Mostly over their failed attempts to push their agenda and inability to get anything done because of infighting in the Democratic Party.
- USA Today states that the Democrats are "lost in time" and are a big part of the reason why America is not fully capitalizing on the success of the surge, and that this is time to seize the moment in Iraq and end this whole ordeal in a positive manner for America and for Iraq.
- The WaPo points out that the Dems are pretty much doing a lot of finger-pointing between their party's members of the House and Senate, including some shots between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Chuck Rangel. Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) summed up the GOP's enjoyment of this intra-Democrat meltdown by saying "Just let 'em stew for a while." Part of the reason the GOP enjoys this is because they had similar problems with intra-party disputes between the House and Senate many times during their recent 12-year run as the majority party.
- The Wall Street Journal chides the Dems for allowing intraparty squabbles to become a bigger contributor to gridlock than the GOP's attempts to stall the Dem agenda.
- The Hill notes that Dems in both the House and Senate recently "backed down from a spending showdown" with the President. Part of the problem...Speaker Nancy Pelosi's support for the elimination of earmarks from spending bills was strongly opposed by many high-ranking House Democrats. The main contention point is that President Bush has set a strict limit on the omnibus spending bill of $933 billion, and is forcing Senate and House Dems to find a way to fit the contents of the bill under that number, but the Senate and House Dems can't agree on how to do it.
Looks like the Dems are in for even tougher times as their first year of majority power draws to a close.
Showing posts with label 2006 election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2006 election. Show all posts
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Rep. Thad McCotter - Restoring the GOP
Many of you do not know Rep. Thad McCotter (R-MI). He is currently the chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee. Basically, it is his job to steer Republican policy in necessary directions and a big part of the prioritization of policy for the House GOP.
He gave a speech last night on the House floor that I happened to catch on C-SPAN, and it was brutally honest look back at recent GOP history, and what needs to change and how to go about changing things for the better in the GOP.
I think that, on many points, McCotter is right on. I like his coining of the term "Restorative Republicans", as that is a good description of what I consider myself to be.
Here is the text of the speech, courtesy of McCotter's House website.
"Let It Bleed: Restoring the Republican Party"
Mister/Madam Speaker,
As my Republican party completes its first year in the minority since 1994, we find ourselves held in historically low regard by the sovereign American people.
To end this trend, Republicans must accurately assess our party’s past and present failings; and its future prospects of again providing Americans a meaningful choice between the major parties. This remains, after all, a party’s duty to the citizenry.
For my GOP to fulfill it, first we must bury our ideological dead.
Aftermath
Safely on this side of the cleansing mists of memory, it is chic to eulogize the late Republican majority. From the chattering class few insights emerge, for in the aftermath, only poetry is an apt epitaph:
The world is too much with us,
Late and soon;
Getting and spending we lay waste our powers;
Little we see in nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away –
A sordid boon!
Such was the Republican bathos: a transformational majority sinned and slipped into a transactional “Cashocracy” – promises, policies, principles, all bartered, even honor. The majority now is of the ages, may it rest in peace...
And be redeemed.
Dirty Work
Once, George Santayana cautioned: “Those who do not learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.” If our current Republican minority guilefully refutes or gutlessly refuses to admit, accept, and atone for the bitter fruits of its lapsed majority, it will continue to decline in the eyes of the American electorate. Thus, for the sake of our nation in this time of transformation, we must fully and frankly examine and understand the cardinal causes of the Republican majority’s recent demise; and, sadder but wiser, commence our Republican minority’s restoration as a transformation political movement serving the sovereign citizens of our free republic.
Through the Past Darkly
Big Hits and Fazed Cookies
To begin, we must retrace our steps down a darkened alley of broken hopes to glean the essence of our party’s headier times, big hits and fazed cookies.
Though many of its legislative leaders may moot the point, two Presidents caused the 1994 Republican Revolution: Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
The members of 1995’s new Republican Majority were Ronald Regan’s political children. From President Reagan, Republican Congressional revolutionaries inherited a philosophy of “politics as the art of the possible.” Cogently expressed by conservative intellectuals ranging from Edmund Burke to Russell Kirk, this philosophy’s central tenets held:
1) Men and women are transcendent children of God endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.
2) Government was instituted to defend citizens’ inalienable rights and facilitate citizens’ pursuit of the good and of true happiness.
3) Over the generations, Divine Providence has established and revealed through tradition, prescriptive rights and custom within communities how order, justice, and freedom – each essential, co-equal and mutually reinforcing – are best arranged and nurtured for humanity to pursue the good and true happiness.
4) Human happiness is endangered by every political ideology, for each is premised upon abstract ideas; each claims a superior insight into human nature not revealed through historical experience; each proffers a secular utopia unobtainable by an imperfect humanity; and, each demands an omnipotent, centralized government to forcefully impose its vision upon an “unenlightened” and unwilling population.
This is the political philosophy and resulting public policies a once impoverished youth from Dixon, Illinois, Ronald Reagan, engagingly articulated to America throughout his Presidency in the 1980s. By 1994, the American people who, having taken Reagan at Russell Kirk’s word that “conservatism is the negation of ideology” and remembering its beneficent impact upon their daily lives, yearned for its return. For self-described Congressional Republican revolutionaries, this formed fertile electoral ground (one shaped as well, it must be admitted, by a host of unheralded and immensely talented GOP redistricting attorneys). But like all revolutions, the piece required a villain.
Enter President Clinton.
Exuberant at having defeated an incumbent President George H. W. Bush, Clinton mistook a mandate against his predecessor as a mandate for his own craftily concealed liberalism. In his first two years in the oval office, this mistake led Clinton to over-reach on “kitchen table” issues, such as raising taxes and socializing medicine. Daily, the four-decade old Democratic Congressional majority abetted Clinton’s radical policies; and across the political spectrum voters seethed.
Congressional Republicans bided their time, planned their revolution, and seized their moment. Led by their spell-binding and abrasive guru from Georgia, Congressional Republicans unveiled their “Contract with America” to much popular – if not pundit – acclaim.
Though much mythologized, if it is to prove instructive for the present Republican minority, this Contract can and must be placed in its proper perspective. A musical analogy is most elucidating.
When a reporter once praised the Beatles for producing Rock’s first “concept album,” Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, John Lennon curtly corrected him: “It was a concept album because we said it was.” Lennon’s point was this: yes, the Beatles had originally set out to produce a concept album; but early in their sessions the band dropped any conceits to creating a concept album and recorded whatever songs were on hand. Recognizing their failure, the Beatles tacked on a final song, Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise), to engender the illusion they had, after all, created a “concept album.” Importantly, when the band later tried to produce a true “concept album” and accompanying film, Magical Mystery Tour, the lackluster result was one of the Beatles’ few failed artistic ventures.
Similarly, Congressional Republicans’ “Contract with America” was a collection of specific policy proposals and concrete grievances against the incumbent Democratic President and his legislative allies. It possessed merely an implicit philosophy (one obviously harkening back to Reagan). Even less than Sergeant Pepper, the individual tracks of which have (mostly) stood the test of time, today many of the Contract’s specific proposals sound dated. But like Sergeant Pepper, what endures about the Contract is the fact it was marketed as a revolutionary “concept” in governance. Of course, it is not. The Contract was a suitable period piece which served its purpose – the election of Congressional Republicans in sufficient numbers to attain our party’s first majority in forty years. Nevertheless the Contact’s lack of a clearly enunciated political philosophy with immutable principles sowed the seeds of the subsequent Republican Devolution.
Therefore, if the current Republican minority buys into the myth and makes the Contract the basis of a derivative “concept” agenda, the GOP will be condemned to another forty-year Magical Mystery Tour through the political wilderness.
Out of Our Heads
This is not to say the members of 1995’s new Republican majority lacked a political philosophy or immutable principles. Quite the contrary: these members were steeped in the Reagan tradition. But after an initial rush of laudable accomplishments, the members found themselves trapped by the Contract’s inherent pragmatism and particularity. Absent a philosophical anchor in the Contract, members drifted into the grind of governance, which distorted Reagan’s philosophical principles for public policy into non-binding precedents for political popularity. Exacerbating this process, the new majority’s leaders, exuberant at having defeated an incumbent Democratic Congressional majority, mistook a mandate against their predecessors as a mandate for their own finitely posited conservatism. In its first two years in control of the House, this led the majority’s leaders to erroneously conclude it could govern as a parliament, rather than as a Congress equivalent in power to the executive branch; and they over-reached on key issues, most notably in the shut down of the United States government over the issue of spending. Artfully framed by President Clinton with sufficient plausibility as an irresponsible Republican ideological attack on good government, this moment marked the beginning of the Republican majority’s end - in point of fact, from the government shutdown to the present the House GOP Conference has never had as many members as it did in 1995.
Some persist in too facilely dismissing this Republican debacle as being due to Clinton’s superior messaging of the issue from his bully pulpit. This analysis is errant. The reason Clinton succeeded is the kernel of truth he wielded on this issue: House Republican leaders had stopped governing prudently in accordance with Reagan’s political philosophy of politics being the art of the possible and, instead, started acting belligerently in an ideological manner against the public’s interest. It is no an accident this battle fundamentally affected Clinton’s thinking and spurred his reinvention from a liberal ideologue into a pragmatic problem-solver and proponent of “good government.” Unfortunately, Clinton’s publicly applauded posturing as a “centrist” incensed the Republican majority; and accelerated their efforts to differentiate themselves from an unprincipled President by being increasingly ideological, which they confuted with being principled.
As this ideological fever progressed through 1996, too late did the new majority’s members intuit the political cost to candidates considered “ideologues.” The Republicans’ majority did survive the partisan carnage of Clinton’s overwhelming 1996 re-election, but the cycle’s cumulative effect was lasting and damning. Without gawking at the gruesome minutia of each ensuing GOP ideological purge and internal coup instigated by this election, we can note it spawned the unseemly political perversion of the House Republicans’ transformational majority into a transactional “Cashocracy.”
Beggars Banquet
Hubristically deemed by its leading denizens as a “Permanent Majority,” the GOP Cashocracy was a Beggars’ Banquet at taxpayers’ expense. The Cashocracy’s sole goal was its own perpetuation; and its Cashocrats and High Priests of Money-theism myopically chased this aim through pragmatic corporatism and political machinations.
Obviously, the Cashocracy’s cardinal vice was its conviction to survive for its own sake. Curiously, this is not the height of arrogance; it is the height of insecurity. Aware it stood for nothing but election, the Cashocracy knew anything could topple it. This fear cancerously compelled the poll-driven Cashocrats to grope for ephemeral popularity by abandoning immutable principles. Materialist to their core and devoid of empathy, the Cashocrats routinely ignored the centrality to governmental policies of transcendent human beings.
A Bigger Bang
This Cashocracy’s first cardinal facilitated its second: pragmatic corporatism. Ensconced in insular power, the GOP Leadership lived the lives of the rich and famous, despite their middling personal means, due to their new-found friends in the corporate and lobbying community. Cut off from Main Street, these GOP leaders embraced “K Street.” The desire was mutual, and the corporatists’ influence grew gradually but ineluctably. Closed within a corporatist echo chamber, the GOP majority became deadened to the tribulations and aspirations of real Americans, and came to measure the “success” of its pragmatic policies by their reception on K Street. Reams of measures spewed forth prioritizing the interests of multi-national corporations over the needs of middle class Americans.
In fairness, even without the Cashocrats’ incessant inducements, blandishments and bullying, the majority of GOP members truly did feel they were promoting the interests of their constituents. This belief was insidiously sustained by the Cashocrats grafting their pragmatic corporatism onto the philosophy of economic determinism. It was not an unforeseeable development. Akin to their conservative brethren who after the fall of the Soviet Union proclaimed the “End of History,” House Republicans convinced themselves the ideology of democratic capitalism was an unstoppable deterministic force predestined to conquer the world; and, on their part, they viewed their job as hastening its triumph and preparing Americans to cope with its consequences. Combined with the Cashocracy’s insatiable need of corporate contributions for its sustenance, this adherence to ideological democratic capitalism reveals how the Republican House majority helped President Clinton (whom they had unknowingly come to emulate and, likely loathe ever more because of it) grant the Permanent Normalization of Trade Relations to Communist China. With this enact of this legislation, the Cashocracy reached its political zenith and moral nadir, for it did not shape globalization to suit Americans’ interests; it had shaped Americans’ interests to suit globalization.
