The modern conservative movement; CalPERS and its investment strategies

Conservatives, then and now

Re “Make way for the crazy-cons,” Opinion, Aug. 1

Thank you, David Klinghoffer, for your insights on the crazy-cons.

Oh for the day when political discourse focused on the facts and truths of our public life as they shaped our ideas and opinions and, ultimately, our own beliefs.

Today we get to listen to people blather about their own beliefs as they distort and misstate public “truths” to conform to their own ideas and opinions.

And thank you also for sharing your views of the foundations of conservatism (a shared “metaphysical dream” of humans as the perfected work of a creator) as opposed to the uncertainties of “contemporary liberal relativism” (humans as “mere animals”).

I am one contemporary liberal, however, who does not feel that the mystery of the cosmos needs to be reduced to fundamental dogma articulated by other humans in order for civilization to be saved.

Katherine Hamilton

Long Beach

Though I am sympathetic to Klinghoffer’s concerns about the neo-right, I lose patience with the false dichotomy he advances.

I don’t have to accept a metaphysical vision of “purpose” in order to see value in a flower, a dog or, yes, even a neocon.

There is always the possibility that life itself, as Nietzsche put it, “is holy enough.”

Charles Otwell

Orange

I appreciate Klinghoffer’s recognition that the conservative movement is now dominated by what he calls the crazy-cons. He joins a growing list of conservatives who are repulsed by the simultaneously vapid and putrid state of what passes for thinking in the conservative movement today.

I also respect Klinghoffer’s desire to point to an earlier and, in his eyes, more thoughtful era for the movement.

However, he is deluding himself if he thinks that what we’re seeing today is anything new. Lately conservatism has been dominated by Lee Atwater, Tom DeLay, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and their ilk. These men and others have cultivated a toxic mix of racial antagonism, jingoism, intolerant Christianity and economic Darwinism to advance their movement’s and the Republican Party’s power at the expense of civility and the common good.

How can Klinghoffer now be surprised that out of this fetid soil sprouted Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart?

Glenn Johnson-Grau

Los Angeles

Klinghoffer fails miserably to present a coherent view of conservatism.

I am at a loss to understand what “our demoralized, dispirited culture” referred to in 1948, much less what it refers to in 2010.

It is the height of moral rottenness to declare that conservatism is a “profound vision granting transcendent significance to public life and hope in private life.” Conservatism, rather, is a mean-spirited philosophy grounded in maintaining a class structure in which the rich control most important aspects of public life and keep the “rabble” — i.e. the rest of us — ignorant, stupid and in our place.

The words of Grover Norquist better describe modern conservative philosophy: “to reduce the size of government to the point where it can be drowned in the bathtub.”

Conservatism today is not about a cause to save civilization, much less a philosophy grounded in a view of cosmic purpose. It is best summed up in one word: greed.

Carl Mariz

Irvine

Klinghoffer writes: “When I became a conservative, that is what I signed up for: a profound vision granting transcendent significance to public life.”

How is that different from being a liberal?

Behold, another fella who knows best how we should live, and who is willing to use the government to enforce it. America is filled with people trying to save us from ourselves, yet few are willing to limit themselves to the power of persuasion to do it. Left and right reach first for the levers of government power — always, they insist, for our own good.

Mike Long

Burke, Va.

Goldberg’s take on Klinghoffer

Re “When nostalgia strikes,” Opinion, Aug. 3

Jonah Goldberg criticizes Klinghoffer as being caught in a nostalgia trap wherein only the good parts are remembered. I enjoyed reading Klinghoffer’s piece and would have preferred that Goldberg limit his critique to, as Klinghoffer puts it, “what brought us here, to the right, in the first place.”

I believe this country needs good conservatives as it needs good liberals. I also believe that, though their political opinions seem opposed, conservatives and liberals derive their opinions from a shared set of American values: work hard, support your family, help your neighbors when it’s needed and stay out of other people’s lives unless it interferes with your own.

I consider myself a progressive because I look to government to stem the persecution of the powerless by the powerful; but I still want a government that is minimally intrusive, unsoiled by corruption and free of special interests. I believe that conservatives and liberals alike agree on this point.

Mickey Oskey

Marina del Rey

Nostalgia for old-time conservatives is an issue for progressives too. We long for intelligent, honest opponents who actually are conservative.

I may not have always agreed with Barry Goldwater or William F. Buckley, but I own books by both, and I respected them. Do I own a book by a “conservative” like Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh? Don’t be ridiculous.

I’m sure that Buckley and Goldwater would choose 2,000 random names to rule instead of Limbaugh, Palin, John “Painted Face” Boehner, Eric “Just Say No to Unemployment” Cantor, Mitch McConnell or Sharron “Ban Social Security” Angle. I certainly would.

Tom Hermon

Riverside

CalPERS has changed

Re “Pension crisis rings a Bell,” Column, Aug. 1

Like nearly every other investor in the world, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System saw its returns fall sharply with the near-collapse of the world’s financial markets.

But our recovery is well underway, and the CalPERS fund is much improved, a not-so-small fact that Steve Lopez casually skirts in his recent column on the debate over public pensions. Our investment return for the past fiscal year was 11.4%, well above our long-term target return of 7.75%.

And though the market meltdown may be history, the lessons we’ve learned from it are fresh. We’re restructuring our investments, cutting debt and cutting ties with money managers who don’t meet expectations. What’s more, we’re chopping fees about $100 million this year alone.

All of this is being accomplished under new leadership and with the guidance of skilled investment professionals who are ever mindful of CalPERS’ obligation to the financial future of 1.6 million California public employees and their families.

Joseph A. Dear

Sacramento

The writer is chief investment officer, CalPERS.