Joseph Rago thinks I'm a fool. He may be right, but since we've never met, and there's nothing out there on me for him to research, I'd be willing to be that he's painting with a brush the size of an SUV.
Rago, in his WSJ extra, The Blog Mob, exhibits all we've come to expect from Old Media journalists, loquacious pomposity to the point that a Merriam-Webster should be provided alongside, a heavy dose of denigrating sarcasm, and the wonderful dearth of comprehension that so pervades the Old Media. Rago writes of the blogosphere,
"Folks on the WWW, conservatives especially, boast
about how the alternative media corrodes the 'MSM,'
for mainstream media, a term redolent with unfairness
and elitism."
Rago's failure to comprehend that, as we perceive it, the redolent "MSM" fits the bill perfectly, accurately describing the unfairness and elitism we observe on a regular basis, is typical of the Old Media. Perception is everything in a world where the truth is so often ignored.
Rago also thinks we're so self-absorbed and narcissistic that we consider ourselves and our work 'significant'. Perhaps some are significant, like Powerline or The Radio Equalizer, but if so, it no result of self-promotion. These blogs have become respected sources of information, researched carefully, written carefully, edited carefully. It is in their lack of journalistic credentials that Rago finds all he needs to deem them insignificant. I'd love to listen as Mr. Rago tries to explain the insignificance of the blogosphere to Dan Rather.
In truth, much of what Rago writes is technically correct. The blogosphere has given birth to a mob mentality, just glance at the Daily Kos for one. Many blogs, even those with rabid followings, are truly awful. Pronouncement is favored over persuasion, instantaneity has overrun the editorial process, and vapid, ideological ranting has taken precedence over discussion and debate. Of just such blogs, Rago's article is a perfect example. He jumps from pronouncement to pronouncement, often within paragraphs, without so much as a hint of persuasive effort. He allows no room for a future paradigm shift based on his theories, makes no attempt to foster discussion or debate, and gives no hope that things will get better. Rago even goes so far as to claim that grief over the state of things is pointless.
What Rago seems to be so confused about is the fundamental nature, not of the medium, but of the blog itself. All great inventions are reactionary to the status quo. The electric light, the automobile, and even sliced bread were reactions to dissatisfaction, not as a general rule, but for someone personally, with the status quo. Bloggers aren't blogging to break news or make news, and bloggers know that reporting is best left to reporters. Yet Rago pines for the lack of actual reporting in blogs, citing such as his first basis for its insignificance. Bloggers blog to give analysis and commentary. The Blogosphere is the reactionary invention of men and women dissatisfied with the unwillingness of the Old Media to present both sides of an issue without bias or an agenda. Perhaps when Rago learns that the Blog is a correcting factor, not a news organization, he'll have more hope for the future of both.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Monday, December 11, 2006
Countdown to World War III
It's coming. Give it six to twelve months, but sometime next year, we'll be at war with Iran, Syria, and Lebanon. Iran, Israel, and our own intelligence sources all say that by 2008, Iran will have nuclear weapons, and neither Israel nor the US will allow that to happen. Diplomacy is no longer an option. War is inevitable. The outcome is dependent upon too many "What if" questions. What if Iran's new bedfellow, Russia, decides to get tough and play deterrent to our aggressor. What if Iran or Syria strike Israel with a nuclear weapon. What if Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and possible Iraq, decide we've had enough of an influence in the area, and take the side of their Muslim brothers. And what if our president is hamstrung by an anti-Semitic, leftist fifth column, which now seems to be running the show, both in Media and in Politics.
If none of these what if's come to fruition, the regional conflict will be comprised of aerial bombardment and bloody house-to-house fighting. If any of the first three what if's happen, The global landscape will change forever. No longer will nuclear weapons be a deterrent, the middle eastern enemy will use them as an offensive first strike option. They don't care about deterrence. Annihilation is completely acceptable to them, as long as its mutual. The only real deterrent will be a functional deterrence on the part of Russia, keeping us from retaliating in kind, and trying to make us keep Israel from retaliating in kind. A combined Russo-Middle Eastern pact will be more than enough to make even our most earnest erstwhile supporters turn ostrich. It will be America and Israel against the Arab world. To my mind, Egypt is the only questionable participant, for which history suggest it may remain neutral.
Descent into Irrelevancy
The final what if is a more diabolical one, in my estimation. Despite a wonderfully rich history, short though it may be, rising to heights undreamed of by it's founders, the descent of America into irrelevancy is assured. The questions are, how much longer before we reach that point, and how do we get there from here? Readers will no doubt ask why I state my thesis so emphatically, and without an inherent option for falseness. Simply put, I am a theologian, a believer of the scriptures, and a student of prophecy. From a political standpoint, the study of Biblical prophecy is beneficial, if only to see how it has been correct time after time, but also to see, if one recognizes it to have been correct in the past, what it says about the future, and it has little to say about America. Indeed, it mentions only "the West", and implies it to be impotent to affect the course of action taken by European, Middle-Eastern, and Eastern nations.
Impotence. Strange, applying that term to the most powerful nation on Earth. And yet that is what the future holds for us, at some point. The problem is, I see the seeds being sown now for just such a future. Those responsible? The Old Media, and the New Left.
The Old Media consists of those who have held sway over American broadcasting for decades, namely, PBS, ABC, NBC, and CBS, along with CNN, MSNBC, and various print organizations, such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, and Washington Post. These have played a major part in the degradation of America over the past century. They lost us Vietnam, and are now losing us Iraq. Their decisions on what to broadcast and how to color it have been responsible for more damage to the greatness of America in her own people's eyes than anything done by any country, friend or foe.
The New Left is the Old Left of the Sixties, only much more vocal and hatriolic. They are the radical hippies all grown up, entrenched in academia and politics, propagating vicariously the likes of the Kos-ites. The bitterness with which they attack even their own is evidence of the hatred they have for anything remotely leaning conservative. The New Left is against Senator Lieberman, no matter how often he might agree with them on most issues, because he disagrees on one. The New Left is against Senator Clinton, for she is not Left enough for their agenda. The New Left sees no need for America to be stronger than any other nation, to have an advantage over any other nation, to be greater or grander than any other nation. Indeed, the New Left sees in America the root of all evil, the cause of all tragedy, and the source of every problem that plagues the world.
Together, the Old Media and the New Left have set us upon the road to a loss of national sovereignty and an impotent irrelevance on the global stage. They drive for open borders, without thought that what they may succeed in creating is nothing more than a fractured band of city-states, as often warring amongst themselves as with others, fighting for prominence while the rest of the world waits for a weakened victor. They drive for quitting the field of battle in Iraq, without thought of what that nation might become without us, subjugated to Iran, as Lebanon is to Syria, just another enemy, this time united with the other enemies we face in that region. Withdraw, redeploy, draw-down, all euphemisms for surrender.
The End Gambit
In the end, this will be the ultimate test for President Bush. Already, his actions with Iraq and North Korea seem to imply a loss of confidence in what he can get Congress and the American people to go along with. If we cannot weather the coming storm, we have only the Old Media and the New Left to blame.
If none of these what if's come to fruition, the regional conflict will be comprised of aerial bombardment and bloody house-to-house fighting. If any of the first three what if's happen, The global landscape will change forever. No longer will nuclear weapons be a deterrent, the middle eastern enemy will use them as an offensive first strike option. They don't care about deterrence. Annihilation is completely acceptable to them, as long as its mutual. The only real deterrent will be a functional deterrence on the part of Russia, keeping us from retaliating in kind, and trying to make us keep Israel from retaliating in kind. A combined Russo-Middle Eastern pact will be more than enough to make even our most earnest erstwhile supporters turn ostrich. It will be America and Israel against the Arab world. To my mind, Egypt is the only questionable participant, for which history suggest it may remain neutral.
Descent into Irrelevancy
The final what if is a more diabolical one, in my estimation. Despite a wonderfully rich history, short though it may be, rising to heights undreamed of by it's founders, the descent of America into irrelevancy is assured. The questions are, how much longer before we reach that point, and how do we get there from here? Readers will no doubt ask why I state my thesis so emphatically, and without an inherent option for falseness. Simply put, I am a theologian, a believer of the scriptures, and a student of prophecy. From a political standpoint, the study of Biblical prophecy is beneficial, if only to see how it has been correct time after time, but also to see, if one recognizes it to have been correct in the past, what it says about the future, and it has little to say about America. Indeed, it mentions only "the West", and implies it to be impotent to affect the course of action taken by European, Middle-Eastern, and Eastern nations.
