The Coming Conservative Academy

I was discussing the filibuster compromise with a fellow blogger in a private email, and I implied that the conservative movement is approaching Full Spectrum Dominance. The response was short and powerful

you forgot the universities…we don’t even have a toe-hold there

I didn’t mention it, but I didn’t forget it. Academia will be Conservative.

Because the text was lifting from an email, it is more first person than my usual writing.

There are three stages to a guerrilla movement based on ideas — sometimes called “Fourth Generation War.” Mb

The first stage is building up a network by spreading horror stories and agitation/propaganda. We are currently doing that

The last stage is conventional, head-on attacks. Because we control territory (the White House, specifically) we can attack academia this way too.

Bush has shown a genius for these sorts of “waterfall attacks,” where victories in one area are invested in another struggle.

Using a combination of guerrilla tactics (talking up the bias of academia) and convention efforts (changing basic rules that make academia the way it is), we can dispirit our enemy.

The middle stage is “contestment” — in a war it may be guerrillas ruling a town by night and conventional forces there by day, in politics it is the existence of two different strong networks in the same organization. In academia, this would be having enough conservative faculty to take the rhetorical and tenure fights to as many places as possible. We do not yet have this. But we have momentum on our side and our enemy is strategically stupid — the liberals in academia are blinded by their ideology and cannot see us clearly. Liberal intellectuals are on the defensive, they cannot meaningfully attack us. They operate a liberal conversion machine that cannot hold forever. They know this and fear this. That is why they are hysterical. We have instilled strategic panic in them.

They cannot see clearly and they cannot fight clearly. We are wrestling with a blind stupid hysterical giant.

By combining family values with ideology, Conservatives have made a movement built to last.

4th Generation Conflicts take decades to win. Mao fought for decades, Ho fought for decades, Conservatives have been fighting for decades. And look at all we have achieved.

Safe Nuclear, Deadly Conventional Sources of Energy

Nuclear lobby gathers steam but can expect severe reaction,” Telegraph, 21 May 2005,;sessionid=GW3FEXENGK2NPQFIQMGSM5OAVCBQWJVC?xml=/money/2005/05/21/ccnuc21.xml&menuId=242&sSheet=/money/2005/05/21/ixcoms.html&menuId=242&_requestid=26511 (from Tim Worstall through Macroblog).

Geogreen isn’t just a good strategic decision — it’s healthy, too

The 1986 blast at Chernobyl – from a combination of poor design, sloppy construction and negligent maintenance – was the probably the worst accident imaginable at a nuclear plant. About 45 people died as a result of the explosion but the 1988 Piper Alpha fire claimed 167 lives on the North Sea oil rig, and not one person was lost in America’s Three Mile Island reactor leak.

Even Greenpeace’s anti-progress numbers don’t change the arguments

Greenpeace says it would expect 30,000 deaths over a 30-50 year period from Chernobyl, including many who contracted thyroid cancer as children. Yet, an independent report estimates that the increased chance of cancer in the affected area is 0.1pc over 40 years. If the latter figure is correct, the number of people who have been killed by nuclear power is tiny compared with deaths in other parts of the power industry.

In British coal mines fatality rates still run at 11 a year per 100,000 employees and show no sign of falling. In Russia, which exports coal to the UK, the death rate is more than twice Britain’s. All heavy industries kill people and it is not clear that modern reactors are particularly lethal.

Good points. Read the whole thing.

Libertarian People’s Republic of China

America’s Iron Rice Bowl Cracks,” by Todd Crowell, Asia Cable, 23 May 2005, (from Simon World).

An interesting article about our free market friends in Communist China

America’s state-owned enterprises – oops, I mean blue chip corporations – are teetering, we are told, under the strain of pension costs, medical costs and the effects of an aging population – not to mention foreign competition. They may have to shed social services for millions of Americans or go under.

It may seem strange to use a Chinese term to describe America’s old-line corporations, like General Motors, as being state-owned enterprises (SOE). After all, they are joint-stock companies, publicly listed companies answerable to shareholders and operating in a capitalist country. This isn’t Red China. Or is it?

We have more in common with China than you might think. After the revolution China’s industrial economy was organized into huge enterprises, owned by the state. More than factories, they were virtually self-contained communities. They provided what elementary social services were then available to Chinese workers such as housing, health clinics, old-age pensions and life-time employment.

In China this is known as the “iron rice bowl.”

Similarly, America’s blue chips are, or have been, massive welfare machines. General Motors says it will spend more than $5 billion this year to provide health coverage for its more than one million employees, retirees and their dependents. That does not include costs of old-age pensions.

This is what Tom Friedman would describe as “flattening.” Americans and Chinese are both taking charge of their life, their health, and their medicine. America and China, two dynamic nations, are transforming their economies from big-government/big-business to dynamic-government/dynamic-business.


