Barking RINO, essay 7 "A Party of (Better) Ideas"

Barking RINO                                                                        Essay 7

A Party of Ideas

"In his book ‘7 Habits of Highly Effective People’ author Stephen Covey suggested that readers “sharpen the saw” by investing time in reflection and spiritual growth. Borrowing from Covey’s idea, successful political parties operate on ideas which ideally lead to campaign victory. In the highly contentious landscape that political society operates in today, seemingly ideas that stray too far from the norm are castigated by being branded as insufficiently conservative. Those who advocate a different line of thinking are labeled RINO’s. 

What seems to be rising to the surface is that if the singular objective of our party is to win elections…and if long term success of the party is based upon having better ideas… and if you agree it is difficult to propose ideas that include self-reliance, discipline and something other than the cynical tactic of using governmental benefits, then perhaps we, as a party, should examine more closely the ideas that we support with the objective of leading to better governance. Ideas should be vetted based upon quality and outcome rather than mere dogma. Over-reaching ideals at the cost of pragmatic governance can lead to impractical laws void of real world application and therefore potentially divisive with a significant cost at the polls.

At this juncture I do not want to propose any new ideas. I do want to suggest that we examine on the process of vetting ideas.

Start with the basic question; “What are the ideas that we as a party agree upon?” As with any group or association, fundamentally we will not agree on what these are. But there should be over-lapping agreements and a consensus of ideological direction but, I suggest, if one agrees with everyone and at all times – then what one stands for is fluid and insufficiently defined.

The proposal is not that we all agree. The proposal is that we look for the over-lapping ideals with the full recognition that healthy, thinking people disagree on some things and agree on others.  Identify the cohesive ideas that bring us together, recognize the direction and then embrace new ideas and approaches which pragmatically fulfill this agenda.

Within the sphere of political philosophy, “truth” can withstand all challenges. In other words, ideas that have been tempered by rigorous debate will eliminate bad ideas, incorporate better ideas and unify the constituency by hearing all the voices wanting to be heard. As the demographic sands shift, openness to new ideas and new voices will create a flexibility that replaces the brittleness that has led to Election Day losses.

Valid ideas do not have to be protected; certainly political opponents are going to attack our ideas – we should beat them to it. Ideas that have not been vetted are weaker ideas, or at least untested, than ideas that have been honed in the fires of respectful debate.

To say this differently, by respectfully challenging the ideas that have defined our party; today as well as in the past (and they differ sharply), we sharpen our saw with better ideas that are not so easily dismissed by the moderate middle (which all elections are incumbent to attract.) Ergo, the validity of someone’s political thought is not in their label or in their immediate agreement but in their willingness to respectfully challenge ideas yet abide by the post-debate results. 

The process of vetting ideas means ending the self-defeating paradigm of “RINO.” As engaged members whose commonality is better liberal governance (in the Lockean sense), disciplined values and self-reliance, we should engage in tactful and critical examinations of our ideas: this means debate and, once the vote has been cast, unity rather than the current castigation. Public debate based upon mutual respect engages a wider scope of participants creating a chorus of opinions which meld into better ideas that lead to victory at the polls. And if we are not together with the intent of winning elections – then we need to answer an even more basic question, “Why does this party exist if we are not interested in winning elections by offering better ideas which lead to better governance?”

Jean Stothert, Hispanics, and the Future of the GOP

The Barking RINO                                                               Essay Five

Hispanics and the Future of the GOP

In the 1970’s and 80’s conservative white Southern Democrats migrated over to the GOP. Among the many reason for the move, a prime impetus was Northern liberals aligning with the GOP to push for civil rights. (Zelizer, 2004) By not relying on population as the means to draw up Congressional districts, Southern conservative Democrats diluted voter blocs in order to maintain ‘safe seats’ and thereby cling to seniority and thus power in Congress. In 1962 the U.S. Supreme Court case, ‘Baker v. Carr,’ the court ordered districts be drawn based upon population. (See: Wesberry v.Sanders, 1964) This finding would result in urban votes having the same strength as rural votes. In 1965 the Voting Rights Act was passed to further enfranchise Americans whose vote had historically been marginalized by procedural maneuvers. The long term result was that although African-Americans remained marginal voters, they voted Democrat.