Impotence. Strange, applying that term to the most powerful nation on Earth. And yet that is what the future holds for us, at some point. The problem is, I see the seeds being sown now for just such a future. Those responsible? The Old Media, and the New Left.
The Old Media consists of those who have held sway over American broadcasting for decades, namely, PBS, ABC, NBC, and CBS, along with CNN, MSNBC, and various print organizations, such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, and Washington Post. These have played a major part in the degradation of America over the past century. They lost us Vietnam, and are now losing us Iraq. Their decisions on what to broadcast and how to color it have been responsible for more damage to the greatness of America in her own people's eyes than anything done by any country, friend or foe.
The New Left is the Old Left of the Sixties, only much more vocal and hatriolic. They are the radical hippies all grown up, entrenched in academia and politics, propagating vicariously the likes of the Kos-ites. The bitterness with which they attack even their own is evidence of the hatred they have for anything remotely leaning conservative. The New Left is against Senator Lieberman, no matter how often he might agree with them on most issues, because he disagrees on one. The New Left is against Senator Clinton, for she is not Left enough for their agenda. The New Left sees no need for America to be stronger than any other nation, to have an advantage over any other nation, to be greater or grander than any other nation. Indeed, the New Left sees in America the root of all evil, the cause of all tragedy, and the source of every problem that plagues the world.
Together, the Old Media and the New Left have set us upon the road to a loss of national sovereignty and an impotent irrelevance on the global stage. They drive for open borders, without thought that what they may succeed in creating is nothing more than a fractured band of city-states, as often warring amongst themselves as with others, fighting for prominence while the rest of the world waits for a weakened victor. They drive for quitting the field of battle in Iraq, without thought of what that nation might become without us, subjugated to Iran, as Lebanon is to Syria, just another enemy, this time united with the other enemies we face in that region. Withdraw, redeploy, draw-down, all euphemisms for surrender.
The End Gambit
In the end, this will be the ultimate test for President Bush. Already, his actions with Iraq and North Korea seem to imply a loss of confidence in what he can get Congress and the American people to go along with. If we cannot weather the coming storm, we have only the Old Media and the New Left to blame.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Who is Mr. Bush?
Paul Begala knows him. Mr. Begala has compared him to President Clinton on CNN's Crossfire. Mr. Bush is obviously a great man among men, to be compared, even negatively, to a former President.
Fred Barnes knows him. Mr. Barnes has written about his ideas for the partial privatization of Social Security. Mr. Bush is a brave man, for not even Ronaldus Maximus, the great President Reagan, wanted to go there.
Howard Wolfson knows him. Mr. Wolfson seems to think he has the ability to replace Supreme Court Justices. Mr. Bush obviously weilds enormous political power, to be able to dictate candidates for the Supreme Court.
Peggy Noonan knows him. Ms. Noonan has claimed that Senator Clinton is trying to position herself to the ideological right of this man, and, though I'm not sure what his belief's are, that may not be a good thing for the leftists. What if Mr. Bush is a moderate?
Jed Babbin knows him. Writing in the American Spectator, Mr. Babbin has offered that Kofi Annan might consider Mr. Bush "a despotic aggressor." If that is so, perhaps Mr. Bush is not a great man after all. Then again, this is Kofi Annan we're discussing.
David Sanger knows him. In a New York Times story about the 2004 election, Mr. Sanger found the attack upon Mr. Bush by a Mr. Kerry highly unsual. That attack must have been a local story, for, as I follow the news closely, I didn't see anything about Mr. Kerry attacking Mr. Bush in the national news.
Just who is this incredibly mysterious Mr. Bush? Power, influence, prestige, all these things men aspire to, but anonymity? While I have heard the forty-third President of our United States called many things by the hate-filled liberal left, I didn't expect this. Begala, Wolfson, and Sanger are not exactly hate-filled liberal leftists, but they are members of the left-leaning old media crowd, which means they should know better, but can be excused. But Mr. Barnes? Ms. Noonan? Mr. Babbin? Please. Having fallen into the old media trap of familiarizing a sitting president, and thereby demeaning him in his position, by referring to him as Mister, they owe us an apology, for these and other conservatives have added to the environment of political disrespect.
Fred Barnes knows him. Mr. Barnes has written about his ideas for the partial privatization of Social Security. Mr. Bush is a brave man, for not even Ronaldus Maximus, the great President Reagan, wanted to go there.
Howard Wolfson knows him. Mr. Wolfson seems to think he has the ability to replace Supreme Court Justices. Mr. Bush obviously weilds enormous political power, to be able to dictate candidates for the Supreme Court.
Peggy Noonan knows him. Ms. Noonan has claimed that Senator Clinton is trying to position herself to the ideological right of this man, and, though I'm not sure what his belief's are, that may not be a good thing for the leftists. What if Mr. Bush is a moderate?
Jed Babbin knows him. Writing in the American Spectator, Mr. Babbin has offered that Kofi Annan might consider Mr. Bush "a despotic aggressor." If that is so, perhaps Mr. Bush is not a great man after all. Then again, this is Kofi Annan we're discussing.
David Sanger knows him. In a New York Times story about the 2004 election, Mr. Sanger found the attack upon Mr. Bush by a Mr. Kerry highly unsual. That attack must have been a local story, for, as I follow the news closely, I didn't see anything about Mr. Kerry attacking Mr. Bush in the national news.
Just who is this incredibly mysterious Mr. Bush? Power, influence, prestige, all these things men aspire to, but anonymity? While I have heard the forty-third President of our United States called many things by the hate-filled liberal left, I didn't expect this. Begala, Wolfson, and Sanger are not exactly hate-filled liberal leftists, but they are members of the left-leaning old media crowd, which means they should know better, but can be excused. But Mr. Barnes? Ms. Noonan? Mr. Babbin? Please. Having fallen into the old media trap of familiarizing a sitting president, and thereby demeaning him in his position, by referring to him as Mister, they owe us an apology, for these and other conservatives have added to the environment of political disrespect.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Mr. Rangel's Wake Up Call
Here it is. I said he needed one, and I've not seen it done so well as the following editorial response from one Cliff Woodhall, printed in the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal online.
"Both you and your readers have been pretty hard on Rangel over the past couple of days. A closer reading of his remarks suggests that he deserves our compassion, not our contempt. Rangel's words clearly reflect his act of lashing out. Most of us realize, from personal experience, that attacking the life choices made by others is quite often a way of expressing disappointment in one's own choices regarding life and career.
"Mr. Rangel is, after all, a congressman, a job held in scorn, disparaged and disrespected by the general population, a constantly recurring punch line in the comic monologue of our late-night talk-show hosts. Most of a congressman's life between elections is spent "raising money" for his next election, "raising money" now being a phrase generally accepted in Washington as selling one's ability to write legislation to lobbyists, a procedure that involves, at best, compromising one's own most deeply held beliefs and, at worst, the acceptance of outright bribery. In short, it is not the sort of life that one dreams of when growing up.
"It is generally acknowledged that an industrious person can earn more money working in the private sector than the public one. Sadly, however, it is a fact that America is a ruthless meritocracy, with the best and highest-paying jobs awarded to those who have the most talent or ability to perform them. Members of society who lack the skill to produce a product or provide a service for which others will pay money are forced to take whatever may be available in those jobs left over.
"We don't know what sad circumstances, many perhaps not of his own choosing, have forced Mr. Rangel into his position as a congressman, but we can say with some certainty:
"If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career or selling himself out to the highest paying lobbyist so as to become a member of Congress, you can bet your life that he would not be in Congress. If there's anyone who believes these youngsters want to spend their life arguing with each other and viciously maligning anyone with whom they disagree, you can just forget about it. No bright young individual wants to fight just to seize public funds for himself and his friends. And most of them come from backgrounds of very, very questionable ethical and moral circumstances, making it harder to get real jobs."
All I can add is that I wish I'd written this. Cliff, if you ever read this, well said, Sir, well said.
"Both you and your readers have been pretty hard on Rangel over the past couple of days. A closer reading of his remarks suggests that he deserves our compassion, not our contempt. Rangel's words clearly reflect his act of lashing out. Most of us realize, from personal experience, that attacking the life choices made by others is quite often a way of expressing disappointment in one's own choices regarding life and career.
"Mr. Rangel is, after all, a congressman, a job held in scorn, disparaged and disrespected by the general population, a constantly recurring punch line in the comic monologue of our late-night talk-show hosts. Most of a congressman's life between elections is spent "raising money" for his next election, "raising money" now being a phrase generally accepted in Washington as selling one's ability to write legislation to lobbyists, a procedure that involves, at best, compromising one's own most deeply held beliefs and, at worst, the acceptance of outright bribery. In short, it is not the sort of life that one dreams of when growing up.
