Mitt Romney has withstood every challenge to date, remaining the only constant in the Republican nomination race. There are legitimate reasons for his consistency. Romney is photogenic, has proven business skills, can manage a budget, and heads a campaign flush with cash. The sum total of these assets is the demise of everyone, thus far, who has challenged him.
However, conservatives haven't warmed to Romney, as last week's caucuses confirm. So Rick Santorum becomes the latest, and perhaps strongest, "conservative alternative" the "anyone but Romney" camp has long sought.
Santorum is solidly conservative on many issues. He's pro-life and dedicated to the time-tested family unit. Santorum opposed TARP, Obama's "stimulus" slush fund, and both the auto and Freddie/Fannie bailouts. He's a proven proponent of entitlement reform, recognizing the entitlement system as a budgetary and economic albatross around the nation's neck. He also voted to end direct farm subsidies, and still he won the Iowa Caucuses.
Yet Santorum's silver lining contains a dark cloud. In fact, his résumé includes glaring inconsistencies. His 2005 vote to subsidize milk production contradicts his efforts to end farm subsidies. While Santorum was fiscally disciplined during the 90s, he fell in line with the "compassionate conservatism" of the Bush era, supporting Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and a highway bill rich in earmarks, including the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. Santorum opposed ethanol subsidies prior to 9/11, changed his mind due to security concerns afterwards, and then voted to end them altogether just a few years later.
Santorum didn't contest Maine, so those results are irrelevant to his momentum. However, before elevating him to savior status we might also consider that he lost his Senate reelection bid by a wide margin. He seems equally comfortable on either side of an issue, depending on whether he's supporting his party or preaching against the opposition. Let's also consider that he received no delegates for his Missouri victory and awarded delegates in Colorado aren't necessarily bound to him. Furthermore, Newt Gingrich -- the other "anti-Romney" -- bypassed those caucuses. Where might Santorum have finished had the anti-Romney voters been split between he and Newt, especially in Colorado?
Also, Romney's money and political organization remain formidable. The Mitt Machine was quite thorough in highlighting Gingrich's flaws and we witnessed an associated tumble in Newt's standing. Romney's guns weren't then trained on Santorum. But, with last week's results, Rick becomes an intrusion that warrants a full salvo from Romney's battlewagon. Santorum should expect to take fire from here forward, and not only from Romney. Gingrich isn't the type to fade gracefully into the background, either.
Maybe Rick Santorum is the conservative's best option. He does present solid credentials. However, no candidate is perfect, including Santorum. He bears the dead weight of personal and policy contradictions and inconsistencies. The question is: Can Santorum survive the Romney camp's predictable assault long enough to become the legitimate "anti-Mitt?"
Showing posts with label Republican Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republican Party. Show all posts
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Two buses traveling the same direction
Imagine we're standing on a highway overpass, watching vehicles of various sizes, configurations, and speeds approach, pass, and disappear over the crest of a distant hill. Off in the distance we notice a large bus approaching.
The bus is traveling well above the posted speed limit. It tailgates slower vehicles, sways violently as it cuts in and out of traffic, and swerves from one side of the highway to the other. The one constant is the driver's reckless disregard for the well-being of his fellow motorists, who are forced into radical evasive tactics to avoid a collision.
We might expect to see a crazed maniac behind the wheel, perhaps a drunkard. But when the bus passes under the bridge, we see that the driver is well-dressed, fully composed, and gripping the steering wheel with both hands. The driver looks like the consummate professional, not a wild-eyed kook. What's more, the passengers aren't the least bit disheveled, nor are they or upset with the driver's erratic maneuvers. They're reading, listening to music, or sleeping, blissfully unaware of the danger in which their driver is placing them.
The bus rockets beneath the underpass, runs two more vehicles into the median, and careens over the crest.
After a silent prayer for the bus' occupants, we turn our eyes back to the oncoming traffic. Of all horrors, another bus is approaching. But this one is different. The second bus is cruising at an appropriate speed. When it approaches a slower vehicle, the driver signals and the bus moves smoothly into the next lane, passes the slower vehicle, signals again and reenters the original lane.
When the bus reaches the overpass we again note the driver's mannerisms, driving techniques, and personal appearance. Everything is the same as with the first driver, maybe better. These passengers also ride peacefully, trusting their driver's ability to avoid danger. The second bus passes smoothly beneath the bridge and over the distant crest at a steady speed.
The contrasts between the buses are obvious. At one wheel is a dangerous radical whose professional façade belies his wanton disregard for his passengers and fellow travelers. His recklessness is rivaled only by his passengers' obliviousness. The second driver is cautious, concerned, and traditional. He is almost sedate, as are the passengers on his bus. However, the buses share a similarity that's more striking than the differences. Both buses are traveling the same direction. If neither changes course, they will ultimately reach the same destination.
The first bus represents the Democrat Party. Its terminus is an all-powerful State, a goal Democrats pursue with reckless abandon. Any harm caused along the route is dismissed as inconsequential. For the Democrat left the end justifies the means, with said end being a Marxist based society steeped with cradle-to-grave collectivism.
The Republican Party drives the second bus, and it follows the same route as the first. As the GOP bus cruises along it encounters mileposts similar to those seen from the Democrat bus: increased federal spending, burgeoning deficits, debilitating debt, and waning liberty. It travels that road a little slower, a little safer, and reaches the destination later. But the second bus will ultimately park in the same station as the first.
Certainly there are differences between the Democrat Party and the Republican Party. But the differences have become more evident in the driving style than in the direction of travel. No matter which bus we board, we'll be riding toward the same destination, that being a manipulative and controlling central government. If we continue riding one of those two buses and expect to arrive at a different station we are defining insanity.
The Democrat Party is so entwined in collectivism that redirection is impossible. Reforming the Democrats would require a course correction so radical that the rehabilitated product would bear no resemblance to the current one. As the number of people beholden to the Democrats' collectivist policies increases, the number of people who ignore their reckless driving and board their bus will also increase.
Conversely, the Republican course may yet be altered. But if changing that direction remains possible, it's only so for a season, and the season is quickly passing. Republican strategists, ever mindful of the electorate's increasing dependence on the State, are driving the party in the same direction as their Democrat counterparts, albeit at a slower pace. Any Republican who promotes a different agenda -- say one in which government actually shrinks -- will earn a commission in the tinfoil hat brigade.
The Founding Fathers foresaw these natural flaws in political parties. Like government, political parties are more interested in attaining power than defending liberty. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #1, "Nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties." George Washington also warned us about the dangers inherent to political party agendas. The founders weren't suggesting that parties were intolerable. But anyone brandishing a healthy distrust for government's motivations should carry a similar distrust for a political party's motivations.
Preserving our liberty compels us to recognize the self-serving nature common to political parties. Party loyalty shouldn't blind us to the fact that both major parties are driving our country in the same direction. It may not be time to abandon the Republican bus just yet. But can we at least consider that another bus, traveling a different direction, might someday become necessary?
The bus is traveling well above the posted speed limit. It tailgates slower vehicles, sways violently as it cuts in and out of traffic, and swerves from one side of the highway to the other. The one constant is the driver's reckless disregard for the well-being of his fellow motorists, who are forced into radical evasive tactics to avoid a collision.