When Jean Stothert soundly defeated Jim Suttle to become Omaha’s next mayor, she handily won a majority of the Ward 4 or Hispanic South Omaha by taking nearly 57% of the votes. Of the three precincts that were lost, the tallys were 49.1%, 48.1% and 42.5%.

According to the non-partisan research center PEW, only 24% of registered voters are Republicans. (Partisan Polarization Surges in Bush, Obama Years, 2012) This means the Republican base is no longer sufficient to elect a president. (The Hispanic Challenge and Opportunities for Republicans, 2012)

Racial fertility rates indicate that there will be no majority race in America by 2050. A fertility rate of 2.2 is required to maintain a population. Currently Euro-American (white non-Hispanic) fertility rates are 1.8. The highest fertility rates are Hispanics at 2.4. While all immigrants represent 13% of the American population, their fertility rate represents 23% of American births. (U.S. Birth Rate Falls to a Record Low; Decline Is Greatest Among Immigrants, 2012)

In short, a GOP that clings to the language of fear and race (See voter ID) over the pragmatic pursuit of winning elections is destine for the dustbin of history.

Party Registration by Race

Party	White	white trend	Black	black trend	Hispanic	hispanic trend
GOP	32%	Down	5%	down	11%	flat
Dem	26%	Down	69%	up	32%	down
Independent	38%	Up	22%	flat	46%	up

Source: http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/section-9-trends-in-party-affiliation/

North American has always been a nation of immigrants. From the Mongolian land-bridge that brought Native Americans here 10,000 years ago to groups that arrive daily. The expectation of all immigrants is learn the language, learn the norms, assimilate into the Middle Class and pay your taxes. When South High School’s soccer team recently raised the Mexican flag at their victory, is that so different than the Shamrocks and fervent celebration by Irish-Americans of St. Patrick’s Day or Omaha’s St. Stanislaus Polish Festival?

If the contemporary GOP wants to remain viable and win elections then it must be inclusive. The recent RNC report, ‘Growth & Opportunity Project’ list 15 steps to reach out to Hispanics which should, based upon shared value systems, fit comfortably within the GOP; although some disagree. (Williams, 2013) Perhaps most important is how the GOP conducts itself during the forthcoming Immigration Reform negotiations. Specifically, the Party needs to employ intelligent use of language while holding to the value of support for legal immigration.

What’s clear is that table turning lessons of the Civil Rights movement and the eventual transition of Southern Conservatives into the GOP are before us again. Will we acknowledge history and learn from it? Or will we choose race over our shared values thus handing an insurmountable advantage to liberal ideology?

The Administration of Mayor Jean Stothert has the opportunity to reach-out to Hispanic South Omaha and solidify support for the Nebraska GOP which is based upon the shared values of equality, strong families, religion, entrepreneurialism, legal immigration, fiscally conservative taxes and government expenditures, life and women’s rights (Women are the more active Hispanic voter.) Stothert received these votes in May and now has the precious opportunity to earn them for the future. By ramping down hurtful rhetoric and pursuing a long term relationship, Republicans have an opportunity to build a lasting coalition that bridges the present to a future of winning elections and growing individual freedom for all Americans, native-born or naturalized. (Jordan, 2013) (Kagan, 2013)

Works Cited

Center for Disease Control. (2010). Births - Final Data for 2010. Retrieved from National Vital Statistics Report: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_01.pdf

GOP Seen as Principled, But Out of Touch and Too Extreme. (2013, February 26th ). Retrieved from Pew Research: http://www.people-press.org/2013/02/26/gop-seen-as-principled-but-out-of-touch-and-too-extreme/

(2013). Growth & Opportunity Project. Washington D.C. : The Republican National Committee.

