@Foxfyre,
As others here I am uncomfortable with the label “conservative” defining my views on any particular issue. I base my political thinking on libertarianism sans anarchy, that is, unlike anarchists who feel government should be viewed as evil, I would add necessary but limited. The founding fathers formulated our system of government on the premise that its legitimacy rested in the people it attempted to govern. The biggest challenge the framers of The Constitution had, given a governing system based on democracy, was how to avoid the mob rule scenario. The very recognition of this possibility of excesses was beautifully prescient given the French Revolution. Indeed, this was an event that changed even Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of continuing revolutions to keep government ever cognizant of the people’s power.
The result of the Constitutional Convention, at the time, was a document that completely replaced the Articles of Confederation, established the republic we presently enjoy today, and stirred up more controversy than the TARP and Stimulus packages. The whole purpose of the document was to correct the deficiencies of the old Articles and keep individual political and economic freedoms while creating a strong and limited central government (manifest in the U.S. Constitution’s enumeration of those powers) that would promote commerce, in general, and protect the citizenry from both foreign incursions and all types of governmental meddling in their personal and economical lives. State and local government was seen to be the wisest source of most legislation since it was most informed about local mores and principles. The wisdom of this was found in the avoidance of assumptions and predictions by those far removed from those that would be governed by legislation so enacted. The judicial system was there to so interpret applicable laws. Americans were entrusted with their own destiny and were therein so responsible.
But times, as is their wont, have changed. The hope is that change will be better, but, G.W. Bush Hatred, 8 years of Republican legislative, and even, executive misbehavior (in the form of abandonment of principles), Obamania, and the economic crisis has led America into the perfect storm of one party rule by those who would have us believe that they, not American individuals know how to better spend (or invest, but our government doesn’t really invest) their hard earned money. President Obama’s bi-partisan promise is being ignored by those who are supposed to be on his side--our side! But this is not surprising. Anyone who believed they would see bi-partisan politics by electing any one particular citizen with the subsequent elimination of human nature has not been paying attention to the last 6,000 years or so of human history. The initial result was a bill that fulfills a Democratic Party wish list encompassing the last forty years. Bi-partisan government in the U.S. is a pipe dream that assumes that all in the decision making process agree as to what problems should be addressed, their proper solutions, and how those solutions should be effected. Obviously, even if the first assumption is true the latter will be areas of honest disagreement and contention. But in this one party environment our Constitution’s intended Madisonian goal of radical faction nullification has been short circuited.
Republican principles are defined by the RNC. Personal conservative values tend to be thought as stodgy, old fashioned and sometimes radical but they are always personal and honestly believed to have kept the country in good stead. Many conservative Republican economic values have the benefit of being tested by objective reasoning. A excellent example of this is the Laffer curve (Amply demonstrated by repeated data postings on this thread) which predicts greater tax revenues by actually lowering tax rates in certain areas of an economy which frees up capital that would otherwise not enter the economy at higher tax rates. This capital is used to invest in businesses and innovation to increase productivity, raise our standard of living, and increase overall wealth. The increase in wealth then becomes a taxable event increasing total tax revenues. The increased wealth, via lower tax rates, helps continue a cycle whereby more wealth is reinvested in the economy and the cycle begins anew. When discussing taxes it is important to specify whether one is discussing Tax Rates or Tax Revenue since they are not the same thing. Many go awry by equating higher tax rates with corresponding increased tax revenues but a simple examination of human behavior by way of the Laffer curve shows that this is not true. True: if you tax anything you will get less of it or less compliance or both.
In the more subjective areas of abortion and immigration things are less clear as to what is “right”. Republicans in the future may want to tailor their election platforms towards a more tolerant approach. Indeed, Michael Steele, the new RNC chairman, seemed to imply that radical fundamentalism or orthodoxy will not be tolerated in the GOP when he said in his short RNC Chairman acceptance speech that all are welcome under the tent but “…for those of you who wish to obstruct, get ready to get knocked over.”