We might expect to see a crazed maniac behind the wheel, perhaps a drunkard. But when the bus passes under the bridge, we see that the driver is well-dressed, fully composed, and gripping the steering wheel with both hands. The driver looks like the consummate professional, not a wild-eyed kook. What's more, the passengers aren't the least bit disheveled, nor are they or upset with the driver's erratic maneuvers. They're reading, listening to music, or sleeping, blissfully unaware of the danger in which their driver is placing them.
The bus rockets beneath the underpass, runs two more vehicles into the median, and careens over the crest.
After a silent prayer for the bus' occupants, we turn our eyes back to the oncoming traffic. Of all horrors, another bus is approaching. But this one is different. The second bus is cruising at an appropriate speed. When it approaches a slower vehicle, the driver signals and the bus moves smoothly into the next lane, passes the slower vehicle, signals again and reenters the original lane.
When the bus reaches the overpass we again note the driver's mannerisms, driving techniques, and personal appearance. Everything is the same as with the first driver, maybe better. These passengers also ride peacefully, trusting their driver's ability to avoid danger. The second bus passes smoothly beneath the bridge and over the distant crest at a steady speed.
The contrasts between the buses are obvious. At one wheel is a dangerous radical whose professional façade belies his wanton disregard for his passengers and fellow travelers. His recklessness is rivaled only by his passengers' obliviousness. The second driver is cautious, concerned, and traditional. He is almost sedate, as are the passengers on his bus. However, the buses share a similarity that's more striking than the differences. Both buses are traveling the same direction. If neither changes course, they will ultimately reach the same destination.
The first bus represents the Democrat Party. Its terminus is an all-powerful State, a goal Democrats pursue with reckless abandon. Any harm caused along the route is dismissed as inconsequential. For the Democrat left the end justifies the means, with said end being a Marxist based society steeped with cradle-to-grave collectivism.
The Republican Party drives the second bus, and it follows the same route as the first. As the GOP bus cruises along it encounters mileposts similar to those seen from the Democrat bus: increased federal spending, burgeoning deficits, debilitating debt, and waning liberty. It travels that road a little slower, a little safer, and reaches the destination later. But the second bus will ultimately park in the same station as the first.
Certainly there are differences between the Democrat Party and the Republican Party. But the differences have become more evident in the driving style than in the direction of travel. No matter which bus we board, we'll be riding toward the same destination, that being a manipulative and controlling central government. If we continue riding one of those two buses and expect to arrive at a different station we are defining insanity.
The Democrat Party is so entwined in collectivism that redirection is impossible. Reforming the Democrats would require a course correction so radical that the rehabilitated product would bear no resemblance to the current one. As the number of people beholden to the Democrats' collectivist policies increases, the number of people who ignore their reckless driving and board their bus will also increase.
Conversely, the Republican course may yet be altered. But if changing that direction remains possible, it's only so for a season, and the season is quickly passing. Republican strategists, ever mindful of the electorate's increasing dependence on the State, are driving the party in the same direction as their Democrat counterparts, albeit at a slower pace. Any Republican who promotes a different agenda -- say one in which government actually shrinks -- will earn a commission in the tinfoil hat brigade.
The Founding Fathers foresaw these natural flaws in political parties. Like government, political parties are more interested in attaining power than defending liberty. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #1, "Nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties." George Washington also warned us about the dangers inherent to political party agendas. The founders weren't suggesting that parties were intolerable. But anyone brandishing a healthy distrust for government's motivations should carry a similar distrust for a political party's motivations.
Preserving our liberty compels us to recognize the self-serving nature common to political parties. Party loyalty shouldn't blind us to the fact that both major parties are driving our country in the same direction. It may not be time to abandon the Republican bus just yet. But can we at least consider that another bus, traveling a different direction, might someday become necessary?
Sunday, January 22, 2012
How does Romney remain the frontrunner?
How does Mitt Romney remain atop the Republican field? He's unpopular with fiscal conservatives. Despite his business-friendly reputation, conservatives perceive Romney as a statist wolf in free-market clothing; a classic northeastern moderate if not an outright liberal. He fares even worse with social conservatives. Even with his reformed positions on abortion and marriage, his checkered history on both issues breeds distrust among Republicans.
Since key elements of the GOP base are aligned against Romney there is opportunity for a reliable conservative with stamina for the long haul. Thus far no one has fit the bill.
Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry launched their campaigns with a flourish only to disappear like ice on an August sidewalk. Herman Cain briefly overtook Romney until the "9-9-9 Train" derailed amid a concocted sex scandal or Cain’s own wandering eye, whichever you prefer to believe. The sometimes Reaganesque Newt Gingrich has more lives than a cat. But political and personal baggage has rendered him thoroughly inconsistent. Newt’s campaign charged Iowa with swelling poll numbers, fell flat, and limped toward New Hampshire. He’s ascending again, and yet another personal storm looms on the horizon. Rick Santorum, it turns out, won Iowa. However, the social conservative champion lags woefully behind Romney in ultraconservative South Carolina. Only Ron Paul has managed consistent numbers relative to Romney’s. But Paul’s polling numbers don’t suggest he can overtake Mitt.
Each Republican challenger has charged the Romney beast and each has limped away licking their wounds. Why? You might point to pro-Romney attack ads or recite the media talking point about Romney being the only electable Republican. Another factor is Romney’s universal support among the GOP establishment. But there's another reason Mitt Romney gained and maintains his apparent advantage, a reason having as much to do with his opponents as with him.
Romney’s competition treats him like the favorite therefore he is the favorite. Each candidate is so determined to be the anti-Romney that their own message is being lost in the shuffle. Republicans are wasting their time, and ours, in labeling Mitt as an unreliable conservative; conservatives already see Mitt in that light.
In contrast, Romney behaves like a frontrunner. He portrays himself as the anti-Obama, as a candidate who has moved beyond his Republican challengers. Romney’s camp realizes that a majority of the Republican base defines a successful 2012 as sending Obama home in time for the White Sox’s 2013 home opener. While Romney capitalizes on the desire to defeat Obama the rest of the candidates are focused on beating him.
Republican candidates must develop a message other than “I’m not Romney” if they’re to affect the race. With each solid primary finish, whether or not it’s a victory, Romney solidifies his status as the nominee-in-waiting. Thus the odds increase that the Republican Party will counter Obama with a candidate in the vein of McCain, Bush, and Dole. Regardless of November’s result, the ensuing four years could prove wholly unsatisfying.
Since key elements of the GOP base are aligned against Romney there is opportunity for a reliable conservative with stamina for the long haul. Thus far no one has fit the bill.
Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry launched their campaigns with a flourish only to disappear like ice on an August sidewalk. Herman Cain briefly overtook Romney until the "9-9-9 Train" derailed amid a concocted sex scandal or Cain’s own wandering eye, whichever you prefer to believe. The sometimes Reaganesque Newt Gingrich has more lives than a cat. But political and personal baggage has rendered him thoroughly inconsistent. Newt’s campaign charged Iowa with swelling poll numbers, fell flat, and limped toward New Hampshire. He’s ascending again, and yet another personal storm looms on the horizon. Rick Santorum, it turns out, won Iowa. However, the social conservative champion lags woefully behind Romney in ultraconservative South Carolina. Only Ron Paul has managed consistent numbers relative to Romney’s. But Paul’s polling numbers don’t suggest he can overtake Mitt.