Jordan, J. (2013, June 10). Tea Partiers to Omahas New GOP Mayor. Retrieved from Nebraska Watchdog : http://watchdog.org/88313/tea-partiers-to-omahas-new-gop-mayor-make-bold-budget-cuts-big-changes/

Kagan, D. (2013). Illegal Aliens - What do they Cost, What Can We Do. Retrieved from Nebraska Tax Payers for Freedom: http://netaxpayers.org/alerts/illegal-aliens-what-do-they-cost-what-can-we-do

Partisan Polarization Surges in Bush, Obama Years. (2012, June 4). Retrieved from PEW Research: http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/section-9-trends-in-party-affiliation/

The Hispanic Challenge and Opportunities for Republicans. (2012, December 12). Retrieved from Resurgent Republic: http://www.resurgentrepublic.com/research/the-hispanic-challenge-and-opportunity-for-republicans

Total Fertility Rate by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1980 to 2008. (2010). Retrieved from United States Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0083.pdf

U.S. Birth Rate Falls to a Record Low; Decline Is Greatest Among Immigrants. (2012, November 29). Retrieved from PEW Research: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/11/29/u-s-birth-rate-falls-to-a-record-low-decline-is-greatest-among-immigrants/

Williams, J. (2013, February 11). Opinion: GOP image toxic with Hispanics. Retrieved from The Hill: http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/juan-williams/282145-opinion-gop-image-toxic-with-hispanics-

Zelizer, J. E. (2004). On Capitol Hill- the struggle to reform Congress and its consequences, 1948 - 2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Inside, Outside: "Talkin' about a Revolution" Essay 7, The Barking RINO

The Barking Rino                             Essay 7          

The Value of Internal Criticism

In her highly cited text, ‘Who Counts as an American,’ noted political scientist Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, writes that the most dangerous member of a group is the member which is critical of the group.[1] The natural inclination of group members is to defend the group; thereby assuring one’s own membership. Group membership should be earned rather than rewarded and this creates value because membership is exclusive. However, Theiss-Morse warns the reader that when the group defends its borders from marginalized members or outsiders, there is a threat that the group fails to embrace new ideas, evolve and remain vibrant in its mission…eventually becoming irrelevant.

The modern Republican Party is not beyond criticism. You only have to attend one Central Committee meeting and listen to the conversations among board members to know that. While the sycophantic media[2] encourages us to demonize those across the aisle, one wonders what is the value of further dividing America. Does division win elections? Abraham Lincoln quoted the Bible[3] when he said that, “a house divided cannot stand.” I want to suggest that members of the GOP consider greater tolerance for constructive criticism of our own party; both from outside and from within.

An ageless question of political activists and partisans is, ‘What is the role of government?’ While the answer should be unique to each individual, as the Conservative party, generally, we agree with Henry David Thoreau when he wrote, “The government is best which governs least.” [4] But how do we come to these conclusions? When was this agreement cast?

Among the fundamental freedoms granted is the Constitutional right to dissent; as discussed in the latter portion of the first amendment.[5] Why? Because, as Thomas Jefferson alludes to in the Declaration of Independence, we agree to lend our government, “just power”[6] Ergo, logic tells us, when government operates with ‘unjust’ power, we need to exercise the right of dissent to lend our voice towards steering the nation in a direction we, as a party or as individuals, feel is best. But how do we know? We don’t really. We can believe with great conviction but if Prohibition or legal slavery taught us anything, it is that the masses have the ability to be terribly wrong. But aren’t we smarter today? “Only a fool would say that.”[7]

What is the method by which we can direct national government? Can your single vote determine the direction of a nation of 330,000,000 citizens? Probably not. But as a member of a major party, we have the ability to influence the conversations among activists and partisans and thereby lend direction to the party…provided we speak up.

