So what do I believe?

So, on the night before a presidential election in which I expect my preferred candidate to lose badly, what do I believe? Sometimes, only tongue partially in cheek, I describe my personal politics as being "three martinis away from anarchism." And by anarchism, I mean the individualist anarchism of Spooner, Tucker and Nock, not the blag flag folks running through the streets trashing Starbucks to protest corporate globalism.

Thanks to the fusioniss whereby National Review back in the 1950s brought together traditional conservatives and libertarians, American conservatism is very different from conservatism elsewhere in the world. To begin with, American conservatism grew mostly out of Whig roots. It is no accident that Russell Kirk began his book "The Conservative Mind" with Edmund Burke, England's great Whig political philosopher. The Tory roots of English conservatism hold some influence, but are overwhelmed by the Whig roots. The more authoritarian strains of continental conservatism are thankfully generally subsumed by Whiggery.

The second great influence on American conservatism is of course libertarianism. Libertarianism has as a root the individual anarchist of the 19th Century. It is ironic of course because in theory, conservatism is the opposite of anarchy. My cousin, who probably could have been considered a Marxist in her youth, was surprised that I mentioned Spooner in conversation, she thought Spooner was only a hero to the left.

So where does that leave me, a conservative libertarian the day before Election Day, 2008? I think the words of President Reagan, turned the Winthrop's "city on a hill" to a "shinning city":

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how
I saw it and see it still.

So that is how I see it. I believe in the ingenuity and commerce of the American people. I believe that yes the city has walls, but also gates, and that those gates remain open. Reagan supported amnesty for illegal aliens, and while he believed in defending America, he never wanted to shut it out from those who sought her out. He believed in trade but most of all, in believed in the American people.

That is what I believe.

A Little More Reagan

For commentor Rob -- another taste of Reagan, to warm up a cold Valentine's Day. A principle I think even Obama supporters can agree on.

Yes We Can!

I find when I am feeling down and disheartened, a little dose of Reagan always perks me up again.

HT -- Instapundit

Why a Clinton Presidency is all but Inevitable

Robert George on his blog had something quite interesting to say about the GOP nominating process:

"The double-curse that Republicans bequeath the country is to elect a Bush, who they believe will govern as a Reagan. When that Bush fails, the country responds by electing a Clinton -- who inevitably manage to make the country learn to love government."

I believe there is truth here. As a young GOP true believer, I worked on Bush's campaign in 1988. I thought it would be "phase II" of the Reagan Revolution -- following through on reducing government and the growing deficit but taking off the hard edges. That of course was not to be.

We then ended up with Bill Clinton, who promised that the days of big government were over, then immediately introduced socialized medicine. Learning his lesson, for 8 years he played the Democratic desire for government solutions against the Republican distrust of big government.

So hoping for a Reagan Revival, the GOP looked to the Bush Family again. And we ended up there with big government conservatism.

Which makes a Hilliary Clinton presidency all but inevitable. I wonder if First Lady Bill will look good in a dress.

Fred Thompson and Reruns

If Fred Thompson runs for president, the producer of Law & Order is pulling Thompson's reruns starting September 1, in order to comply with "equal time" requirements for candidates.

Interestingly, the same thing happened to Reagan. While Reagan made some bad B movies, he made some good ones such as "Kings Row" (where a sadistic doctor cuts off his legs), "Knute Rockne" (go win one for the Gipper), "The Winning Team" (where he played an alcoholic Grover Cleveland Alexander) and "The Killers" (where he played a crime boss -- his only villain role). He also co-starred in a few movies with some big names such as Errol Flynn (in "Santa Fe trail").

Thompson's reruns and movies though would be a bigger help to him. He always plays authoritative, intelligent characters. Given the malaise of the GOP base, he could find himself, mostly by accident, as the nominee.