"It is generally acknowledged that an industrious person can earn more money working in the private sector than the public one. Sadly, however, it is a fact that America is a ruthless meritocracy, with the best and highest-paying jobs awarded to those who have the most talent or ability to perform them. Members of society who lack the skill to produce a product or provide a service for which others will pay money are forced to take whatever may be available in those jobs left over.
"We don't know what sad circumstances, many perhaps not of his own choosing, have forced Mr. Rangel into his position as a congressman, but we can say with some certainty:
"If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career or selling himself out to the highest paying lobbyist so as to become a member of Congress, you can bet your life that he would not be in Congress. If there's anyone who believes these youngsters want to spend their life arguing with each other and viciously maligning anyone with whom they disagree, you can just forget about it. No bright young individual wants to fight just to seize public funds for himself and his friends. And most of them come from backgrounds of very, very questionable ethical and moral circumstances, making it harder to get real jobs."
All I can add is that I wish I'd written this. Cliff, if you ever read this, well said, Sir, well said.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Mr. Rangel needs a wake-up call
Charlie Rangel has rankled the pride of many a military man or woman, and deserves to be ridiculed for his stupidity. But further, his comments, at least to me, seem to be not only stupid, in that he clearly misunderstands the character of those who willing choose to serve their country, but plainly mean-spirited and partisan, in that he casts the military in a light that reflects poorly on the war effort.
I have news for Charlie Rangel. He's wrong about the educational and career aspirations of our military men and women. I entered the United States Marine Corps Reserves while in college, and completed my education without financial assistance from the government. (Thanks to men like Charlie, my alma mater can't accept federal assistance.) Since being honorably discharged from the Corps after eight years, I have completed a second Bachelor's degree and obtained a Masters. I'm now a Business Analyst. I never once despaired of having a decent career, and never knew a single Marine that did.
Not only is Charlie wrong about the educational and career aspirations of our military men and women, he is wrong about American soldiers wanting to fight. Charlie Rangel doesn't understand the heartfelt desire to defend one's country, one's homeland, one's honor, and the duty a true patriot dwells upon to do so. I'm not sure how this happened, for he claims to be a decorated Korean War vet. I didn't shirk my duty when called up for service in the First Persian Gulf War; in fact, I was happy to go, I looked forward to it, as did the vast majority of my fellow reservists. I remember the drill when our commanding Captain stepped out to address the company and told us to stop volunteering, we'd all be going soon enough. The cheering, the ooooh-rahhh's, the grunting and barking from hard-charging Devil Dogs rang on the Parade Deck for several minutes. We all went, we all served, and we were all volunteers. Businessmen, shopkeepers, construction workers, attorneys, accountants, financial advisors, teachers, truck drivers, and a bunch of college students, volunteers all. None of us in poverty, none of us illiterate or lacking in education, none of us forced to join by circumstances beyond our control. We joined because we wanted to. It's not that we enjoy fighting, we are simply proud to defend America.
Surprisingly, Charlie did, somehow, utter a single truth in the midst of all his blather. "No bright young individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits." He's right, there, as much as it pains me to say it. Charlie's right, but don't ask him why. In his world, only dumb young individuals who come from communities experiencing very, very high unemployment, and who have no hope of having a decent career want to fight for a bonus and education benefits. In my opinion, Charlie's no patriot, he's a patronizing ideologue spewing anti-American, anti-military, class-warfare hatriol. In Charlie's world, the best military force in the history of warfare is made up of dumb young individuals that had no other option than to volunteer to serve their country unwillingly, or just to get enough money to go to college. Charlie's ignoring reality to give his views a semblance of plausibility to which no one with a shred of intellectual honesty is about to give credence.
I have news for Charlie Rangel. He's wrong about the educational and career aspirations of our military men and women. I entered the United States Marine Corps Reserves while in college, and completed my education without financial assistance from the government. (Thanks to men like Charlie, my alma mater can't accept federal assistance.) Since being honorably discharged from the Corps after eight years, I have completed a second Bachelor's degree and obtained a Masters. I'm now a Business Analyst. I never once despaired of having a decent career, and never knew a single Marine that did.
Not only is Charlie wrong about the educational and career aspirations of our military men and women, he is wrong about American soldiers wanting to fight. Charlie Rangel doesn't understand the heartfelt desire to defend one's country, one's homeland, one's honor, and the duty a true patriot dwells upon to do so. I'm not sure how this happened, for he claims to be a decorated Korean War vet. I didn't shirk my duty when called up for service in the First Persian Gulf War; in fact, I was happy to go, I looked forward to it, as did the vast majority of my fellow reservists. I remember the drill when our commanding Captain stepped out to address the company and told us to stop volunteering, we'd all be going soon enough. The cheering, the ooooh-rahhh's, the grunting and barking from hard-charging Devil Dogs rang on the Parade Deck for several minutes. We all went, we all served, and we were all volunteers. Businessmen, shopkeepers, construction workers, attorneys, accountants, financial advisors, teachers, truck drivers, and a bunch of college students, volunteers all. None of us in poverty, none of us illiterate or lacking in education, none of us forced to join by circumstances beyond our control. We joined because we wanted to. It's not that we enjoy fighting, we are simply proud to defend America.
Surprisingly, Charlie did, somehow, utter a single truth in the midst of all his blather. "No bright young individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits." He's right, there, as much as it pains me to say it. Charlie's right, but don't ask him why. In his world, only dumb young individuals who come from communities experiencing very, very high unemployment, and who have no hope of having a decent career want to fight for a bonus and education benefits. In my opinion, Charlie's no patriot, he's a patronizing ideologue spewing anti-American, anti-military, class-warfare hatriol. In Charlie's world, the best military force in the history of warfare is made up of dumb young individuals that had no other option than to volunteer to serve their country unwillingly, or just to get enough money to go to college. Charlie's ignoring reality to give his views a semblance of plausibility to which no one with a shred of intellectual honesty is about to give credence.
Friday, November 17, 2006
How to Rebuild the Republican Party
Much has been written and proposed on how Republicans can regain power in future elections. This, however, is akin to a doctor putting a Band-Aid over a sore without treating the infection that caused it. The recent bellwether loss for Republicans is a symptom; all the talk of how to regain power simply skirts the real issue, and all the effort put into retaining a majority was wasted. How to regain and retain is not the issue, but to deserve, there is the crux of the matter. Deserving the trust of the American people, especially conservatives, is on what Republicans need to focus. I've written about how moderate actions by Republicans alienated conservatives, and don't want to go into that here, so I'll admit that as a theory yet to be disproved, and frame my position from there.
There is only one thing that the Republican party can do to convince conservatives across the nation that they deserve to be in power: Stop being Politicians, and become Statesmen. It truly is that simple. But how does this translate into effective governance? How does this simple goal promote trust? From the ground up. Call it "Succession Planning for Government".
Government is of the people, by the people, and for the people, and good government arises from the desire of good men and women to have it so, and acting upon that desire, making it so. It starts at the local level, with town councils, school boards, and mayors. It rises to the state level, with state representatives and senators and the office of Governor. It rises further to the members of Congress and the President of the United States. But it all starts at the local level. Not one current Senator, Representative, Governor, or Mayor was born in that position, though some act it. To a man or woman, they all were raised in a town or city, saw the actions of government, and decided that they wanted or needed to be part of the process. Here, in the small towns and city boroughs of America, is where the future of the Republican party stands. I say stands, for statesman do not sit on their laurels, they set them aside; statesmen are not there for the praise and adulation of the populace.
Good government is made possible by good people, and good people are solidly grounded in the principles of conservatism. A smaller, less intrusive government; lower taxes; greater personal responsibility; state's rights over federal regulation; governance by the will of the people. These are the hallmarks of conservatism, best displayed by men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. All had a vision of a greater America, and all lived to see that vision, in some way, become reality. The Republican party needs to seek out, at the local level, men and women of vision, grounded in conservative principles, willing to act the servant, and of significant moral character, integrity, and intellectual honesty. These are the future of the Republican party, for in finding them, it will find a well-spring of trustworthiness, which now it sorely lacks. It is these men and women, who will serve, and serve justly, honestly, and impartially. But that is just the first step. These statesmen must be willing to serve for a time, and laying aside such service, return to honorable citizenry. So begins a cycle, whereby men and women serve locally while being mentored by those at the next level, run for higher office, server at the state level while being mentored by those at the national level, run for national office, and turn by turn mentor those rising in the ranks. Term limits will never pass as law, but in practice, Republicans should set the example, for good government is made by men and women who recognize that government is a tool, not an establishment, a guide, not an edifice. From the local to the federal, the Republican party would be better off spending its money seeking men and women of just such character and conviction, able to be trained and taught by those already in office, willing to offer themselves as candidates upon the basis of their convictions, character, and record, if applicable. Mud slinging should be a practice left to the other side, and negativism left to the issues and records of full elections, not primaries. Imagine, if you can, a Republican State Representative primary with three candidates, all of whom had been mentored by the sitting representative, all of whom had passed a lengthy background check, all of whom had experience at the local level. Imagine ads in which the three talked about their respective backgrounds, upbringing, and personal beliefs, without bad mouthing their rivals. Imagine the pleasant surprise from GOP voters, and the overwhelming turnout. Imagine a joint celebration as the final vote is tallied, where the winner stands and speaks of his or her friendship with one-time rivals, and one-time rivals speak of how well they expect the winner to perform in the coming years. The result? A general election in which the only bad taste in anyone's mouth would be from the other side. A general election where the character and conviction of the GOP candidate had already been vetted and found impeccable.
