The Flag of the World

An important conversation is happening in conservative circles regarding what the pro-life movement’s next moves should be. The question started with Hadley Arkes in First Things is regarding what President Bush should do next for the pro-life movement. In his article entitled “Bush’s Second Chance,” Arkes argues that he hasn’t done enough, and outlines some things he could do next. Ramesh Ponnuru responded at NRO, defending Bush’s pro-life record, and criticizing some of Arkes suggestions. Then, Augustine over at Red State responded to Ponnuru, arguing that Bush should be doing more to make the pro-life argument in public. Ponnuru responded, noting the limitations that political realities have placed on the things the President & congress can do about, and also on how they can talk about abortion.

All that led to the most important question, posed by Krempasky over at Red State: where does the pro-life movement, go from here?

Perhaps unknowingly, Krempasky has posed a marketing question. How do we convince people to buy our product, the pro-life agenda, instead of our opponent’s product, the pro-choice agenda? Fortunately, marketing is what I do these days, so I would like to take a look at how the pro-life movement needs to market itself.

More specifically, I would like to take a look at how the pro-life moveemnt needs to position itself in the mind of the consumer (aka voter). This is a concept originally developed by Al Ries and Jack Trout, and through their many books, has become part of the pith and marrow of marketing strategy (not as much as they would like, of course, but it’s had an enormous impact). Using their concept of positioning–that is to say, affecting how a customer thinks about a product–I believe the pro-life cause can be very successful.

Read the rest of this entry »

Over at The Commons, J. Bishop Grewell notes the battle over recreation fees paid to access Federal lands here in the West, criticizing opponents of the fee quite heavily. He writes:

Kitty Benzar, of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition likens the recreation fees to “having to buy a pass to go into your house.” Her analogy really only makes sense if she lives in public housing, which I doubt she does. If she did, she would see that it is in the same condition as our federal lands: pretty awful.

I certainly agree that Benzar is wrong, but I don’t think that either person’s “house” analogy is particularly apt. (For one, all the federal lands I’ve spent time on have been in much better shape than public housing tends to be.) The fact is, the vast majority of people using public forest lands are hikers. There would be no need for forest passes–here in Washington we use the Northwest Forest Pass–if hikers didn’t insist on things like “trails” and “campsites” and “roads to get to the trails and campsites” and so on and so forth.

Now, I’ve been known to hike a bit myself. It’s a hobby of mine–a fantastic hobby, I happen to think. But it’s not such a great hobby that the government should subsidize it. After all, my other main hobby–this blog–is not subsidized by the government, so why should hiking be? That’s the real issue–should government be subsidizing people’s hobbies? Skinflint though I am, I’m happy to shell out $30 a year to keep doing something I love.

If you want to read an interesting debate between two way-lefty hikers over the merits of the Northwest Forest Pass–or, more importantly, want to get a great book on hiking the Glacier Peak region of the Cascades–I suggest picking up 100 Hikes in Washington’s Glacier Peak Region by Ira Spring and Harvey Manning. The two authors disagree strenuously about the NWFP–and both of them would almost certainly disagree with me. Don’t buy the book just for the debate, but it’s a great collection of hikes, and the debate, placed at the end of the book, is an eerie picture into another world where the government really does have the responsibility to subsidize people’s hobbies.

When you stop to think about it, the debate over Social Security as it is currently happening is a little absurd. Can you imagine, in 1905, a debate so pointedly colored by something that happened in the 1830’s? Of course not. That would be absurd for a lot of reasons. The most logical reason is that, between 1830 and 1905, a lot of pretty important stuff happened that made anything that happened in the 1830’s meaningless when looked at in a vacuum.

Of course, that’s not the real reason, or we’d certainly see similar results today. The real reason is that there were very few people who had lived through the 1830’s alive in 1905. The average adult during the 19th century lived to be about 64, so few people whose lives were indelibly marked by Andrew Jackson’s presidency were voting in the 1906 elections. Obviously, life span has increased quite a bit since then, and there are plenty of people who lived through the Depression, and who see everything through that prism. This means that the Depression has an impact on the current political landscape that is out of proportion to its actual importance.

The great irony here is that the 20th century’s explosion of technology caused an increasingly rapid dissemination of information, which sped cultural and other changes to a speed unheard of in the 19th century. I won’t come out and say that the difference between 2005 and 1930 is greater than the difference between 1905 and 1830, but the argument seems pretty persuasive. This means that the disconnect between this Longevity Factor and reality is even greater than it would be if longevity were the only variable changing.

The consequences for the Social Security debate are obvious, so I won’t belabor them here. What is less obvious, and bears thinking about, is the other effects this Longevity Factor will have. Consider the inordinate impact the 1960’s will continue to have on race relations in 2035, or the smoggy 70’s will have on environmental policy in 2045. “McCarthyism” will continue to be a slur far longer than “carpetbagger” ever was. Nixon’s disgrace will color Republican efforts far longer than Johnson’s colored Democrats’. The list goes on and on.