An important area that must be addressed first is voter education as to Republican principles and why they make sense for those of us who live in the real world. Analogous to a scientific theory, if any one principle, being so examined, can’t stand up to the Klieg lights of reason and empirical data it must be discarded. The internet has been used by the left quite successfully. Republicans can reach many in this manner also. A good issue might be “Net Neutrality” Republicans could state their case (Against) to propose the encouragement of competition between providers and why “Net Neutrality” is a bad idea (doesn’t allow proper pricing and therefore suppresses providers from offering more bandwidth) and how Republican values would allow a better and faster internet for all through natural market forces.
Immigration reform put forth by Republicans must emit a more reasoned tone. Michael Steele mentioned on the Fox Sunday News show recently that Republicans will push for a policy to secure the borders first. This is wise but even he must think that an additional Bush like program to encourage immigrants already in the U.S. to become citizens is, in some sensible form, preferable to 20 million illegals on buses headed south. Those who are so uncaring should get ready to be “…knocked over”.
Judicial Activism might be an area where Republicans could make inroads with U.S. citizens, especially in light of Californians’ effort to circumvent it with the success of proposition 8 in California. Republicans should point out their opposition to Obama’s wish for “empathetic judges”. Cases should be decided on their own merits not on defendants’ “unfortunate circumstances”. This ignores those against whom crimes have been committed, cheats justice, and encourages potential “unfortunates” to lead a life of theft and violence. Empathy should first be focused on victims of crime not its perpetrators. If any empathy is given towards defendants it should be at their sentencing hearings.
Education reform: This is an area absolutely ripe for positive change. Republicans have been clamoring for change for years in this area, showcased private or charter schools that have worked (some employing those dreaded vouchers), seemingly, miracles in isolated areas where correctly focused goals and real world incentives have resulted in actual improvement in children’s reading and math levels. Honestly though, this is an area I think President Obama could make an enormous difference, certainly a “Change worth Hoping For”. This is where his bipartisan spirit and good will among Afro-Americans could shine by jettisoning such obstructionists as the teachers’ unions and their enablers in Congress by joining with all reformers, including interested Republicans, and help a lot of minority children in the inner city. He should consult with the likes of D.C.’s Chancellor of Education, Michelle Rhee, and D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty. This is something on which the President could make his leadership bones on. If he doesn’t the Republicans should. If he resorts to the usual Representative Maxine Waters’ like solution of throwing more money at the problem they should ask why the D.C. education district’s cost per child is third highest in the nation while it fails to graduate a significant percentage of the student population from their High Schools. NCLB (No Child Left Behind) could be used but its flawed system that allows those being measured to set the metrics used to evaluate their own performance cannot continue if success is to be expected. If reform is all done with the only focus being the goal of properly educating our children there will be no need for time consuming debates on affirmative action since the problem (discrimination) that it intends to address (by discrimination) will be non-existent.
Republican Shadow Cabinet (British Model): This could be an institution that continually explains Republican positions and why they are held-- a loyal opposition constantly in view. This could perform two goals: Keep Republicans on message (unlike the Tom Delay Debacle) and provide a ready reference for campaigns where voters could clearly see the republican agenda. This would make it more difficult for the Republican opposition to change or twist specific candidate’s messages, and enable Republican candidates to honestly point to their historical positions.
This goal of ideological consistency and consonance would promote thoughtful and more centrist Republican positions where such issues are more subjective and provide both logical and empirically data based positions where hard facts would support more objective Republican positions. This would also be a yard stick to which Republican members of government could be compared to when examining whether or not they are sticking to the people’s agenda or their own.
Perhaps the RNC could promote lecture series about the various topics at local colleges and universities and start educating young, smart, and impressionable minds. These should be well balanced and rigorous to show both liberal and conservative sides of any particular issue with facts and figures, case studies honestly presented, and discussion and Q&A sessions of suitable length. Would it be possible to draw in youth with suitable celebrities? The left seems to have little problem doing this but can conservatives find suitable spokespeople who could actually participate and hold their own for a little while keeping those present interested and participating for 2 hours or so? A rock star giving a free mini-concert, yelling “Free Darfur”, and then running out of the building will not do. Perhaps Republicans could do something similar involving high school students starting in 10th grade then focusing more strongly on Juniors and Seniors"is this possible given teacher unions and left leaning academics? How do we reach the kid’s parents to encourage such education?