Impossible, I think most would say. No one is going to relinquish such power so easily. No one would be willing to mentor someone so. I think such nay-naysayer are wrong, but then they would have a great deal of anecdotal evidence from today's power-mongers to back them up. Unfortunately, the cycle must begin at the top, or it will never begin at all. Our current leaders must decide to be Statesman, instead of Politicians, and such a change is difficult to make.
There is only one thing that the Republican party can do to convince conservatives across the nation that they deserve to be in power: Stop being Politicians, and become Statesmen. It truly is that simple. But how does this translate into effective governance? How does this simple goal promote trust? From the ground up. Call it "Succession Planning for Government".
Government is of the people, by the people, and for the people, and good government arises from the desire of good men and women to have it so, and acting upon that desire, making it so. It starts at the local level, with town councils, school boards, and mayors. It rises to the state level, with state representatives and senators and the office of Governor. It rises further to the members of Congress and the President of the United States. But it all starts at the local level. Not one current Senator, Representative, Governor, or Mayor was born in that position, though some act it. To a man or woman, they all were raised in a town or city, saw the actions of government, and decided that they wanted or needed to be part of the process. Here, in the small towns and city boroughs of America, is where the future of the Republican party stands. I say stands, for statesman do not sit on their laurels, they set them aside; statesmen are not there for the praise and adulation of the populace.
Good government is made possible by good people, and good people are solidly grounded in the principles of conservatism. A smaller, less intrusive government; lower taxes; greater personal responsibility; state's rights over federal regulation; governance by the will of the people. These are the hallmarks of conservatism, best displayed by men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. All had a vision of a greater America, and all lived to see that vision, in some way, become reality. The Republican party needs to seek out, at the local level, men and women of vision, grounded in conservative principles, willing to act the servant, and of significant moral character, integrity, and intellectual honesty. These are the future of the Republican party, for in finding them, it will find a well-spring of trustworthiness, which now it sorely lacks. It is these men and women, who will serve, and serve justly, honestly, and impartially. But that is just the first step. These statesmen must be willing to serve for a time, and laying aside such service, return to honorable citizenry. So begins a cycle, whereby men and women serve locally while being mentored by those at the next level, run for higher office, server at the state level while being mentored by those at the national level, run for national office, and turn by turn mentor those rising in the ranks. Term limits will never pass as law, but in practice, Republicans should set the example, for good government is made by men and women who recognize that government is a tool, not an establishment, a guide, not an edifice. From the local to the federal, the Republican party would be better off spending its money seeking men and women of just such character and conviction, able to be trained and taught by those already in office, willing to offer themselves as candidates upon the basis of their convictions, character, and record, if applicable. Mud slinging should be a practice left to the other side, and negativism left to the issues and records of full elections, not primaries. Imagine, if you can, a Republican State Representative primary with three candidates, all of whom had been mentored by the sitting representative, all of whom had passed a lengthy background check, all of whom had experience at the local level. Imagine ads in which the three talked about their respective backgrounds, upbringing, and personal beliefs, without bad mouthing their rivals. Imagine the pleasant surprise from GOP voters, and the overwhelming turnout. Imagine a joint celebration as the final vote is tallied, where the winner stands and speaks of his or her friendship with one-time rivals, and one-time rivals speak of how well they expect the winner to perform in the coming years. The result? A general election in which the only bad taste in anyone's mouth would be from the other side. A general election where the character and conviction of the GOP candidate had already been vetted and found impeccable.
Impossible, I think most would say. No one is going to relinquish such power so easily. No one would be willing to mentor someone so. I think such nay-naysayer are wrong, but then they would have a great deal of anecdotal evidence from today's power-mongers to back them up. Unfortunately, the cycle must begin at the top, or it will never begin at all. Our current leaders must decide to be Statesman, instead of Politicians, and such a change is difficult to make.
A Moderate's Platform - Part 2
As I said in my previous post, I agree with much of what Michael says. His stance on eleven issues is actually right of the majority of conservatives, I believe. However, there are four issues with which I have significant disagreement, and if this is what Moderates believe, conservatives need to get out the message much better than they have been.
"7. Gays. Homosexuals do not threaten my marriage. Heterosexual marriages have their own troubles, but the fate of conventional marriages has nothing to do with whether same sex couples can marry one another or partake in a civil union. No guy now married to a woman is waiting in the wings for a court decision trying to decide whether to ditch his spouse and hook up with a man. As we seek to find some accommodation for same sex couples, we need to end that false argument." I have one word for Michael here: McGreevey. Responsible for destroying his career and his marriage through homosexual activity, the first thing the former governor did upon hearing that the New Jersey Supreme Court was going to rule on the Gay Marriage issue was to state his desire to marry his lover. On a personal level, it may not seem to be a problem, and true, it does not effect my marriage, just as it does not effect Michael's. However, on a cultural level, history shows that the acceptance of alternative lifestyles as normal precedes, and perhaps signals, the imminent downfall of that culture. I like my culture the way it is, and, personally, I don't want the honorable state of matrimony between a man and woman degraded, in my eyes, by adding other versions. When every man does what is right in his own eyes, everything will be right, nothing will be wrong, and our culture will be lost.
"8. Abortion. I want to be registered in a party that has room in its tent for pro-life and pro-choice views. And Plan B should be sold over the counter to individuals 18 and over. And I surely don't want politicians determining my end of life plan." Frankly, I expected better from Michael on this one, as logic alone dictates a different viewpoint. However, it is clear from the tone of both the text above and his discussions about this subject on the air, that he has an emotional attachment to the subject that he hasn't divorced from his perspective. That's the problem with the whole abortion rights issue: we as a nation are so emotionally charged on this point, that we can't look at it objectively. Consider, the abortion rights movement has always presented the issue as a "Woman's Right to Choose". However, they stop there, and any attempt to logically reason through the choices inherent to the issue are resoundingly drowned out with cat calls of "Keep your laws off my body". Here's my view, removing religion from the argument, and conceding the point that science cannot pinpoint the beginning of life in the womb. This means that there quite possibly may be no problem whatsoever with an abortion at any time during pregnancy. However, the probability of that is only 50%, meaning that there is an equal chance that abortion, at any time in a pregnancy, kills a human being. While I may offend people on the other side, I can't, in good conscience, condone a position that has a fifty/fifty chance of being murder.
"9. Embryonic Stem Cells Research. Do it. Fund it. Pardon my callous nature, but that which exists in a Petri dish is undeserving of the full rights that are afforded a viable fetus." This is another one that I expected a more intellectual perspective from Michael. God forbid that I write 'intelligent', as I think Michael has me beat in that area hands down. But "Embryo" is the medical term for a baby from conception to the third month. After the third month, we switch terms and call it a fetus. At no time does viability make any difference in which is which - we're talking semantics - unless Michael is deliberately positing the idea that viability is not relevant until after one decides it's appropriate to change the medical term for a baby in the womb at some point in its gestation, and I don't think he is. In other words, left to itself, an embryo sitting in a Petri dish would become a human being if we allowed it to do so. That it would have to be implanted in a womb is a moot point. The fact is, an embryo in a Petri dish is as viable a human as an embryo in a womb. My response on abortion directly relates at this point.
