David Frum on Why He's a Republican

David Frum is much more of a big government Republican than I am, and I strongly disagree with his critique of current GOP positions on the economy. But his article gives some good reasons to be a Republican. Here are his main points with my comments.

The Republicans are the party of American nationalism. ... The flag-and-country themes of the GOP can be kitschy. They also are the indispensable basis of any idea of social cohesion across the vast continent.

He could have thrown in unabashed patriotism and belief in American exceptionalism, as opposed to the fuzzy internationalism of many Democrats.

Republican policies of lower taxes, less regulation, and restrained social spending may be poor medicine for the immediate crisis. But they remain the best formula to support the longer-term growth of the economy – way better than the Democratic preference for high taxes and opportunistic economic interventions.

They aren't poor medicine for the current crisis, but otherwise he's correct. If you want higher taxes, more government bureaucracy, an ever-increasing maze of regulations, greater government interference with the economy, and more hand-outs of taxpayer money, vote Democrat. If you want less you vote Republican.

my preferred approach to federal budgeting starts with national defense. Defense and national security are the supreme priority of the state. Only after fully funding defense can you then worry about the appropriate level of spending for everything else, and the appropriate level and form of taxation to pay for that spending.

Exactly. When government cuts are under discussion Democrats look to cut the most important function of government first, while Republicans look to other less vital areas of government.

I intensely oppose any aid or subsidy to particular companies or firms except in cases of the most extreme national necessity, eg TARP. Solyndra is only the latest example of the zeal of Democratic administrations dating back to Jimmy Carter’s to solve America’s energy problems by inserting government into the business of “picking winners.”

Ok, but the GOP has its own issues in this regard. However, as in most cases, the GOP is the lesser of two evils.

he omnipresent system of racial preferences built since the late 1960s in hope of compensating for the effects of slavery and segregation is not only a moral inequity, but also a practical disaster. ... this system is one of the most basic political commitments of the modern Democratic party.

It also requires that the current effects of racism be exaggerated to justify the continuation of such policies, and creates a whole group of racialist agitators.

real progress on the environment almost always comes under Republican presidents.

I'd say rather that the GOP is a bulwark against radical environmental extremism, whereas significant elements of the Democratic party embrace it.

Public sector unions rank as one of the most important obstacles to the improvement of public services from education to transit. And the Democrats are the party of the public-sector unions.

Absolutely. Public sector unions are a blight on the U.S., and inextricably linked with the Democratic party.

Democrats were wrong on crime from the 1970s through the 1990s, and I’m still mad about it.

Republicans tend to be better on addressing crime, as opposed to making excuses for criminals, or blaming inanimate objects such as guns.

I believe that the elected Prime Minister of Israel is a better judge of Israel’s national security than the Assistant Secretary of State for Near East affairs. Democratic administrations typically seem guided by the opposite theory.

Pretty vague reason. I could come up with a much more substantive distinction between the parties on foreign policy.

the GOP is the party more sympathetic to business concerns and challenges.

Understatement of the year there. As I write this, there are already some Democrats embracing the imbeciles of the "Occupy Wall Street" protests, people who out of envy, stupidity and the desire for hand-outs rail against capitalism -- the greatest engine of wealth creation in human history. The GOP has its problems, but they pale in comparison to the fringes of the Democratic party.

David Frum's Strange Attack on the Right

In the wake of the Shirley Sherrod incident, David Frum has written an article called, "Shirley Sherrod and the shame of conservative media." Unlike many on the right, I respect Frum and often agree with his political analysis. This time, however, he's way off base. Maybe his association with Andrew Sullivan is affecting his normally strong reasoning capacity. Here's Frum.

By the evening of the 20th, however, conservatives were backing away, acknowledging that an innocent women had been defamed.

He provides links, pointing out that most in what he calls the "conservative media," other than Andrew Breitbart himself, quickly realized that Sherrod had been smeared by a clip out of context, and wrongly fired. So what's Frum's problem with conservative media?

you’ll never guess who emerged as the villains of the story in this second-day conservative react. Not Andrew Breitbart, the distributor of a falsified tape. No, the villains were President Obama and the NAACP for believing Breitbart's falsehood.

I know Frum isn't anywhere near that clueless. The reason Obama and the NAACP are being bashed by conservatives is because they acted rashly -- and shamefully in the case of the NAACP. The NAACP had the full tape of Sherrod's speech, yet they chose to throw her under the bus without bothering to check the accuracy of Breitbart's take. The administration, which at least had the excuse of not having the full story, jumped on the bandwagon and pushed for her firing without making the minimal effort required to ascertain the facts. There's a reason Robert Gibbs had to apologize today on behalf of the administration. The criticism of Obama & the NAACP is completely justified. Frum should be joining it, not pretending is represents some sort of malfeasance by conservatives.

I'm not sure what right-wing media Frum is reading that he thinks Breitbart isn't getting criticism. Even Breitbart's friend, Jonah Goldberg said he should apologize. Many on the right recognize that Breitbart ran a misleading piece that not only undermined his own credibility, but which reflected badly on conservatives by association. Frum seems to believe that if the right doesn't drop everything else and bash Breitbart -- and I'm not sure how much bashing would satisfy him -- then it's somehow evidence of being "narrow-minded."

When Dan Rather succumbed to the forged Bush war record hoax in 2004, CBS forced him into retirement. Breitbart is the conservative Dan Rather, but there will be no discredit, no resignation for him.

Another idiotic argument. Dan Rather worked for a major news organization, supposedly devoted to objective news reporting. Andrew Breitbart is the founder and owner of his own openly, politically-biased media operations. Is he supposed to force himself to resign? David Frum's entire argument ranges from weak & unconvincing, to outright ludicrous. It's articles like these that give credence to his rabid critics on the right.

David Frum's Newsweek Article

David Frum kicked off a firestorm on the right with his article, "Why Rush is Wrong." A Hot Air piece on it has over 700 comments, many of which demonstrate why I don't comment on most right-wing blogs. Here are a couple of key points by Frum. After describing Obama as a positive figure to most Americans, he gives this contrasting picture of Limbaugh

A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as "losers." With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we're cooperating!

Sounds accurate to me. He also points out that

Every day, Rush Limbaugh reassures millions of core Republican voters that no change is needed: if people don't appreciate what we are saying, then say it louder

The whole article is worth reading. I don't agree with Frum on everything, but this article is a serious look at GOP problems. It stands in strong contrast to the kinds of things we hear from Limbaugh and his sycophantic followers. Screaming louder about "real" conservatism, being inflexible idiots who can't tolerate any criticism or opposing views in the party, and dismissing people like Frum as RINO's or worse are not ways to build a winning GOP coalition.