Sticky Fingers
The handsome rewards for such “courageous” legislation fueled the Cashocracy’s third vice, avarice. The process was both seductive and simple, especially in a materialistic town forsaking the qualitative measurement of virtue for the quantitative measurement of money. While this temptation is to be expected in a city where politicians “prove” their moral superiority by spending other people’s money, it was equally to be expected Republicans would collectively resist it.
They didn’t.
Earmarks, which began as a cost-saving reform to prevent federal bureaucrats from controlling and wasting taxpayers’ money in contravention of express Congressional intent, spiraled out of control once the Cashocrats and their K-Street cronies realized the process could be manipulated to direct any appropriation, however undeserving, to any client, however questionable. In turn, political contributions materialized from the recipients of these earmarks for the members on both sides of the aisle who dropped them into legislation, often times without the knowledge of or the appropriate review by their peers. The passage of policy bills, too, increasingly mirrored the earmark process, as special interest provisions were slipped into the dimmer recesses of bills in the dead of night. The outcome of this fiscal chicanery was an escalation of the K-Street contributions the Cashocracy required to attain its aim of perpetuating itself in power; and of the illegal perks required to sate the more venal tastes of some morally challenged members who are now paying their debts to society.
Black and Blue
Cumulatively, in addition to rendering it morally bankrupt, these three vices left the Cashocracy intellectually impotent. Tellingly, within this less than subtle and manifestly sinister system of earmarks and contributions, the Cashocrats’ greased the skids for their legislative “favors” by relegating the majority’s younger members to voting rather than legislating; ignoring these members’ qualitative virtues, ideals and talents; measuring these members by the quantitative standard of how much money they raised; and, thereby, condemning these members to the status of highly paid telemarketers. Having squandered this infusion of youthful energy and insight, the Cashocrats hailed the election of Republican President George W. Bush and handed him the nation’s legislative agenda.
At first, the Cashocrats’ subordination of their separate, equal branch of government to the executive branch bore dividends. But by 2006, when the failures of the Iraq War’s reconstruction policy and Hurricane Katrina’s emergency relief torpedoed Bush’s popularity, the latent danger to the Cashocrats of hitching their SUVs to the fortunes of a President was evident. Precluded from tying its vicarious popularity to Bush’s coat tails, the Cashocracy teetered beneath the gale force invective of the Democrats’ campaign mantra the Congressional Republican majority was “a culture of corruption” slothfully content to “rubber stamp” the failed policies of an unpopular President. Panic stricken, the politically tone-deaf Cashocrats urged GOP members to tout America’s “robust economy” and attack Democrats on national security issues. The innately materialist economic argument was doomed to fail, because the “robust” economy was not to be found in regions like the Northeast and Midwest. The latter argument proved unconvincing to an electorate convinced Iraq and New Orleans were GOP national security fiascos. And, finally, nothing could persuade an outraged electorate to return a Republican majority which, in the interests of perpetuating itself in power, failed to protect House pages from predatory members of Congress.
By election day the public had concluded the Republican majority cared more about corporations than Americans; and, when the tsunami hit, the Cashocracy crumbled down upon many now former GOP members, who became the last, blameless victims of its stolid cupidity.
In hindsight, the Cashocracy would best have heeded President Theodore Roosevelt’s warning:
“The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.”
Exile on Main Street
December’s Children
Straggling back to Washington for the Republican Revolution’s death vigil, the 2006 election’s surviving GOP members bid anguished goodbyes to defeated friends and struggled to make sense of it all. Dazed and confused, some members managed to grasp the reality of their newly minted minority, while some still grapple with it. Out of this former group, a distinct vision has emerged concerning how House Republicans can revitalize and redeem themselves in the estimation of their fellow Americans.
Got Live if You Want It
“Restoration Republicans” are best considered Reagan’s grandchildren. Like their Reagan-Democratic parents, Restoration Republicans were attracted to our party by the intellectual, cultural, and moral components and proven practical benefits of philosophical conservatism. Transcending talking points and political cant, these Restoration Republicans’ are devoted to restoring human soul’s centrality to public policy decisions; and focusing these policies on preserving and perpetuating the permanent things of our evanescent earthly existence which surpass all politics in importance.
The enduring ideals of Restoration Republicans are succinctly enumerated by Russell Kirk in his book, The Politics of Prudence:
1) The conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.
2) The conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.
3) Conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription – that is, of things established by immemorial usage.
4) Conservatives are guided by the principle of prudence.
5) Conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.
6) Conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.
7) Conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.
8) Conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.
9) The Conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passion.
10) The thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.
Given how the Cashocracy repeatedly violated these principles during its descent into oblivion, and how the Democrats’ 2006 consequent rallying cry was “change,” this tenth ideal merits deeper contemplation. For to understand it fully is to fully understand why Restoration Republicans, who are convinced we live amidst a crucible of liberty, proclaim our minority must emulate and implement the philosophical conservatism of Ronald Reagan and the fiery integrity of Theodore Roosevelt in the cause of empowering Americans and strengthening their eternal institutions of faith, family, community and country. Again, Kirk:
“Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He [or she] thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he [or she] is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.
“Change is essential to the body social, the conservative reasons, just as it is essential to the human body. A body that has ceases to renew itself has begun to die. But if that body is to be vigorous, the change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of that body; otherwise change produces a monstrous growth, a cancer, which devours its host. The conservative takes care that nothing in a society should ever be wholly old, and that nothing should ever be wholly new. This is the means of the conservation of a nation, quite as it is the means of conservation of a living organism. Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change, depend upon the circumstances of an age and a nation.”
Love You Live
Kirk’s words compelled Restoration Republicans to empathetically assess our nation’s age and circumstances; and ponder the direction and scope of the changes our American community requires.
In making these determinations, Restoration Republicans draw parallels between and inspiration from America’s “Greatest Generation.”
Our Greatest Generation faced and surmounted a quartet of generational challenges born of industrialization:
1) Economic, social, and political upheavals;
2) A second world war against abject evil;
3) The rise of the Soviet “super-state” as a strategic threat and rival model of governance; and
4) The civil rights movement’s moral struggle to equally ensure the God given and constitutionally recognized rights of all Americans.
Today, our generation of Americans must confront and transcend a quartet of generational challenges born of globalization:
1) Economic, social and political upheavals;
2) A third world war against abject evil;
3) The rise of the communist Chinese “super-state” as a strategic threat and rival model of governance; and
4) Moral relativism’s erosion of our nation’s foundational, self-evident truths.
The critical difference between the challenges conquered by the Greatest Generation and the challenges crises confronting our generation of Americans is this: they faced their crises consecutively; we face our crises simultaneously.
In response to these generational challenges to our free republic, Restoration Republicans have drawn upon the roots of their philosophical conservatism to affirm the truth America does not exist to emulate others, America exists to inspire the world; and to advance the policy paradigm of American Excellence, which rests upon a foundation of liberty, and the four cornerstones of sovereignty, security, prosperity and verities.
Individually and collectively, American Excellence’s foundation and four cornerstones are reinforced by these policy principles:
1) Our liberty is granted not by the pen of a government bureaucrat, but is authored by the hand of almighty God.
2) Our sovereignty rests not in our soil, but in our souls.
3) Our security is guaranteed not by the thin hopes of appeasement, but by the moral and physical courage of our troops defending us in hours of maximum danger;
4) Our prosperity is produced not by the tax hikes and spending sprees of politicians, but by the innovation and perspiration of free people engaged in free enterprise.
5) Our cherished truths and communal virtues are preserved and observed not by a coerced political correctness, but by our reverent citizenry’s voluntary celebration of the culture of life.
Restoration Republicans conclude, therefore, we must be Champions of American Freedom in challenging new millennium to keep our America a community of destiny inspired and guided by the virtuous genius of our free people; and forever blessed by the unfathomable grace of God.
Metamorphosis
It will not be easy, given the root public policy question of our times. In the Age of Industrialization, President Theodore Roosevelt empathized with Americans’ feelings of powerlessness in the face of the economic, social and political forces radically altering or terminating their traditional, typically agrarian, lives. Writing years later in his book A Humane Economy, the economist Wilhelm Ropke examined the impacts upon human beings by these forces, which he collectively termed “mass society”:
“(T)he disintegration of the social structure (generates) a profound upheaval in the outward conditions of each individual’s life, thought, and work. Independence is smothered; men are uprooted and taken out of the close-woven social texture in which they were secure; true communities are broken up in favor of more universal but impersonal collectivities in which the individual is no longer a person in this own right; the inward, spontaneous social fabric is loosened in favor of mechanical, soulless organization, with its outward compulsion; all individuality is reduced to one plane of uniform normality; the area of individual action, decision, and responsibility shrinks in favor of collective planning and decision; the whole of life becomes uniform and standard mass life, ever more subject to party politics, ‘nationalization,’ and ‘socialization.’”
In that epoch, the root public policy question was how to protect Americans’ traditional rights to order, justice, and freedom from being usurped by corporate or governmental centralization. Aware of this quandary, T.R. responded by taming an emerging capitalist oligarchy which considered itself above the laws and, thereby, soothing the economic, social, and political anxieties of urban industrial workers which threatened the stability of our free republic. Over time, from T.R.’s seminal efforts arose the industrial-welfare state which, in a tenuous detente, divided solutions to Americans’ economic and social upheavals between and within both centralized corporations and government.
No Security
In this Age of Globalization, however, while Americans are vexed by their seeming inability to influence the potent economic, social and political forces radically reshaping their lives, American corporations are busy decentralizing into “virtual corporations” reliant upon the outsourcing of jobs to other nations to obtain lower labor costs and evade cumbersome domestic laws and regulations. Such “rootless capital” being sent around the world in a keystroke to more “competitive markets” has cost Americans their livelihoods; reduced their wages and employer provided benefits; diminished their unions’ memberships; eclipsed their optimism regarding our economy’s continued vitality; and, in cases of extreme economic distress and angst, destroyed their marriages and dreams for their children.
The failure to realize the seismic ramifications to normal Americans of this tectonic economic shift was a primary cause of the Cashocracy’s collapse. As rising corporate profits and Wall Street bull markets became increasingly divorced from working Americans’ prosperity, the Cashocrats clung ever more tightly to their corporate benefactors without grasping Americans had concluded what is “good for GM” is no longer necessarily good for them.
The advent of virtual corporations and transient international capital has ended the old industrial-welfare state model of governance, wherein solutions to Americans’ economic and social anxieties were the shared burdens of centralized corporations and government. The stark choice is now between increasing the centralized power of the federal government or decentralization power into the hands of individuals, families and communities.
Steel Wheels
In their urgency to replace their lost or slashed corporate benefits, Americans will be sorely tempted to further centralize federal government to do it. But expanding the authority and compulsory powers of the federal government will be injurious to the American people. Big government doesn’t stop chaos; big government is chaos. By usurping the rightful powers of individuals beneath its bureaucracy’s steel wheels, highly centralized government alienates individuals and atomizes communities. Once more, Ropke speaks to the heart of the matter:
“The temptation of centrism has been great at all times, as regards both theory and political action. It is the temptation of mechanical perfection and of uniformity at the expense of freedom. Perhaps Montesquieu was right when he said that it is the small minds, above all, which succumb to this temptation. Once the mania of uniformity and centralization spreads and once the centrists begin to lay down the law of the land, then we are in the presence of one of the most serious danger signals warning us of the impending loss of freedom, humanity, and the health of society.”
