Archive for February 17th, 2016

Haley Endorses Rubio

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley formally endorsed Sen. Marco Rubio for President this evening at a campaign rally.  As has been pointed out, without the political machines they once had at their disposal, elected officials’ endorsements mean less than they used to.  Still, this is not insignificant, and comes just a few days before South Carolina holds its primary.

Trump has been leading there and will probably win, but this gives Rubio the inside edge on the alleged “establishment lane” there, and could even push him past Cruz for 2nd place.

The endorsement isn’t entirely unexpected.  Haley’s State of the Union response angered many of the Trump and Cruz persuasion, for its emphasis on talking about people rather than policies, and its perceived softness on immigration.  Personally, I thought the response was inspiring.  The tenor of it was very similar to Rubio’s at his most effective.  After she delivered it, I figured that she would be supporting Rubio, if not endorsing him.

[youtube width=”425″ height=”318″][/youtube]

Guy Benson had a Facebook post earlier suggesting that Haley’s endorsement, and that of Sen. Tim Scott, a black Republican from that state, would send an important message to up-and-coming conservatives in the party.  I think that’s true, but I think it’s possible that Benson has the cause and effect reversed here.

Haley and Scott were already prominent non-White conservative Republicans.  The message of their endorsement for Rubio is not that conservative ideas know no color or sex, that they apply to everyone.  That’s the message of Haley and Scott being elected statewide officials in the birthplace of secession, that it’s all right for blacks and other minorities to identify as conservatives and as Republicans.

They could have endorsed anyone, with the exception of Trump, and that wouldn’t have changed.

They obviously have been sold on conservatism’s message and policies, and believe that those are sellable to other minorities and to women.  I’m sure that a large factor in their endorsement of Rubio is their belief that of the remaining candidates, he is the most effective communicator of those ideas to those groups.

[youtube width=”425″ height=”318″][/youtube]

No Comments

Love in a Time of Politics

Don’t fall in love with a candidate.

It’s ok to love his ideas, or how he presents them.  It’s even ok to fall in love with policies, although those are – fortunately – rarely as pure as the ideas.

It’s even ok to decide, after a long, successful term of governance, that one has become attached, and to love an officer-holder for what they have done.

But don’t fall in love with candidates.  That’s when they’re ambitious, egotistical, manipulative.  They want to win an election, to hold an office.  They may believe what they say, and you may like how they say it, but never forget that a candidate is, above all, trying to get something from you.  Your vote.  For office.  For them.

If you love them, they probably don’t even know who you are.

Candidates are, like the rest of us, flawed human beings, with sins in their pasts and compromises to be made in their futures.  They will have to trade away X to get Y and it may well be that X is the single most important thing to you in the platform.  Nothing personal, just business.

That’s why, when you judge a candidate you do so based on cold calculation of whether or not supporting them advances the political cause.  What will they do once in office?  Do you trust their judgment, especially under pressure? Can they win?  If they can’t win, does it matter, and what can they achieve in the course of losing?

But above all, not, do I love them?

As it is with candidate, whose business is politics, all the more so with a company or CEO, whose business is business, but who gets involved in politics.

Consider the news from Apple today that it will oppose an FBI request to develop a version of its iOS to allow the government to bypass security on confiscated phones.

Some libertarians are cheering Apple as a friend of liberty, a champion of freedom.

I strongly suspect that, to some extent their willingness to fall in love with Apple over this issue is strongly related to their having fallen in love with Steve Jobs’s products, but I can’t readily prove that.  Nevertheless, fallen in love they have, at least for the moment.

Tim Cook is no Champion of Liberty.  He’s a lefty with a libertarian streak when it comes to his company’s products.  He supports gay marriage, which libertarians like, but opposes individual, private freedom of conscience not to participate in those ceremonies, which ought to give libertarians the willies.

He has committed Apple to get 100% of its power from highly expensive, heavily publicly-subsidized “renewable” energy, and refused to disclose to shareholders how much this will cost them.

Cook may or may not be on the right side of the privacy issue.  (I tend to think he’s correct in general, but wildly wrong in thinking that two dead mass murderers have privacy rights worth respecting.)  But on the whole, Cook is a typical New Oligarch, fond of using the government to tell other people how to live, while chafing at those restrictions himself.

In short, no friend of liberty.

Don’t fall in love with a company.

No Comments