Each Republican challenger has charged the Romney beast and each has limped away licking their wounds. Why? You might point to pro-Romney attack ads or recite the media talking point about Romney being the only electable Republican. Another factor is Romney’s universal support among the GOP establishment. But there's another reason Mitt Romney gained and maintains his apparent advantage, a reason having as much to do with his opponents as with him.
Romney’s competition treats him like the favorite therefore he is the favorite. Each candidate is so determined to be the anti-Romney that their own message is being lost in the shuffle. Republicans are wasting their time, and ours, in labeling Mitt as an unreliable conservative; conservatives already see Mitt in that light.
In contrast, Romney behaves like a frontrunner. He portrays himself as the anti-Obama, as a candidate who has moved beyond his Republican challengers. Romney’s camp realizes that a majority of the Republican base defines a successful 2012 as sending Obama home in time for the White Sox’s 2013 home opener. While Romney capitalizes on the desire to defeat Obama the rest of the candidates are focused on beating him.
Republican candidates must develop a message other than “I’m not Romney” if they’re to affect the race. With each solid primary finish, whether or not it’s a victory, Romney solidifies his status as the nominee-in-waiting. Thus the odds increase that the Republican Party will counter Obama with a candidate in the vein of McCain, Bush, and Dole. Regardless of November’s result, the ensuing four years could prove wholly unsatisfying.
Friday, December 23, 2011
The GOP field: A wolf without teeth?
Can we say 2012 is a golden opportunity for the Republican Party? What case can the Democrat incumbent present for reelection? The economy is anemic and job growth remains sluggish despite announced declines in unemployment rates. Republicans have the momentum from 2010 and enjoy popular support for repealing Obama's signature achievement: ObamaCare.
Voters seem to like Obama personally. Yet their political ideals are more commensurate with conservatism. Sixty-four percent of Americans view big government as the country's greatest danger. Republicans are expected to hold such views. However, when 64-percent of independents and a sizeable number of Democrats also fear big government, Obama -- the commissar of czars -- has a problem.
Reasons abound for Republican optimism. So, you'd think the Republican Party would be drooling like a hungry wolf circling a wounded sheep. But further examination indicates the GOP may be a wolf that lacks teeth for the kill.
While voters prefer the generic Republican to Obama, only one GOP candidate, Mitt Romney, leads Obama in head-to-head polling. And his "lead" is within the margin of error. According to Rasmussen's December surveys the President enjoys leads of five points over Newt Gingrich, seven over John Huntsman, eight over Ron Paul, and double-digits over everyone else. The logical question is why voters would prefer an unidentified Republican over Obama but favor Obama above an identified Republican? There are several explanations.
First, Republican candidates are under a media microscope. Any faux pas generates instant negativity. Another reason is the incessant sniping. While negative ads are productive, pettiness is a drain on approval ratings. Once there's a nominee and the GOP targets Obama's record the named candidate will fare better. The easiest explanation is that no votes have been cast, meaning the polls are subjective. But a fourth scenario seems most plausible.
The Republican Party's preferred candidates haven't, as yet, generated excitement. Voters are ready to ditch Obama for a Republican. But they don't hear a consistent GOP message that reflects their current mood. Something is missing in the top tier, be it message, articulation, attitude, or believability.
A steady majority of voters believe the nation is heading in the wrong direction, charging headlong toward an all-powerful central government. Yet they possess little faith in the GOP's dedication to fundamentally altering the national course.
The antithetical poll result isn't doomsday for the GOP. But it does indicate the electorate's mindset. There's no interest in another Bob Dole, George Bush, or John McCain-style candidate. Voters distrust the burgeoning central government and its disastrous economic machinations. Opportunity knocks for a candidate who articulates a coherent message of fiscal discipline, national sovereignty, states rights, free markets, and international strength sans adventurism. In short, there's support for a Republican with conservative teeth.
Obama is the weakest of sheep. But if the Republican wolf expects to gum him out of office, get set for four more years.
Voters seem to like Obama personally. Yet their political ideals are more commensurate with conservatism. Sixty-four percent of Americans view big government as the country's greatest danger. Republicans are expected to hold such views. However, when 64-percent of independents and a sizeable number of Democrats also fear big government, Obama -- the commissar of czars -- has a problem.
Reasons abound for Republican optimism. So, you'd think the Republican Party would be drooling like a hungry wolf circling a wounded sheep. But further examination indicates the GOP may be a wolf that lacks teeth for the kill.
While voters prefer the generic Republican to Obama, only one GOP candidate, Mitt Romney, leads Obama in head-to-head polling. And his "lead" is within the margin of error. According to Rasmussen's December surveys the President enjoys leads of five points over Newt Gingrich, seven over John Huntsman, eight over Ron Paul, and double-digits over everyone else. The logical question is why voters would prefer an unidentified Republican over Obama but favor Obama above an identified Republican? There are several explanations.
First, Republican candidates are under a media microscope. Any faux pas generates instant negativity. Another reason is the incessant sniping. While negative ads are productive, pettiness is a drain on approval ratings. Once there's a nominee and the GOP targets Obama's record the named candidate will fare better. The easiest explanation is that no votes have been cast, meaning the polls are subjective. But a fourth scenario seems most plausible.
The Republican Party's preferred candidates haven't, as yet, generated excitement. Voters are ready to ditch Obama for a Republican. But they don't hear a consistent GOP message that reflects their current mood. Something is missing in the top tier, be it message, articulation, attitude, or believability.
A steady majority of voters believe the nation is heading in the wrong direction, charging headlong toward an all-powerful central government. Yet they possess little faith in the GOP's dedication to fundamentally altering the national course.
The antithetical poll result isn't doomsday for the GOP. But it does indicate the electorate's mindset. There's no interest in another Bob Dole, George Bush, or John McCain-style candidate. Voters distrust the burgeoning central government and its disastrous economic machinations. Opportunity knocks for a candidate who articulates a coherent message of fiscal discipline, national sovereignty, states rights, free markets, and international strength sans adventurism. In short, there's support for a Republican with conservative teeth.
Obama is the weakest of sheep. But if the Republican wolf expects to gum him out of office, get set for four more years.
Monday, September 26, 2011
The problem with Paul
As Social Security is considered the third rail of national politics, Ron Paul is the third rail of the Republican Party. Paul's detractors are vehement in dismissing the Texas representative as the party's loose nut. Contrarily, Paul's supporters are dedicated to crowning him the savior of the GOP and the United States overall.
If Paul is as inconsequential as the haters claim, they needn't work so hard to dismiss him; he'll render himself irrelevant. But the GOP hierarchy cringes when Paul speaks because he's correct on so many issues. Audit the Fed? Ron Paul has a calculator. Worried about federally controlled healthcare delivery? Dr. Paul supports free market solutions to rising healthcare costs. Tired of burdensome regulations and Washington's shredding of our Constitution? Paul promotes personal liberty and states rights, viewing bureaucracy like a drunk at a Baptist picnic. His position on limited government offends Beltway Republicans who've fallen in love with federal largess.
Ron Paul is crystal clear on America's domestic problems. However, when it comes to foreign policy, the more Ron Paul talks the more his fatal weakness is exposed.
That's not to say Paul's foreign policy positions are total flawed. For instance, Paul suggests a non-interventionist policy would save money. He's obviously correct. Fewer foreign engagements would require lower government expenditures. Besides, acting as the world's policeman isn't a conservative principal. Conservatives weren't interested in policing the world when Clinton engaged the Kosovo conflict and Libya is on no one's agenda. Paul's non-interventionism doesn't necessarily equate to a refusal to defend the United States.