More pointedly, education of the general public should be concentrated on those who are not classically left leaning, that is, independents. There are increasing numbers of voters who shun party affiliation and want to take some time to examine the issues and make up their own minds as to what positions are best for the country. If Republicans are perceived to be correct they will win, but those perceptions must be honestly backed by reason and humanity or they will just become ideological albatrosses around Republicans necks.
As with any political contest that of the 2010 mid-terms will be defined by “Events”. However, we could safely assume that the economy will still be a stand out issue and therefore Government Fiscal policy will be relevant. Republicans seemed to be in tune with the public on Government spending. The GOP’s actions regarding the Democrats’ porcine “Stimulus” package was first viewed as obstructionist but their actions allowed the public more time to digest what was in it and how stimulating it might actually be, or not. The Democratic package’s popularity then became inversely proportional to the amount of time the public was exposed to it. Historically most economist put little faith in one time government “stimulus” plans (Case in point: GW’s last one in 2008). Most come too late, don’t spend enough, or spend too much in irrelevant sectors of the economy. All recessions see recovery by themselves so it’s difficult to determine how much good, if any, any given stimulus plan actually does. Most stimulus plans put taxpayers and their children in debt and add a net amount of zero capital to the economy. After all, no government can give anyone person a single cent without taking that cent from another, governments do not create wealth for tax payers. Remember also, all the spending in the latest plan ($787 billion at last count) is to be borrowed (this has future consequences regarding the price of money/credit/inflation but let’s not pile on too much here). Republicans should continue to stick to their values and make sure that the Democrats own this stimulus package and quietly and gently remind voters in 2010 of the fact. All indications are the economy will be, at best, only starting to recover by then. Unemployment levels will probably be the major metric that the “stimulus” package will be measured by and may provide a wedge that Republicans can utilize in educating the public. Republicans should reinforce the twin argument of tax cuts and smaller government for by the end of the present administration this could be an election winner given the size of the deficit by then. This increased deficit may have a double silver lining: Promotion of Entitlement reform and a more market based (less taxpayer subsidized) health care program.
As our economic system moves closer to that of income redistribution and cradle to grave socialism, citizens should realize their power is waning and will eventually be insignificant. Alarmist? Perhaps. It may seem hard to believe this but we are going down the path that leads to a nation of rent seekers. Many Middle East Oil producing nations are such entities. These are the very nations Fareed Zakaria uses to compare the individual freedoms to that of classical western nations in his book
The Future of Freedom. He asks: Why are the citizens of classical western nations so much more free than those of the Middle East? He finds the answer in the fact that those citizens of ME nations get their money from the government whereas western governments get
their money from their citizens, mainly (and importantly as it turns out) from the middle class. Think about it, this is the crux of the Republican economic argument of low taxes. Viewed from this stand point it is extremely American and patriotic to let people keep more of their money/power so that government is constantly lean and starved of excess power. Keep taxes low and small and less intrusive government follows. Extrapolating in the opposite Liberal/Progressive direction it would behoove all of our citizens to simply apply for and accept government jobs or welfare.
Conservative solutions seem to be almost irrelevant to the intended goals of those with the religion we know as Progressivism. Liberalism/Progressivism has always seemed, to me, focused on how things “should” be while neglecting human nature and economic realities. I can still hear Congressman Barney Frank’s plea, only a couple of weeks old, calling for an increased “Safety Net” for some Americans. This, after all he has done for Americans! Where does one begin? Progressives like Frank remind me of the “cable guy” in the Verizon commercial where, after the Verizon guy explains to the prospective customer all the technological and economical benefits of Verizon’s FIOS system, the customer then turns to the “cable guy” and asks what he can comparably offer. The “cable guy” then quickly exclaims “THE BEST OF INTENTIONS!!” Well, we all know where that road, so paved, leads.
JM
