SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER: NEO-CON TROTSKYITE ????

By Rod Williams, Jan. 9, 2013- I am posting this article about Senator Lamar Alexander which appeared in the blog News with Views, as an example of how nutty and vicious some of the nutty right really is and to show the extend in which they will go in attacking those with whom they disagree.  The nutty fringe loves to name call. It is not enough that honorable people who agree on most things may have an occasional difference of opinion. To the nutty fringe, if you don't toe the line of what they see as what it is to be a conservative, then you are not simply mistaken; you are evil.

The most recent cause of the nutty right is the anti-Common Core campaign. Now, not everyone who has reservations about Common Core is on the nutty right wing fringe. There are some on the left who disapprove of Common Core and some sensible Conservatives have legitimate reservations. However, the over-the-top alarmist see it as part of some major conspiracy.  This sensible effort to improve education that was initiated by the private sector and state governors, they see as "Obamacore" and view it as a program to create "Skinner/Pavlovian, dog trained, dumbed down, robotic children [who] will be perfect for the global work force." (link)

Unfortunately, many mainstream conservatives in a desire to fight the common liberal political enemy, rather than each other, never raise objections and let the nutty fringe dominate the movement. More sensible Republicans need the energy and manpower of the nutty fringe so they go along when I know that many of them must really be embarrassed.

The nutty fringe loves conspiracies. One of the causes they have taken up is the anti-Sharia fight, seeing creeping Sharia everywhere.  If Kroger sells halal meat, or a bank offers interest free financing or a cab company respects the desire of a Muslim cab driver to not have to advertise strip clubs atop his cab, they see the imposition of Sharia law. They really think elements of our government are conspiring to impose Sharia law in America.

Another cause is the anti-agenda 21 movement. To these folks, one day it is shady wide sidewalks, or bike share programs, or roundabouts and the next day it is off to the gulag. The most "informed" of the anti-Agenda 21 crusaders see this 20-year-old United Nations study on environmental sustainability as a plot to kill 96% of the world's population by poisoning them with aspartame and fluoride. You can't make this stuff up!

So, what about Lamar Alexander? Alexander is one of the more "liberal" Republican senators according to some rating organizations, mainly earning that label because of his support of the new START Treaty and because of his support for some environmental efforts. He also is accused of voting with Obama 61% of the time. We are at a point in our political alignment in which the most liberal Republican is far to the right of the most conservative Democrat. The most conservative Democrat is still a liberal and the most liberal Republican is still a conservative by any reasonable standard. That was not always the case. There really was a time when there were liberal Republicans and conservative democrats, but not any more. As far as voting with the President 61% of the time, a lot of votes are routine matters and would be the same legislation no matter who was President. In today's environment, I am sure Ronald Reagan would be too liberal for the nutty fringe of the Republican Party.  

I don't fault Alexander on either his support of START or very much of his environmental record. In my view START was a good deal for America. It appropriated $85 billion dollars to test our nuclear arsenal to make sure it really did work, the last six Republican Secretaries of State supported it, and it still left the US and Russia with essential equivalency in nuclear weapons each having enough to destroy the planet several time over. We still have about 1600 delivery vehicles and 6000 nuclear war heads even after the new START.

On the environment, Alexander has not taken any radical positions. He has not supported CO2 cap and trade. I do not agree with all of his proposals and votes on environmental issues, such as increasing funding for infrastructure support for electric cars. I think the market will respond if there is legitimate demand for electric charging stations.  I do agree with Alexander on clean air. I sort like clean air and clean water. He is a reasonable Senator who cares about the environment.

I am more conservative than Alexander. I oppose his recent effort to require vendors on the Internet to become tax collectors and think he was wrong on some other issues such as noted above.  I am not for ever tied to Alexander.  If he had a qualified and credible primary opponent, I would give consideration to voting against Alexander in a primary. The other person would have to have a lot going for him, however. I think Alexander is a good Senator. I think he is smart, and honest, and loves this country, and I agree with him more than I disagree with him and I think he has served our country and our state well.

Is he a neo-con Trotskyite? Neo-con has become a pejorative term with no real meaning. To call someone a "neo-con" is a way of saying, "I don't like you."  It is sort of like calling someone a RINO. It means the person doing the name calling thinks the other person is not a real conservative. There was a time when neo-con actually did have a specific meaning.  Neo-conservatives were people who were liberals and Democrats who became disenchanted with liberalism and became conservative but never abandoned some of their liberals tendencies, especially on social issue. It was an intellectual movement rather than a popular movement and had its origins with a hand full of people associated with the magazines Commentary and Pubic Interest. People like Daniel Bell, Irving Kristol, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Regan's UN ambassador Jenne Kirkpatrick  are prominent neo-conservatives figures. Many of the leaders of the movement were Jewish and were academics. I don't think Alexander was ever a Democrat. I am pretty sure he was always a Republican. Being from east Tennessee, he was probably born a Republican. I don't think he fits the criteria for a "neo-con."

Trotskyite?  A Trotskyite is one who follows the political and economic theories of Communism advocated by Leon Trotsky and his followers, usually including the principle of worldwide revolution. I don't think that Alexander was ever a Trotskyite, Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist or Communist of any strip. I think he is a Presbyterian.

Top Stories

Fearing and Loathing an Obama Presidency

I belong to several chat groups and read lots of other blogs and I am amazed at some of what I read. Many writers express their fears about the prospects of the election of Barack Obama in apocalyptic terms.