On terrorism, Paul believes America's presence in Muslim lands provokes hatred toward us. Paul reasons, "What would we do if another country . . . did to us what we do to all those countries over there?"
Well, what would we do? We'd fight, of course, just as we did following 9/11. Were another country to establish a military presence on U.S. soil we would summon every weapon from pitchforks to Tomahawk missiles against the foreign occupier. Americans would demand all-out war against the infiltrators. Should we not do unto others as we would have them do unto us?
Paul believes our "foreign occupations" spurred the 9/11 attacks. There is some credibility in his assertion, for the prior mentioned reasons. However, "foreign occupation" falls short in explaining the reason Islamists choose violence. The culture reflected in the jihad movement relishes conflict. If there were no Israel, Islamists would find another justification for violence. The Muslim Brotherhood was anti-Zionist before the post-war establishment of Israel. If there were neither a United States nor an Israel, another enemy would spark the fanatic's flame. Even in biblical history, pre-Islamic Arabs and Persians fought not only with Jews but with each other. Any reason, provocation, or insult, whether real or perceived, can stir Islamist violence.
America certainly isn't perfect; we've made foreign policy blunders. Whether for better or worse, the United States has propped-up unpopular dictators to further our interests in the Middle East. If an outside interest so meddled in our affairs we'd be seething and rightly so. But the problem with Ron Paul, his fatal flaw, is his belief that America will be safer if we bring all troops home and adopt a quasi-isolationist foreign policy.
Paul's view of international relations is similar to the one America held prior to World War II. The U.S. thought neutrality was an option in an increasingly hostile world. Thus Hitler's Germany went from a defeated and demilitarized nation to a burgeoning and aggressive war machine. A huge price was extracted, in blood and money, for our ambivalence. Is the next Third Reich on the horizon? Maybe not. But protecting U.S. sovereignty relies on the ability to respond quickly to gathering threats.
A strong and ready military is essential to our survival, but not necessarily the "neo-con" view of militarism. While America can and should promote liberty and a better opportunity to an oppressed world, we aren't responsible for overthrowing dictators in every third-world hellhole. Suppose we follow Thomas Jefferson's advice: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Was Jefferson averse to the aggressive use of force? Ask a Barbary pirate.
America would be better served if all its military engagements were defensive in nature. This is especially true if we continue fighting wars like police actions, which has become our standard strategy regardless of the party in charge. Yet an aggressive foreign policy must remain an option for dealing with demonstrable threats. The jihad has a track record of attacking the United States and her interests, at home and abroad. America must confront Islamists even if it means acting preemptively, unilaterally, or overwhelmingly. The reason for Islamic terrorism is found in the prejudices and cultures of the Islamists, not on an air base in Riyadh.
This is the problem with Ron Paul. On domestic, economic, and constitutional issues he is right on target. Ron Paul is correct in believing the United States isn't responsible for forcefully establishing freedom and self-government throughout the world. But Paul is dangerously wrong regarding how America must deal with external threats in the modern world.
President Ron Paul isn't the answer. Federal Reserve Chairman Ron Paul? Now that has a nice ring to it.
If Paul is as inconsequential as the haters claim, they needn't work so hard to dismiss him; he'll render himself irrelevant. But the GOP hierarchy cringes when Paul speaks because he's correct on so many issues. Audit the Fed? Ron Paul has a calculator. Worried about federally controlled healthcare delivery? Dr. Paul supports free market solutions to rising healthcare costs. Tired of burdensome regulations and Washington's shredding of our Constitution? Paul promotes personal liberty and states rights, viewing bureaucracy like a drunk at a Baptist picnic. His position on limited government offends Beltway Republicans who've fallen in love with federal largess.
Ron Paul is crystal clear on America's domestic problems. However, when it comes to foreign policy, the more Ron Paul talks the more his fatal weakness is exposed.
That's not to say Paul's foreign policy positions are total flawed. For instance, Paul suggests a non-interventionist policy would save money. He's obviously correct. Fewer foreign engagements would require lower government expenditures. Besides, acting as the world's policeman isn't a conservative principal. Conservatives weren't interested in policing the world when Clinton engaged the Kosovo conflict and Libya is on no one's agenda. Paul's non-interventionism doesn't necessarily equate to a refusal to defend the United States.
On terrorism, Paul believes America's presence in Muslim lands provokes hatred toward us. Paul reasons, "What would we do if another country . . . did to us what we do to all those countries over there?"
Well, what would we do? We'd fight, of course, just as we did following 9/11. Were another country to establish a military presence on U.S. soil we would summon every weapon from pitchforks to Tomahawk missiles against the foreign occupier. Americans would demand all-out war against the infiltrators. Should we not do unto others as we would have them do unto us?
Paul believes our "foreign occupations" spurred the 9/11 attacks. There is some credibility in his assertion, for the prior mentioned reasons. However, "foreign occupation" falls short in explaining the reason Islamists choose violence. The culture reflected in the jihad movement relishes conflict. If there were no Israel, Islamists would find another justification for violence. The Muslim Brotherhood was anti-Zionist before the post-war establishment of Israel. If there were neither a United States nor an Israel, another enemy would spark the fanatic's flame. Even in biblical history, pre-Islamic Arabs and Persians fought not only with Jews but with each other. Any reason, provocation, or insult, whether real or perceived, can stir Islamist violence.
America certainly isn't perfect; we've made foreign policy blunders. Whether for better or worse, the United States has propped-up unpopular dictators to further our interests in the Middle East. If an outside interest so meddled in our affairs we'd be seething and rightly so. But the problem with Ron Paul, his fatal flaw, is his belief that America will be safer if we bring all troops home and adopt a quasi-isolationist foreign policy.
Paul's view of international relations is similar to the one America held prior to World War II. The U.S. thought neutrality was an option in an increasingly hostile world. Thus Hitler's Germany went from a defeated and demilitarized nation to a burgeoning and aggressive war machine. A huge price was extracted, in blood and money, for our ambivalence. Is the next Third Reich on the horizon? Maybe not. But protecting U.S. sovereignty relies on the ability to respond quickly to gathering threats.
A strong and ready military is essential to our survival, but not necessarily the "neo-con" view of militarism. While America can and should promote liberty and a better opportunity to an oppressed world, we aren't responsible for overthrowing dictators in every third-world hellhole. Suppose we follow Thomas Jefferson's advice: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Was Jefferson averse to the aggressive use of force? Ask a Barbary pirate.
America would be better served if all its military engagements were defensive in nature. This is especially true if we continue fighting wars like police actions, which has become our standard strategy regardless of the party in charge. Yet an aggressive foreign policy must remain an option for dealing with demonstrable threats. The jihad has a track record of attacking the United States and her interests, at home and abroad. America must confront Islamists even if it means acting preemptively, unilaterally, or overwhelmingly. The reason for Islamic terrorism is found in the prejudices and cultures of the Islamists, not on an air base in Riyadh.
This is the problem with Ron Paul. On domestic, economic, and constitutional issues he is right on target. Ron Paul is correct in believing the United States isn't responsible for forcefully establishing freedom and self-government throughout the world. But Paul is dangerously wrong regarding how America must deal with external threats in the modern world.