Only liberty unleashes Americans to establish the true roots of a holistic American order – the voluntary and virtuous individual, familial, and communal associations which invigorate and instruct a free people conquering challenges. In contrast, centralized and, thus, inherently unaccountable government suffocates liberty, order and justice by smothering and severing citizens’ voluntary bonds within mediating, non-governmental institutions; and, thereby, stifles our free people’s individual and collective solutions to challenges. In consequence, the temptation for more centralized government must be fought to prevent turning sovereign Americans from the masters of their destiny into the serfs of governmental dependency.
Hot Rocks
Fully versed in this verity, Restoration Republicans have made their decision – power to the people. Thus, in this Age of Globalization, Restoration Republicans vow to:
1) Empower the sovereign American people to protect and promote their God-given and constitutionally recognized and protected rights.
2) Promote the decentralization of federal governmental powers to the American people or to their most appropriate and closest unit of government.
3) Defend Americans’ enduring moral order of faith, family, community and country from all enemies.
4) Foster a dynamic market economy of entrepreneurial opportunity for all Americans.
5) Honor and nurture a “humanity of scale” in Americans’ relations and endeavors.
Further, while these Restoration Republicans will be releasing a more detailed program in the future, the above will form the basis of their concrete policy proposals.
Get Your Ya-Ya’s Out
Mister/Madam Speaker,
My constituents are honest, hard-working, and intelligent people who are bearing the brunt of the generational challenges facing our nation. They have lost manufacturing and every manner of jobs due to globalization and, especially, the predatory trade practices of communist China. Throughout these economically anxious times, they spend sleepless nights wondering if they will be able to afford to keep their jobs; their houses; their health care; their hopes for their children. In the War for Freedom, they have buried, mourned, and honored their loved ones lost in the battle against our nation and all of civilization’s barbaric enemies. And, every day, they struggle to make sense of an increasingly perverse culture disdainful of and destructive to faith, truths, virtue and beauty, if the existence of these permanent things is even admitted.
True, they differ on specific solutions to their pressing issues. But they do agree Washington isn’t serving their concerns. They agree this storied representative institution is increasingly detached from the daily realities of their lives. And they remind me that when we enter this House – Their House – we enter as guests, who must honor the leap of faith they took in letting us in and allowing us to serve them.
With my constituents, I utterly agree. While it is not my purpose here to discuss the majority party, let me be clear as to my own: House Republicans have no business practicing business as usual. My constituents, our country, and this Congress deserve better.
And we will provide it!
Our Republican minority has members who know America isn’t an economy, America is a country.
Our Republican minority has members who know the only thing worth measuring in money is greed.
Our Republican minority has members with the heart to put individuals ahead of abstractions; people ahead of politics; souls ahead of systems.
Our Republican minority has members who have seen sorrow seep down a widow’s cheek and joy shine from a child’s eyes.
Yes, our Republican minority has members who know our deeds on behalf of our sovereign constituents must accord with Wordsworth’s poetic prayer:
“And then a wish: my best and favorite aspiration mounts with yearning toward some higher song of philosophic truth which cherishes our daily lives.”
It is these Republicans whose service in this Congress will redeem our party by honoring the sacred trust of the majestic American people who, in their virtuous genius, will transcend these transformational times and strengthen our exceptional nation’s revolutionary experiment in human freedom.
With these Republicans, I hereby throw in my lot and pledge my best efforts on behalf of my constituents and our country.
May God continue to grace, guard, guide and bless our community of destiny, the United States of America.
He gave a speech last night on the House floor that I happened to catch on C-SPAN, and it was brutally honest look back at recent GOP history, and what needs to change and how to go about changing things for the better in the GOP.
I think that, on many points, McCotter is right on. I like his coining of the term "Restorative Republicans", as that is a good description of what I consider myself to be.
Here is the text of the speech, courtesy of McCotter's House website.
"Let It Bleed: Restoring the Republican Party"
Mister/Madam Speaker,
As my Republican party completes its first year in the minority since 1994, we find ourselves held in historically low regard by the sovereign American people.
To end this trend, Republicans must accurately assess our party’s past and present failings; and its future prospects of again providing Americans a meaningful choice between the major parties. This remains, after all, a party’s duty to the citizenry.
For my GOP to fulfill it, first we must bury our ideological dead.
Aftermath
Safely on this side of the cleansing mists of memory, it is chic to eulogize the late Republican majority. From the chattering class few insights emerge, for in the aftermath, only poetry is an apt epitaph:
The world is too much with us,
Late and soon;
Getting and spending we lay waste our powers;
Little we see in nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away –
A sordid boon!
Such was the Republican bathos: a transformational majority sinned and slipped into a transactional “Cashocracy” – promises, policies, principles, all bartered, even honor. The majority now is of the ages, may it rest in peace...
And be redeemed.
Dirty Work
Once, George Santayana cautioned: “Those who do not learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.” If our current Republican minority guilefully refutes or gutlessly refuses to admit, accept, and atone for the bitter fruits of its lapsed majority, it will continue to decline in the eyes of the American electorate. Thus, for the sake of our nation in this time of transformation, we must fully and frankly examine and understand the cardinal causes of the Republican majority’s recent demise; and, sadder but wiser, commence our Republican minority’s restoration as a transformation political movement serving the sovereign citizens of our free republic.
Through the Past Darkly
Big Hits and Fazed Cookies
To begin, we must retrace our steps down a darkened alley of broken hopes to glean the essence of our party’s headier times, big hits and fazed cookies.
Though many of its legislative leaders may moot the point, two Presidents caused the 1994 Republican Revolution: Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
The members of 1995’s new Republican Majority were Ronald Regan’s political children. From President Reagan, Republican Congressional revolutionaries inherited a philosophy of “politics as the art of the possible.” Cogently expressed by conservative intellectuals ranging from Edmund Burke to Russell Kirk, this philosophy’s central tenets held:
1) Men and women are transcendent children of God endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.
2) Government was instituted to defend citizens’ inalienable rights and facilitate citizens’ pursuit of the good and of true happiness.
3) Over the generations, Divine Providence has established and revealed through tradition, prescriptive rights and custom within communities how order, justice, and freedom – each essential, co-equal and mutually reinforcing – are best arranged and nurtured for humanity to pursue the good and true happiness.
4) Human happiness is endangered by every political ideology, for each is premised upon abstract ideas; each claims a superior insight into human nature not revealed through historical experience; each proffers a secular utopia unobtainable by an imperfect humanity; and, each demands an omnipotent, centralized government to forcefully impose its vision upon an “unenlightened” and unwilling population.
This is the political philosophy and resulting public policies a once impoverished youth from Dixon, Illinois, Ronald Reagan, engagingly articulated to America throughout his Presidency in the 1980s. By 1994, the American people who, having taken Reagan at Russell Kirk’s word that “conservatism is the negation of ideology” and remembering its beneficent impact upon their daily lives, yearned for its return. For self-described Congressional Republican revolutionaries, this formed fertile electoral ground (one shaped as well, it must be admitted, by a host of unheralded and immensely talented GOP redistricting attorneys). But like all revolutions, the piece required a villain.
Enter President Clinton.
Exuberant at having defeated an incumbent President George H. W. Bush, Clinton mistook a mandate against his predecessor as a mandate for his own craftily concealed liberalism. In his first two years in the oval office, this mistake led Clinton to over-reach on “kitchen table” issues, such as raising taxes and socializing medicine. Daily, the four-decade old Democratic Congressional majority abetted Clinton’s radical policies; and across the political spectrum voters seethed.
Congressional Republicans bided their time, planned their revolution, and seized their moment. Led by their spell-binding and abrasive guru from Georgia, Congressional Republicans unveiled their “Contract with America” to much popular – if not pundit – acclaim.
Though much mythologized, if it is to prove instructive for the present Republican minority, this Contract can and must be placed in its proper perspective. A musical analogy is most elucidating.
When a reporter once praised the Beatles for producing Rock’s first “concept album,” Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, John Lennon curtly corrected him: “It was a concept album because we said it was.” Lennon’s point was this: yes, the Beatles had originally set out to produce a concept album; but early in their sessions the band dropped any conceits to creating a concept album and recorded whatever songs were on hand. Recognizing their failure, the Beatles tacked on a final song, Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise), to engender the illusion they had, after all, created a “concept album.” Importantly, when the band later tried to produce a true “concept album” and accompanying film, Magical Mystery Tour, the lackluster result was one of the Beatles’ few failed artistic ventures.
Similarly, Congressional Republicans’ “Contract with America” was a collection of specific policy proposals and concrete grievances against the incumbent Democratic President and his legislative allies. It possessed merely an implicit philosophy (one obviously harkening back to Reagan). Even less than Sergeant Pepper, the individual tracks of which have (mostly) stood the test of time, today many of the Contract’s specific proposals sound dated. But like Sergeant Pepper, what endures about the Contract is the fact it was marketed as a revolutionary “concept” in governance. Of course, it is not. The Contract was a suitable period piece which served its purpose – the election of Congressional Republicans in sufficient numbers to attain our party’s first majority in forty years. Nevertheless the Contact’s lack of a clearly enunciated political philosophy with immutable principles sowed the seeds of the subsequent Republican Devolution.
Therefore, if the current Republican minority buys into the myth and makes the Contract the basis of a derivative “concept” agenda, the GOP will be condemned to another forty-year Magical Mystery Tour through the political wilderness.
Out of Our Heads
This is not to say the members of 1995’s new Republican majority lacked a political philosophy or immutable principles. Quite the contrary: these members were steeped in the Reagan tradition. But after an initial rush of laudable accomplishments, the members found themselves trapped by the Contract’s inherent pragmatism and particularity. Absent a philosophical anchor in the Contract, members drifted into the grind of governance, which distorted Reagan’s philosophical principles for public policy into non-binding precedents for political popularity. Exacerbating this process, the new majority’s leaders, exuberant at having defeated an incumbent Democratic Congressional majority, mistook a mandate against their predecessors as a mandate for their own finitely posited conservatism. In its first two years in control of the House, this led the majority’s leaders to erroneously conclude it could govern as a parliament, rather than as a Congress equivalent in power to the executive branch; and they over-reached on key issues, most notably in the shut down of the United States government over the issue of spending. Artfully framed by President Clinton with sufficient plausibility as an irresponsible Republican ideological attack on good government, this moment marked the beginning of the Republican majority’s end - in point of fact, from the government shutdown to the present the House GOP Conference has never had as many members as it did in 1995.
Some persist in too facilely dismissing this Republican debacle as being due to Clinton’s superior messaging of the issue from his bully pulpit. This analysis is errant. The reason Clinton succeeded is the kernel of truth he wielded on this issue: House Republican leaders had stopped governing prudently in accordance with Reagan’s political philosophy of politics being the art of the possible and, instead, started acting belligerently in an ideological manner against the public’s interest. It is no an accident this battle fundamentally affected Clinton’s thinking and spurred his reinvention from a liberal ideologue into a pragmatic problem-solver and proponent of “good government.” Unfortunately, Clinton’s publicly applauded posturing as a “centrist” incensed the Republican majority; and accelerated their efforts to differentiate themselves from an unprincipled President by being increasingly ideological, which they confuted with being principled.
As this ideological fever progressed through 1996, too late did the new majority’s members intuit the political cost to candidates considered “ideologues.” The Republicans’ majority did survive the partisan carnage of Clinton’s overwhelming 1996 re-election, but the cycle’s cumulative effect was lasting and damning. Without gawking at the gruesome minutia of each ensuing GOP ideological purge and internal coup instigated by this election, we can note it spawned the unseemly political perversion of the House Republicans’ transformational majority into a transactional “Cashocracy.”
Beggars Banquet
Hubristically deemed by its leading denizens as a “Permanent Majority,” the GOP Cashocracy was a Beggars’ Banquet at taxpayers’ expense. The Cashocracy’s sole goal was its own perpetuation; and its Cashocrats and High Priests of Money-theism myopically chased this aim through pragmatic corporatism and political machinations.
