Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy » Steven M. Warshawsky

Reflections On The National Review Institute’s Conservative Summit

Steven M. Warshawsky — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 13:28:51 +0000

The National Review Institute's Conservative Summit offered a wealth of practical and philosophical insights from leading politicians, scholars, and policy analysts, from across the conservative political spectrum. A report from Steven Warshawsky.

This past weekend, my wife and I attended the National Review Institute's Conservative Summit at the J.W. Marriott in Washington, D.C. This was [...]

Will Islam Dominate the Future?

Steven M. Warshawsky — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:10:20 +0000

The main focus of Mark Steyn’s new book is on the underlying demographic trends, including low native birth rates and rising Muslim immigration, that are steadily transforming Europe into an Islamic stronghold. A review of America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It.

America Alone: The End of the World [...]

Bringing Conservatism Back to the American People

Steven M. Warshawsky — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 13:59:27 +0000

Despite the demonstrated superiority of conservative principles for organizing human society, there is nothing “natural” or “intuitive” – let alone inevitable – about them.

Conservatives are lousy proselytizers. True, conservatives dominate talk radio, write scores of best-selling books, and are well-represented in the ranks of the political commentariat in newspapers, magazines, and on the internet. But [...]

Jack Kemp’s White Guilt

Steven M. Warshawsky — Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:58:50 +0000

Granting congressional representation to the District of Columbia is not the greatest civil rights challenge of our time.

Recently, in Human Events, the New York Sun, and several other newspapers, former Republican Party vice-presidential candidate Jack Kemp has been arguing that Republicans need “to get on the right side of history” on racial matters, [...]

NYT: Ahmadinejad For President

Steven M. Warshawsky — Wed, 31 May 2006 11:55:54 +0000

Political arrests are down, women's rights are on the rise. Life under Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, according to the New York Times.

The New York Times on Saturday offered a disgustingly sympathetic portrait of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. While the article acknowledges (in the words of an anonymous political science professor in Tehran) that "being against [...]

What Conservative Paradigm?

Steven M. Warshawsky — Mon, 22 May 2006 12:40:16 +0000

The American people may in some sense be “conservative,” but the political, intellectual, and economic elites that set the terms of debate are most definitely liberal. A response to Jeffrey Lord's article in the American Spectator.

Recently in the American Spectator, Jeffrey Lord argued that "[e]lections are about paradigms, not presidents," and predicts that [...]

Time To Take A Stand

Steven M. Warshawsky — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:44:55 +0000

It's time to start fighting back against the jihadists in our midst, who abuse our freedoms in order to destroy our society.

After the pro-terror rallies held by Muslims in London last January (supposedly to protest the Danish cartoons of Muhammad), I wondered why there were no counter-protests by ordinary Britons standing up for their [...]

The Racists at the ABA

Steven M. Warshawsky — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 13:05:12 +0000

Does the quality of one’s legal representation depend on the color, gender or physical condition of one’s lawyer?�

In the February 2006 edition of the ABA Journal, the official organ of the American Bar Association, ABA President Michael Greco laments the “under-representation” of women, minorities, and the disabled in the legal profession, and encourages ABA members to volunteer for “pipeline projects” aimed at increasing the number of children and young adults from “under-represented” groups who consider pursuing legal careers.

The rationale offered by Greco to support his call to action is that “[a] more diverse and more representative legal profession not only fosters greater public trust and confidence in the law, but even more fundamentally, it helps ensure fairness in our justice system.”� What Greco is saying, in essence, is that a white, able-bodied male, like himself, cannot fairly and effectively represent the legal interests of women, minorities, and the disabled.� Based on such “logic,” it would follow that female, minority, and disabled attorneys cannot fairly and effectively represent white, able-bodied males.� (Greco is silent as to whether attorneys and clients have to be the same age to “ensure fairness” in legal representation.)� � � �

Surely, Greco does not actually believe this racist nonsense.� Indeed, I doubt few practicing lawyers� — of any sex, color, or condition� — do.� For example, even radical lawyer Ron Kuby (a white male) represented black mass murderer Colin Ferguson, and Lynne Stewart (a white female) represented the “Blind Sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman, before she was convicted� of providing material support to terrorists.� I have no doubt that the quality of Kuby’s and Stewart’s legal work for their clients was outstanding.� Just as I have no doubt that they would support Greco’s call for “a more diverse group of young people” pursuing careers in law.