President Ron Paul isn't the answer. Federal Reserve Chairman Ron Paul? Now that has a nice ring to it.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Democrats and Republicans created the Tea Party
If you were born in the 1960s, educated in the 1970s, and emancipated from parental dependence in the 1980s, the ideological differences between Democrats and Republicans were clearly defined. Democrats favored high taxes, government regulation, and wealth redistribution. Republicans advocated low taxes, limited government, and private charity. During the 2000s those lines were blurred.
Republicans gained control of the federal government for the first time in memory. For conservatives the results were underwhelming. The hope was for Republicans to curtail government's growth and influence. Instead, they expanded the federal role in education, healthcare, airport screening, and law enforcement. Budget deficits grew, partially due to wars fought for righteous reasons but with murky objectives, and partially due to tepid efforts at entitlement reform.
Republicans performed so poorly in implementing the party's traditional platform that Democrats campaigned against a spendthrift GOP in two successive elections. Democrats prevailed, quickly revealed their true nature, and exponentially expanded the Washington's fiscal irresponsibility. No astute observer would've expected otherwise.
Despite the constant media harangue over the supposed lack of bipartisan cooperation, politicians of both main parties are alarmingly close in their basic governing philosophies. Washington politicians increasingly, and regardless of party, depend on Washington solutions to validate their worth, secure their status, and increase their authority. But outside the legislative arena the contrast between Democrats and Republicans remains quite clear.
Rasmussen polling indicates that 71-percent of Republicans, and 55-percent of unaffiliated and third party voters, oppose federal programs that create jobs from thin air. On the other end of the spectrum, 54-percent of Democrats think it's a jim-dandy idea for Washington to spend money it doesn't have on jobs the markets aren't demanding. And how do we know the markets aren't demanding those jobs? If they were, the jobs would be created with private wealth and investment.
As the poll indicates, Republican voters still favor limited government and self-sufficiency. Democrat voters are identified by their support for bureaucracy and entitlement. This isn't a problem for Democrats, whose leadership promotes a fast track to government intervention, perfectly reflecting the base's innate liberalism. But GOP legislators too often favor a slow path to big government, directly contradicting the memberships' allegiance to traditional Republican orthodoxies.
The TEA Party was born precisely because the lines between Democrats and Republicans were blurred. The movement reflects the mood of conservatives who are shunned by a blueblood Republican leadership, a leadership that has opposed genuine conservatism at nearly every turn, even to the point of dismissing as archaic the venerable Reagan philosophy.
There's clear public support for traditional Republican concepts. The Republican candidate who best articulates self-reliance, limited government, and free market philosophies has a leg-up for the party's presidential nomination. What's more, he or she gives the GOP its best chance to unseat the highly vulnerable Barack Obama.
Republicans gained control of the federal government for the first time in memory. For conservatives the results were underwhelming. The hope was for Republicans to curtail government's growth and influence. Instead, they expanded the federal role in education, healthcare, airport screening, and law enforcement. Budget deficits grew, partially due to wars fought for righteous reasons but with murky objectives, and partially due to tepid efforts at entitlement reform.
Republicans performed so poorly in implementing the party's traditional platform that Democrats campaigned against a spendthrift GOP in two successive elections. Democrats prevailed, quickly revealed their true nature, and exponentially expanded the Washington's fiscal irresponsibility. No astute observer would've expected otherwise.
Despite the constant media harangue over the supposed lack of bipartisan cooperation, politicians of both main parties are alarmingly close in their basic governing philosophies. Washington politicians increasingly, and regardless of party, depend on Washington solutions to validate their worth, secure their status, and increase their authority. But outside the legislative arena the contrast between Democrats and Republicans remains quite clear.
Rasmussen polling indicates that 71-percent of Republicans, and 55-percent of unaffiliated and third party voters, oppose federal programs that create jobs from thin air. On the other end of the spectrum, 54-percent of Democrats think it's a jim-dandy idea for Washington to spend money it doesn't have on jobs the markets aren't demanding. And how do we know the markets aren't demanding those jobs? If they were, the jobs would be created with private wealth and investment.
As the poll indicates, Republican voters still favor limited government and self-sufficiency. Democrat voters are identified by their support for bureaucracy and entitlement. This isn't a problem for Democrats, whose leadership promotes a fast track to government intervention, perfectly reflecting the base's innate liberalism. But GOP legislators too often favor a slow path to big government, directly contradicting the memberships' allegiance to traditional Republican orthodoxies.
The TEA Party was born precisely because the lines between Democrats and Republicans were blurred. The movement reflects the mood of conservatives who are shunned by a blueblood Republican leadership, a leadership that has opposed genuine conservatism at nearly every turn, even to the point of dismissing as archaic the venerable Reagan philosophy.
There's clear public support for traditional Republican concepts. The Republican candidate who best articulates self-reliance, limited government, and free market philosophies has a leg-up for the party's presidential nomination. What's more, he or she gives the GOP its best chance to unseat the highly vulnerable Barack Obama.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Gingrich took one for the team
Among the first lessons a young baseball player learns is the importance of getting on base. As his skills improve he learns the various methods for accomplishing that task. One of those ways is to get hit by a pitch. It’s an effective, albeit painful way to reach base. That’s why a hit-by-pitch is called “taking one for the team.”
Newt Gingrich must’ve played a little ball in his day, mastering the art of getting on base and carrying that proficiency into adulthood. During his political career Newt has done everything necessary to put America first, and he's definitely reached base.
Gingrich’s adventures in Adulteryland are fairly well chronicled. He cheated on two sick wives, divorcing them both before marrying the mistresses. But how can we blame him for his Clinton-like escapades when he did it all for us? During an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network the probable 2012 presidential candidate blamed his indiscretions on his passion for America. He was stressed; the affairs helped him perform at his best.
So Newt took one (maybe more?) for the team. But you won’t find stitch marks on his forearms or the name “Rawlings” imprinted on his back. Indulging one’s carnal pleasures isn’t exactly taking an Aroldis Chapman fastball between the numbers.
In the same interview Gingrich sought God’s forgiveness, and presumably the public’s, too. Strange as it sounds, he’s right. God will forgive the repentant: you, me, and Newt Gingrich. However, a vital element in absolution is realizing that forgiveness grants no right to continue wallowing in failure or to avoid the consequences of one’s actions.
Conservatives weren’t eager to hear Bill Clinton’s lame explanations for his bimbo eruptions, especially the Lewinsky episode, nor were his shameless lies dismissed with impunity. Sure, Clinton remained president. But he paid a price in public ridicule and confirmed his reputation as a manipulative womanizer. John Edwards also earned mockery for his affair with Rielle Hunter.
Democrats can’t make an issue of Gingrich’s trysts; they set the bar low when they excused Clinton’s philandering. But are Republicans themselves ready to overlook Newt Gingrich’s affairs when they so readily condemned Clinton and Edwards? Or should the GOP choose a candidate who strikes a positive image, one that commands respect and breeds trust?
There’s no question that Newt Gingrich espouses solid positions on a host of issues. He is experienced, savvy, and an expert communicator. However, this matter goes beyond personal failures, which everyone experiences. It’s about respect for the voter’s intelligence. Gingrich will be hard pressed to sell conservatives the insulting notion that his adulteries resulted from patriotism. To resurrect a favored conservative phrase from the Clinton years, “we should expect more from a president.”
Personally, I hope Newt has made peace with God. Gingrich would make a fine cabinet member in a future GOP administration. But blaming his failures on a passion for America sounds childish if not a little loopy. Maybe during his playing days (baseball that is) he took one for the team while he wasn’t wearing a batting helmet.