Think about it this way; is it better to vet ideas among friends or among foes? By tolerating constructive criticism from within, we can improve proposals and ideas so that when these ideas are thrust into the public square, these ideas better withstand the inevitable criticisms that alien partisans will provide. Vibrant contemporary examples of poorly vetted political ideas include the disaster that is the Affordable Care Act and our party’s own Voter ID proposals. Both would have benefitted from better internal criticism and, eventually, the blast furnace that a “loyal opposition” will provide. We cannot expect leadership from elected officials or those seeking election since theirs is a precarious position already. We, the party members, need to lead in this endeavor.

As a party, to some, we seem hell bent on ridding the structure of Rinos. While ideas that are brief and can be easily digested sell well on the campaign trail, one wonders if such a stance is politically expedient. What is the role of a political party? I suggest it has one function and one function only: electing party members to office. Winning elections require votes. If nearly half of the base is forced to walk the gang-plank, simple mathematics indicate that winning the elections becomes very difficult. [8] [9] We know that so called moderate Republicans are more willing to cross party lines when voting than are right-leaning Independents. [10] Ideas need to be framed in language that appeals to moderates and independents – to argue otherwise is to be intentionally mathematically naïve.[11]

So here’s where we tie this altogether; can the GOP win elections using parlor tricks and tactics? We’ll soon see. But what we seem to know from the Reagan years, is that a party with better ideas, ideas that appeal to a wider audience, will win elections. As Reagan demonstrated, Americans want to feel good about themselves, their country and, most especially, their fellow countrymen. We want to believe that tomorrow will be, “a new day in America.” Where is that vision today?

When we, as a party, stop selling the hope of a new “inclusive”[12] future: selling it with better ideas that actually solve real problems, then one might wonder why the party exists. The rise of Independents demonstrates that, perhaps, this is the reason why both parties have declining membership. As Theiss-Morse suggested, if the in-group becomes so entrenched in not engaging the constructive comments from its own; by tolerating debate and dissent, then the group becomes a dysfunctional echo-chamber incapable of winning elections. As Thomas Jefferson told the members of the Danbury Baptist Church, ‘I could not disagree with you more about what you say but I will defend your right to say it.’ (ED: The rise of the Independents and the declining membership in both major parties is all the proof that is needed that internal criticism must be tolerated and, in fact, encouraged or the party becomes stale, ineffective and (carried to the extreme) will eventually implode.)

Works Cited

Bible - New International Version. (1991). Grand Rapids: Zondervan .

(2012). Growth and Opportunity Project. Washington D.C. : Republican National Committee.

Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use. Journal of Communication, 19 - 39.

Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, Not Ideology A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 405 - 431.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone . New York: Simon and Schuster.

Theiss-Morse, E. (2009). Who Counts as an American? New York: Cambridge University Press.

Thoreau, H. D. (1849). (Resistance to Civil Government) Civil Disobediance. Walden: Walden.

---

[1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2011.00854.x/abstract

[2] (Iyengar & Hahn, Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use, 2009)

[3] Matthew 12:22 – 28

[4] (Thoreau, 1849) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau)

[5] “or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

[6] “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

[7] Steely Dan song and lyric from the album Aja.

[8] http://www.gallup.com/video/121313/republican-democratic-parties-seen-extreme.aspx

[9] http://www.people-press.org/2013/02/26/gop-seen-as-principled-but-out-of-touch-and-too-extreme/

[10] http://www.people-press.org/2013/07/31/whither-the-gop-republicans-want-change-but-split-over-partys-direction/

[11] See Barking RINO essay #6 regarding the use of language in the political arena.

[12] (Growth and Opportunity Project, 2012)

The GOP and Same Sex Marriage

The Barking RINO 4

This week the nation revisited the ideal that “all men are created equal.” In the past this great nation has done what many other nations have yet to do; faced our fears and expanded the ideal to include people of color and women. Today we are being asked consider whether “Nature’s God” withholds rights based upon whom we have sexual intercourse with.

As a party of religious and conservative people this issue embodies the historical struggle between “my faith” and “my government.” Generations of American’s have been confounded by this struggle between faith and government: both are sources of moral authority in our society and often they come into conflict.