In my own experience, I have seen countless numbers of lawyers (myself included) who have fairly and effectively represented clients from “different” backgrounds than themselves.� The idea that people should “stick to their own kind” when choosing legal representation is an ignorant and malicious lie.

Nevertheless, this is the thrust of Greco’s argument.� Notably, Greco does not offer any evidence that clients are better served by attorneys who share their demographic characteristics (because there is no such evidence).� Nor does he identify any discriminatory barriers to entry that are preventing more women, minorities, or disabled persons from becoming lawyers (because there are no such barriers).� He simply assumes that we need “a more diverse pipeline of talent” because the legal profession does not perfectly mirror the American population.� Why it should demographically echo the larger society is left unexplained, thereby avoiding troubling implications.� � �

After all, for every group that is “under-represented” in the legal profession, there is another group that is “over-represented.”� Jews are probably the best example.� They make up a far larger share of the legal profession than their percentage of the population as a whole (approximately 2%).� So in allocating spaces for lawyers in our society, does Greco believe that fewer Jews (or Asians, who also are “over-represented”) should be allowed to pursue legal careers?� By reason he must, because it simply would not be possible to have a “representative” legal profession� — as Greco and most “liberals” define it� — without restricting the opportunities for “over-represented” groups (Jews, Asians, men, whites, the able-bodied, etc.) to become lawyers.� Not surprisingly, the ABA strongly supports affirmative action� in legal education, which is this exclusionary principle put into practice.

Ultimately, however, I do not think that Greco truly believes that black clients can only be represented by black lawyers, or that� female clients can only be represented by women lawyers, or that disabled clients can only be represented by disabled lawyers, and so on.� I also do not believe (though I could be wrong) that he would be in favor of excluding “over-represented” law school applicants from the legal profession altogether, as opposed to limiting the number of spaces available to them at top law schools (which is what the affirmative action debate really is about).�

So why then does he, and the ABA, so wholeheartedly embrace the “diversity” mantra?� The answer, I think, is rather more mundane.� In his column, Greco highlighted the activities of the ABA’s new Diversity Center, which “coordinates all ABA diversity efforts.”� Specifically, Greco emphasized the Diversity Center’s Legal Opportunity Scholarship Fund, which provides scholarships for “students of color” to attend law school.� He also pointed to the availability of “grants for diversity outreach and recruitment” from the Law School Admission Council (which works closely with the ABA).

In other words, Greco’s rhetoric about the importance of “diversity” in the legal profession, although offered in the most idealistic-sounding terms, in practice amounts to little more than a justification for racial or gender or (fill in the blank) patronage.� Moreover, the very impossibility of achieving a “representative” legal profession, as Greco defines it, means that the proffered reason for this patronage will never go away.� Not that the recipients of this patronage will complain.� For them, and their supporters, the patronage is an end in itself.

Of course, I do not dispute that private individuals and organizations should be free to spend their money and distribute their charity (which is what this kind of patronage amounts to) as they see fit.� If some person or group wants to set up a “black law student” scholarship fund, that is their prerogative.� My opposition begins when expanding one person’s opportunity is accomplished by restricting another person’s opportunity, on grounds that have nothing to do with either person’s ability to become a lawyer.

Much more corrosive to our national life, however, is the dishonest, even cynical, use of “diversity” rhetoric by the largest professional legal organization in the country, which suggests that the quality of one’s legal representation depends on the color or gender or physical condition of one’s lawyer.� Nothing could be further from the truth.

And nothing could be more deeply antithetical to the ideals upon which our nation’s legal system is founded.

Originally published by The American Thinker.

America’s Greatest Presidents

Steven M. Warshawsky — Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:06:18 +0000

The truly great men who have led this nation throughout our history deserve the American people’s most heartfelt thanks for a job well done.

Today is “President’s Day.”� A holiday originally intended to honor George Washington (and in some states Abraham Lincoln), President’s Day has degenerated into just another day off for government employees and an excuse for large retailers to hold sales.� More destructive to our national consciousness, it has become a day that purports to “celebrate” all presidents equally, the dismal failures along with the towering giants.� Perhaps this is why hardly any celebration occurs at all.� This is a shame, because the truly great men who have led this nation throughout our history deserve the American people’s most heartfelt thanks for a job well done.