Obviously, the Cashocracy’s cardinal vice was its conviction to survive for its own sake. Curiously, this is not the height of arrogance; it is the height of insecurity. Aware it stood for nothing but election, the Cashocracy knew anything could topple it. This fear cancerously compelled the poll-driven Cashocrats to grope for ephemeral popularity by abandoning immutable principles. Materialist to their core and devoid of empathy, the Cashocrats routinely ignored the centrality to governmental policies of transcendent human beings.
A Bigger Bang
This Cashocracy’s first cardinal facilitated its second: pragmatic corporatism. Ensconced in insular power, the GOP Leadership lived the lives of the rich and famous, despite their middling personal means, due to their new-found friends in the corporate and lobbying community. Cut off from Main Street, these GOP leaders embraced “K Street.” The desire was mutual, and the corporatists’ influence grew gradually but ineluctably. Closed within a corporatist echo chamber, the GOP majority became deadened to the tribulations and aspirations of real Americans, and came to measure the “success” of its pragmatic policies by their reception on K Street. Reams of measures spewed forth prioritizing the interests of multi-national corporations over the needs of middle class Americans.
In fairness, even without the Cashocrats’ incessant inducements, blandishments and bullying, the majority of GOP members truly did feel they were promoting the interests of their constituents. This belief was insidiously sustained by the Cashocrats grafting their pragmatic corporatism onto the philosophy of economic determinism. It was not an unforeseeable development. Akin to their conservative brethren who after the fall of the Soviet Union proclaimed the “End of History,” House Republicans convinced themselves the ideology of democratic capitalism was an unstoppable deterministic force predestined to conquer the world; and, on their part, they viewed their job as hastening its triumph and preparing Americans to cope with its consequences. Combined with the Cashocracy’s insatiable need of corporate contributions for its sustenance, this adherence to ideological democratic capitalism reveals how the Republican House majority helped President Clinton (whom they had unknowingly come to emulate and, likely loathe ever more because of it) grant the Permanent Normalization of Trade Relations to Communist China. With this enact of this legislation, the Cashocracy reached its political zenith and moral nadir, for it did not shape globalization to suit Americans’ interests; it had shaped Americans’ interests to suit globalization.
Sticky Fingers
The handsome rewards for such “courageous” legislation fueled the Cashocracy’s third vice, avarice. The process was both seductive and simple, especially in a materialistic town forsaking the qualitative measurement of virtue for the quantitative measurement of money. While this temptation is to be expected in a city where politicians “prove” their moral superiority by spending other people’s money, it was equally to be expected Republicans would collectively resist it.
They didn’t.
Earmarks, which began as a cost-saving reform to prevent federal bureaucrats from controlling and wasting taxpayers’ money in contravention of express Congressional intent, spiraled out of control once the Cashocrats and their K-Street cronies realized the process could be manipulated to direct any appropriation, however undeserving, to any client, however questionable. In turn, political contributions materialized from the recipients of these earmarks for the members on both sides of the aisle who dropped them into legislation, often times without the knowledge of or the appropriate review by their peers. The passage of policy bills, too, increasingly mirrored the earmark process, as special interest provisions were slipped into the dimmer recesses of bills in the dead of night. The outcome of this fiscal chicanery was an escalation of the K-Street contributions the Cashocracy required to attain its aim of perpetuating itself in power; and of the illegal perks required to sate the more venal tastes of some morally challenged members who are now paying their debts to society.
Black and Blue
Cumulatively, in addition to rendering it morally bankrupt, these three vices left the Cashocracy intellectually impotent. Tellingly, within this less than subtle and manifestly sinister system of earmarks and contributions, the Cashocrats’ greased the skids for their legislative “favors” by relegating the majority’s younger members to voting rather than legislating; ignoring these members’ qualitative virtues, ideals and talents; measuring these members by the quantitative standard of how much money they raised; and, thereby, condemning these members to the status of highly paid telemarketers. Having squandered this infusion of youthful energy and insight, the Cashocrats hailed the election of Republican President George W. Bush and handed him the nation’s legislative agenda.
At first, the Cashocrats’ subordination of their separate, equal branch of government to the executive branch bore dividends. But by 2006, when the failures of the Iraq War’s reconstruction policy and Hurricane Katrina’s emergency relief torpedoed Bush’s popularity, the latent danger to the Cashocrats of hitching their SUVs to the fortunes of a President was evident. Precluded from tying its vicarious popularity to Bush’s coat tails, the Cashocracy teetered beneath the gale force invective of the Democrats’ campaign mantra the Congressional Republican majority was “a culture of corruption” slothfully content to “rubber stamp” the failed policies of an unpopular President. Panic stricken, the politically tone-deaf Cashocrats urged GOP members to tout America’s “robust economy” and attack Democrats on national security issues. The innately materialist economic argument was doomed to fail, because the “robust” economy was not to be found in regions like the Northeast and Midwest. The latter argument proved unconvincing to an electorate convinced Iraq and New Orleans were GOP national security fiascos. And, finally, nothing could persuade an outraged electorate to return a Republican majority which, in the interests of perpetuating itself in power, failed to protect House pages from predatory members of Congress.
By election day the public had concluded the Republican majority cared more about corporations than Americans; and, when the tsunami hit, the Cashocracy crumbled down upon many now former GOP members, who became the last, blameless victims of its stolid cupidity.
In hindsight, the Cashocracy would best have heeded President Theodore Roosevelt’s warning:
“The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.”
Exile on Main Street
December’s Children
Straggling back to Washington for the Republican Revolution’s death vigil, the 2006 election’s surviving GOP members bid anguished goodbyes to defeated friends and struggled to make sense of it all. Dazed and confused, some members managed to grasp the reality of their newly minted minority, while some still grapple with it. Out of this former group, a distinct vision has emerged concerning how House Republicans can revitalize and redeem themselves in the estimation of their fellow Americans.
Got Live if You Want It
“Restoration Republicans” are best considered Reagan’s grandchildren. Like their Reagan-Democratic parents, Restoration Republicans were attracted to our party by the intellectual, cultural, and moral components and proven practical benefits of philosophical conservatism. Transcending talking points and political cant, these Restoration Republicans’ are devoted to restoring human soul’s centrality to public policy decisions; and focusing these policies on preserving and perpetuating the permanent things of our evanescent earthly existence which surpass all politics in importance.
The enduring ideals of Restoration Republicans are succinctly enumerated by Russell Kirk in his book, The Politics of Prudence:
1) The conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.
2) The conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.
3) Conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription – that is, of things established by immemorial usage.
4) Conservatives are guided by the principle of prudence.
5) Conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.
6) Conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.
7) Conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.
8) Conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.
9) The Conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passion.
10) The thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.
Given how the Cashocracy repeatedly violated these principles during its descent into oblivion, and how the Democrats’ 2006 consequent rallying cry was “change,” this tenth ideal merits deeper contemplation. For to understand it fully is to fully understand why Restoration Republicans, who are convinced we live amidst a crucible of liberty, proclaim our minority must emulate and implement the philosophical conservatism of Ronald Reagan and the fiery integrity of Theodore Roosevelt in the cause of empowering Americans and strengthening their eternal institutions of faith, family, community and country. Again, Kirk:
“Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He [or she] thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he [or she] is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.
“Change is essential to the body social, the conservative reasons, just as it is essential to the human body. A body that has ceases to renew itself has begun to die. But if that body is to be vigorous, the change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of that body; otherwise change produces a monstrous growth, a cancer, which devours its host. The conservative takes care that nothing in a society should ever be wholly old, and that nothing should ever be wholly new. This is the means of the conservation of a nation, quite as it is the means of conservation of a living organism. Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change, depend upon the circumstances of an age and a nation.”
Love You Live
Kirk’s words compelled Restoration Republicans to empathetically assess our nation’s age and circumstances; and ponder the direction and scope of the changes our American community requires.
In making these determinations, Restoration Republicans draw parallels between and inspiration from America’s “Greatest Generation.”
Our Greatest Generation faced and surmounted a quartet of generational challenges born of industrialization:
1) Economic, social, and political upheavals;
2) A second world war against abject evil;
3) The rise of the Soviet “super-state” as a strategic threat and rival model of governance; and
4) The civil rights movement’s moral struggle to equally ensure the God given and constitutionally recognized rights of all Americans.
Today, our generation of Americans must confront and transcend a quartet of generational challenges born of globalization:
1) Economic, social and political upheavals;
2) A third world war against abject evil;
3) The rise of the communist Chinese “super-state” as a strategic threat and rival model of governance; and
4) Moral relativism’s erosion of our nation’s foundational, self-evident truths.
The critical difference between the challenges conquered by the Greatest Generation and the challenges crises confronting our generation of Americans is this: they faced their crises consecutively; we face our crises simultaneously.
In response to these generational challenges to our free republic, Restoration Republicans have drawn upon the roots of their philosophical conservatism to affirm the truth America does not exist to emulate others, America exists to inspire the world; and to advance the policy paradigm of American Excellence, which rests upon a foundation of liberty, and the four cornerstones of sovereignty, security, prosperity and verities.
Individually and collectively, American Excellence’s foundation and four cornerstones are reinforced by these policy principles:
1) Our liberty is granted not by the pen of a government bureaucrat, but is authored by the hand of almighty God.
2) Our sovereignty rests not in our soil, but in our souls.
3) Our security is guaranteed not by the thin hopes of appeasement, but by the moral and physical courage of our troops defending us in hours of maximum danger;
4) Our prosperity is produced not by the tax hikes and spending sprees of politicians, but by the innovation and perspiration of free people engaged in free enterprise.
5) Our cherished truths and communal virtues are preserved and observed not by a coerced political correctness, but by our reverent citizenry’s voluntary celebration of the culture of life.
Restoration Republicans conclude, therefore, we must be Champions of American Freedom in challenging new millennium to keep our America a community of destiny inspired and guided by the virtuous genius of our free people; and forever blessed by the unfathomable grace of God.
Metamorphosis
It will not be easy, given the root public policy question of our times. In the Age of Industrialization, President Theodore Roosevelt empathized with Americans’ feelings of powerlessness in the face of the economic, social and political forces radically altering or terminating their traditional, typically agrarian, lives. Writing years later in his book A Humane Economy, the economist Wilhelm Ropke examined the impacts upon human beings by these forces, which he collectively termed “mass society”:
“(T)he disintegration of the social structure (generates) a profound upheaval in the outward conditions of each individual’s life, thought, and work. Independence is smothered; men are uprooted and taken out of the close-woven social texture in which they were secure; true communities are broken up in favor of more universal but impersonal collectivities in which the individual is no longer a person in this own right; the inward, spontaneous social fabric is loosened in favor of mechanical, soulless organization, with its outward compulsion; all individuality is reduced to one plane of uniform normality; the area of individual action, decision, and responsibility shrinks in favor of collective planning and decision; the whole of life becomes uniform and standard mass life, ever more subject to party politics, ‘nationalization,’ and ‘socialization.’”
In that epoch, the root public policy question was how to protect Americans’ traditional rights to order, justice, and freedom from being usurped by corporate or governmental centralization. Aware of this quandary, T.R. responded by taming an emerging capitalist oligarchy which considered itself above the laws and, thereby, soothing the economic, social, and political anxieties of urban industrial workers which threatened the stability of our free republic. Over time, from T.R.’s seminal efforts arose the industrial-welfare state which, in a tenuous detente, divided solutions to Americans’ economic and social upheavals between and within both centralized corporations and government.
No Security
In this Age of Globalization, however, while Americans are vexed by their seeming inability to influence the potent economic, social and political forces radically reshaping their lives, American corporations are busy decentralizing into “virtual corporations” reliant upon the outsourcing of jobs to other nations to obtain lower labor costs and evade cumbersome domestic laws and regulations. Such “rootless capital” being sent around the world in a keystroke to more “competitive markets” has cost Americans their livelihoods; reduced their wages and employer provided benefits; diminished their unions’ memberships; eclipsed their optimism regarding our economy’s continued vitality; and, in cases of extreme economic distress and angst, destroyed their marriages and dreams for their children.