The value of our Constitution and the ideals of our nation truly shine best when we use them to protect the rights of those we disagree with or those we do not like. This is expressed by James Madison in the Federalist Paper Number Ten. Nothing grinds my teeth more than those insensitive bastards from Westboro Baptist Church who protests at the funerals of fallen men and women of uniform. However, when the rights expressed in the Constitution protects those I find repugnant (as well as wrong in their Gospel teachings), I know those rights really do exist and that this great American experiment has not been in vain.

The divide on this issue represents a generational division. According to Gallup, today the majority of Americans are in support of homosexual marriages. [1] Even Republican and Evangelical attitudes are shifting rapidly on this issue. [2] In the recent report of future strategy compiled by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, the term “inclusive” is used in regard to the party’s approach to immigrants, Hispanics and gays. Recently fallen-tea leaf reading Karl Rove suggests that the next GOP Presidential candidate could be supportive of homosexual marriage.[3] And so the slide begins.

BUT, is the slide a good or bad thing? Clearly it is inevitable.

Many conservatives are uncomfortable with the idea of endorsing Gay marriage. For most, the source of their authority is a faith that is more than 4,000 years old. Faith, as a pillar of authority in society must be respected; the thread of religion continues to weave its way through our society today despite what many feel has been an overt war against it. There is no debate that the Bible, and specifically St.Paul, wrote about the sin of homosexuality. But what else does the Gospel tell us about sin? “There is no one righteous, no not even one.[4]” The very foundation of an authentic Christian experience is the idea that we are all sinners and deserve death and condemnation. The Gospel means nothing if the validity of the substitutional atonement of Jesus Christ is negated. “For I am determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” [5] As those with faith struggle with this issue, and rightly so, we are faced with the reality that our gospel defines each of us as sinners. Furthermore, despite some very bad theology that circulates about, there is no ranking of sin: God hates all sin whether it is for murder, homosexuality, adultery or gossip. In other words, why does the GOP target one form of sin while every one of us is equally sinful before God? This makes no sense.

Strategically, there are three positions one can take in this conflict between “my faith” and “my government.” We can fight the issue (although the results appear to be in the cards already), we can support the issue (which many are already doing and some simple cannot do) or we can do what most of us normally do, which is nothing. In this instance though, think of doing nothing as a proactive position of neutrality which manifests itself in not fighting against the extension of rights to other Americans. Arguably our God, our Constitution, our American ideals and the American experience tells us that extending rights to others is a good thing; even though we may harbor some uncomfortable thoughts about doing so. It’s okay to not “like” the idea of Gay marriage – older Americans feel this way, the significant swath of faithful feel this way. This conflict between how some feel versus what we all know needs to be done was also manifest in extending equal rights to blacks in 1863, 1964 & 1965 and to women in 1920.

What are the concerns? I’m no lawyer but I slept at a Holiday Inn once…

According to National Public Radio, polygamists are eyeing these court cases closely. [6] What the Court bases its findings upon and how it words its opinion is very important. As we have learned in the past, a well intended result can often be employed in the future as a precedent that opens doors to results which may not have been intended to be opened. Concern about absurb forms of marriage in the future is legitimate. This has the potential to be a slippery slope issue and we are correct to be concerned about this potential.

Also, what on earth was Congress thinking by invading a States Rights issue such as marriage? As a staunch fiscal conservative, less Federal government on just about any issue is good for me. In a sense, I believe “your government” ends at “my” front door. To misquote Thomas Jefferson, if Bob and Ted want to get married and pay their taxes, “it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” (A friend posed this question, what if Ted wanted to sunbath in his backyard in a bikini. Okay, I am admittedly confused and therefore uncomfortable with this ‘transgender’ thing. Congratulate me for admittedly it.)

