charlie-kirk

Don’t Call This Administration Conservative

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Core principles of conservatism

While the specifics of conservative beliefs can vary, common principles include:

  • Tradition: A preference for long-standing institutions and practices over sudden or radical change.
  • Limited Government: A belief that governmental power and scope should be restricted to protect individual liberty and free markets.
  • Fiscal responsibility: A focus on low taxes, reduced government spending, and minimal debt.
  • Strong national defense: Support for a powerful military to ensure national security and project power abroad.
  • Social conservatism: Emphasis on traditional morality, often rooted in religious beliefs, including support for the traditional family structure and opposition to abortion and certain LGBTQ+ rights.
  • Individualism: A belief in personal responsibility, self-reliance, and individual achievement, viewing society as composed of individuals rather than collective groups. 

When I Googled “Conservative,” these are the principles the AI generated. Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan would find them compatible with their philosophies. The former is the first conservative I was able to vote for. The latter governed as best he could as a conservative. Those of us who supported the Conservative movement of the era have trouble with what the administration is passing off as conservative, when in many cases, they’re the opposite.

When Trump first ran for President, he made certain moves to demonstrate to conservatives that he was one of them. He promised to appoint judges from the Federalist Society’s list. Old Reagan hand Larry Kudlow and Steve Moore were enlisted to deliver an economic program of tax cuts and regulatory reduction. Much to my dismay and that of others, he delivered.

Meanwhile, most of Trump’s first term suffered under the cloud of “Russiagate,” a totally fabricated Russian Collusion charge that depended on a fake dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign. Even with some tariffs levied on Steel, Aluminum, and Chinese imports, and the initiation of misguided COVID lockdowns, conservatives were mainly satisfied with Trump’s performance. Increased defence spending and robust actions against ISIS and Syria meant little aggression abroad.

Even though many conservatives were appalled by Trump’s claims that the 2020 election was stolen, and his action or lack of action on January 6th, the Hunter Biden Laptop cover-up balanced their ire.

Going on to the 2024 election, the ex-president was swamped in lawsuits seemingly designed only to entrap one person: Donald Trump. To conservatives, using the Government’s legal systems to go after a single individual for political reasons looked like banana republic tactics. Putin keeps his opponents off the ballot by invoking bogus laws, but Americans don’t.  

Continue reading →

Aftermath

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Since Charlie Kirk’s assassination, both parties have been exposed not only for rank hypocrisy but also for their similarity. For instance, Jimmy Kimmel went on his network TV show and said, “We hit some new lows over the weekend, with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and everything they can to score political points from it.” He made this statement, well after the shooter’s mother had explained how he had moved leftward in politics and argued with his conservative father.

Kimmel, his writers, or producers had to know there was no basis for his claim that a MAGA supporter had committed the heinous crime. He lied to his audience. A few days later, ABC suspended him. Conservatives applauded, while those on the left cried that the network was was denying the comedian’s free speech.

This explosive situation recalled a similar divisive situation at ABC some years back. In 2018, Roseanne Barr had posted a rant on twitter against Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett, saying, “If the muslim brotherhood & Planet of the Apes had a baby =VJ.” Even though Rosanne quickly apologized, ABC fired her from her hit TV show. At the time, many others and I on the right said ABC should give the comedian some slack, while those on the left saw it as just punishment for what they perceived as a racist remark.

Roseanne’s trials with mental illness are well known. From being institutionalized after a teenage auto accident and other afflictions, her erratic behavior is no secret. However, an off-kilter take on the world may contribute to her comic genius. After her apology, perhaps a suspension while she received some help would’ve sufficed, but ABC showed her no mercy. Adding insult to injury, the network continued the series under another name for seven profitable years without the star.  

Even though Kimmel has not apologized to date for his blatant lie, many on the left demand his immediate reinstatement. We are aware of Rosanne’s mental health issues, but what is Kimmel’s excuse? Yet, so far, he has suffered a lesser penalty. Remember, he isn’t in trouble for telling a joke, but telling an awful lie implicating an innocent group in a murder and then refusing to apologize.

Before those on the right get too far up on their high horse, we hear cheers on the right for FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s license revocation threats against ABC and its affiliates. His threats might’ve been what cemented Kimmel’s suspension. You can’t construe Carr’s words as anything other than government interference with media content.

Continue reading →

Death and Ideas

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Three things that came to the fore recently: the Charlie Kirk assassination, the miserable test scores of our high school seniors, and a poll showing almost forty percent of Americans prefer Socialism over Capitalism. Linking the three might not seem obvious, but hear me out.

Politics and economics, like nature, abhor a vacuum. If something important is lacking, someone will fill it. College campuses were once devoted to open debate of virtually everything. Adherence to the Socratic Method underlay the great universities of the world. Yet when Charlie Kirk came on the scene, he found that many of the great questions of the day, some of which were deciding our elections, were no longer discussed on campuses. Immigration, economics, abortion, law and order, equality vs. equity, whatever was no longer up for discussion.

Ruling out challenges to the prevailing consensus in our great institutions of learning resulted in faculties and administrations, especially in the humanities, of a single persuasion. This situation prevailed when Kirk tried to fill this void. Willing to debate the issues of the day on any campus, he faced threats, derision, and being shouted down when he tried to ask and answer questions.

Charlie Kirk wasn’t some rabble-rouser; he was just the opposite. He listened and tried to answer each question. As one can gather from this blog, I had many disagreements with Kirk’s positions, but I still wanted to hear what he had to say. At another time, this interaction was the way we progressed. Free exchange broadened our knowledge and understanding.

So, how is it in a land that supposedly values free speech, Charlie Kirk was a novelty who paid for his ideas with his life? Is our educational system at all levels designed to mold young minds or help them reach their full potential?

After spending ever more money and setting up the Department of Education at the natioal level, 45% of our seniors fail to meet the basic math standard. A third can’t read at the standard level. In a world where change is occurring at an increasingly rapid pace, how are we preparing our children for a life of learning?

Continue reading →