Newt Gingrich must’ve played a little ball in his day, mastering the art of getting on base and carrying that proficiency into adulthood. During his political career Newt has done everything necessary to put America first, and he's definitely reached base.
Gingrich’s adventures in Adulteryland are fairly well chronicled. He cheated on two sick wives, divorcing them both before marrying the mistresses. But how can we blame him for his Clinton-like escapades when he did it all for us? During an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network the probable 2012 presidential candidate blamed his indiscretions on his passion for America. He was stressed; the affairs helped him perform at his best.
So Newt took one (maybe more?) for the team. But you won’t find stitch marks on his forearms or the name “Rawlings” imprinted on his back. Indulging one’s carnal pleasures isn’t exactly taking an Aroldis Chapman fastball between the numbers.
In the same interview Gingrich sought God’s forgiveness, and presumably the public’s, too. Strange as it sounds, he’s right. God will forgive the repentant: you, me, and Newt Gingrich. However, a vital element in absolution is realizing that forgiveness grants no right to continue wallowing in failure or to avoid the consequences of one’s actions.
Conservatives weren’t eager to hear Bill Clinton’s lame explanations for his bimbo eruptions, especially the Lewinsky episode, nor were his shameless lies dismissed with impunity. Sure, Clinton remained president. But he paid a price in public ridicule and confirmed his reputation as a manipulative womanizer. John Edwards also earned mockery for his affair with Rielle Hunter.
Democrats can’t make an issue of Gingrich’s trysts; they set the bar low when they excused Clinton’s philandering. But are Republicans themselves ready to overlook Newt Gingrich’s affairs when they so readily condemned Clinton and Edwards? Or should the GOP choose a candidate who strikes a positive image, one that commands respect and breeds trust?
There’s no question that Newt Gingrich espouses solid positions on a host of issues. He is experienced, savvy, and an expert communicator. However, this matter goes beyond personal failures, which everyone experiences. It’s about respect for the voter’s intelligence. Gingrich will be hard pressed to sell conservatives the insulting notion that his adulteries resulted from patriotism. To resurrect a favored conservative phrase from the Clinton years, “we should expect more from a president.”
Personally, I hope Newt has made peace with God. Gingrich would make a fine cabinet member in a future GOP administration. But blaming his failures on a passion for America sounds childish if not a little loopy. Maybe during his playing days (baseball that is) he took one for the team while he wasn’t wearing a batting helmet.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
A five-step program for the Republican majority
The mid-term elections are over. Republicans celebrate their victory while Democrats chase their tails, apparently in a state of denial. The GOP won 239 House seats and control 46 Senate seats with the Alaska race still undecided. Even if Lisa Murkowski prevails she is a Republican who will be at least as dependable as Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.
Republicans also hold 29 governorships and a majority of statehouses, which means they will redraw the congressional districts following this census year. If Republicans have the fortitude they can align congressional districts to favor conservative candidates for the next decade.
Even seat counts don’t tell the whole story of the Republican’s November 2nd dominance. No Republican incumbent lost their Senate seat while Democrats struggled to hold serve in Regressive heavy Washington and Colorado. House Democrats lost one seat in which their candidate was a prohibitive favorite and five where they were expected to win with ease. Republicans lost nary a House race they were favored to win. Republicans won 30 tossup races, unseating Democrat incumbents in 29 of them. Democrats won only 12 such elections. Democrats unseated just three sitting Republican representatives, and one of those was in Hawaii where a Democrat victory is about as rare as spotting a corn stalk in Illinois.
What happens now? Winning elections is one thing; wielding power is quite another. How should the GOP proceed? Where should they flex their newfound muscle? What must Republicans do to prove they are a genuine conservative alternative to the defeated Democrats? Follow the five-step program.
First, Republicans must realize that America voted for conservatism, not liberalism. When a confident football team intercepts a pass or recovers a fumble they try to capitalize immediately on the momentum shift. The GOP’s strategy should be similar. Why allow the losers to define the debate? Introduce legislation to repeal Obamacare. It’s won’t pass the Senate, although some Senate Democrats--like Joe Manchin (WV)--may buck their party and the administration. If repeal does survive the Senate the President will certainly veto it, which Republicans can’t override. So what? Introduce the bill again and again and again. Force the Democrats to defend their collectivist programs.
Second, avoid appeasement; it offers nothing for Republicans. Losing doesn’t equal defeat in the Regressive’s dictionary. In fact, Democrats are likely to be aggressive in defeat. What do they have to lose? Meet the lame duck Democrats with a hefty dose of obstructionism and gridlock. Republicans hold enough Senate seats right now to stonewall Democrats until the 112th Congress is seated. Just do it!
Third, ignore the Democrat’s character assassinations and obtuse rhetoric. Any conservative knows, or should know, that these tactics are the first options for Regressives and their media allies. Deal with it; it’s as common to politics as sand to the Mohave Desert. Conservatives have few friends in the media and none in the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Cabal. Why try to impress them? Cater to the people who’ve granted the GOP a second chance at governing, not the Washington elitists. Their agenda is the one you were elected to stop.
Fourth, forget about bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake. There’s no compromise with Regressive Democrats. If the electorate wanted the snake oil Democrats have been peddling they wouldn’t have swept them from power. Obama himself has said that elections have consequences and that victors set the tone. Go for their jugular; don’t give them a hand up. Let the Regressives “reach across the aisle” for a change.
Fifth, the Republican Party must remember where their new lease on life came from. Conservatives are wary and watching for signs of betrayal. If Republicans promote big government, as past Republican Congresses have done, voters have no reason to trust them in 2012.
Republicans aren’t as devoted to statism as are Democrats. But the slow boat to socialism eventually docks in the same harbor. The GOP has a chance to prove that they aren’t a watered-down version of the Regressive Movement. They better make a good showing.
Republicans also hold 29 governorships and a majority of statehouses, which means they will redraw the congressional districts following this census year. If Republicans have the fortitude they can align congressional districts to favor conservative candidates for the next decade.
Even seat counts don’t tell the whole story of the Republican’s November 2nd dominance. No Republican incumbent lost their Senate seat while Democrats struggled to hold serve in Regressive heavy Washington and Colorado. House Democrats lost one seat in which their candidate was a prohibitive favorite and five where they were expected to win with ease. Republicans lost nary a House race they were favored to win. Republicans won 30 tossup races, unseating Democrat incumbents in 29 of them. Democrats won only 12 such elections. Democrats unseated just three sitting Republican representatives, and one of those was in Hawaii where a Democrat victory is about as rare as spotting a corn stalk in Illinois.
What happens now? Winning elections is one thing; wielding power is quite another. How should the GOP proceed? Where should they flex their newfound muscle? What must Republicans do to prove they are a genuine conservative alternative to the defeated Democrats? Follow the five-step program.
First, Republicans must realize that America voted for conservatism, not liberalism. When a confident football team intercepts a pass or recovers a fumble they try to capitalize immediately on the momentum shift. The GOP’s strategy should be similar. Why allow the losers to define the debate? Introduce legislation to repeal Obamacare. It’s won’t pass the Senate, although some Senate Democrats--like Joe Manchin (WV)--may buck their party and the administration. If repeal does survive the Senate the President will certainly veto it, which Republicans can’t override. So what? Introduce the bill again and again and again. Force the Democrats to defend their collectivist programs.