I have learned that the word ‘choice’ in this debate has a loaded meaning. In the past, in order to right past wrongs, our nation has given “super rights” to disenfranchised groups; such as Affirmative Action to African-Americans. While this has mostly died away today, if rights beyond mere equality are extended to Gay Americans, define the term homosexual. On one end of the continuum are those that are strictly heterosexual. On the other end are those that are strictly homosexual. But along that line of continuum are those that fluctuate back and forth. In other words, for some human sexuality is not one or the other. IF, and admittedly it is a very big if, so-called equalizing “super rights” are extended to homosexuals, how would this ‘cure’ be applied to those that exist between the two spheres on the end of the continuum described above?

In the end, either all men are created equal or they are not. In Nebraska, a state whose flag flies the motto ’Equality Before the Law’, we should be more sensitive to this as it aligns with our sense of Prairie Popularism (‘Go live your life in peace, pursue happiness and if you need help, call me; however, don’t expect my help to prop you up all the time, be self reliant and demonstrate appreciation of this great nation.’)

Advice to those engaging in this fight;

1.      Be careful how your rattle your saber. There are three states; support, opposition and neutrality. It would be foolish to alienate those that are neutral. Don’t make yourself a target; argue from a point of equality.

2.      Respect my faith. It is important to me and I will defend it. Remember, “my faith,” “my family” and “my government” are three ideas humans have historically given their lives to defend.

3.      Because someone disagrees today does not mean they will disagree tomorrow. Respectfully plant your seed with a good argument and wait. As polls indicate, this issue is evolving very quickly. Older Americans move more slowly than younger Americans – that’s okay (see advice point number one).

4.      Base your argument upon facts and American ideals – not emotions. Yes, children are cute and gays have “experience” on this issue. But that alone does not build an argument. Remember, either all men are created equal or they are not. Americans know this.

5.      “I want what you have.” Ask for nothing more than equality. We want what you got – just the same, nothing more.

6.      Help people understand the issue; don’t expect them to know it. Often mere ignorance and time are your foes – not other Americans.

7.      Most Americans have good friends and even family members that are homosexuals. Let Americans come to this issue out of a concern for their friends and family members. No one wants to be scolded.

8.      Finally, anticipate concerns regarding the results of equality for homosexuality. Clergy members are concerned about being forced by law to ‘celebrate the gay agenda.’ Many are concerned about “professional homosexuals” that aggressively force others into a position of alienation. Be aware that “your” intentions are not by definition shared by everyone. Most folks simply don’t like militant movements. Follow the lead of Dr. King – lead us to the waters of redemption and then give us sufficient time to wade into the waters.

    What can the GOP do? Embrace “Log Cabin Republicans” now. Use the bully pulpit of the party to let these folks speak. Then listen to what they have to say. For some this will be an emotional experience. For some it will be informative. For most, homosexuality is not something “they asked for.” Let us take yet another step and lead the way that allows our friends, our family members and our fellow Americans to fully embrace the American ideal that in this land, truly, all men are created equal. (Then fix the damn budget)

---

[1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx

[2] http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/20/growing-support-for-gay-marriage-changed-minds-and-changing-demographics/

[3] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/25/karl-rove-predicts-next-gop-president-could-be-pro/

[4] Bible verse Romans 3:10

[5] 1 Corinthians 2:2

[6] http://www.npr.org/2013/03/28/175619109/if-supreme-court-lets-states-define-marriage-could-legalized-polygamy-make-a-com

The cold hand of catastrophe

The Barking RINO 3

The cold hand of catastrophe

According to the Wall Street Journal (03/24), “The national Republican Party’s new 97 page blueprint for rebuilding the GOP makes no fewer than 30 mentions of the need to become more welcoming and inclusive, mainly on immigration and social issues.” [1]

The national party is telling us, ‘We were wrong and the need to set a new course is at hand; that is if the GOP wants to win elections at the Federal level.’

As we look at the notion of inclusion, whether in terms of immigration, homosexuals or RINO’s, what’s clear is “our tent” is too small and current ideology is not sufficiently pragmatic to lead to election victory. As the report states, the GOP lost the popular vote in last five out of six Presidential elections.

Instead of wallowing in a short term idealistic agenda that leads to losses at the polls, GOP leadership must look over the horizon for long term solutions to real world problems. This strategy is contrary to elected official’s tendency to provide last minute band-aid solutions to real world problems: for example, the budget and the debt.