A shrewd reader will note that the Longevity Factor seems to weigh in on the side of liberals more often than conservatives, at least in my examples. It may be that I am just biased. But I think it’s more than that–conservatism is based on the idea that there are eternal principles, and thus one-time events generally don’t have the kind of impact they have on liberal thought.

That’s not to say that conservatives are immune. If, in 75 years, conservatives are still pointing to 9-11 as the primary reason to do something or other, that will be a mistake. It could be argued that we leaned too heavily on our experiences in WWII in the run-up to the Iraq War. But this is the exception, not the rule.

All this is also certainly not to say that historical references and comparisons are a bad idea. It’s just important to note that, as people live longer, historical events will have an impact far disproportionate to their actual import.

Considering the evironmental kick I’ve been on recently, it didn’t seem right to let Earth Day pass without some thoughts. Of course, I did. But I’ll try to make up for that now.

Last year, I noted a few things about Earth Day:

This Earth Day, take a moment to question conventional wisdom, and ask yourself and those around you whether the people sporting the big blue and green planet pictures are right about everything they claim and everything they value. Don’t be surprised if people get indignant–the entire system is set up to prevent people from asking those questions, from the logos on down. But nothing will change unless we ask these questions.

I still agree with what I said then (and I think the iconographic analysis is particularly apt) but things have changed a surprising amount in just a year. This year, the big Earth Day story is the crumbling of the environmental movement and the rather change in public opinion regarding the environment. The Economist marked Earth Day with this:

“THE environmental movement’s foundational concepts, its method for framing legislative proposals, and its very institutions are outmoded. Today environmentalism is just another special interest.” Those damning words come not from any industry lobby or right-wing think-tank. They are drawn from “The Death of Environmentalism”, an influential essay published recently by two greens with impeccable credentials. They claim that environmental groups are politically adrift and dreadfully out of touch.

They are right. In America, greens have suffered a string of defeats on high-profile issues. They are losing the battle to prevent oil drilling in Alaska’s wild lands, and have failed to spark the public’s imagination over global warming.

At NRO, Sally Pipes notes that:

According to a recent Harris poll, 71 percent of Americans are happy with the quality of the environment where they live. Environmental issues were not on the front burner in the 2004 election, and doomsday activists are having a harder time convincing politicians and the public that we are headed for disaster.

As public opinion on the environment continues to shift from expecting impending doom to a general contentment with the situation, the public expectation of the government’s role will change too–from immediate action to avert disaster (often with little thought for the ramifications of the action), to a conservation and stewardship of the current situation. This shift will be very helpful to conservatives, who are far more comfortable with the latter than the former.

That, obviously, is a good thing–but really, it’s a better thing that the environment itself is doing so well. That’s what we should really be celebrating this Earth Day–the environment is good and getting better. Political fallout from that is just gravy.

Bill Hobbs has a dream:

If my dream for the Tennessee blogosphere was realized, there would be a slew of Tennessee bloggers reporting and commentating on every single niche of state government, local government, and the news media. Every town - your town - would have a local blogger who intensively covers local government.

If my dream for the Tennessee blogosphere was realized, every single political reporter in Tennessee would be watch-dogged by at least two dedicated, prolific bloggers for errors, bias and key omissions…

If my dream for the Tennessee blogosphere was realized, there would be dozens if not hundreds of blogs by experts in such things as education, healthcare, business, culture, medicine, law, taxes, law enforcement, religion, constitutional rights, and many other topics.

There’s lots more, and it’s a worthwhile dream. It may never happen to the extent Bill hopes it will, but we’ll certainly see much of his dream come true.

The Puget Sound is seeing a piece of that dream come true, largely through Sound Politics and its various contributors, but also through other sites and various other blogs. I hope someday that Bill’s dream comes fully true for both Tennessee and Washington, and the 48 other states as well.

Sound Politics noted the other day that, though what appeared to be a hate crime turned out to be a hoax, the usual suspects were insisting on still calling it a hate crime.

There’s a bit more to the story, though. Immediately after the initial burglary, a couple of politicians immediately jumped to condemn the crime. Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon, never one to avoid the limelight, sent out an email declaring:

Wednesday’s vandalism of an Everett family’s home was shameful. Regardless of the motive, the perpetrators deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

The investigation into whether or not this is a hate crime is on-going. However, there are very deeply rooted meanings in the symbols painted on the family’s property, which historically has conjured images of divisiveness, intimidation, fear and crimes against humanity.

I continue my commitment that, in general, hate crimes will not be tolerated, nor do they reflect the values of our community.