"5. Iraq. We need an end game. And don't call it "cut and run". As a matter of fact, if anything is unpatriotic, it's not affording our soldiers an explanation of how their mission will end. It's time to articulate an exit strategy so as to light a fire under Iraqis and let them know they need to stand on their own two feet sooner than later." I'm going to give Michael a pass on this one. He's not a military man, he's an attorney that raised his social status by taking a talk radio job. (Had to get that in -- just kidding, Michael.) Still, If he really believes there is no end game, he's wrong. Having been there, I know an exit strategy exists - no war is fought without its generals first preparing such - but it's no business of ours at home, and it's usually not known to the boots on the ground. As a grunt in-country during Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, my company didn't know when we would be returning state-side until a week prior to leaving. Whether military or civilian, we neither need nor should know what the exit strategy is, other than a general "We have a list of objectives that must be met before we can bring all the troops home." No attorney in his right mind publishes his closing statement in the middle of the trial. Neither should the administration or military publish its end game strategy in the middle of the war.
In conclusion...
Only four of Michael's fifteen points provide any room for disagreement on my part, but the disagreements are significant, in that, with no disrespect intended, they provide a view of moderation that exposes its emotional ties to the issues. Thinking with the heart is not the way to govern a country, it is the way to assist ones countrymen. As Winston Churchill once said, "If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart; if you are not a conservative at 40, you have no brain."
The great thing about being a conservative, for which anecdotal evidence abounds, is that, notwithstanding the differences of opinion, the Republican Party is inclusive enough to tolerate both of us. Reassuring, isn't it.
"7. Gays. Homosexuals do not threaten my marriage. Heterosexual marriages have their own troubles, but the fate of conventional marriages has nothing to do with whether same sex couples can marry one another or partake in a civil union. No guy now married to a woman is waiting in the wings for a court decision trying to decide whether to ditch his spouse and hook up with a man. As we seek to find some accommodation for same sex couples, we need to end that false argument." I have one word for Michael here: McGreevey. Responsible for destroying his career and his marriage through homosexual activity, the first thing the former governor did upon hearing that the New Jersey Supreme Court was going to rule on the Gay Marriage issue was to state his desire to marry his lover. On a personal level, it may not seem to be a problem, and true, it does not effect my marriage, just as it does not effect Michael's. However, on a cultural level, history shows that the acceptance of alternative lifestyles as normal precedes, and perhaps signals, the imminent downfall of that culture. I like my culture the way it is, and, personally, I don't want the honorable state of matrimony between a man and woman degraded, in my eyes, by adding other versions. When every man does what is right in his own eyes, everything will be right, nothing will be wrong, and our culture will be lost.
"8. Abortion. I want to be registered in a party that has room in its tent for pro-life and pro-choice views. And Plan B should be sold over the counter to individuals 18 and over. And I surely don't want politicians determining my end of life plan." Frankly, I expected better from Michael on this one, as logic alone dictates a different viewpoint. However, it is clear from the tone of both the text above and his discussions about this subject on the air, that he has an emotional attachment to the subject that he hasn't divorced from his perspective. That's the problem with the whole abortion rights issue: we as a nation are so emotionally charged on this point, that we can't look at it objectively. Consider, the abortion rights movement has always presented the issue as a "Woman's Right to Choose". However, they stop there, and any attempt to logically reason through the choices inherent to the issue are resoundingly drowned out with cat calls of "Keep your laws off my body". Here's my view, removing religion from the argument, and conceding the point that science cannot pinpoint the beginning of life in the womb. This means that there quite possibly may be no problem whatsoever with an abortion at any time during pregnancy. However, the probability of that is only 50%, meaning that there is an equal chance that abortion, at any time in a pregnancy, kills a human being. While I may offend people on the other side, I can't, in good conscience, condone a position that has a fifty/fifty chance of being murder.
"9. Embryonic Stem Cells Research. Do it. Fund it. Pardon my callous nature, but that which exists in a Petri dish is undeserving of the full rights that are afforded a viable fetus." This is another one that I expected a more intellectual perspective from Michael. God forbid that I write 'intelligent', as I think Michael has me beat in that area hands down. But "Embryo" is the medical term for a baby from conception to the third month. After the third month, we switch terms and call it a fetus. At no time does viability make any difference in which is which - we're talking semantics - unless Michael is deliberately positing the idea that viability is not relevant until after one decides it's appropriate to change the medical term for a baby in the womb at some point in its gestation, and I don't think he is. In other words, left to itself, an embryo sitting in a Petri dish would become a human being if we allowed it to do so. That it would have to be implanted in a womb is a moot point. The fact is, an embryo in a Petri dish is as viable a human as an embryo in a womb. My response on abortion directly relates at this point.
"5. Iraq. We need an end game. And don't call it "cut and run". As a matter of fact, if anything is unpatriotic, it's not affording our soldiers an explanation of how their mission will end. It's time to articulate an exit strategy so as to light a fire under Iraqis and let them know they need to stand on their own two feet sooner than later." I'm going to give Michael a pass on this one. He's not a military man, he's an attorney that raised his social status by taking a talk radio job. (Had to get that in -- just kidding, Michael.) Still, If he really believes there is no end game, he's wrong. Having been there, I know an exit strategy exists - no war is fought without its generals first preparing such - but it's no business of ours at home, and it's usually not known to the boots on the ground. As a grunt in-country during Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, my company didn't know when we would be returning state-side until a week prior to leaving. Whether military or civilian, we neither need nor should know what the exit strategy is, other than a general "We have a list of objectives that must be met before we can bring all the troops home." No attorney in his right mind publishes his closing statement in the middle of the trial. Neither should the administration or military publish its end game strategy in the middle of the war.
In conclusion...
Only four of Michael's fifteen points provide any room for disagreement on my part, but the disagreements are significant, in that, with no disrespect intended, they provide a view of moderation that exposes its emotional ties to the issues. Thinking with the heart is not the way to govern a country, it is the way to assist ones countrymen. As Winston Churchill once said, "If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart; if you are not a conservative at 40, you have no brain."
The great thing about being a conservative, for which anecdotal evidence abounds, is that, notwithstanding the differences of opinion, the Republican Party is inclusive enough to tolerate both of us. Reassuring, isn't it.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
A Moderate's Platform - Part I
Michael A. Smerconish is my morning man on the radio. Every morning, Monday through Friday, I listen at least two hours to his radio talk show on the Big Talker 1210, WPHT. Michael is one of those who is calling for a move to moderation by Republicans, else he fears the perpetual loss of Republican power through the alienation of moderates. He recently posted fifteen points of view, and asked his audience to vote on them as to whether or not they agreed with him. As much as I like Michael and enjoy his show, I have to
take issue with him over a few points. Just a few - he's not my morning man for nothing. Here are the points he makes with which I agree, whether to the letter, or just in spirit.
"1. Bin Laden. I want a continuous commitment of manpower directed toward finding and killing Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri. It matters not to me whether they are isolated, neutered, and disengaged, nor whether they are in Pakistan. I want them hunted, found and caused to suffer a heinous death. The full court press should never end." Like Michael, I want UBL's head on a pike at the entrance to the White House. Love the "heinous death" part.
"2. Profiling. Let's look for terrorists who look like terrorists. Those who threaten us have similarities. In virtually every instance, they have race, gender, ethnicity, religion and appearance in common. Those characteristics should be considered as we seek to prevent terrorist strikes against the United States. Everyone needs to be screened, but some more than others. When the terrorists start looking like Thurston Howell, III, we will change accordingly." For the literary inclined, there's no better text on the issue than Michael's Flying Blind. Here he's preaching to the choir.
"3. Torture. Once we identify the bad guys, we need to glean from them information of impending attacks by any means necessary, and that includes torture. If you believe it NOT to be efficacious, tell me why our best, brightest and most experienced interrogators continually seek to use it as a technique? Answer: it works." Whatever it takes to keep Americans safe.
"4. Preventing Terror. We need to implement all the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, those who were entrusted to study what went wrong pre-9/11 and recommend how to prevent its recurrence." While I agree with this in spirit, any commission that ignores issues like Able Danger should be questioned, not trusted implicitly. Sure, we haven't implemented all the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, but we also haven't been attacked since then either. I know I'm on the fence here, but whatever we're doing is working.
"6. Immigration. Our borders are porous. They need to be closed. Only when they are closed should we make decisions as to what to do with the millions who are already here illegally. It is impractical to believe we will ship them back to wherever they came from. But through attrition, and by ensuring no more of their friends and relatives join them, we will probably diminish the herd." I'll go further here. 700 miles of fencing is an affront to the citizens of America, both born and naturalized. Build fences along both borders,
northern and southern, and man them with military personnel. Use these fences as training facilities to give our military a real border to watch.
"10. Term Limits. We need citizen politicians, not professionals. Two terms in the Senate and six in the House seems like plenty to ensure we get grounded folks who are capable of earning a living when not serving us." Term Limits are the single most crucial change in politics we could ever hope for, to my mind.