There have been several presidents who have earned the appellation “great” for the leadership and vision they demonstrated during their service in the White House, including Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and George W. Bush (still a work in progress).� Today, however, we must honor three presidents above all others:� George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan.� Each of these men led the United States through a period of deep national crisis, and each time the nation emerged stronger, freer, and more committed to its founding ideals.� �

George Washington (1789-1797)� � � � � � � � � � �

George Washington not only is America’s greatest president, he is the single most important person in American history, and one of the most important persons who ever lived.� Washington was the central figure in both the American Revolution and the Constitutional Convention (without Washington’s support, the Convention never would have succeeded), but today we honor President Washington for his brilliant and indispensable leadership during the crucial early years of the American Republic.

Washington understood that, as the nation’s first president (the only president to be elected by the unanimous vote of the Electoral College), he had been entrusted to set the course for the future growth and success of the infant nation.� During his eight years in office, Washington deftly steered clear of the many dangers then threatening the country.�

Washington reduced the danger of sectionalism by making several goodwill tours throughout the country and appointing to his cabinet leading politicians from both North and South and both Federalist and Anti-Federalist factions.� He secured the nation’s borders, as well as access to the Spanish-controlled port at New Orleans (vital to westward expansion), with necessary, albeit unpopular, treaties with England and Spain.� And he prudently avoided being drawn into the great power struggle between England and France, a policy that was unpopular among both pro-British and pro-French crowds in America, but essential to allowing the United States time to recover from the Revolutionary War and gather her strength for the great nation-building tasks ahead.

Equally important, Washington asserted the constitutional authority of the new federal government to “insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, [and] promote the general Welfare.”� Without a strong central government� — the very impetus behind the Constitutional Convention� — no American nation would have been possible.�

One of the most significant, but frequently overlooked, events during Washington’s presidency was the so-called Whiskey Rebellion of 1794.� Essentially, the Whiskey Rebellion was an uprising by settlers in western Pennsylvania who opposed a liquor tax passed by Congress.� To quell the rebellion, Washington, acting pursuant to federal law, called up a militia force of 13,000 men, whom he personally led into the troubled area.� The rebellion was suppressed with nary a shot.� Instead of being punitive or vindictive� — which would have embittered the settlers, and other Americans, towards the new central government� — Washington offered amnesty to rebels who dispersed peaceably and pardoned rebel leaders who were convicted of treason.

Washington’s handling of the Whiskey Rebellion is a case study in the exercise of firm yet magnanimous authority by a leader who was prepared to risk his own reputation in the service of the greater good.

Last but not least, Washington deserves enormous credit for ensuring the success of democracy in America, by rejecting calls to make him king and refusing to serve more than two terms as president.� How many persons, then or now, would voluntarily relinquish power in this manner?� I dare say very few.� These were the acts of a profoundly noble and patriotic man, whose love of country and belief in the principles of the American Revolution were the driving forces in his life.

Washington may not have been a thinker on par with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, but his character, judgment, and patriotism were unparalleled.� After his death in 1799, Washington was famously eulogized by Congress:� “First in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen.”� Indeed.

Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865)

The next president we honor today is Abraham Lincoln, for his steadfast leadership during the nation’s darkest crisis, the Civil War.� While many admire President Lincoln for his glorious prose and Hamlet-like sensitivity, it was Lincoln’s single-minded dedication to preserving the Union that underlies his greatness. Adamantly opposed to secession, Lincoln warned the South in his First Inaugural Address:� “In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. . . . You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to preserve, protect, and defend it.”� Shortly thereafter, Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter.� In the four years that followed, despite military setbacks, a devastating body count, and fierce political opposition, Lincoln remained true to his oath, and saved the nation.

Contrary to his popular image, there was nothing Hamlet-like about Lincoln’s approach to the Civil War.� He understood that, first and foremost, the Confederacy had to be defeated militarily, no matter the cost.� And the cost was enormous, including more than 600,000 dead (North and South).

Lesser men than Lincoln were prepared to quit the fight long before Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox in April 1865.� Such a course would have doomed the United States (and the Confederacy) to a future of weakness and mediocrity.� Thankfully, Lincoln was prepared to do whatever was required� — raising one of the largest armies the world had ever seen, engaging in the bloodiest battles in American history, expanding the powers of the presidency� — to ensure the success of the Union.

Significantly, even in the midst of a terrible civil war, Lincoln did not suspend the electoral process, and in 1864 he stood for re-election against a popular anti-war candidate from the Democratic Party, whom Lincoln soundly defeated.� � �

Lincoln was more than just an iron-willed commander-in-chief, however.� He was a brilliant political thinker (for example, his First Inaugural Address is a tour de force of constitutional theory), who recognized that the Civil War fundamentally was about the future of freedom and democracy in America.