The failure to realize the seismic ramifications to normal Americans of this tectonic economic shift was a primary cause of the Cashocracy’s collapse. As rising corporate profits and Wall Street bull markets became increasingly divorced from working Americans’ prosperity, the Cashocrats clung ever more tightly to their corporate benefactors without grasping Americans had concluded what is “good for GM” is no longer necessarily good for them.
The advent of virtual corporations and transient international capital has ended the old industrial-welfare state model of governance, wherein solutions to Americans’ economic and social anxieties were the shared burdens of centralized corporations and government. The stark choice is now between increasing the centralized power of the federal government or decentralization power into the hands of individuals, families and communities.
Steel Wheels
In their urgency to replace their lost or slashed corporate benefits, Americans will be sorely tempted to further centralize federal government to do it. But expanding the authority and compulsory powers of the federal government will be injurious to the American people. Big government doesn’t stop chaos; big government is chaos. By usurping the rightful powers of individuals beneath its bureaucracy’s steel wheels, highly centralized government alienates individuals and atomizes communities. Once more, Ropke speaks to the heart of the matter:
“The temptation of centrism has been great at all times, as regards both theory and political action. It is the temptation of mechanical perfection and of uniformity at the expense of freedom. Perhaps Montesquieu was right when he said that it is the small minds, above all, which succumb to this temptation. Once the mania of uniformity and centralization spreads and once the centrists begin to lay down the law of the land, then we are in the presence of one of the most serious danger signals warning us of the impending loss of freedom, humanity, and the health of society.”
Only liberty unleashes Americans to establish the true roots of a holistic American order – the voluntary and virtuous individual, familial, and communal associations which invigorate and instruct a free people conquering challenges. In contrast, centralized and, thus, inherently unaccountable government suffocates liberty, order and justice by smothering and severing citizens’ voluntary bonds within mediating, non-governmental institutions; and, thereby, stifles our free people’s individual and collective solutions to challenges. In consequence, the temptation for more centralized government must be fought to prevent turning sovereign Americans from the masters of their destiny into the serfs of governmental dependency.
Hot Rocks
Fully versed in this verity, Restoration Republicans have made their decision – power to the people. Thus, in this Age of Globalization, Restoration Republicans vow to:
1) Empower the sovereign American people to protect and promote their God-given and constitutionally recognized and protected rights.
2) Promote the decentralization of federal governmental powers to the American people or to their most appropriate and closest unit of government.
3) Defend Americans’ enduring moral order of faith, family, community and country from all enemies.
4) Foster a dynamic market economy of entrepreneurial opportunity for all Americans.
5) Honor and nurture a “humanity of scale” in Americans’ relations and endeavors.
Further, while these Restoration Republicans will be releasing a more detailed program in the future, the above will form the basis of their concrete policy proposals.
Get Your Ya-Ya’s Out
Mister/Madam Speaker,
My constituents are honest, hard-working, and intelligent people who are bearing the brunt of the generational challenges facing our nation. They have lost manufacturing and every manner of jobs due to globalization and, especially, the predatory trade practices of communist China. Throughout these economically anxious times, they spend sleepless nights wondering if they will be able to afford to keep their jobs; their houses; their health care; their hopes for their children. In the War for Freedom, they have buried, mourned, and honored their loved ones lost in the battle against our nation and all of civilization’s barbaric enemies. And, every day, they struggle to make sense of an increasingly perverse culture disdainful of and destructive to faith, truths, virtue and beauty, if the existence of these permanent things is even admitted.
True, they differ on specific solutions to their pressing issues. But they do agree Washington isn’t serving their concerns. They agree this storied representative institution is increasingly detached from the daily realities of their lives. And they remind me that when we enter this House – Their House – we enter as guests, who must honor the leap of faith they took in letting us in and allowing us to serve them.
With my constituents, I utterly agree. While it is not my purpose here to discuss the majority party, let me be clear as to my own: House Republicans have no business practicing business as usual. My constituents, our country, and this Congress deserve better.
And we will provide it!
Our Republican minority has members who know America isn’t an economy, America is a country.
Our Republican minority has members who know the only thing worth measuring in money is greed.
Our Republican minority has members with the heart to put individuals ahead of abstractions; people ahead of politics; souls ahead of systems.
Our Republican minority has members who have seen sorrow seep down a widow’s cheek and joy shine from a child’s eyes.
Yes, our Republican minority has members who know our deeds on behalf of our sovereign constituents must accord with Wordsworth’s poetic prayer:
“And then a wish: my best and favorite aspiration mounts with yearning toward some higher song of philosophic truth which cherishes our daily lives.”
It is these Republicans whose service in this Congress will redeem our party by honoring the sacred trust of the majestic American people who, in their virtuous genius, will transcend these transformational times and strengthen our exceptional nation’s revolutionary experiment in human freedom.
With these Republicans, I hereby throw in my lot and pledge my best efforts on behalf of my constituents and our country.
May God continue to grace, guard, guide and bless our community of destiny, the United States of America.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Oh SNAP!
So Greg B. at Daily Whackjob has uncovered who was behind the plot to link the Old Dominion Blog Alliance to NAMBLA via a redirected website link.
It's none other than Joe Stanley of Yellow Dog Strategy, and the media strategist behind the campaigns of such Democrats as Jim Webb and Roscoe Reynolds. Not-so-ironically, he is also good friends with one Ben Tribbett, who you know as Not Larry Sabato. If not Joe Stanley, it is one of his employees.
Now, if you remember, Joe Stanley was behind the Webb campaign flyer that many viewed as anti-Semitic towards Harris Miller, Webb's primary opponent in 2006. Roscoe Reynolds recently hired Yellow Dog Strategy in his struggle for reelection to the State Senate in the 20th District against Jeff Evans. Stanley's company is also working for Eric Ferguson, who has previously been featured on advertisements at NLS.
Interesting...I wonder what Ben's reaction to this is going to be?
It's none other than Joe Stanley of Yellow Dog Strategy, and the media strategist behind the campaigns of such Democrats as Jim Webb and Roscoe Reynolds. Not-so-ironically, he is also good friends with one Ben Tribbett, who you know as Not Larry Sabato. If not Joe Stanley, it is one of his employees.
Now, if you remember, Joe Stanley was behind the Webb campaign flyer that many viewed as anti-Semitic towards Harris Miller, Webb's primary opponent in 2006. Roscoe Reynolds recently hired Yellow Dog Strategy in his struggle for reelection to the State Senate in the 20th District against Jeff Evans. Stanley's company is also working for Eric Ferguson, who has previously been featured on advertisements at NLS.
Interesting...I wonder what Ben's reaction to this is going to be?
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Weekly Podium - "No Mo' Rove"
(Cross-posted at The New Dominion)
On August 31st, one of the most prevalent and controversial figures of the past 7 years will leave the White House and the side of President Bush.
There you have it, the understatement of the year.
Karl Rove has been many things while working for the Bush Administration. He's been a political genius, a master of backroom politics, controversial, confrontational, and highly influential.
His influence in getting George W. Bush elected in 2000 was notable; his work on Bush's reelection in 2004 was near-historic. Despite doubts and struggles in Iraq, and a rabid anti-conservative sentiment amongst liberals, he managed to guide Bush to an indisputable victory over John Kerry despite having greater obstacles standing in Bush's path to victory.
His influence has earned him nicknames like "Boy Genius" (for his fair-haired, round-faced appearance), "Evil Genius" (mostly by Democrats), and other "genius"-related titles. Love him or hate him, you can't deny that the man was smart when it came to pulling strings and making power moves.
The question that remains, though, is if Rove has had any kind of a long-term positive impact on the national GOP, or will his efforts prove to be detrimental to the future of the Republican Party.
Rove did do our whole nation a big favor, in my personal opinion, by keeping us from a minimum of 4 years under John Kerry. I know that many Republicans (and a few Democrats who didn't care for Kerry) that would agree with that sentiment. Rove also knew how to motivate certain sectors of the GOP to gain support when needed, especially the hawkish conservatives for war issues and evangelicals on social issues.
In a recent interview with Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal, Rove stated that he believes that President Bush (and himself, of course) have done a lot to keep the GOP alive nationally, and that a positive legacy for the Republican Party will endure from this presidency.
To an extent, Rove is right. A focus on preventing terrorism within our borders and within the borders of our allies has become of higher importance and will be so for a long time. It was the 2004 Bush reelection that allowed for the nomination of conservative judges John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, which is a lifetime position.
However, Rove has been a big part of some of the Republican Party's biggest disappointments and embarrassing fiascoes.
He was a big part of the Valerie Plame debacle (although, let's be honest, Richard Armitage was the man that should have been targeted first, foremost, and above all...and he wasn't). His name is popping up as part of the Alberto Gonzales witch hunt. It has been noted that one of those who were poorly advising President Bush on Iraq was Rove himself. Rove was a proponent of the Amnesty Bill, and was part of the Harriet Miers quagmire.
In his Wall Street Journal interview, Rove opines that his greatest error was not acting quickly to replace scandal-tainted Republicans in Congress, and that was a key factor in the GOP's loss of congressional power in 2006. This admission does highlight a great error of Rove's (and other GOP leaders) that could have long-lasting effects on the party.
However, in that same interview, Rove makes an observation that puts the 2006 election results into a true perspective about how leftward the nation really leans. He points out that the 15 House seats that swung control to the Democrats were decided by a combined 85,000 votes, as well as the close defeat in Montana (let's not forget the Virginia loss, which was very close, too).
Many people state that Karl Rove's campaign tactics were simply a tweaked version of what Democrats have been doing for years, and that Rove brought these tactics to the GOP. To a certain degree, I am inclined to agree...but I believe the GOP, as a whole, will eventually reject these tactics.
Rumor mills have been abound with talk that Rove may join the campaign of one of the GOP frontrunners, but Rove has dismissed these rumors. At least one campaign, Fred Thompson's, has also dismissed these statements as rumors and nothing more.
How history judges George W. Bush will have an obvious effect on how history judges Karl Rove. If Bush, long after his term is up, is seen in a more positive light in the memories of America, Rove will most likely be championed for the GOP victories from 2000 to 2004. However, should this presidency be frowned upon when America reflects, Rove's involvement in the many negative aspects of the Bush presidency will overshadow his accomplishments.
Towards the end of Rove's interview with Paul Gigot, he makes a statement that is very true, if not contradictory to some of the Bush Administration's management of the nation. Rove states that, in regards to 2008, "I don't want to be Pollyanish about it, but if we keep our nerve and represent big things, we'll win."
That is a statement that I've been trying to make for a while now, and I find it somewhat amusing that, as he walks out the doors of the White House, Rove believes the same thing...even though one would agree that the Bush presidency has been a bit more focused on the "small things" than most Republicans and conservatives would have preferred.
In reference to Rove's statement that he first floated the idea of resigning from his post a year ago, Michelle Malkin quipped, "Imagine how much better off the White House and the Republican Party might be now if he had, in fact, left a year ago."
Given the lack of success over the past year from Rove's tactics, I can't say that I disagree with Malkin's statement...and history might also agree with that, as well. One thing we cannot deny is that Karl Rove has had a lot of influence on our nation, what is debatable is how much of that influence was positive, and how much is negative.
On August 31st, one of the most prevalent and controversial figures of the past 7 years will leave the White House and the side of President Bush.
There you have it, the understatement of the year.
Karl Rove has been many things while working for the Bush Administration. He's been a political genius, a master of backroom politics, controversial, confrontational, and highly influential.
His influence in getting George W. Bush elected in 2000 was notable; his work on Bush's reelection in 2004 was near-historic. Despite doubts and struggles in Iraq, and a rabid anti-conservative sentiment amongst liberals, he managed to guide Bush to an indisputable victory over John Kerry despite having greater obstacles standing in Bush's path to victory.
