Another tired old partisan hack pimping his vital and essential meanderings in an attempt to fleece as much cash out of the rightward inclined masses as possible. Interesting chap, this Hewitt. Professor at a 4th tier law school *and* host of a particularly smug radio show skewed to the GOP party line. Might be worth taking a look at the book when it hits the remainder bins. I particularly enjoyed the amusing suggestion that a filibuster-proof Republican majority in the Senate might promote "spending control." Rather flies in the face of the fact that spending has proceeded apace under a Republican majority. I would expect the same sort of spending control exhibited by a horny and thirsty sailor on shoreleave shortly after payday.
Hugh Hewitt singing the praises of a book by the esteemed writer, er, Hugh Hewitt
I also find it rather amusing that Mr. Hewitt considers himself "center-right" in political orientation. He is clearly a partisan republican from a squarely right wing camp, and there is little centrist about the positions he takes. Centrist implies openness to consensus and compromise on issues upon which reasonable people might agree. Mr. Hewitt wishes, instead, to enshrine a perpetual Republican majority in government, which is almost as scary a thought as a perpetual Democratic majority (or a Green majority, or a Constitution Party majority, or a majority held by a party enshrining the views of the "Reverend" Fred Phelps). Such unending domination leads to complacency, stagnation, dogmatism and intolerance, and is inevitable harmful to the body politic. A constant need to seek election and risk losing if one does not inspire the electorate is beneficial to a political party, keeping it grounded and heading off the risk of extremism.
As for the center-right issue, I suppose it is all a matter of perspective. Back in the land of my birth, I would be considered center-right myself, having been a sometime supporter of Blairist Labour, Kenneth Clarke Conservatism, and currently find myself drawn to the reenergized Tories of David Cameron. However, over here I have been accused of *liberalism* by many with whom I have discussed issues of moment. Over here, I see good and bad in each of the two hegemonous parties, and tend to refrain from partisanship in favor of an issue by issue, candidate by candidate approach. The Democrats are generally too soft on crime, flaky on anti-terrorist measures, tolerant of repressive codes of political correctness, and prone to over-regulation. The Republicans are generally too quick to impose their own narrow codes of morality on the rest of the populace, in love with (and in bed with) corporate special interests, and overly susceptible to placing symbolism over cold hard policy (flag burning, freedom fries and ten commandment displays, anyone?). Both parties spend too much, both parties pay too much attention to the political proclivities of judicial nominees when they should be focussed on professional excellence, and neither party cares enough for freedom of speech and individual rights.
I'd support libertarians more if they weren't so darn dogmatic. I suppose I'm an irredeemable overthinker, who puzzles and worries over issues before I come down on one side or another, and I am utterly unwilling to cede responsibility for my public policy preferences to a monolothic political construct.
UPDATE
Just scored a copy of Mr. Hewitt's book on half.com for $9.00. I never pay full price for any book these days, and - more importantly - refuse to line the pockets of authors with whom I have an ideological disagreement (and hence always buy on the pre-owned market). I shall await its delivery by media mail and read with relish (and likely amusement)
Comments