One major problem that exists on the right, and especially in the Ron Paul movement, is what Pat Buchanan termed in “The Death of the West” as Economism. While the impact the market has on the country—culturally, politically, and militarily—should not be understated, the Economist right puts far too much faith in the market to solve America’s problems. Kevin DeAnna’s superb piece reminded me of an excerpt from the previously mentioned Buchanan book that would seem to be relevant to the topic:

Many conservatives have succumbed to the heresy of Economism, a mirror-Marxism that holds that man is an economic animal , that free trade and free markets are the path to peace, prosperity, and happiness, that if we can only get the marginal tax rates right and the capital gains tax abolished, Paradise—Dow 36,000!—is at hand. But when the income tax rate for the wealthiest was above 90 percent in the 1950s, America, by every moral and social indicator, was a better country.

Cutting taxes, reducing spending, abolishing federal departments, and ending the Fed are all noble causes as the country flirts with economic insolvency. But the market doesn’t provide solutions for a country that is quickly approaching moral and social bankruptcy.

Dr. Gottfried’s recent post “GOP ‘Hate Facts’” reminded me of the dark time at the beginning of my sophomore year in college when I was an unpaid intern for the Laura Ingraham Show. I had not yet discovered Nisbet or Kirk or Mencken or Burke. To me, right-wing Gospel came from the mouths of Levin, Hannity, and embarrassingly enough, Coulter. But this isn’t about me. It’s about Laura.

So every morning I would wake up at 5:30am, ride the Metro to Union Station, and walk to the headquarters of the Heritage Foundation, where Laura’s studio is located. Her show went live at 9am and interns were expected to arrive around 7. Laura was never there. She would arrive around 8 and head to the gym in the basement of Heritage. In the meantime, interns would be reading every major newspaper in the country in search of news that she could talk about. All the content was developed by the producers and transcribed by the interns for her: a funny anecdote from Wichita; some out of context quote from a war opponent; any piece of audio from Capitol Hill or from broadcast news.

Right around 8:58 Laura would come storming in, still wet from her after gym shower. The producers would quickly brief her on what she was going to say and by 9:05 she would be talking about what she “read in the Post this morning.”

I don’t write this in order to trash the show. I could excuse her berating an intern for getting her latte wrong or attacking another intern on the air for misspelling a word if she had genuine talent. The producers there are smart and funny and genuinely kind to all of the interns and guests. But even they made it very clear to the interns that anyone could do what Laura does. “Our job,” one producer once said to us, “is to make what she does look difficult. It’s not.” If she was just an entertainer then all of this would be superfluous, but she is a best-selling author and what passes today as a public intellectual. Yet she doesn’t even read the paper herself.

It shows. Rush shows up to his studio hours before his show begins and does most of his own research. He is prepared when his show goes live and as a result he is an engaging host and an informed commentator, despite his poor understanding of many issues. Laura, other than being a woman, offers little that is different than the drivel heard from the typical talk-radio personality. And now she gets to sub for Bill O’Reilly in the highest rated timeslot in cable news.

Power to the (ignorant) people!

As I am preparing to embark on a long-overdue move from Washington, DC to Northern Virginia, I have been in the market for an affordable dog friendly apartment in the hopes of satiating my weakness for canines. I have also begun researching dog adoption agencies and the stories that often accompany many of the adoption candidates are often shocking and almost always heartbreaking.

Throw in Razib Khan’s recent piece and I find myself dwelling on the question of animal rights, and in particular dog rights. Whereas the chicken slaughtered to fill a bucket of KFC is as dumb as a rock (perhaps not?), man’s best friend seems to elicit a strong emotional reaction from most people, especially when discussing their abuse. Todd Steinberg has argued convincingly that animals have no legal rights, writing:

Despite this, the desire to string up those that abuse and abandon dogs is overwhelming. Like a man who sleeps with his best friend’s significant other, perhaps the abusers of dogs are condemned to a special layer of Hell outside the bounds of man’s law.

I’m not sure if God has a spot in that layer picked out for Michael Vick. But if he did, I’d understand.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg recently revealed in an interview from the forthcoming Sunday New York Times Magazine that she originally believed Roe v. Wade to be a form of population control, meant to diminish “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” CNSNews.com reports:

Here’s a transcript of that portion of the Times’ interview:

Some commentators on the right are celebrating this apparent revelation, claiming that many abortioneers are racist for supporting population control. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and controversial supporter of negative eugenics, comes to mind.

Dare I prefer that argument? If, indeed, leftist supporters of abortion were advocating the removal of those nasty little breathing fetal tumors in order to preserve a stable American population (which, of course, they are not) at least we would be discussing the importance of populations in America! As it stands now millions of unborn are slaughtered for abstract nonsense like “choice” and “autonomy over one’s body.” Wouldn’t we prefer the injection of a little “national interest” into the discussion?

In all seriousness, abortion is an aberration of the worst kind. But imagine, if you can, an abortion lobby that would reject platitudinal nonsense and instead discuss the importance of dying populations in America, like brilliant thinkers occasionally have.

Something tells me that if population control was the concern of abortion doctors and not the concern of the Minute Men, it would be a little less racist and a little more common sense.

The news of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s resignation has media outlets clamoring for a saucy reason why. HuffPo offers a tabloid explanation via a link to CNN’s typically daft Rick Sanchez, while Politico wonders if repeated ethics inquiries are to blame for Palin’s departure.

The news comes on the heels of a devastating hit-piece from Vanity Fair that charted her unusual behavior from her nomination as John McCain’s VP candidate to her return to Alaska as Governor in the election’s aftermath.

The reaction on both sides is predictable. Palin’s admirers on the Right will classify the numerous ethics investigations aimed at her as superfluous and politically-motivated and suggest that the inequitable treatment she has received in the media—which can be traced all the way back to the beginning of the campaign—has unfairly distracted her from her job as Governor and that she is to be applauded for stepping down. Her detractors on the Left will claim that she is either abandoning her post to plan for a run in the 2012 Presidential election or leaving due to dropping approval ratings and lower oil revenues.

The truth about Palin’s political career is that rarely has her behavior, professionally or personally, followed any discernible line of logic. From suggesting that war with Russia may be prudent in the aftermath of the invasion of Georgia, to flying across the country with a full-term baby while leaking amniotic fluid so that it could be “born in the 49th state,” Palin has colorfully and fatuously kept people searching for an understandable explanation to her erratic behavior.

But too often the absence of an explanation is a defining characteristic of the behavior of the politically and socially dense. A famous baseball adage that explains the ridiculous behavior of an lackadaisical player is to define the player as “Manny being Manny,” in reference to Los Angeles Dodgers left fielder Manny Ramirez, known for his unconventional and stolid playing habits. At first people wondered whether Ramirez was a lazy player, or a selfish player, or simply untalented at basic aspects of the game. Eventually, when little could be reasoned from his behavior, it became sufficient to simply describe it as “Manny being Manny.”

Sarah picks a fight with Letterman over a late-night joke and only grudgingly accepts an apology after several attempts by the talk-show host. Sarah conducts the business of her state with little-to-no knowledge of current events. Sarah watches a Saturday Night Live skit about herself with the volume turned off because “it’s funnier that way.” Sarah preaches about small-town America while spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on outfits. Sarah resigns with no logical explanation without finishing one term as Governor.

Probably just Sarah being Sarah.