Reagan lifted a traumatized country out of a great psychological depression, induced by the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., and sustained by the Vietnam War, the scandal of Watergate, and the malaise of Jimmy Carter. Reagan used the same political instruments as Roosevelt the major address to Congress and the fireside chat with the people and the same optimistic, uplifting rhetoric.
But although both Roosevelt and Reagan appealed to the best in America, there was a significant philosophical difference between the two Presidents: Roosevelt turned to government to solve the problems of the people, while Reagan turned to the people to solve the problems of government.

Traditionalists vs. Neoconservatives

The Conservative movement had generally flourished during the 1980s, but there were inevitable tensions as it grew in size and influence. In the 1950s, the sharpest debates had been between traditionalists and libertarians as to the proper balance between order and liberty. In the 1980s, traditionalists and neoconservatives disputed as to the correct role of the state.
The external threat of communism and the calming presence of President Reagan had persuaded most conservatives to sublimate their differences for the greater good. But with the collapse of Soviet communism and Reagan's departure, disagreements among the varying kinds of conservatism came to the surface with more intensity.

Newt Gingrich and the Contract
with America

President Bush the Elder was a severe disappointment to many conservatives, who did not mourn for long his 1992 defeat to New Democrat Bill Clinton. They found consolation in a new and somewhat controversial Conservative leader who came from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue Congressman Newt Gingrich. His Contract with America was the tip of a giant Conservative iceberg that tore into the seemingly permanent Democratic majority in Congress and sank it faster than the Titanic.
In the November 1994 elections, Republicans gained 52 seats and assumed a majority in the House of Representatives for the first time since 1953 when Dwight Eisenhower was President. And they recaptured control of the U.S. Senate. The New York Times called the Republicanconservative triumph "a political upheaval of historic proportions."
But the year that began with such shining promise ended in bitter disappointment. The Republican House watched its public approval sink from 52 percent to the upper 20s in January 1996, while Speaker Gingrich received a perilous disapproval rating of 51 percent.
Republicans grossly underestimated President Clinton's political skills, especially his use of the veto, and they failed to respond forcefully enough to the Democrats' propaganda. And they overestimated the ability of Congress to govern. In the age of mass media, presidential power is too great and congressional power is too diffuse for Congress to prevail over the President for long.

George W. Bush and the War
on terrorism

No U.S. President was as coolly welcomed as Republican George W. Bush was in January 2001. His inaugural was overshadowed by the disputed nature of his victory narrowly losing the popular vote to Vice President Al Gore and winning the Electoral College by just one vote more than the needed 270.
Widely described and not only by partisan Democrats as the man who "stole" the 2000 election, a cautious Bush began his presidency by focusing ontaxes and education reform as a reflection of his "compassionate" conservatism. His major accomplishment in his first six months was a monumental tax cut of $1.6 trillion, a move in keeping with the supplyside economic philosophy of Ronald Reagan, not of his father George H. W. Bush. But the President seemed detached and even uncomfortable in the job, and Democrats began laying plans for an aggressive presidential campaign and a retaking of the White House in 2004.
And then came September 11, 2001 "9/11." The hijacked airplanes that smashed into the white towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, the mammoth Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and the Pennsylvania countryside killed three thousand innocent people and swept away the political and social detritus of the previous 10 months. The nation was no longer divided between blue Gore states and red Bush states but was united in red, white, and blue.
The once passive President became an activist chief executive, asking for the authority to fight a protracted conflict against terrorists, help industries hit hard by terrorism, and rejuvenate a stalled economy. Aided by the public's tendency to rally around the President in a time of crisis, Bush's approval ratings skyrocketed until they topped 90 percent as high a level as any President since the advent of polling.
Inevitably, President Bush's popularity has leveled off in the 50s. Bipartisanship in Congress has become more difficult as the fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats on core issues liketaxes and federal spending and even the Iraq War have resurfaced. Patriotism has become passé in some quarters, especially in the academy.
But America will not return to its preSeptember 11 way of life. The terrorist attacks were a defining moment in modern American history. Americans are prepared to fight terrorism as long as they did the Cold War, which occupied us for some four decades.
In any war, leadership is critical. President Bush's leadership will be scrutinized as his Administration considers appropriate action against terrorists. Despite the questions about the existence or nonexistence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the majority of Americans still believe the war of liberation against Saddam Hussein was justified, and they have not forgotten how quickly the United States removed the extremist Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
At home, the Bush Administration is committed to preserving the tax cuts and stimulating the economy without massive federal spending and federal regulation. Such a balancing act of economics and politics will demand the greatest skill and care. The President is fortunate in that he can call upon the myriad resources of a mature Conservative movement the collective strengths of a great complex of politicians, popularizers, philosophers, and philanthropists.

The Triumph of conservatism

The transforming power of modern American conservatism over the last 50 years has been unmistakable. In the late 1940s, we seemed to be headed for a socialist world in which MarxismLeninism could only be contained, not defeated. In the 1990s, we celebrated the collapse of Soviet communism and the adoption of liberal democracy and free markets around the world because of the leadership of charismatic conservatives like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
The impacts of modern conservatism in America have been equally profound. There is renewed public skepticism about Big Government, a "leave us alone" attitude that stretches back as far as the Founding of the Republic. Because of Conservative initiatives like welfare reform, several of the nation's leading cultural indicators, such as violent crime, teenage births, and the child poverty rate, have declined. And in the wake of 9/11, a prudential internationalism has evolved, based on this principle: Act multilaterally when possible and unilaterally when necessary.
The liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote in 1947 that "there seems no inherent obstacle to the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals." Fiveandahalf decades later, the Conservative columnist George Will wrote that we had experienced "the intellectual collapse of socialism" in America and around the world.
The one political constant throughout those 50 years has been the rise of the Right, whose Long March to national power and prominence was often interrupted by the death of its leaders, calamitous defeats at the polls, frequent feuding within its ranks over means and ends, and the perennial hostility of the prevailing liberal establishment. But through the power of its ideas ever linked by the priceless principle of ordered liberty and the unceasing dissemination and application of those ideas, the Conservative movement has become a major, and often the dominant, player in the political and economic realms of America.
Lee Edwards, Ph.D., is Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought in the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation. He delivered this lecture in Beijing and Shanghai, China, in November 2003.