Don’t get me wrong. I think Obama will lead the country in the wrong direction. Under an Obama Presidency the US will move more toward a European-style social democracy. I think Democratic economic and tax policy will be detrimental for wealth creation and our standard of living. I expect a more intrusive burdensome government from an Obama presidency. I do not think liberals have the same respect for property rights or freedom of speech, as do conservatives and that concerns me. I think an Obama election and especially a Democratic undivided government will be bad for the future of our nation. However, I do not think the election of Barack Obama will be the end of the world or our freedom. To see what I expect from an Obama Presidency see my recent post on the topic (link). I think the Fred Thompson video posted below is an accurate evaluation of what to fear from an Obama presidency.

So, I am not saying that it does not matter who is elected or that Obama will not be bad for our nation. However, some of the hysteria over the prospects of an Obama presidency is just over the top. I do not think Obama is a Muslim Manchurian Candidate or the Anti Christ. If Obama is elected, as much as I may not like it, he will be my President. After the election, assuming Obama is elected, the Republicans need to be the loyal opposition but try to work with Democrats for the good of the nation. I think there is a danger in poisoning the atmosphere with irrational doomsday fears of an Obama election. It may cause some nut to assassinate the guy. But, also it poisons the atmosphere for working together. If you think your political opponents are the epitome of evil, or if the people you represent think the other party is evil, it makes compromise difficult. I know some Democrats. Unfortunately, most of my siblings are Democrats. They are not evil people; they are just wrong. I think they are naive and suffer from too much idealism and too little logic; but they are not evil.

I don’t know what the ethics are of reposting comments from a chat group. Chat group are for members only and people may not want their comments spread beyond the group. I am reposting what one writer wrote on one of the chat groups I belong to, to offer an example of what people are saying. I am not listing the group name and am only listing initials of the discussion participants. This post is not from anyone of any importance, and would not be important at all if it were not so typical of a lot of what I am reading. Stuff like this is all over the Internet and this is typical also of some unsolicited emails I have received.

M…

I am going to make a few predictions here. Now understanding that I have never been wrong before should add credibility to these guesses. These are based on the premise that Obama gets into office.

1. This blogger site and others like it will no longer exist...they will be considered anti-government.
2. Talk shows, conservative ones that is, will no longer be allowed and go off the air as anti-government.
3. Guns will be taken away from the citizenry and the National Guard as well.
4. Children everywhere will be indoctrinated to the socialist/communist ideology.
5. Christians and Jews will be persecuted as anti-government and eventually
forbidden to practice their religion.
6. All corporations will be operated by the state and employees paid from the state as a measure to protect us.
7. Homosexuality, kiddy porn and other filthy things will be allowed and fostered.
8. Traveling between states will require a passport with a reason for the travel.
9. Many new laws will be put into place which will curb our freedoms immensely.
10. Curfews will exist and political prisoners will be taken and jailed for long periods of time.

Care to add your own here? Not very pretty is it? Wonderful future for our children.

B….

Let us take a look at this.

On item 1, I see no basis for believing the election of Democrats will bring about Internet censorship and a closing down of Internet conservative chat rooms. I do believe many liberals would like to shut down conservative voices but to impose censorship on the Internet would create a huge backlash. There are a lot of left-wing voices also on the Internet who would oppose censorship. A lot of good liberals really do respect freedom of speech.

Unfortunately I think item two is a realistic fear. Up until 1985 the “Fairness Doctrine” required radio stations to provide balanced coverage of controversial issues, so radio simply avoided controversy. Under the fairness doctrine, a station that did not provide “fairness” could lose their license. There is no equivalent to a Rush Limbaugh on the left. Talk radio is a conservative phenomenon. I think many liberals would like to shut down talk radio and would gladly reimpose the fairness doctrine. The public ownership of the airways and the argument for “fairness” gives liberals the cover they need to do it. If the Democrats get a super majority it very well may happen.

Item number 3: This will not happen. This is an unfounded fear. I know many liberals would like to ban all guns, but they do not have the authority. The Supreme Court ruled in a 5 to 4 decision recently that the right to bear arms is an individual right. The court will probably not revisit the issue for a very long time, if ever. With another liberal on the court, the recent decision could possibly be reversed, but even a more liberal court would probably not overturn the recent decision but may whittle away at the second amendment around the edges. In any event, there is doubt that Obama will have the opportunity to replace a conservative jurist. The conservative on the Court are fairly young, as Supreme Court justices go, and in good health.

Regarding item 4, this is based on legitimate fears but is overstated. Given Obama’s support for the Ayers education program in Chicago, there is reason to believe Obama would like to have leftist ideology taught in the classroom. [Read this New York Post story, Obama's Education Idiocy.] But, while Obama might like to turn schools into indoctrination center, he would not be in a position to do that. A Presidents power is limited. Education is still largely a state and local matter. It is possible that some federal laws could mandate some curriculum changes with ideological content, but to believe that “Children everywhere will be indoctrinated to the socialist/communist ideology,” is paranoia.

On the remaining items, this is just garbage. Why would one think we would have to have passports to travel between states under an Obama Presidency? If anything, the conservatives, with their anti illegal immigrant passions and War on Terror concerns, may be more inclined to impose travel restrictions and require everyone to carry documents than would Democrats.

On the charge that “homosexuality, kiddy porn and other filthy things will be allowed and fostered;” government does not dictate sexual mores. Society has become more tolerant of homosexuality and other alternative lifestyles over the years. I think being more accepting and tolerant of others' choices is a good thing. What you do in your bedroom and whom you do it with is none of my business. We may see an increase in the push for gay marriage or civil unions. We may see homosexuals gain the same protected victim class status as minorities and disabled people. I would oppose that, but I think any impact in this area will be minimal. There is no reason to believe kiddy porn will be more prevalent under a Democratic president than a Republican president.

For the good of the nation and our future; get real people and get a grip!

Top Stories