"11. Campaign Finance. Let's stop trying to regulate campaign donations. Someone will always find a loophole. Let anyone spend whatever they are willing to affect the outcome of a race, so long as there is full and immediate disclosure, so voters can react accordingly." This is the second most crucial change in politics we could hope for.
"12. Entitlements. Social Security, Medicare and other entitlements make up more than half of our federal spending. The number of people on Social Security and Medicare will double in the next 15 years, and life expectancy continues to grow. We cannot afford to continue the status quo. Time to confront AARP: the retirement age in this country needs to be raised from 65 to 70. Balanced Budget should not be two dirty words. I do not want my children and grandchildren saddled with paying for our wasteful spending." How about we do this and more. It's not just time to raise the retirement age, it's time to confront a lazy, self-absorbed, entitlement-minded culture with a counter-culture of greater personal responsibility, promote fiscal conservatism on a personal level, and provide training on how to save money and handle finances, instead of doling it out. Then, entitlements could be scaled back, and our bloated federal budget could be slashed without jeopardizing people's way of life.
"13. Death Taxes. We all work so hard just trying to lead a comfortable life in the hopes of leaving nest eggs for our children. It's un-American that when we check out, Uncle Sam will be standing there with his hand out to tax our earnings for the second time. The estate tax must end." 'Nuff said.
"14. Global Warming. Beats the hell out of me. But given the apparent stakes if the concerns are valid, I think we should err on the side of taking precaution." This is a typical socio-political coin. The two sides are, yes, we should be more careful with our environment and what we add to it. But Global Warming? The whole issue can be explained away by understanding the action of the rotational axis of the earth, which is why the old media was talking about the coming Ice Age in the early '70s. It may be warmer here than we're used to, but in places like South Africa, they're having record snowfalls. Cyclical changes in temperature are the norm, not causes for alarm. So, while I agree with the environmentally conscious spirit of Michael's statement, I find the subject of it questionable.
"15. Guns. A symptom, not cause of our problems. Single parent households pose more of a threat to safety than firearms. Let's address that issue." I couldn't agree more.
So I'm eleven for fifteen. Not too shabby. The breakdown of Michael's incredible listener response (over 3000 respondents) is on his site. I'll break off here, and deal with our differences in my next post.
take issue with him over a few points. Just a few - he's not my morning man for nothing. Here are the points he makes with which I agree, whether to the letter, or just in spirit.
"1. Bin Laden. I want a continuous commitment of manpower directed toward finding and killing Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri. It matters not to me whether they are isolated, neutered, and disengaged, nor whether they are in Pakistan. I want them hunted, found and caused to suffer a heinous death. The full court press should never end." Like Michael, I want UBL's head on a pike at the entrance to the White House. Love the "heinous death" part.
"2. Profiling. Let's look for terrorists who look like terrorists. Those who threaten us have similarities. In virtually every instance, they have race, gender, ethnicity, religion and appearance in common. Those characteristics should be considered as we seek to prevent terrorist strikes against the United States. Everyone needs to be screened, but some more than others. When the terrorists start looking like Thurston Howell, III, we will change accordingly." For the literary inclined, there's no better text on the issue than Michael's Flying Blind. Here he's preaching to the choir.
"3. Torture. Once we identify the bad guys, we need to glean from them information of impending attacks by any means necessary, and that includes torture. If you believe it NOT to be efficacious, tell me why our best, brightest and most experienced interrogators continually seek to use it as a technique? Answer: it works." Whatever it takes to keep Americans safe.
"4. Preventing Terror. We need to implement all the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, those who were entrusted to study what went wrong pre-9/11 and recommend how to prevent its recurrence." While I agree with this in spirit, any commission that ignores issues like Able Danger should be questioned, not trusted implicitly. Sure, we haven't implemented all the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, but we also haven't been attacked since then either. I know I'm on the fence here, but whatever we're doing is working.
"6. Immigration. Our borders are porous. They need to be closed. Only when they are closed should we make decisions as to what to do with the millions who are already here illegally. It is impractical to believe we will ship them back to wherever they came from. But through attrition, and by ensuring no more of their friends and relatives join them, we will probably diminish the herd." I'll go further here. 700 miles of fencing is an affront to the citizens of America, both born and naturalized. Build fences along both borders,
northern and southern, and man them with military personnel. Use these fences as training facilities to give our military a real border to watch.
"10. Term Limits. We need citizen politicians, not professionals. Two terms in the Senate and six in the House seems like plenty to ensure we get grounded folks who are capable of earning a living when not serving us." Term Limits are the single most crucial change in politics we could ever hope for, to my mind.
"11. Campaign Finance. Let's stop trying to regulate campaign donations. Someone will always find a loophole. Let anyone spend whatever they are willing to affect the outcome of a race, so long as there is full and immediate disclosure, so voters can react accordingly." This is the second most crucial change in politics we could hope for.
"12. Entitlements. Social Security, Medicare and other entitlements make up more than half of our federal spending. The number of people on Social Security and Medicare will double in the next 15 years, and life expectancy continues to grow. We cannot afford to continue the status quo. Time to confront AARP: the retirement age in this country needs to be raised from 65 to 70. Balanced Budget should not be two dirty words. I do not want my children and grandchildren saddled with paying for our wasteful spending." How about we do this and more. It's not just time to raise the retirement age, it's time to confront a lazy, self-absorbed, entitlement-minded culture with a counter-culture of greater personal responsibility, promote fiscal conservatism on a personal level, and provide training on how to save money and handle finances, instead of doling it out. Then, entitlements could be scaled back, and our bloated federal budget could be slashed without jeopardizing people's way of life.
"13. Death Taxes. We all work so hard just trying to lead a comfortable life in the hopes of leaving nest eggs for our children. It's un-American that when we check out, Uncle Sam will be standing there with his hand out to tax our earnings for the second time. The estate tax must end." 'Nuff said.
"14. Global Warming. Beats the hell out of me. But given the apparent stakes if the concerns are valid, I think we should err on the side of taking precaution." This is a typical socio-political coin. The two sides are, yes, we should be more careful with our environment and what we add to it. But Global Warming? The whole issue can be explained away by understanding the action of the rotational axis of the earth, which is why the old media was talking about the coming Ice Age in the early '70s. It may be warmer here than we're used to, but in places like South Africa, they're having record snowfalls. Cyclical changes in temperature are the norm, not causes for alarm. So, while I agree with the environmentally conscious spirit of Michael's statement, I find the subject of it questionable.
"15. Guns. A symptom, not cause of our problems. Single parent households pose more of a threat to safety than firearms. Let's address that issue." I couldn't agree more.
So I'm eleven for fifteen. Not too shabby. The breakdown of Michael's incredible listener response (over 3000 respondents) is on his site. I'll break off here, and deal with our differences in my next post.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Return to Moderation?
Many pundits have, in the past few days, proclaimed the election a "call to moderation", a repudiation of conservatism. However, a look at the actions of Congress brings to light a move toward moderation that, I believe, directly depressed the conservative vote, which, in concert with the efforts of the old media to further depress it, resulted in the Republican loss of the '06 election.
There are two things that conservatives thrive upon: greater personal responsibility, and less government. In the past few years, however, we have seen Republicans outdo the Democrats in both shirking responsibility and expanding government.
Schiavo was an expansion of government, in that Republicans overstepped the bounds of federalism and intruded into an issue that was clearly the pervue of a state. The Prescription Drug Benefit was an expansion of government, as are gay marriage, and abortion, both states rights issues. The Foley and Abramoff scandals were abandonments of responsibility as were the calls for the Secretary of Defense to step down in the midst of war. The compromise of a few Republicans, namely those in the Gang of 14, allowed moderates to derail any potential move toward true judicial nomination reform, and did more to preserve the position of liberals in the Senate. So who lost?
- Santorum, vocal on the Schaivo issue.
- Chaffee & DeWine, members of the Gang of 14.
- Foley's replacement, Negron.
- The majority of Republicans up for re-election.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the moderation of Republicans was the end all of the election, but it contributed, along with the intolerance of elite America with the length of the war effort, and the efforts of the old media to depress the conservative vote by spinning issues like Stem Cell Research. But no one, honestly, should be making the case for more moderation. Conservatives won't stand for it. They sat this one out.
There are two things that conservatives thrive upon: greater personal responsibility, and less government. In the past few years, however, we have seen Republicans outdo the Democrats in both shirking responsibility and expanding government.