His influence has earned him nicknames like "Boy Genius" (for his fair-haired, round-faced appearance), "Evil Genius" (mostly by Democrats), and other "genius"-related titles. Love him or hate him, you can't deny that the man was smart when it came to pulling strings and making power moves.
The question that remains, though, is if Rove has had any kind of a long-term positive impact on the national GOP, or will his efforts prove to be detrimental to the future of the Republican Party.
Rove did do our whole nation a big favor, in my personal opinion, by keeping us from a minimum of 4 years under John Kerry. I know that many Republicans (and a few Democrats who didn't care for Kerry) that would agree with that sentiment. Rove also knew how to motivate certain sectors of the GOP to gain support when needed, especially the hawkish conservatives for war issues and evangelicals on social issues.
In a recent interview with Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal, Rove stated that he believes that President Bush (and himself, of course) have done a lot to keep the GOP alive nationally, and that a positive legacy for the Republican Party will endure from this presidency.
To an extent, Rove is right. A focus on preventing terrorism within our borders and within the borders of our allies has become of higher importance and will be so for a long time. It was the 2004 Bush reelection that allowed for the nomination of conservative judges John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, which is a lifetime position.
However, Rove has been a big part of some of the Republican Party's biggest disappointments and embarrassing fiascoes.
He was a big part of the Valerie Plame debacle (although, let's be honest, Richard Armitage was the man that should have been targeted first, foremost, and above all...and he wasn't). His name is popping up as part of the Alberto Gonzales witch hunt. It has been noted that one of those who were poorly advising President Bush on Iraq was Rove himself. Rove was a proponent of the Amnesty Bill, and was part of the Harriet Miers quagmire.
In his Wall Street Journal interview, Rove opines that his greatest error was not acting quickly to replace scandal-tainted Republicans in Congress, and that was a key factor in the GOP's loss of congressional power in 2006. This admission does highlight a great error of Rove's (and other GOP leaders) that could have long-lasting effects on the party.
However, in that same interview, Rove makes an observation that puts the 2006 election results into a true perspective about how leftward the nation really leans. He points out that the 15 House seats that swung control to the Democrats were decided by a combined 85,000 votes, as well as the close defeat in Montana (let's not forget the Virginia loss, which was very close, too).
Many people state that Karl Rove's campaign tactics were simply a tweaked version of what Democrats have been doing for years, and that Rove brought these tactics to the GOP. To a certain degree, I am inclined to agree...but I believe the GOP, as a whole, will eventually reject these tactics.
Rumor mills have been abound with talk that Rove may join the campaign of one of the GOP frontrunners, but Rove has dismissed these rumors. At least one campaign, Fred Thompson's, has also dismissed these statements as rumors and nothing more.
How history judges George W. Bush will have an obvious effect on how history judges Karl Rove. If Bush, long after his term is up, is seen in a more positive light in the memories of America, Rove will most likely be championed for the GOP victories from 2000 to 2004. However, should this presidency be frowned upon when America reflects, Rove's involvement in the many negative aspects of the Bush presidency will overshadow his accomplishments.
Towards the end of Rove's interview with Paul Gigot, he makes a statement that is very true, if not contradictory to some of the Bush Administration's management of the nation. Rove states that, in regards to 2008, "I don't want to be Pollyanish about it, but if we keep our nerve and represent big things, we'll win."
That is a statement that I've been trying to make for a while now, and I find it somewhat amusing that, as he walks out the doors of the White House, Rove believes the same thing...even though one would agree that the Bush presidency has been a bit more focused on the "small things" than most Republicans and conservatives would have preferred.
In reference to Rove's statement that he first floated the idea of resigning from his post a year ago, Michelle Malkin quipped, "Imagine how much better off the White House and the Republican Party might be now if he had, in fact, left a year ago."
Given the lack of success over the past year from Rove's tactics, I can't say that I disagree with Malkin's statement...and history might also agree with that, as well. One thing we cannot deny is that Karl Rove has had a lot of influence on our nation, what is debatable is how much of that influence was positive, and how much is negative.
Monday, August 13, 2007
1 Year Ago Today...Jim Webb Caught a Break
The liberal bloggers are having a field day with today being the 1 year anniversary of "Macacagate". George Allen's use of a word that nobody, not even Allen, could really come up with a consensus as to what it means is what led to Allen's downfall in last year's elections.
Seriously, since nobody could come up with a real, definitive answer to what "Macaca" means, many people jumped on the "racial slur" bandwagon, even though there has been evidence to the contrary.
Nonetheless, it was a stupid move by Allen, and his mishandling of the ensuing media frenzy propped up a Jim Webb victory...because, if you had been following the polls up until that point, Allen had a solid 10-15 point lead in most polls and was holding pretty steady.
However, holding up Webb's victory as a sign of a Blue Virginia is a perfect example of propaganda for the Democrats...because really, Jim Webb did not win the election last year, George Allen simply lost it. Any revisions to the history of the 2006 U.S. Senate campaign in Virginia would be a serious abortion of justice to the facts.
Still...chalk the gross mis-handling of the "Macaca" incident to George Allen and his campaign.
Seriously, since nobody could come up with a real, definitive answer to what "Macaca" means, many people jumped on the "racial slur" bandwagon, even though there has been evidence to the contrary.
Nonetheless, it was a stupid move by Allen, and his mishandling of the ensuing media frenzy propped up a Jim Webb victory...because, if you had been following the polls up until that point, Allen had a solid 10-15 point lead in most polls and was holding pretty steady.
However, holding up Webb's victory as a sign of a Blue Virginia is a perfect example of propaganda for the Democrats...because really, Jim Webb did not win the election last year, George Allen simply lost it. Any revisions to the history of the 2006 U.S. Senate campaign in Virginia would be a serious abortion of justice to the facts.
Still...chalk the gross mis-handling of the "Macaca" incident to George Allen and his campaign.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Weekly Podium: "Don't Warm Up Yet, Fat Lady"
(Cross-posted at The New Dominion)
With the various tension-filled primaries in the state of Virginia, the GOP split over the immigration bill, and the growing discontent among conservatives with President Bush, one could see truth in the predictions from many pro-Democrat bloggers and columnists that the death of the Republican Party is all but assured at this point.
However, is it time to cue the fat lady on the GOP opera? I wouldn’t believe that just yet.
Wasn’t the same optimism about the Democratic Party’s future felt after the narrow election of Jimmy Carter in 1976? Wasn’t the same also felt when Bill Clinton was elected in 1992? Wasn’t conservatism on its way out after the Watergate scandal and the early ’90s recession?
Indeed, it was. Liberals had a bright and sunny optimism about their major party’s chances to implement a more liberal/socialist agenda (depending on how leftist they were). Both times, the White House and Capitol Hill were under Democrat control. However, both times, the GOP rallied to regain power within four years.
This is not to say that the immediate future of the GOP is entirely hopeful. The party certainly has many discontent members to answer to.
However, as I opined in the past, the Republican Party has shown that they operate best when in certain situations. The GOP functions well when they control either the legislative or executive branch of federal government - but during the six years of controlling both, they ended up dropping the ball. Some of that came from a departure from the basis of conservatism (smaller government, focus on national security and the economy), some of that came from a bit of overzealousness on the part of many party leaders.
A small revolution within the party could be a good thing for the GOP. In fact, it’s already begun. The most recent Rasmussen Reports polls show that the number of people that identify themselves as Republicans has increased notably within the past month, to 32 percent (which is a full percentage point higher). Conservatives are already beginning to look forward to find a leader that more closely represents their interests for 2008 - instead of simply going along with the current figurehead of the party, President Bush.
Another notable statistic from that poll is the fact that Republicans polled higher than Democrats when those polled were asked “Who do you trust more on immigration?” among unaffiliated voters. The GOP was, not too long ago, trusted less than the Dems on every issue asked. Now, they’ve gained more trust than their major party counterparts on the issues of national security and immigration among unaffiliated voters.
Throw in the fact that the Democrat-controlled Congress has lost 15 to 20 points of support, according to Real Clear Politics, and it seems that most of the gains the Democrats have made amongst the American public has begun to fritter away.
While the Republicans crowed about a “permanent majority” in the early part of the decade, I don’t think many of them really believed that this would lead to the eventual demise of the Democratic Party. Most conservatives understand the need for a competing party, and (sometimes grudgingly) accept their existence and their positive contributions to our society as a whole.
However, the solid-liberal and socialist wings of the Democratic Party would love nothing more than to see the demise of the opposing major party, and growing numbers of these parts of the party are making these feelings known. Socialism, in most cases, requires a one-party system to function within the halls of power. What the Democrats may not realize is that, while the momentum swung away from the GOP on a national level in 2006, the global movement in the western world has been mostly swinging towards a more Republican-friendly climate.
Proof of this can be found in the recent elections in Europe, among other locations across the globe. In Germany, the election of Angela Merkel as chancellor and the plurality won by Merkel’s moderate-right CDU in 2005 was a change from the socialist SPD, headed by former chancellor (and American critic) Gerhard Schroeder. More recently, the election of Nicolas Sarkozy to the French presidency and his own UMP party’s ascent to control in the French parliament has also led to the initiation of anti-socialist reforms in government and society in France.
The consecutive elections of Vincente Fox and Felipe Calderon in Mexico, the deradicalization of the Worker‘s Party and election (and re-election) of the centrist Lula in Brazil, and the backlash against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela also show a movement away from hard-left politics in Central and South America.
What could possibly become the biggest threat to the aspirations of the Democratic Party could be their current frontrunner for the presidential nomination. Hillary Clinton probably has more global name recognition than any of the candidates from either party. Her last name evokes memories of “happy times” for many Democrats (despite the numerous scandals that are also associated with the name). She currently holds an average lead of 14 points over Barack Obama in the major polls, according to Real Clear Politics. With the Republican Party going through some turmoil, and her solid-frontrunner status, one would think that Clinton should have this in the bag.
However, Clinton also holds some of the highest “unfavorable” ratings amongst all major party candidates, as well. In his June 21st column the director of the UVa. Center of Politics, Dr. Larry Sabato, spoke about what Clinton’s possible election as the 44th U.S. president could mean.
In reference to the partisanship that would ensue if Clinton won, Sabato stated, “Democrats would have to live with the consequences. There is simply no question that Senator Clinton would be the third deeply polarizing President in a row, following her husband’s divisive and partially wasted tenure and George W. Bush’s deeply disappointing turn at bat. We bet that she would have a short honeymoon and would be unable to convince her millions of critics and detractors that she had changed - or was different than they long ago concluded she was. At a time when the nation could use a unifier and a healer - to the extent that any President can perform those roles - partisan warfare would be at fever pitch from Day One.”
Sabato later goes on to speculate about the repercussions of a Clinton win when he predicted: “The inevitable controversies of the Presidency would erode her shaky support among swing voters faster than is usually the case. The midterm election of 2010 may not be the fiasco for Democrats that 1994 was - there were few historical parallels for Bill Clinton’s electoral disaster in his first term-yet the GOP would almost certainly make a good start on the comeback trail for control of Congress, governorships, and the state legislatures (in the all-important redistricting election that will determine much of the legislative line-drawing for a full decade). Granted, it is virtually impossible to get partisans to think about their long-term interests, but in this respect, Democrats would probably pay a sizeable price throughout the 2010s for a Clinton victory in 2008.”
I will be honest when I say that I doubt that the GOP can regain full control of Congress in 2008. There aren’t enough favorable Senate races in the Republican Party’s favor at this time. The House of Representatives would require a reversal of 2006 to swing back into GOP hands. However, there are many factors that show that the Republican Party still has plenty of life left in it.
It would be wise to tell the fat lady to sit down, because the GOP opera is not about to end just yet. In fact, I think the appropriate music for the Republican Party would be Daughtry’s recent chart-topper, “It’s Not Over.”