Second, avoid appeasement; it offers nothing for Republicans. Losing doesn’t equal defeat in the Regressive’s dictionary. In fact, Democrats are likely to be aggressive in defeat. What do they have to lose? Meet the lame duck Democrats with a hefty dose of obstructionism and gridlock. Republicans hold enough Senate seats right now to stonewall Democrats until the 112th Congress is seated. Just do it!
Third, ignore the Democrat’s character assassinations and obtuse rhetoric. Any conservative knows, or should know, that these tactics are the first options for Regressives and their media allies. Deal with it; it’s as common to politics as sand to the Mohave Desert. Conservatives have few friends in the media and none in the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Cabal. Why try to impress them? Cater to the people who’ve granted the GOP a second chance at governing, not the Washington elitists. Their agenda is the one you were elected to stop.
Fourth, forget about bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake. There’s no compromise with Regressive Democrats. If the electorate wanted the snake oil Democrats have been peddling they wouldn’t have swept them from power. Obama himself has said that elections have consequences and that victors set the tone. Go for their jugular; don’t give them a hand up. Let the Regressives “reach across the aisle” for a change.
Fifth, the Republican Party must remember where their new lease on life came from. Conservatives are wary and watching for signs of betrayal. If Republicans promote big government, as past Republican Congresses have done, voters have no reason to trust them in 2012.
Republicans aren’t as devoted to statism as are Democrats. But the slow boat to socialism eventually docks in the same harbor. The GOP has a chance to prove that they aren’t a watered-down version of the Regressive Movement. They better make a good showing.
Monday, September 27, 2010
With Republicans like Powell, who needs Democrats?
Why Colin Powell remains a favored interview on Republican electoral strategy is inexplicable. Powell’s personal achievements are indeed exemplary. But his conservative credentials expired long ago. He continually proves that he--like too many Republicans--is a small “d” Democrat with an “R” beside his name.
Powell’s inside Washington philosophies were apparent during a recent appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press. He criticized conservative ideas, projecting instead the mindset that has transformed the GOP into Democrats Light.
Powell instructed Republicans to support immigration. “We’ve got to find a way to bring these people out of the darkness and give them some kind of status,” the General declared. His comment raises two points of contention.
First, Powell is assuming that conservative Republicans oppose immigration lock, stock and barrel. Not so. According to a Rasmussen poll Republicans favor a welcoming immigration policy more than do Democrats. Legal immigration is not a problem for conservatives.
Gen. Powell, the people you say need “some kind of status” have a status now. It’s called “illegal alien.” Those are the so-called “immigrants” conservative Republicans oppose. Illegal aliens and legal immigrants are synonymous and no one need pretend that they are. Such a comparison disparages legal migrants in favor of aliens who’ve shown contempt for our laws, borders, sovereignty and culture. That’s no winning strategy.
The Tea Party is a question mark for Gen. Powell, too. He thinks the movement will dissipate, having become too entrenched in ideological discourse. The Tea Party will lose its momentum because it offers nothing voters can see, touch, or believe in. Too much time is spent promoting ideas like fiscal sanity and constitutional government. Such a thought wouldn’t raise an eyebrow if it came from Rahm Emmanuel, but it’s appalling coming from a Republican.
Where, Gen. Powell, would you have Americans place their faith if not in fiscal responsibility and constitutional principles? Federal spending is a case study in how not to manage a budget. Washington’s “success” stories, Social Security and Medicare, are train wrecks hurtling toward derailment. Budget deficits are ballooning under Obama’s “change.” The national debt consumes nearly a year’s worth of GDP and unfunded entitlements stretch from here to Alpha Centauri.
Budgetary sanity and fiscal discipline better be winning issues, Gen. Powell. That is, if America’s future is to exceed its past.
Let’s also remember that adherence to the Constitution is a federal representative’s prime duty. Elected officials swear no oath to provide cradle-to-grave public assistance. They have neither duty nor authority to subsidize individual retirement or medical needs. However, representatives do swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitution restrains the central government and safeguards our liberty and sovereignty. When it’s ignored, as the ruling class routinely does, Americans lose. Adhering to the Constitution is an idea that everyone should believe in. If not, let us fold our tents; this experiment in self-government has failed.
If disciplined, constitutionally responsible government and national sovereignty aren’t priorities for Gen. Powell, what direction does he prefer? Should we support amnesty for illegal aliens and oppose lower taxation? Would Powell’s ideal Republican, one Americans “can believe in,” sacrifice conservative ideals to attain bipartisan cooperation? Republicans fielded such a candidate in the 2008 presidential race. Powell promptly shunned that candidate, John McCain, and endorsed the Democrat opposition.
Republicans were once the voice for fiscal restraint, personal responsibility, liberty and Constitutional principles. But the blind guides within the Beltway hierarchy have too long driven the party platform. Thus the GOP has adopted big government philosophies, only to a slighter degree than do Democrats. Healing the GOP means rejecting the advice of pundits, like Powell, who see legislation and bureaucracy as a cure-all.
Colin Powell rose from humble beginnings to craft a successful life. Let’s admire his tenacity and work ethic. Let’s certainly respect his extensive military service. But he places far too much faith in government to suit the cause of liberty. From that standpoint he has outlived his usefulness as a Republican strategist.
Powell’s inside Washington philosophies were apparent during a recent appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press. He criticized conservative ideas, projecting instead the mindset that has transformed the GOP into Democrats Light.
Powell instructed Republicans to support immigration. “We’ve got to find a way to bring these people out of the darkness and give them some kind of status,” the General declared. His comment raises two points of contention.
First, Powell is assuming that conservative Republicans oppose immigration lock, stock and barrel. Not so. According to a Rasmussen poll Republicans favor a welcoming immigration policy more than do Democrats. Legal immigration is not a problem for conservatives.
Gen. Powell, the people you say need “some kind of status” have a status now. It’s called “illegal alien.” Those are the so-called “immigrants” conservative Republicans oppose. Illegal aliens and legal immigrants are synonymous and no one need pretend that they are. Such a comparison disparages legal migrants in favor of aliens who’ve shown contempt for our laws, borders, sovereignty and culture. That’s no winning strategy.
The Tea Party is a question mark for Gen. Powell, too. He thinks the movement will dissipate, having become too entrenched in ideological discourse. The Tea Party will lose its momentum because it offers nothing voters can see, touch, or believe in. Too much time is spent promoting ideas like fiscal sanity and constitutional government. Such a thought wouldn’t raise an eyebrow if it came from Rahm Emmanuel, but it’s appalling coming from a Republican.
Where, Gen. Powell, would you have Americans place their faith if not in fiscal responsibility and constitutional principles? Federal spending is a case study in how not to manage a budget. Washington’s “success” stories, Social Security and Medicare, are train wrecks hurtling toward derailment. Budget deficits are ballooning under Obama’s “change.” The national debt consumes nearly a year’s worth of GDP and unfunded entitlements stretch from here to Alpha Centauri.
Budgetary sanity and fiscal discipline better be winning issues, Gen. Powell. That is, if America’s future is to exceed its past.
Let’s also remember that adherence to the Constitution is a federal representative’s prime duty. Elected officials swear no oath to provide cradle-to-grave public assistance. They have neither duty nor authority to subsidize individual retirement or medical needs. However, representatives do swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitution restrains the central government and safeguards our liberty and sovereignty. When it’s ignored, as the ruling class routinely does, Americans lose. Adhering to the Constitution is an idea that everyone should believe in. If not, let us fold our tents; this experiment in self-government has failed.