Now, really, there’s nothing wrong with that sort of thing. Politicians jump on that sort of bandwagon all the time. One little problem, though:

Police suspected it wasn’t a hate crime from the start, Bryant said. While the house was ransacked, certain things were untouched — such as Kitchell’s diamond earrings and a china cabinet…

During a news conference yesterday, Police Chief Jim Scharf scolded the media, politicians and others because he said they refused to listen when police warned that officers didn’t think it was a hate crime. It would be the second time in a year that an Everett resident is accused of staging a hate crime…

“It’s again the rush of judgment that concerns us and concerns me,” Scharf said yesterday. “Our people do a good job investigating these cases.”

Oh, well–as long as Reardon got a chance to make it clear that he hates racism.

There’s another interesting thing about this little story. The above excerpt is from the Seattle Times. The corresponding story in the Everett Herald–the local paper that you would expect to cover such local stories with a careful eye, especially towards local politicians. But if you read the Herald story, you’ll note something very interesting–there’s no mention of Scharf’s condemnation. Why is that? Well, I have my theories, and I’m sure you do too.

If I had any artistic talent whatsoever, I would draw an entertaining picture based on this nigh-incomprehensible letter to the editor regarding the recent anti-cloning editorial by myself and Seth Cooper. If this is the highest caliber letter to the editor the Herald recieved regarding the editorial, than those who agree with me have nothing to fear:

I read the thinly disguised guest commentary by Seth Cooper and Timothy Goddard [Thinly disguised as what?], with their unopposed views on cloning and stem cell research [As opposed to all those “opposed views” that typically appear on the editorial page?].

As I read the article, my first thoughts were that these people must be religious freaks in sheep’s clothing [How dare they behave like sensible people? We know they’re really slavering snake handlers with wild eyes and bad teeth!]. A query on the Internet substantiated that [Uhh…I think you mean ‘confirmed that.’ A thesaurus is a dangerous tool in the wrong hands.] indeed they are from the God Squad [Quickly! To the God Squadmobile!], trying to impose their views on us liberals [Because only liberals read the Everett Herald! Rar!].

If God gave each of us a soul, why should we presume that he would give clones a soul? [Huh? Now who’s the religious freak?] If he did, and you were cloned, would you then only have a fractional portion [Is there another kind of portion that’s not fractional that I should know about?] of your original soul? Will Dolly the sheep and her mother now go to sheep half-heaven? [Does anyone know what this guy is talking about?]

Life is for the living, and if gathering cells from soulless embryos will help someone in need, then go for it. And if we do happen to hatch a few soulless clones, good for that, too. We can use them to do the jobs that the illegal immigrants won’t do. [Is there a widespread desire among ‘us liberals’ for an underclass of soulless clones to clean our sewers? Because if there is, that’s really disturbing.]

Please, don’t run one-side commentaries. [Yes, we demand two-side commentaries! Possibly nine-side commentaries!] They’re as misleading as Rush Limbaugh. [Look! Random conservative boogey-man jammed in at the end for effect! Anncoultertomdelayseanhannitybarrygoldwaterherberthooverattillathehun!]

Ron Larsen
Everett

Sadly, “a query on the Internet” was fruitless in substantiating whether or not Mr. Larsen is from the Secular Squad, trying to impose his views on us conservatives. Thus, I cannot email him to find out what in blue blazes he was talking about. For his sake, I hope this was just a very poor editing job on the part of the Editorial Page, because–wow.

As Seth noted today, the Democrats in Olympia are still trying to push cloning through. Do us a favor and call up your State Senator, asking them whether or not they agree with Ron Larsen of Everett that we should “hatch a few soulless clones” so they can “do the jobs that the illegal immigrants won’t do.”

And praise Him that the new Pope isn’t Benedict XVIII, because that’s just too many letters.

Seriously, though I’m very pleased to see that my hope was fulfilled–Joseph Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict XVI. As I noted yesterday, the elevation of Benedict demonstrates that the Catholic Church sees what he has called the “dictatorship of relativism” as its chief challenge. This is a challenge that Protestants and other Christians can stand shoulder to shoulder with them in facing.

The second concern facing the church is the explosion of faith in the 3rd world. A Pope from the 3rd world–which we are only one or two papacies away from–would have addressed this head on, but the elevation of Benedict does not. Benedict is pretty focused on Europe–but maybe that’s as it should be. “The healthy do not need a doctor, but the sick,” and all that.