Think about it, the real miracle of the Sequester is that the GOP was able to cut the military budget without having to vote for such a cut. How convenient AND it can all be blamed on the lack of leadership by President Obama. Talk about manna from heaven! Such a move may be politically expedient but it is not leadership nor is it offering proactive solutions to the problems our great nation faces.

“We the People” have tolerated the empty offerings of dogma and thus allowed the Federal Government to compile a national debt that unborn generations of Americans are going to suffer paying off.  Congratulations, you and I have dropped the ball by accepting failed ideologies instead of demanding solutions. The root of this problem is in the mirror.

Specifically, as the voting public – what are we doing to address the budget mess? The ‘debate points’ from today’s heady GOP is to cut government and not raise taxes. Just like immigration, it doesn’t take much mustard to know this is no real solution. It is a self evident truth that both program cutting and tax hikes are in our future. Yet the GOP faithful abet foolishness by holding an ideal line against tax hikes. Mr. Obama is correct when he tells us we cannot “cut our way” to a balanced budget. And any fool can see it is nothing more than class warfare to suggest that we can tax the rich to solve this problem.

Rather than sticking our heads in the sand (again), let’s cut to the chase and demand real world solutions from OUR party. Let’s ask for REAL leadership on what is perhaps the most important issue facing our generation – fiscal responsibility. It’s too late to expect a balanced budget amendment to solve this problem.

So there are your choices; demand real solutions (which include tax hikes and cuts to programs you support) or engage in hollow dogmatic double-speak which leads to no solution, continued losses at polls and party leaders that are allowed to continue to serve up non-solutions disguised as solutions which, in our selfishness, ask for little sacrifice and engage in the comfortable but false illusion that hard problems can be solve with simple, short-term, painless solutions.

What’s clear is that the money and power of politics is moving against solving this problem. Elected officials are being bound by the unrealistic expectation which echo’s 1991’s failed promise of, “Read my lips, no new taxes.” The time to demand leadership which negotiates for specific expenditure cuts, that tenaciously eliminates waste and fraud and finally ends the ‘path dependency’ of antiquated government programs. THEN, and only then, are tax hikes on the table. A Wall Street Journal article (7/21/12) indicates that Canada was able to successfully tackle this problem with a platform of $7 in cuts for every $1 in tax hikes.[2] You probably missed it but during the Democratic Convention former President Clinton suggested a 2:1 ratio.

The challenge of such a bold and honest move is to support elected officials as they embark upon the risky journey where ‘your cow gets gored’ and ‘your taxes go up.’ We know what future our current path holds. America does not have to once again be foolish enough to wait until the cold hand of catastrophe touches us - we can begin solving this today if we choose to empower our elected officials to become leaders rather than casual pedestrians watching as the fiscal train wreck approaches ‘Destiny Station.’ Or we can allow the President’s partisan invigorating strategy of class warfare continue the failed policy of doing nothing. What is the legacy of our  generation? Decide. Do it today.

---

[1] Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324373204578376080110567510.html

[2] Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903554904576457880527361612.html

The Radical Obama

The Radical Obama

How radical is Obama? Asked a different way, which side of the political spectrum is pulling away from the median? There are at least two dynamics at play in this conversation; what is the trend of political thought in America today? Are the majority of American’s becoming more “progressive,” more conservative or is the ‘mushy middle’ static? A second question to ask is if the left party is moving further to the left or is the right moving away from the middle. As we all learned in High School Physic’s class, movement is relative to your position. Please bear in mind that these two movements (the parties and the majority of Americans) can be simultaneous. For example, the majority of American voters may be adopting a more progressive voting posture while the party on the right is moving away from the median American political position.