If disciplined, constitutionally responsible government and national sovereignty aren’t priorities for Gen. Powell, what direction does he prefer? Should we support amnesty for illegal aliens and oppose lower taxation? Would Powell’s ideal Republican, one Americans “can believe in,” sacrifice conservative ideals to attain bipartisan cooperation? Republicans fielded such a candidate in the 2008 presidential race. Powell promptly shunned that candidate, John McCain, and endorsed the Democrat opposition.
Republicans were once the voice for fiscal restraint, personal responsibility, liberty and Constitutional principles. But the blind guides within the Beltway hierarchy have too long driven the party platform. Thus the GOP has adopted big government philosophies, only to a slighter degree than do Democrats. Healing the GOP means rejecting the advice of pundits, like Powell, who see legislation and bureaucracy as a cure-all.
Colin Powell rose from humble beginnings to craft a successful life. Let’s admire his tenacity and work ethic. Let’s certainly respect his extensive military service. But he places far too much faith in government to suit the cause of liberty. From that standpoint he has outlived his usefulness as a Republican strategist.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Clinton is ignoring history. Will Democrats repeat it?
People who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. For example, collectivist policies have invariably produced poverty and misery. Yet they are routinely resurrected, each time with the empty promise that results will be different. Such is the circle we call history. It is simultaneously completed and renewed in an endless repetitive cycle.
However, this lesson appears lost on Bill Clinton and any congressional Democrat who heeds his latest advice. Or, it could simply reflect the arrogance of the megalomaniacal politician who thinks historically proven absolutes will change for them.
The former president had several interesting instructions for Democrats during a recent luncheon. On the topic of healthcare reform, he called it “an economic imperative” that even the coldest of hearts should support.
I suppose that’s true for the allegedly progressive mind. If government’s role doesn’t increase that might mean individual liberty will flourish. We certainly can’t have that, can we? This is also where Mr. Clinton loses his historical perspective.
Nationalized, socialized, centralized--whatever term you choose--medical care isn’t a magic potion that will conjure Utopia. Nations with collectivist healthcare practices experience longer waits for standard procedures than do Americans. Treatment is rationed, at least to a degree, and care standards are generally lower.
Meaningful healthcare reform means decreasing the government’s role, not expanding it. There’s more than enough government in healthcare and insurance right now. It is beyond naïve to think that another layer of bureaucracy will reduce costs a single penny. What it will do is shift escalating costs to a shrinking number of payers.
What will reduce healthcare and insurance costs are market forces and comparative shopping for health insurance and treatment. Voluntary exchange produces more and better goods and services, at a lower cost, than does government manipulation.
Clinton has chosen to ignore this history, or he has conveniently spun it out of context. He has also ignored the history of his own first term. He reminded Democrats that failing to “reform” healthcare in 1993 led to the Republican Revolution in 1994. But that’s only true in part. Healthcare reform was a piece of the GOP’s winning formula, just for a different reason than Clinton admits.
It wasn’t the administration’s failure to socialize medicine that sent congressional Democrats down in flames. It was their desire for socialization and the manner in which it was attempted that helped fuel the voter rebellion. But the prime reason for the Democrat’s 1994 destruction was gun control, from the Brady Bill to the so-called “assault weapon” ban. And Clinton himself blamed the NRA for the election results.
Clinton also claimed that the tea party protests are signs that Democrats are advancing their agenda. “The reason tea-baggers are so inflamed is because we are winning,” said Clinton.
First of all, “tea-bagger” is a perfectly vulgar description of a sex act, which makes it apropos for someone who has conveniently forgotten his own personal history, like Bill Clinton. However, while Democrats have won recent elections, is their agenda really advancing?
Democrats are losing ground on Rasmussen’s generic congressional ballot and both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have high unfavorable numbers. Despite their majority status, Democrats aren’t moving their agenda much, if at all. Look at healthcare, cap and trade, Iraq and Afghanistan, or immigration. For a party with such sizeable congressional majorities they have precious little momentum.
Bill Clinton has ignored the history of his own administration and, in doing, has advised Democrats to repeat their 1994 implosion. That wouldn’t be a bad thing. But the question then becomes whether or not Republicans will repeat history and revisit their own free spending, big government ways.
I’d bet the farm on it. If there’s one thing at which politicians are adept it is ignoring and repeating history.
However, this lesson appears lost on Bill Clinton and any congressional Democrat who heeds his latest advice. Or, it could simply reflect the arrogance of the megalomaniacal politician who thinks historically proven absolutes will change for them.
The former president had several interesting instructions for Democrats during a recent luncheon. On the topic of healthcare reform, he called it “an economic imperative” that even the coldest of hearts should support.
I suppose that’s true for the allegedly progressive mind. If government’s role doesn’t increase that might mean individual liberty will flourish. We certainly can’t have that, can we? This is also where Mr. Clinton loses his historical perspective.
Nationalized, socialized, centralized--whatever term you choose--medical care isn’t a magic potion that will conjure Utopia. Nations with collectivist healthcare practices experience longer waits for standard procedures than do Americans. Treatment is rationed, at least to a degree, and care standards are generally lower.
Meaningful healthcare reform means decreasing the government’s role, not expanding it. There’s more than enough government in healthcare and insurance right now. It is beyond naïve to think that another layer of bureaucracy will reduce costs a single penny. What it will do is shift escalating costs to a shrinking number of payers.
What will reduce healthcare and insurance costs are market forces and comparative shopping for health insurance and treatment. Voluntary exchange produces more and better goods and services, at a lower cost, than does government manipulation.
Clinton has chosen to ignore this history, or he has conveniently spun it out of context. He has also ignored the history of his own first term. He reminded Democrats that failing to “reform” healthcare in 1993 led to the Republican Revolution in 1994. But that’s only true in part. Healthcare reform was a piece of the GOP’s winning formula, just for a different reason than Clinton admits.
It wasn’t the administration’s failure to socialize medicine that sent congressional Democrats down in flames. It was their desire for socialization and the manner in which it was attempted that helped fuel the voter rebellion. But the prime reason for the Democrat’s 1994 destruction was gun control, from the Brady Bill to the so-called “assault weapon” ban. And Clinton himself blamed the NRA for the election results.
Clinton also claimed that the tea party protests are signs that Democrats are advancing their agenda. “The reason tea-baggers are so inflamed is because we are winning,” said Clinton.
First of all, “tea-bagger” is a perfectly vulgar description of a sex act, which makes it apropos for someone who has conveniently forgotten his own personal history, like Bill Clinton. However, while Democrats have won recent elections, is their agenda really advancing?
Democrats are losing ground on Rasmussen’s generic congressional ballot and both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have high unfavorable numbers. Despite their majority status, Democrats aren’t moving their agenda much, if at all. Look at healthcare, cap and trade, Iraq and Afghanistan, or immigration. For a party with such sizeable congressional majorities they have precious little momentum.
Bill Clinton has ignored the history of his own administration and, in doing, has advised Democrats to repeat their 1994 implosion. That wouldn’t be a bad thing. But the question then becomes whether or not Republicans will repeat history and revisit their own free spending, big government ways.
I’d bet the farm on it. If there’s one thing at which politicians are adept it is ignoring and repeating history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