The third concern–my pet concern, anyway–is the coming rapproachment, reconciliation and/or reunification between the Orthodox, Catholic & Protestant churches. When I say “coming,” I mean at some point between now and eternity, when such reunification will certainly come. I don’t expect the Catholic Church to be able to focus on that for quite a while–but I may be pleasantly surprised:

He is not, of course, a “minimalist” theologian who is inclined to tailor Catholic teaching to fit Protestant tastes. But he has intimate understanding and appreciation of the religious and theological genius of figures such as Luther. He believes that what is true in the Protestant critique can and should be embraced by what he calls “the structure of faith.” At the same time, he does not seem to expect too much in the healing of the breach between Rome and the Reformation. Speaking of the prospects for Christian unity, he says at one point that perhaps the most we should hope for is that there will be no new schisms. At another point, however, he speaks of Catholic “responsibility for the unity of the Church, her faith, and her morals,” and he envisions the ways in which the exercise of the office of the papacy will change “when hitherto separated communities enter into unity with the Pope.”

As might be expected, Salt of the Earth pays extensive attention to the office of the papacy. It is assumed that the New Testament intends a continuing “Petrine Ministry” in the church. The question is the relationship, if any, between that ministry and the ministry of the bishop of Rome, who, it is claimed, is the successor of Peter. Some Protestants, Ratzinger notes, “are ready to acknowledge providential guidance in tying the tradition of primacy to Rome, without wanting to refer the promise to Peter directly to the Pope.” Many others, he says, recognize that Christianity ought to have a spokesman who can personally and authoritatively articulate the faith both to the world and to the Christian community.

This is from a review of the book linked above. Of course, any sort of rapproachment is going to be a difficult process, as evidenced by this sort of thing: a shameful attack on those Protestants who approach the late Pope with respect and reverence as being “borderline apostate[s].” Thankfully, that sort of nonsense seems to be a minority, at least in the evangelical blogosphere.

No Pope yet, but chances are good we’ll have one before the week is out. Since all we get is black and white smoke, the media is hyping up the betting odds, which strikes me as deeply ironic. Right now, though, I’m pleased to say that my top two choices, Arinze of Nigeria and Ratzinger, the media’s current boogeyman, are running 1 and 2 in the odds. Whether that says anything useful or not, we’ll see in a while.

Ratzinger and Arinze, though, represent the two great trials that the next Pope will have to face: first, the onslaught of what Ratzinger calls the “dictatorship of relativism,” and second, the supplanting of Europe as the center of Christianity. Unfortunately, the third great challenge of the Church, and my personal prayer–the reunification of the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant branches–will probably have to wait, as the first two are weighty enough issues on their own.

I expect that whoever is chosen will symbolize an approach to one or both of those

This weekend brought us to the northern Oregon coast for a quick trip. It’s wonderful country, and we’ll have to go back for a longer trip at some point.

Haystack Rock at Cannon Beach is quite the site. It seems like it would be a great backdrop for a dramatic movie scene. See more pictures here.

Here’s one of the two guns at Fort Stevens. It’s much like Fort Worden, but predates it by about forty years (it was originally built for the Civil War), and bears the honor of being the first military base on the US mainland fired upon since 1812 (not counting the war it was built for) when a Japanese submarine chucked some shells at it on June 22, 1942. Because of all the history, it’s kept up a bit better–hence, they’ve still got some guns.

This is all that’s left of the Peter Iredale, a British trading ship which ran aground in 1906. Not much is left, but when you consider the fact that the wreck is 99 years old, it’s pretty remarkable.

And finally, here’s the mouth of the Columbia. The hills across are in Washington, and soon after taking this picture, I joined them.

Recently, a political lobbying group based out of Vermont called “American Rivers” released a list of what they called the 10 “endangered” rivers in the nation, including the Skykomish River in Snohomish County. This resulted in over 600 emails to the County Council, and a front page, top of the fold article in the Everett Herald entitled “Skykomish River ‘at risk’.”

Of course, there are a few problems with this. First, American Rivers doesn’t apply any scientific criteria to their “endangered” designation–it’s entirely political. In fact, Skykomish is among the most healthy rivers in the region. Second, the vast majority of those emails were from out of state–and many of them were about out of state rivers! Get the whole story over at the Snohomish County GOP site.

Cross posted at Sound Politics.

Seth Cooper and I have an editorial in today’s Everett Herald regarding EHB 1268, which would legalize human cloning–as long as the clones are killed. headlined State cloning bill would set too dangerous a precedent. I haven’t had a chance to read it yet, but a quick skim implies that it escaped the editor’s pen relatively unscathed. Here’s a teaser:

The action-fantasy film “The Matrix” described a nightmarish future filled with fierce kung-fu fighting. Human beings were no longer born, but grown and used as energy-producing batteries to power a race of sentient machines.

The movie was entertaining science-fiction, but a disturbing scenario is now playing out in Olympia, where pending legislation would legalize the creation of human life for the sole purpose of destruction for its raw materials. The creation of human clones could be on the fast track in Washington .

As they say, read the whole thing.