Suppose there is a line. In the precise middle of the line is the number ’50.’ To the right of the number fifty we begin to count down to the number one; 50, 49, 48… To the left of the number fifty we also begin to count down to the number one. If we allow that number 50 to represent the median political position of the average American voter’s self-identified political skew, the number 50 not only represents a politically moderate position but, in simple statistical theory (or the bell curve), the majority of voters are found “on” the number 50 (or right in the middle).

According to author and noted political scientist John Alrich, the historical tendency of our political spectrum is candidates “run to their fringe” (far-right, far-left) in the Primary and veer back toward the middle for the General Election. (In 2012 we watch as political moderate Mitt Romney was unable to veer back to the middle abdicating the voting bloc which ultimately chooses the President). Thus, according to Alrich, empirical studies tell us the nature of our political system is that it moderates both parties towards the middle. Political thought suggests that the candidate whose position most reflects the position of the median (or middle) voters wins the election: this is the Median Voter Theory. Recall, if you dare, Bill Clinton’s successful commandeering of the GOP’s agenda. This tendency towards moderation results in the common impression that there has been no significant difference between the two parties. IE: Republicans spent money as easily as Democrats.

In this ideal model, as the candidate veered back to capture the moderate bloc of voters, a Republican will try to land on the “50 marker” while his Democrat rival does the same. Suppose that the Conservative ‘lands’ on the number 47 whereas the Democrat lands on the number 48. What is the outcome? The result is probably a closely contested race; depending on numerous other factors; history, agenda, money, support, economy…

Now, apply this logic to the GOP today.

In the GOP today there are those within the party that clearly want to move away from the center. There are those that cleave towards ideology over the pragmatic necessity of winning elections. For example, this sort of fixation with losing is exemplified when reality tv personality, children’s author, tabloid subject and failed politician Sarah Palin is invited to C-Pac whereas the highly electable New Jersey Governor Christie is not. This ideological political stance is moving away from the number 50 or middle of the road towards the fringes. In this fictitious example, let’s suppose that leadership leads the party to adopt a political stance that ‘lands’ this sectional bloc of voters on the number 30 (40% away from the median voter). If the opposition party agenda “lands” at the number 40, (a sum movement of 20% towards the left), the opposition has moved the national agenda towards the left AND captured the majority of the median voters. Said slightly differently, moving too far from the ‘mushy middle’ abdicates a majority of the voters to the ‘less radical’ candidate who is none-the-less pulling the center of the voting majority further AWAY from a conservative position?

Now, I know there are some numbers in this example, and that this is nothing more than a simple model designed to help the Party understand that we need our moderate conservatives. The premises is relatively obvious; the more radical either party becomes, the opposition simple needs to be less radical in order to find victory at the polls.

If this model is a relatively good reflection that is worthy of your consideration, how then do we ‘win’ without compromise? The very nature of politics is compromise. If one is unwilling to compromise, then one must provide better ideas AND be able to discuss them at a level that most voters can comprehend. For example, regarding the run-away national debt, I would argue that asking unborn generations of Americans to pay the debt for money spent today is morally repugnant. How selfish can our society really be? And as Paul Ryan finally demonstrated with his idealistic budget proposal, American can neither tax, nor cut, our way out of this dismal fiscal mess. The sooner we belly up to the table with real, pragmatic solutions, the sooner your kids and grandkids to their share of the American dream.

In the end, E.E. Shattschneider suggests that political parties must solve problems in order to win elections. Once a party is no longer able to solve problems it is quickly shoved out of the way by ‘political realignment.’ When fully a third of registered Republican voters view the national party as “too radical” and “out of touch” we are engaged in a losing philosophy wresting match. Said succinctly, at the national level our ideas are not framed as winning positions. The movement of the Republican Party to the right will not ‘save the nation’ but rather abdicate the nation to an opposing political philosophy which, I suspect, most Republicans fear.

Once abdicated, the median voter moves further towards the left of the median 50, thus making it harder to earn their vote without stepping across that magic number 50 and into the ‘left spectrum’ of political ideas. We, the party faithful, must engage in passionate debate armed with better ideas which embrace moderate yet adhering to fundamental Conservative philosophies.

Comments welcome…