With the various tension-filled primaries in the state of Virginia, the GOP split over the immigration bill, and the growing discontent among conservatives with President Bush, one could see truth in the predictions from many pro-Democrat bloggers and columnists that the death of the Republican Party is all but assured at this point.
However, is it time to cue the fat lady on the GOP opera? I wouldn’t believe that just yet.
Wasn’t the same optimism about the Democratic Party’s future felt after the narrow election of Jimmy Carter in 1976? Wasn’t the same also felt when Bill Clinton was elected in 1992? Wasn’t conservatism on its way out after the Watergate scandal and the early ’90s recession?
Indeed, it was. Liberals had a bright and sunny optimism about their major party’s chances to implement a more liberal/socialist agenda (depending on how leftist they were). Both times, the White House and Capitol Hill were under Democrat control. However, both times, the GOP rallied to regain power within four years.
This is not to say that the immediate future of the GOP is entirely hopeful. The party certainly has many discontent members to answer to.
However, as I opined in the past, the Republican Party has shown that they operate best when in certain situations. The GOP functions well when they control either the legislative or executive branch of federal government - but during the six years of controlling both, they ended up dropping the ball. Some of that came from a departure from the basis of conservatism (smaller government, focus on national security and the economy), some of that came from a bit of overzealousness on the part of many party leaders.
A small revolution within the party could be a good thing for the GOP. In fact, it’s already begun. The most recent Rasmussen Reports polls show that the number of people that identify themselves as Republicans has increased notably within the past month, to 32 percent (which is a full percentage point higher). Conservatives are already beginning to look forward to find a leader that more closely represents their interests for 2008 - instead of simply going along with the current figurehead of the party, President Bush.
Another notable statistic from that poll is the fact that Republicans polled higher than Democrats when those polled were asked “Who do you trust more on immigration?” among unaffiliated voters. The GOP was, not too long ago, trusted less than the Dems on every issue asked. Now, they’ve gained more trust than their major party counterparts on the issues of national security and immigration among unaffiliated voters.
Throw in the fact that the Democrat-controlled Congress has lost 15 to 20 points of support, according to Real Clear Politics, and it seems that most of the gains the Democrats have made amongst the American public has begun to fritter away.
While the Republicans crowed about a “permanent majority” in the early part of the decade, I don’t think many of them really believed that this would lead to the eventual demise of the Democratic Party. Most conservatives understand the need for a competing party, and (sometimes grudgingly) accept their existence and their positive contributions to our society as a whole.
However, the solid-liberal and socialist wings of the Democratic Party would love nothing more than to see the demise of the opposing major party, and growing numbers of these parts of the party are making these feelings known. Socialism, in most cases, requires a one-party system to function within the halls of power. What the Democrats may not realize is that, while the momentum swung away from the GOP on a national level in 2006, the global movement in the western world has been mostly swinging towards a more Republican-friendly climate.
Proof of this can be found in the recent elections in Europe, among other locations across the globe. In Germany, the election of Angela Merkel as chancellor and the plurality won by Merkel’s moderate-right CDU in 2005 was a change from the socialist SPD, headed by former chancellor (and American critic) Gerhard Schroeder. More recently, the election of Nicolas Sarkozy to the French presidency and his own UMP party’s ascent to control in the French parliament has also led to the initiation of anti-socialist reforms in government and society in France.
The consecutive elections of Vincente Fox and Felipe Calderon in Mexico, the deradicalization of the Worker‘s Party and election (and re-election) of the centrist Lula in Brazil, and the backlash against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela also show a movement away from hard-left politics in Central and South America.
What could possibly become the biggest threat to the aspirations of the Democratic Party could be their current frontrunner for the presidential nomination. Hillary Clinton probably has more global name recognition than any of the candidates from either party. Her last name evokes memories of “happy times” for many Democrats (despite the numerous scandals that are also associated with the name). She currently holds an average lead of 14 points over Barack Obama in the major polls, according to Real Clear Politics. With the Republican Party going through some turmoil, and her solid-frontrunner status, one would think that Clinton should have this in the bag.
However, Clinton also holds some of the highest “unfavorable” ratings amongst all major party candidates, as well. In his June 21st column the director of the UVa. Center of Politics, Dr. Larry Sabato, spoke about what Clinton’s possible election as the 44th U.S. president could mean.
In reference to the partisanship that would ensue if Clinton won, Sabato stated, “Democrats would have to live with the consequences. There is simply no question that Senator Clinton would be the third deeply polarizing President in a row, following her husband’s divisive and partially wasted tenure and George W. Bush’s deeply disappointing turn at bat. We bet that she would have a short honeymoon and would be unable to convince her millions of critics and detractors that she had changed - or was different than they long ago concluded she was. At a time when the nation could use a unifier and a healer - to the extent that any President can perform those roles - partisan warfare would be at fever pitch from Day One.”
Sabato later goes on to speculate about the repercussions of a Clinton win when he predicted: “The inevitable controversies of the Presidency would erode her shaky support among swing voters faster than is usually the case. The midterm election of 2010 may not be the fiasco for Democrats that 1994 was - there were few historical parallels for Bill Clinton’s electoral disaster in his first term-yet the GOP would almost certainly make a good start on the comeback trail for control of Congress, governorships, and the state legislatures (in the all-important redistricting election that will determine much of the legislative line-drawing for a full decade). Granted, it is virtually impossible to get partisans to think about their long-term interests, but in this respect, Democrats would probably pay a sizeable price throughout the 2010s for a Clinton victory in 2008.”
I will be honest when I say that I doubt that the GOP can regain full control of Congress in 2008. There aren’t enough favorable Senate races in the Republican Party’s favor at this time. The House of Representatives would require a reversal of 2006 to swing back into GOP hands. However, there are many factors that show that the Republican Party still has plenty of life left in it.
It would be wise to tell the fat lady to sit down, because the GOP opera is not about to end just yet. In fact, I think the appropriate music for the Republican Party would be Daughtry’s recent chart-topper, “It’s Not Over.”
Friday, June 15, 2007
I Was Born in a State Full of Idiots
Well...at least unethical, moronic Democrats.
For those who don't know, I'm originally from the state of Maryland. I lived in "inside-the-Beltway" places like Takoma Park, Mount Rainier, and College Park to name a few.
Anyway, in 2002, the state elected a magnificent governor by the name of Robert Ehrlich. Not only was Ehrlich a Republican in a very "blue" state, but he was the first Republican governor since Spiro Agnew in 1967!
He instituted all kinds of initiatives that have made Maryland a better state. He pushed legislation to clean up the Chesapeake Bay, increase funding for public schools like never before in the state's history (most of the funds were diverted to schools in poorer areas, too), created a cabinet post for disabilities (the first of it's kind in America), reinstituted the death penalty, and vetoed a health-care bill that Democrats supported but was ruled illegal anyway by a federal judge. In 2005, Ehrlich fired a staffer for spreading false rumors on the internet about former Baltimore mayor Martin O'Malley (a hardcore Democrat), because he didn't want to play dirty politics.
in 2006, the smug and pompous O'Malley ran for governor against Ehrlich. Ehrlich, at the time, was drawing approval ratings in the high 50's. However, because Martin O'Malley had a big "D" next to his name...he won, 52.7-46.2 over the incumbent Ehrlich.
Since then, Martin O'Malley has done nothing to help the state of Maryland. He promised to stop the rate increases in electricity bills for Maryland citizens...and within 5 months, he attempted (unsuccessfully) to increase the rates 50 percent.
O'Malley also pushed through legislation that guarantee's Maryland's electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote in the presidental elections...even if the popular vote in Maryland goes to a different candidate. He has basically given Maryland residents no reason to vote in presidential elections.
Now, in further proof of O'Malley's lack of ethics, he recently fired a state worker because of that worker's ties to former Gov. Ehrlich...but that firing has since been ruled illegal.
Needless to say, my birth-state really knows how to pick 'em...every 35-40 years or so.
For those who don't know, I'm originally from the state of Maryland. I lived in "inside-the-Beltway" places like Takoma Park, Mount Rainier, and College Park to name a few.
Anyway, in 2002, the state elected a magnificent governor by the name of Robert Ehrlich. Not only was Ehrlich a Republican in a very "blue" state, but he was the first Republican governor since Spiro Agnew in 1967!
He instituted all kinds of initiatives that have made Maryland a better state. He pushed legislation to clean up the Chesapeake Bay, increase funding for public schools like never before in the state's history (most of the funds were diverted to schools in poorer areas, too), created a cabinet post for disabilities (the first of it's kind in America), reinstituted the death penalty, and vetoed a health-care bill that Democrats supported but was ruled illegal anyway by a federal judge. In 2005, Ehrlich fired a staffer for spreading false rumors on the internet about former Baltimore mayor Martin O'Malley (a hardcore Democrat), because he didn't want to play dirty politics.
in 2006, the smug and pompous O'Malley ran for governor against Ehrlich. Ehrlich, at the time, was drawing approval ratings in the high 50's. However, because Martin O'Malley had a big "D" next to his name...he won, 52.7-46.2 over the incumbent Ehrlich.
Since then, Martin O'Malley has done nothing to help the state of Maryland. He promised to stop the rate increases in electricity bills for Maryland citizens...and within 5 months, he attempted (unsuccessfully) to increase the rates 50 percent.
O'Malley also pushed through legislation that guarantee's Maryland's electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote in the presidental elections...even if the popular vote in Maryland goes to a different candidate. He has basically given Maryland residents no reason to vote in presidential elections.
Now, in further proof of O'Malley's lack of ethics, he recently fired a state worker because of that worker's ties to former Gov. Ehrlich...but that firing has since been ruled illegal.
Needless to say, my birth-state really knows how to pick 'em...every 35-40 years or so.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Weekly Podium: "Same Song, Now They're Just the Majority"
I am assuming that W.R. Marshall's "Dull Ache" has received some Tylenol, courtesy of this year's election.
Now that the jubulation has died down amongst the Democrats, liberal media, and the numerous contributors to the Augusta Free Press whose political opinions only seem to pop up around election time(see you in two years, guys), it's time to take a look at some of the murmurs and quiet commotion that you're starting to hear in the background while the celebration of the "Death of the Evil GOP" enters it's twilight hours.
Let's start at the top of the Democratic food chain. It seemed so simple, the Dems would take the House and march in unison to the Capitol itself, carrying Nancy Pelosi on their shoulders as if she were Julius Caesar returning to Rome. Just as the Dems reached the steps of the Capitol, things ground to a halt as we've discovered some dissention in the ranks.
Minority Whip Steny Hoyer is competing with John "Let's Pull Out The Troops Because Diplomacy Always Works With Terrorists" Murtha for the position of House Majority Leader. Soon-to-be-Speaker Pelosi has endorsed her close ally Murtha in an attempt to eliminate her old rival Hoyer from Party leadership. Personally, couldn't the Dems find someone a little more non-partisan? I mean, we all know that John Murtha is one of the most disliked politicians in the eyes of conservatives, so it is thought that Murtha will not win over Hoyer, who helped campaign for many of the victorious Dems in the recent election.
Of course, this is the same Steny Hoyer who endorsed Ben Cardin over Kwesi Mfume in the Maryland Senate Primary because he didn't believe the Dems could win with Mfume opposing another black candidate, Michael Steele. The same Steny Hoyer who stated that the African-American Steele "slavishly" supported the Republican party.
It's people like Hoyer that are members of a party that claims to be "looking out for all the minorities"(read: we make sure we get the Gay/Black/Jewish/Feminist vote by catering to their special interest groups, and painting the GOP as racist old white men). Yet, seem to play the race card either implicitly or explicitly as often as possible without any reprimand from the media. Need proof? Why is it that Hoyer's "slavish" remarks were quickly and quietly shelved while 3rd-person hearsay about George Allen's use of racial epithets were covered by the media with a fervor equal to the second coming of Jesus Christ himself?
Moving on...