Schiavo was an expansion of government, in that Republicans overstepped the bounds of federalism and intruded into an issue that was clearly the pervue of a state. The Prescription Drug Benefit was an expansion of government, as are gay marriage, and abortion, both states rights issues. The Foley and Abramoff scandals were abandonments of responsibility as were the calls for the Secretary of Defense to step down in the midst of war. The compromise of a few Republicans, namely those in the Gang of 14, allowed moderates to derail any potential move toward true judicial nomination reform, and did more to preserve the position of liberals in the Senate. So who lost?
- Santorum, vocal on the Schaivo issue.
- Chaffee & DeWine, members of the Gang of 14.
- Foley's replacement, Negron.
- The majority of Republicans up for re-election.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the moderation of Republicans was the end all of the election, but it contributed, along with the intolerance of elite America with the length of the war effort, and the efforts of the old media to depress the conservative vote by spinning issues like Stem Cell Research. But no one, honestly, should be making the case for more moderation. Conservatives won't stand for it. They sat this one out.
Friday, November 10, 2006
On Returning to Power...
We lost. No doubt about it, Congress lost conservatism another two years in power. It was Congress's departure from a conservative commitment to principals of smaller government, lower taxes, and greater responsibility, coupled with a focus on majority-building instead of remaining true to the principals that prompted American citizens to hand them the majority that brought about the loss of that majority.
Now, the time has come for the Republican party to return to the fundamental principles of conservatism. Republicans need to realize that it is their duty and responsibility to be good stewards of our nation's trust and resources, and recognize that they are there by our good graces, to represent us. If Republicans wish to return to power in Congress, they need to prove to America a renewed commitment to smaller government, and forge a second Contract with America. Such a contract ought to be drawn up right now, signed by every Republican, then posted online and published so that every American can read it, verify that their respective representatives have signed it, and hold them to it. Note that I'm not saying that Republicans should pander to any one group within the big tent, only that the they must return to the primary principles that have made Republicanism great. Here are just a few things that present themselves:
1) Republicans need to repudiate the culture of power-hungry corruption that so pervades our government, and pledge to limit themselves to two terms in the Senate and three terms in the House. This is going to be tough, for it takes a brave person to lay down a career to serve for a short while. But, with a proper plan of succession and training in place, outgoing members of Congress should be stumping for replacements who have strong conservative records in their respective regions.
2) Republicans should pledge to refrain from taking donations of any kind from any lobbyist or lobbying organization, period. Those that continue to do so should be ostracized by their peers.
3) Republicans need to remember that every dollar that comes into the government's hands is earned by the sweat of another American, and need to pledge to stand firm on making the current tax cuts permanent, and to work to simplify the tax structure and reporting system.
4) Republicans need to recognize that Eminent Domain is being used in violation of the Constitutional Right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, and should pledge to present a Constitutional amendment for referendum to make the use of Eminent Domain illegal for any other purpose than that specifically stated as follows: the building and expansion of public schools, roads, and bridges, and any property seized thereby must be recompensed for a sum greater than the value of that property.
5) Republicans need to set aside the temptation of political expediency, and work to protect our nation from terrorist infiltration and protect the interests of law-abiding citizens. They should pledge to reform immigration to make legal immigration easier, tighten our nations' borders, and enable the prosecution of those who assist or encourage illegal immigration.
6) Republicans, in order to validate the trust our nation has placed in them as stewards of its resources, must pledge to reign in Federal spending, tying it to a percentage of the GDP. They must forego the use of earmarks in perpetuity, and seek to bring a Constitutional amendment to referendum to give the President the right of Line Item Veto.
Republicans must not lower their voices, tone down their rhetoric, or sink into bipartisan silence. To do so is to risk political calamity, for in two years, if Republicans do not impress their base and the rest of the nation with the legitimacy of its views, and the propriety of its standards, our nation may well face a resurgence of socialist and politically correct dogma with greater liberal representation in Congress, and a second Clinton in the White House.
Now, the time has come for the Republican party to return to the fundamental principles of conservatism. Republicans need to realize that it is their duty and responsibility to be good stewards of our nation's trust and resources, and recognize that they are there by our good graces, to represent us. If Republicans wish to return to power in Congress, they need to prove to America a renewed commitment to smaller government, and forge a second Contract with America. Such a contract ought to be drawn up right now, signed by every Republican, then posted online and published so that every American can read it, verify that their respective representatives have signed it, and hold them to it. Note that I'm not saying that Republicans should pander to any one group within the big tent, only that the they must return to the primary principles that have made Republicanism great. Here are just a few things that present themselves:
1) Republicans need to repudiate the culture of power-hungry corruption that so pervades our government, and pledge to limit themselves to two terms in the Senate and three terms in the House. This is going to be tough, for it takes a brave person to lay down a career to serve for a short while. But, with a proper plan of succession and training in place, outgoing members of Congress should be stumping for replacements who have strong conservative records in their respective regions.
2) Republicans should pledge to refrain from taking donations of any kind from any lobbyist or lobbying organization, period. Those that continue to do so should be ostracized by their peers.
3) Republicans need to remember that every dollar that comes into the government's hands is earned by the sweat of another American, and need to pledge to stand firm on making the current tax cuts permanent, and to work to simplify the tax structure and reporting system.
4) Republicans need to recognize that Eminent Domain is being used in violation of the Constitutional Right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, and should pledge to present a Constitutional amendment for referendum to make the use of Eminent Domain illegal for any other purpose than that specifically stated as follows: the building and expansion of public schools, roads, and bridges, and any property seized thereby must be recompensed for a sum greater than the value of that property.
5) Republicans need to set aside the temptation of political expediency, and work to protect our nation from terrorist infiltration and protect the interests of law-abiding citizens. They should pledge to reform immigration to make legal immigration easier, tighten our nations' borders, and enable the prosecution of those who assist or encourage illegal immigration.
6) Republicans, in order to validate the trust our nation has placed in them as stewards of its resources, must pledge to reign in Federal spending, tying it to a percentage of the GDP. They must forego the use of earmarks in perpetuity, and seek to bring a Constitutional amendment to referendum to give the President the right of Line Item Veto.
Republicans must not lower their voices, tone down their rhetoric, or sink into bipartisan silence. To do so is to risk political calamity, for in two years, if Republicans do not impress their base and the rest of the nation with the legitimacy of its views, and the propriety of its standards, our nation may well face a resurgence of socialist and politically correct dogma with greater liberal representation in Congress, and a second Clinton in the White House.
On the War on Terror...
I believe in the justness of the War on Terror, and am proud of the righteous anger with which we prosecute it. But I believe the War on Terror is a misnomer. We are involved in a conflict not with an ideology, but with men who live to create an ideal, men who are more honest with themselves in describing the nature of this conflict, and possess a clearer understanding of the duality of the war than we seem to. Both in its global scope, and the breadth of the nations involved, the enemy is more truthful in describing the war, in that they call it World War Three.
This is truly World War III, for their goal is not the expulsion of an enemy from their lands, though the Old Media may play it that way. Their goal is the subjugation of all cultures not their own.
This is truly World War III, for their enemy is not a single nation, as some claim, blaming the actions of terrorists upon America, but all nations that do not ascribe to their philosophy.
This is truly World War III, for their aim is not the freedom of their people, but the oppression of all people, as they seek to enforce the laws of their theocratic beliefs upon everyone, and refuse to tolerate any diversion from them.
I believe in the justness of the War on Terror, but it is not just a war on Terror, it is a war upon all those who would see such terror succeed. To us has fallen the task of preserving freedom from those who would see it abated, of defending a way of life immeasurably more tolerant, more prosperous, more inclusive, more understanding, and more compassionate than any in the history of man, against the least tolerant, least prosperous, least inclusive, least understanding, and least compassionate ideology in the history of man.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt understood clearly what the nature of war was, and his words ring true to our conflict today...
"We are fighting today for security, for progress and for peace, not only for ourselves, but for all men, not only for one generation but for all generations. We are fighting to cleanse the world of ancient evils, ancient ills. We are fighting as our fathers have fought, to uphold the doctrine that all men are equal in the sight of God." - January 6, 1942
"Together with other free peoples, we are now fighting to maintain our right to live among our world neighbors in freedom and in common decency, without fear of assault." - December 9, 1941
"Free men are fighting desperately--and dying--to preserve the liberties and the decencies of modern civilization." - July 4, 1942
"We are fighting to free the people of this earth from...the most ruthless, the most savage enemy the world has ever seen. We are dedicating all that we have and all that we are to the combat. We will not stop this side of victory." - May 9, 1943
It is unfortunate that those recently elected into the halls of government show so little understanding of our current conflict, and so great a penchant to "stop this side of victory."
This is truly World War III, for their goal is not the expulsion of an enemy from their lands, though the Old Media may play it that way. Their goal is the subjugation of all cultures not their own.