This was not just an issue of slavery, although Lincoln realized early on that the abolition of slavery had to be one of the North’s chief war aims, for which he deserves enormous credit.� Rather, as Lincoln expressed in the Gettysburg Address, it was about the success of government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”� Lincoln rightly predicted that were the Confederacy to succeed in dividing the country, the great republic bequeathed to Americans by the Founding Fathers� — which Lincoln aptly called “the last, best hope on earth”� — would be destroyed.� Lincoln was determined that would not happen.� It cost him his life.� But it earned for him the eternal gratitude of all Americans.

Ronald Reagan (1981-1988)

Washington and Lincoln stand above all other presidents in American history.� In our lifetimes, however, one man has embodied the same qualities of love of country and commitment to freedom that made Washington and Lincoln great; his name, Ronald Reagan.

President Reagan came into office at one of the lowest points in American history.� The 1970s had been a miserable decade.

Domestically, the 1970s witnessed low economic growth coupled with rising unemployment and inflation (“stagflation”); exploding rates of illegitimacy, crime, and drug abuse; and a near total failure of leadership from the White House.� Overseas, the forces of communism and Islamic extremism were spreading seemingly unchecked, punctuated by the fall of Saigon in 1975, the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan later that same year.� The decade reached its nadir with the Iranian Hostage Crisis (November 1979 to January 1981), one of the most demoralizing episodes in American history.� � �

This all changed on January 20, 1981, when Ronald Reagan was sworn in as the nation’s 40th president.� That day, in his eloquent and inspiring Inaugural Address, Reagan articulated the themes that would guide his presidency for the next eight years:� expanding individual liberty and opportunity, reducing the role of the federal government, unleashing the entrepreneurial energy and genius of ordinary Americans, and rebuilding the military.

Above all else, Reagan restored a spirit of confidence and optimism to the White House, and to the American people.

Under Reagan’s leadership, the nation embarked on the longest period of economic expansion in its history.� Real economic growth went from an anemic 1.6% to a robust 3.5% per year.� The “misery index” (unemployment + inflation) declined from 20.8% during the last year of Carter’s presidency to 9.6% during the last year of Reagan’s presidency.� Tax rates were slashed, while government revenues soared in a “supply side” boom.� And contrary to critics who claim that Reagan’s policies unfairly benefited the rich, the portion of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of taxpayers rose from 18% in 1981 to 28% in 1988.

At the same time that Reagan’s fiscal policies were reinvigorating the American economy, his build up of American military power� — and his plain talk about the evils of communism� — were reinvigorating the “containment” policy of Truman and Kennedy.� Reagan referred to his foreign policy in characteristically homespun terms as “peace through strength.”� It worked.� Reagan stopped the spread of communism in Latin America.� He struck back against Middle Eastern terrorists.� He created an unmatched military that would later win the First Gulf War in spectacular fashion.

Most importantly, Reagan exerted enormous and unrelenting pressure on the Soviet Union� — through military, political, economic, and technological means� — to abandon its commitment to worldwide revolution, agree to steep cuts in nuclear weapons, and liberalize its society.� The result was one of the most profound achievements in human history:� the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.

The American people were drawn to Reagan’s message of freedom and hope.� In the 1980 election versus the hapless Jimmy Carter, Reagan received 489 electoral votes to Carter’s 49, and won the popular vote 51% to 41%.� Reagan was resoundingly re-elected in 1984 over Walter Mondale (Carter’s vice-president), with 525 electoral votes to Mondale’s 13, and 59% of the popular vote to Mondale’s 41%.� By comparison, this was a larger margin of victory than FDR achieved in 1932, 1940, or 1944.

Reagan has remained extremely popular with the American people, and his death in June 2004 resulted in an outpouring of love and grief across the nation.� At his funeral, Reagan’s friend and ally Margaret Thatcher recounted Reagan’s enormous legacy:� “He sought to mend America’s wounded spirit, to restore the strength of the free world, and to free the slaves of communism.”� These were great and difficult tasks, and Reagan achieved them all.

On this President’s Day 2006, let us remember, and take inspiration from, our three greatest presidents:� Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan.� All hail the chief!

Originally published by the American Thinker.

In Defense Of Ann Coulter

Steven M. Warshawsky — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 13:01:13 +0000

I find it very troubling that conservative commentators are so offended by a few harsh words for our sworn enemies.

During her standing-room-only speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last Friday, Ann Coulter made some rather blunt remarks about Muslims that have offended listeners on the left and right alike.

Yesterday on [...]