I'm really sick. No, I haven't fallen victim from Mother Nature's violent mood swing from Indian Summer(or should I say "Native-American Summer" for the PC people in the crowd?) to bone-chilling precipitation. I've grown sick of the endless statements that read "Americans overwhelmingly voted for change" and "Virginia was decidedly in favor of ridding Bush's lackey George Allen" and other statements, would someone show me an "overwhelming" victory for the Dems in any other key race besides the Pennsylvania senate seat held by Rick Santorum? I guess winning with a margin of less than 0.4% of the vote is a landslide in Democrat terms, which mean's JFK's win over Nixon in 1960 must've been a blowout of epic proportions.
Anyway, I challenge these contributors to keep up this intense fervor in their writing. After reading Erik Curren's "The bad guys lost" article(AFP, 11/13/2006), he seems to be contemplating retirement...well, until the Republicans come back in office, because then he'll have something to complain about. So here's to you and your favorite party, Erik, may we endure at least 2 years of Democratic cries for higher taxes, an emboldened ACLU, and a spineless, UN-appeasing foreign policy. And in return...Toyota enjoys higher sales of the ugly-as-sin Prius sedan. Huzzah!
All this talk about the "joys of democracy" only comes about when the Democrats win...otherwise, it's "we need to change the Constitution".
Interesting statistic from CNN's exit polls on the Allen-Webb Senate race. I noticed that Webb pulled the majority in the vote with people with either incomes below $30,000, or above $100,000. So the middle class(between $30,000 and $100,000) decided Allen was a better candidate. Interesting, considering the fact that the Democrats label Republicans as crooked politicians who only cater to the rich. Yet, the rich(well, higher-income groups at least) voted Democratic. As for the less-fortunate? Well, considering the amount of rhetoric targeted at the lower-income class of citizens about how awful the Republicans are towards them...it's no wonder they continually vote for the Democrats.
Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island had a 62% approval rating on Election Day, and still lost the election due to the (R) next to his name. How sad is the state of politics when people gave a man such great approval ratings, and still vote him out of office due to his party affiliation. Talk about hypocritical...but then again, Rhode Island is one of those lovely liberal states of New England, hypocrisy is a common practice among them.
Well, now that I've done some Donkey-bashing, let me do some Elephant-smacking also.
I will say this very loud and very clear so you people can hear me. George Allen dug his own grave. The man could've easily won this election. Jim Webb was running a mediocre-at-best campaign with little national funding, and the election was to be a chip-shot for Allen. However, his continual self-destruction during the campaign leads me to believe that maybe this was a good thing, as now the Republicans can have a candidate to challenge Jim Webb in 6 years that won't crack under pressure. To use an equation for sports fans out there, George Allen = Mike Vanderjagt.
George W. Bush is doing the right thing at this moment, he's open to new ideas for Iraq and is reaching out to the new Democratic leaders. However, I think we all know that firing Donald Rumsfeld was an act that should have taken place pre-election(and don't tell me Rumsfeld "resigned", we all know what that really means). Normally, I would agree that Bush had the right idea with promoting a sense of continuity and solidarity among his party...but Bush's low approval ratings are, to some degree, Rumsfeld's fault. He had the President's ear when it came to Iraq, and he made sure that his voice was heard above all. The man fell upon the GOP like a wet blanket, and his departure should make way for some progress.
All-in-all, what this election did is eliminate Republican dead weight(Mark DeWine, Bill Frist, Mark Foley, and others) and kick the party where it needs to be...just far enough right of the proverbial fence to give them an indentity, but much more moderate than they had been pointing in the past. The Democrats, despite all the mosaics they paint, are too far left to do this country any good in the long run. That will show over the next several years, as Republicans and moderate Democrats will become key players and elected officials over the next several years.
Finally, I hope that Jim Webb's supposedly "conservative Democrat" stance holds true, and he can become a voice of reason in a fairly unreasonable party. However, after watching him win an election due to an uninspiring campaign and a massive political meltdown by his opponent, I'm more inclined to believe that while Jim Webb might've been a solid military man for the Navy, he'll become a solid political robot for the Democrats.
As I close this tirade, many of you have come to a couple of conclusions. One may be that I'm a Republican(nay, I am a registered Independent, and I lean Libertarian), and the other may be that I am some sort of antagonist. Well, you are free to believe as you wish, but I will tell you that I am of the belief that in order to challenge a position, you have to challenge those who promote the position, as well. Hence why you'll hear me call out the names of columnists. Whether it be Erik Curren or W.R. Marshall at the Augusta Free Press, or the Paul Krugman's and Al Franken's of the world, I will challenge the thinking of these writers just as they challenge the thinking of those who oppose them, or the politicians they don't like.
I will not shy away from those who disagree with me, either. I'm free and open to debate with you, the reader, as well. Not only am I a contributor to the AFP, but I am also an avid reader. I know that I will receive positive and negative letters about my words. I'm not just expecting them, I'm encouraging them. My goal is not only to spew forth my opinion(whether you like it or not), but my goal is to provoke thought that counters much of the same-song drivel that you, the reader, may be taking in on a daily basis.
Now that the jubulation has died down amongst the Democrats, liberal media, and the numerous contributors to the Augusta Free Press whose political opinions only seem to pop up around election time(see you in two years, guys), it's time to take a look at some of the murmurs and quiet commotion that you're starting to hear in the background while the celebration of the "Death of the Evil GOP" enters it's twilight hours.
Let's start at the top of the Democratic food chain. It seemed so simple, the Dems would take the House and march in unison to the Capitol itself, carrying Nancy Pelosi on their shoulders as if she were Julius Caesar returning to Rome. Just as the Dems reached the steps of the Capitol, things ground to a halt as we've discovered some dissention in the ranks.
Minority Whip Steny Hoyer is competing with John "Let's Pull Out The Troops Because Diplomacy Always Works With Terrorists" Murtha for the position of House Majority Leader. Soon-to-be-Speaker Pelosi has endorsed her close ally Murtha in an attempt to eliminate her old rival Hoyer from Party leadership. Personally, couldn't the Dems find someone a little more non-partisan? I mean, we all know that John Murtha is one of the most disliked politicians in the eyes of conservatives, so it is thought that Murtha will not win over Hoyer, who helped campaign for many of the victorious Dems in the recent election.
Of course, this is the same Steny Hoyer who endorsed Ben Cardin over Kwesi Mfume in the Maryland Senate Primary because he didn't believe the Dems could win with Mfume opposing another black candidate, Michael Steele. The same Steny Hoyer who stated that the African-American Steele "slavishly" supported the Republican party.
It's people like Hoyer that are members of a party that claims to be "looking out for all the minorities"(read: we make sure we get the Gay/Black/Jewish/Feminist vote by catering to their special interest groups, and painting the GOP as racist old white men). Yet, seem to play the race card either implicitly or explicitly as often as possible without any reprimand from the media. Need proof? Why is it that Hoyer's "slavish" remarks were quickly and quietly shelved while 3rd-person hearsay about George Allen's use of racial epithets were covered by the media with a fervor equal to the second coming of Jesus Christ himself?
Moving on...
I'm really sick. No, I haven't fallen victim from Mother Nature's violent mood swing from Indian Summer(or should I say "Native-American Summer" for the PC people in the crowd?) to bone-chilling precipitation. I've grown sick of the endless statements that read "Americans overwhelmingly voted for change" and "Virginia was decidedly in favor of ridding Bush's lackey George Allen" and other statements, would someone show me an "overwhelming" victory for the Dems in any other key race besides the Pennsylvania senate seat held by Rick Santorum? I guess winning with a margin of less than 0.4% of the vote is a landslide in Democrat terms, which mean's JFK's win over Nixon in 1960 must've been a blowout of epic proportions.
Anyway, I challenge these contributors to keep up this intense fervor in their writing. After reading Erik Curren's "The bad guys lost" article(AFP, 11/13/2006), he seems to be contemplating retirement...well, until the Republicans come back in office, because then he'll have something to complain about. So here's to you and your favorite party, Erik, may we endure at least 2 years of Democratic cries for higher taxes, an emboldened ACLU, and a spineless, UN-appeasing foreign policy. And in return...Toyota enjoys higher sales of the ugly-as-sin Prius sedan. Huzzah!
All this talk about the "joys of democracy" only comes about when the Democrats win...otherwise, it's "we need to change the Constitution".
Interesting statistic from CNN's exit polls on the Allen-Webb Senate race. I noticed that Webb pulled the majority in the vote with people with either incomes below $30,000, or above $100,000. So the middle class(between $30,000 and $100,000) decided Allen was a better candidate. Interesting, considering the fact that the Democrats label Republicans as crooked politicians who only cater to the rich. Yet, the rich(well, higher-income groups at least) voted Democratic. As for the less-fortunate? Well, considering the amount of rhetoric targeted at the lower-income class of citizens about how awful the Republicans are towards them...it's no wonder they continually vote for the Democrats.
Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island had a 62% approval rating on Election Day, and still lost the election due to the (R) next to his name. How sad is the state of politics when people gave a man such great approval ratings, and still vote him out of office due to his party affiliation. Talk about hypocritical...but then again, Rhode Island is one of those lovely liberal states of New England, hypocrisy is a common practice among them.
Well, now that I've done some Donkey-bashing, let me do some Elephant-smacking also.
I will say this very loud and very clear so you people can hear me. George Allen dug his own grave. The man could've easily won this election. Jim Webb was running a mediocre-at-best campaign with little national funding, and the election was to be a chip-shot for Allen. However, his continual self-destruction during the campaign leads me to believe that maybe this was a good thing, as now the Republicans can have a candidate to challenge Jim Webb in 6 years that won't crack under pressure. To use an equation for sports fans out there, George Allen = Mike Vanderjagt.
George W. Bush is doing the right thing at this moment, he's open to new ideas for Iraq and is reaching out to the new Democratic leaders. However, I think we all know that firing Donald Rumsfeld was an act that should have taken place pre-election(and don't tell me Rumsfeld "resigned", we all know what that really means). Normally, I would agree that Bush had the right idea with promoting a sense of continuity and solidarity among his party...but Bush's low approval ratings are, to some degree, Rumsfeld's fault. He had the President's ear when it came to Iraq, and he made sure that his voice was heard above all. The man fell upon the GOP like a wet blanket, and his departure should make way for some progress.
All-in-all, what this election did is eliminate Republican dead weight(Mark DeWine, Bill Frist, Mark Foley, and others) and kick the party where it needs to be...just far enough right of the proverbial fence to give them an indentity, but much more moderate than they had been pointing in the past. The Democrats, despite all the mosaics they paint, are too far left to do this country any good in the long run. That will show over the next several years, as Republicans and moderate Democrats will become key players and elected officials over the next several years.
Finally, I hope that Jim Webb's supposedly "conservative Democrat" stance holds true, and he can become a voice of reason in a fairly unreasonable party. However, after watching him win an election due to an uninspiring campaign and a massive political meltdown by his opponent, I'm more inclined to believe that while Jim Webb might've been a solid military man for the Navy, he'll become a solid political robot for the Democrats.
As I close this tirade, many of you have come to a couple of conclusions. One may be that I'm a Republican(nay, I am a registered Independent, and I lean Libertarian), and the other may be that I am some sort of antagonist. Well, you are free to believe as you wish, but I will tell you that I am of the belief that in order to challenge a position, you have to challenge those who promote the position, as well. Hence why you'll hear me call out the names of columnists. Whether it be Erik Curren or W.R. Marshall at the Augusta Free Press, or the Paul Krugman's and Al Franken's of the world, I will challenge the thinking of these writers just as they challenge the thinking of those who oppose them, or the politicians they don't like.
I will not shy away from those who disagree with me, either. I'm free and open to debate with you, the reader, as well. Not only am I a contributor to the AFP, but I am also an avid reader. I know that I will receive positive and negative letters about my words. I'm not just expecting them, I'm encouraging them. My goal is not only to spew forth my opinion(whether you like it or not), but my goal is to provoke thought that counters much of the same-song drivel that you, the reader, may be taking in on a daily basis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