This is truly World War III, for their enemy is not a single nation, as some claim, blaming the actions of terrorists upon America, but all nations that do not ascribe to their philosophy.
This is truly World War III, for their aim is not the freedom of their people, but the oppression of all people, as they seek to enforce the laws of their theocratic beliefs upon everyone, and refuse to tolerate any diversion from them.
I believe in the justness of the War on Terror, but it is not just a war on Terror, it is a war upon all those who would see such terror succeed. To us has fallen the task of preserving freedom from those who would see it abated, of defending a way of life immeasurably more tolerant, more prosperous, more inclusive, more understanding, and more compassionate than any in the history of man, against the least tolerant, least prosperous, least inclusive, least understanding, and least compassionate ideology in the history of man.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt understood clearly what the nature of war was, and his words ring true to our conflict today...
"We are fighting today for security, for progress and for peace, not only for ourselves, but for all men, not only for one generation but for all generations. We are fighting to cleanse the world of ancient evils, ancient ills. We are fighting as our fathers have fought, to uphold the doctrine that all men are equal in the sight of God." - January 6, 1942
"Together with other free peoples, we are now fighting to maintain our right to live among our world neighbors in freedom and in common decency, without fear of assault." - December 9, 1941
"Free men are fighting desperately--and dying--to preserve the liberties and the decencies of modern civilization." - July 4, 1942
"We are fighting to free the people of this earth from...the most ruthless, the most savage enemy the world has ever seen. We are dedicating all that we have and all that we are to the combat. We will not stop this side of victory." - May 9, 1943
It is unfortunate that those recently elected into the halls of government show so little understanding of our current conflict, and so great a penchant to "stop this side of victory."
Thursday, November 09, 2006
On Republicans losing the 2006 Elections...
In February of this year, I received a letter from the National Republican Congressional Committee asking for donations, noting the battlefield of the 2006 Elections. I responded with my displeasure, and a prediction, which, sad to say, has come true. I offer the bulk of my response for your perusal...
Dear Mr. Reynolds,
While I appreciate your message, I have more than a few reasons why I will not be donating anything to the NRCC, which you deserve to know.
As stewards of a nation's trust, our Congressional representatives have squandered what we have given them and abused their roles in the pursuit of perpetual power. Gerrymandered districts have made "of the people" a joke, for how can incumbents lose, if they can tailor districts to their liking. Elections still rule the day, but the ability of candidates to accept donations from "groups" and "committees" and "corporations" make "by the people" a farce. Our congressional representatives have forgotten the truth of political office, namely, that they are merely citizens, elected by citizens, to serve citizens. Special interest groups, lobbyists, and political action committees hold greater sway over those who represent the citizens of our nation than those selfsame citizens. Beholden to money, instead of principles, our representatives routinely give the interests of a few greater consideration than those of the citizens they represent.
Commitment to principals of Smaller Government, Lower Taxes, and Greater Responsibility is falling to the wayside, as shown by your backing of Lincoln Chaffee, a virtual Democrat, whose posturing on Justice Alito's confirmation vote, versus his actual vote, prove him to be less "Right" and more hypocritical than some Democrats. But then, you're focused on building a majority, not remaining true to the principals that prompted American citizens to make you a majority.
Smaller government is the lifeblood of a nation, for the larger a government becomes, the more it must take fiscally from its people, in order to function. And yet, Congress approved some of the largest earmarks in the history of legislation, at almost two per district, at a cost not to Congress, but to Americans, of billions of dollars. Congress is led by men who consider it their prerogative, as Majority Whip Roy Blunt has said, to use tax dollars to fund "earmarks" without any kind of legislative check and balance, in an effort to look good to their constituents, and thereby maintain their positions. One man can take hundreds of millions of hard-earned dollars and decide "I want to build a bridge." Temper tantrums abound when an "earmark" is challenged, and those out of whose pockets these dollars are ripped, are tired of it. Illegal aliens have gone from living lives of nervous invisibility to routinely taking advantage of Welfare, Medicare, and Social Security benefits once thought to be reserved for citizens. Such generosity with another's' money is repugnant.
Congress talks of reform, then proposals are made for commissions to hold hearings in committees to discuss issues with experts, and on, and on, and on. Talk is cheap. It's time to act. If Republicans wish to maintain their current status as the majority in Congress, and indeed grow that majority, they need to prove to America their renewed commitment to smaller government, lower taxes, and greater responsibility. I urge you to forge a second Contract with America. Such a contract ought to be drawn up right now, signed by every Republican, then posted online and published so that every American can read it, verify that their respective representatives have signed it, and hold them to it.
[...]
This Republican Congress has forgotten that it owes its continuance to the American people. It has become a bloated bureaucracy prone more to expediency and spending than stewardship and responsibility. As I recently wrote to Congressman Dan Lungren in response to his "Housecleaning" editorial in the Wall Street Journal, we don't need a little house cleaning, we need a good repudiation of current governmental practices on the vast majority of issues. You want to talk reform? Then clean house a little. Put a good face on things with new leadership. "Look, we changed." Want real reform? Then get back to the principles of '94. Give us a smaller, less intrusive government. Give us less taxes, and less programs. Give us a stronger nation.
Clean house as has been suggested, and a nation appalled at the stewardship of it's trust will clean house for you, and the dust swept from the floors of Congress will be full of Republicans.
Dear Mr. Reynolds,
While I appreciate your message, I have more than a few reasons why I will not be donating anything to the NRCC, which you deserve to know.
As stewards of a nation's trust, our Congressional representatives have squandered what we have given them and abused their roles in the pursuit of perpetual power. Gerrymandered districts have made "of the people" a joke, for how can incumbents lose, if they can tailor districts to their liking. Elections still rule the day, but the ability of candidates to accept donations from "groups" and "committees" and "corporations" make "by the people" a farce. Our congressional representatives have forgotten the truth of political office, namely, that they are merely citizens, elected by citizens, to serve citizens. Special interest groups, lobbyists, and political action committees hold greater sway over those who represent the citizens of our nation than those selfsame citizens. Beholden to money, instead of principles, our representatives routinely give the interests of a few greater consideration than those of the citizens they represent.
Commitment to principals of Smaller Government, Lower Taxes, and Greater Responsibility is falling to the wayside, as shown by your backing of Lincoln Chaffee, a virtual Democrat, whose posturing on Justice Alito's confirmation vote, versus his actual vote, prove him to be less "Right" and more hypocritical than some Democrats. But then, you're focused on building a majority, not remaining true to the principals that prompted American citizens to make you a majority.
Smaller government is the lifeblood of a nation, for the larger a government becomes, the more it must take fiscally from its people, in order to function. And yet, Congress approved some of the largest earmarks in the history of legislation, at almost two per district, at a cost not to Congress, but to Americans, of billions of dollars. Congress is led by men who consider it their prerogative, as Majority Whip Roy Blunt has said, to use tax dollars to fund "earmarks" without any kind of legislative check and balance, in an effort to look good to their constituents, and thereby maintain their positions. One man can take hundreds of millions of hard-earned dollars and decide "I want to build a bridge." Temper tantrums abound when an "earmark" is challenged, and those out of whose pockets these dollars are ripped, are tired of it. Illegal aliens have gone from living lives of nervous invisibility to routinely taking advantage of Welfare, Medicare, and Social Security benefits once thought to be reserved for citizens. Such generosity with another's' money is repugnant.
Congress talks of reform, then proposals are made for commissions to hold hearings in committees to discuss issues with experts, and on, and on, and on. Talk is cheap. It's time to act. If Republicans wish to maintain their current status as the majority in Congress, and indeed grow that majority, they need to prove to America their renewed commitment to smaller government, lower taxes, and greater responsibility. I urge you to forge a second Contract with America. Such a contract ought to be drawn up right now, signed by every Republican, then posted online and published so that every American can read it, verify that their respective representatives have signed it, and hold them to it.
[...]
This Republican Congress has forgotten that it owes its continuance to the American people. It has become a bloated bureaucracy prone more to expediency and spending than stewardship and responsibility. As I recently wrote to Congressman Dan Lungren in response to his "Housecleaning" editorial in the Wall Street Journal, we don't need a little house cleaning, we need a good repudiation of current governmental practices on the vast majority of issues. You want to talk reform? Then clean house a little. Put a good face on things with new leadership. "Look, we changed." Want real reform? Then get back to the principles of '94. Give us a smaller, less intrusive government. Give us less taxes, and less programs. Give us a stronger nation.
Clean house as has been suggested, and a nation appalled at the stewardship of it's trust will clean house for you, and the dust swept from the floors of Congress will be full of Republicans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)