Update: The article also mentions China’s family-based welfare system

China’s millions have to provide for themselves the old-fashion way, either by saving or falling back on families for support– call it the family responsibility system. The uncertainties of daily life plus the need to pay for their children’s education are one reason why Chinese are such prodigious savers.

Tom Barnett has similar ideas.

Daschle Wasted Everyone’s Time on Filibuster

D.C. Circuit Court Nominee Janice Rogers Brown: Twisting the Law to Advance Her Own Radical Views,” Alliance for Justice, (from Independent Judiciary).

William Pryor: Unfit to Judge,” People for the American Way, 9 June 2003,

Democrats Filibuster Pryor,” Daily Kos, 1 August 2003,

On The Unacceptability of Owen and Rogers Brown,” by Armando, Daily Kos, 19 May 2005,

Senators Avoid Fight Over Filibusters,” by Jim Abrams, Associated Press, 24 May 2005, (from Drudge Report).

Tom Daschle, my former Senator, lost his job because of his refusal to give Bush’s judicial nominees an up-or-down vote. Other Democrats do not share his dedication.

The Nuclear Option won’t happen. Enough Democrats agreed to give up Tom Daschle’s strategy of filibustering popular judges.

Judicial nominee Priscilla Owen gets the vote she’s been awaiting for more than four years, the most immediate beneficiary of a deal worked out by Senate moderates to avoid a debilitating fight over filibusters.

The Senate was voting Tuesday to end debate on Owen, currently a Texas Supreme Court justice, clearing the way for her to gain a seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans. With the threat of a filibuster by Democrats removed, she was nearly certain then to get the simple majority vote needed to give her the seat that long has eluded her, perhaps as early as Tuesday.

The agreement, crafted over the past several weeks by seven Republicans and seven Democrats, also opened the way for yes-or-no votes on two other of President Bush’s judicial picks who have been in nomination limbo for more than two years – William H. Pryor Jr. for the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Janice Rogers Brown for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Rogers Brown is the greatest victory, because the Appeals Court in D.C. is considered a stepping stone for the Supreme Court.

What did the liberal netroots say about these three before?

William Pryor
Daschle wasted time, but failed to keep him out

Wait for the GOP to explode in blinding rage as the Dems have successfully held their ground on the William Pryor nomination.

So I guess Democrats didn’t hold their ground yesterday.


Pryor is a leading architect of the recent “states’ rights” or “federalism” movement to limit the authority of Congress to enact laws protecting individual and other rights. He personally has been involved in key Supreme Court cases that, by narrow 5-4 majorities, have restricted the ability of Congress to protect Americans’ rights against discrimination and injury based on disability, race, and age. Worse, he has urged the Court to go even further than it has in the direction of restricting congressional authority. Just last month, for example, the Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist, rejected Pryor’s argument that the states should be immune from lawsuits for damages brought by state employees for violation of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.

On Priscilla Owen

Proscilla Owen shaking hands with President Bush
Daschle wasted time, but failed to keep him out

For those not familiar with Judge Owen or the ongoing criticism of her, she gives new meaning to the word “conservative.” She is perhaps best known for her staunch opposition to abortion.

Now while everyone is entitled to his or her own personal views, Owen “has been at times so eager to issue conservative rulings in cases before her on the Texas Supreme Court that she has ignored statutory language and substituted her own views.” Hence the label, “unconscionable judicial activist.”

Judges are allowed to have personal views on issues. They are not supposed to allow those views to dictate their judicial decisions.

“A former lawyer for the oil and gas industry, she reflexively favors manufacturers over consumers, employers over workers and insurers over sick people. In abortion cases Justice Owen has been resourceful about finding reasons that, despite United States Supreme Court holdings and Texas case law, women should be denied the right to choose.

on Janice Rogers Brown

Janice Rogers Brown
Daschle wasted time, but failed to keep her out

Justice Brown equates democratic government with “slavery,” claims that the New Deal “inoculated the federal Constitution with a kind of collectivist mentality,” calls Supreme Court decisions upholding the New Deal “the triumph of our own socialist revolution,” accuses social security recipients of “blithely cannibaliz[ing] their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much ‘free’ stuff as the political system permits them to extract,” and advocates returning to the widely discredited, early 20th century Lochner era, where the Supreme Court regularly invalidated economic regulations, like workplace protections. “Where government moves in,” Justice Brown declares, “community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity
entertaining and virtue contemptible.”

I once compared the Conservative attempt to Seize the Judiciary to the end of the Vietnam War, with Conservatives as the Communists. The Judicial Branch represents Saigon. The Compromise represents a series of conventional vehicles, each one moving closer to the goal — the schwerpunkt.

It’s not the nuclear option, but the Conservatives are winning. Former Democrat Leader Daschle fought desperate to stop this and lost his job over it. Current Democrat Leader Reid hasn’t been able to maintain the same party discipline.