We live in a republic. A representative democracy.
America's founding was amidst dissent, debate and compromise.
It's in our blood..beginning with the blood of the Revolutionary soldiers and sailors that delivered us from British rule.
It took two tries to get our Federal government structure right.
Never, ever, outside of the limited domain of American support of our armed forces during declared wars, has there been "unity" in our country.
Even during the Civil War, Lincoln had to run for re-election and risked a real chance of defeat by George McClellan, the general whom he had fired in 1862. Elections were not suspended.
A need for "unity" did not result in non-military policies being coercively implemented during WWI or WWII. There was a temporary suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, along with some other fairly draconian suppressions of the press. But these were lifted at war's end.
Thus, when you hear a Presidential candidate, e.g., Obama, call for "unity" on any issue aside from war, beware. That candidate means to rule without dissent.
"Unity" means, in other words,
'When I become President, I will dictate, and, in the name of 'unity,' you will comply and there will be no dissent. Dissent goes against unity. And unity will be the mantra by which I lead and enforce all my demands of Congress.'
Even Reagan didn't appeal for unity with his economic rescue of the country after Carter nearly ruined it, economically and militarily. He simply appealed to Americans to back his push for more economic freedom, lower taxes, less government spending, and a stronger defense.
The siren song of never-before-realized 'unity' in America will bring unintended consequences. What begins as a naively-hoped-for single-mindedness on social issues like healthcare, race acceptance, etc., will soon become a coercive drive to demand group-think and univocal acceptance of one party's positions.
Rather than compromise, complete agreement will be demanded, and dissenting debate will be squelched.
There's no reason any Presidential candidate should ever be wanting to unify a country that has never, even in its most successful non-military eras, ever been unified for anything.
Why start now? Especially with a tax-and-spend liberal hack like Obama?
He's not a post-partisan politician. He has no magic elixir. He will not 'unify' anything.
If he does bring about any univocally-backed solutions, you can bet they'll be coerced, and not the result of debate and compromise.
My father warned me, and my brothers, long ago,
'Beware the loss of freedom in America. It won't come all at once, but slowly, step by step, down a slippery slope. FDR began it by requiring the withholding of income tax payments, removing your right to not pay, per civil disobedience. Further losses of freedom will come in equally small, sometimes unnoticed steps.'
Whenever I see or hear Obama, and hear the word 'unity' in conjunction with him, I shiver with fear at the coercive state I envision him creating to force the 'unity' that he decides we should all have.
He won't ask you for your opinion on what should be our unified position.
He'll just tell you.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
AG's on CNBC
Earlier this week, CNBC's morning program, Squawkbox, featured a state Attorney General as guest host. Due to proximity, I believe he was from Connecticut.
Along with him were two other AGs, including Iowa's Tom Miller.
The salient topic among the three was their drive, at the state level, to intervene in mortgage contracts and unilaterally attempt to force investors to adjust terms and avoid foreclosures.
My specific recollection is of Tom Miller describing his actions in Iowa as, and these are close paraphrases,
'doing what's best for all parties...trying to avoid foreclosures....helping investors.....just using Iowa common sense.'
Personally, I found Miller to be pretty disingenuous.
Essentially, he tried to paint his use of the state's legal compulsion with investors as 'helping them do the right thing for their own interests.'
Funny, but I'd rather think investors already know what's in their best interests. And don't need some public-payroll lawyer, who just happens to be Iowa's AG, to tell them what that would be.
I think what we're seeing is good, old-fashioned FDR-style, heavy-handed state intrusion into the sanctity of the private, legal contract.
The last time I saw anyone write about 'Iowa common sense,' it was Meredith Wilson's "The Music Man," and the portrait it painted of the corn state's residents wasn't all that flattering.
If Iowa's common sense is to force investors in mortgages on property within the state to take new terms as dictated by the state's AG, has all that much changed in the century that has passed?
Along with him were two other AGs, including Iowa's Tom Miller.
The salient topic among the three was their drive, at the state level, to intervene in mortgage contracts and unilaterally attempt to force investors to adjust terms and avoid foreclosures.
My specific recollection is of Tom Miller describing his actions in Iowa as, and these are close paraphrases,
'doing what's best for all parties...trying to avoid foreclosures....helping investors.....just using Iowa common sense.'
Personally, I found Miller to be pretty disingenuous.
Essentially, he tried to paint his use of the state's legal compulsion with investors as 'helping them do the right thing for their own interests.'
Funny, but I'd rather think investors already know what's in their best interests. And don't need some public-payroll lawyer, who just happens to be Iowa's AG, to tell them what that would be.
I think what we're seeing is good, old-fashioned FDR-style, heavy-handed state intrusion into the sanctity of the private, legal contract.
The last time I saw anyone write about 'Iowa common sense,' it was Meredith Wilson's "The Music Man," and the portrait it painted of the corn state's residents wasn't all that flattering.
If Iowa's common sense is to force investors in mortgages on property within the state to take new terms as dictated by the state's AG, has all that much changed in the century that has passed?
Monday, May 12, 2008
Power To The 'Independents!
The weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal featured a long passage from the book "Pennsylvania Avenue, Profiles In Backroom Power," by John Harwood and Gerald Seib.
I paid particular attention to some data that the authors provided on party registrations.
According to them, New Hampshire registered voters went more than 4 in 10 as independents. They note this is slightly more than double the 20% in 1992.
They add that nearly a quarter of California's voters are now registered as independent, and the fastest-growing segment, as well.
I don't know how much these numbers were affected by the current campaign's tendency to attract crossover voters from the other party. If a state allows independents to choose, on the day of the primary, in which party's primary they will vote, then these numbers might mean less.
Where I grew up, in Illinois, you could be independent, but I don't recall whether you could vote in primaries as one, or whether you simply changed party affiliations.
In any case, the general thrust of the article was that there is real growth in the non-partisan middle of the electorate, represented by independent voters registering in neither major party.
I think that's a great sign. It has, no doubt, led to McCain's nomination, but it wouldn't seem to be doing anything to influence the Democrats. As usual, recently, they are deciding between two pretty liberal candidates.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if every state allowed voters registered as independents to simply walk into the polls on election day, choose their preferred primary, and vote in it without party affiliation?
I paid particular attention to some data that the authors provided on party registrations.
According to them, New Hampshire registered voters went more than 4 in 10 as independents. They note this is slightly more than double the 20% in 1992.
They add that nearly a quarter of California's voters are now registered as independent, and the fastest-growing segment, as well.
I don't know how much these numbers were affected by the current campaign's tendency to attract crossover voters from the other party. If a state allows independents to choose, on the day of the primary, in which party's primary they will vote, then these numbers might mean less.
Where I grew up, in Illinois, you could be independent, but I don't recall whether you could vote in primaries as one, or whether you simply changed party affiliations.
In any case, the general thrust of the article was that there is real growth in the non-partisan middle of the electorate, represented by independent voters registering in neither major party.
I think that's a great sign. It has, no doubt, led to McCain's nomination, but it wouldn't seem to be doing anything to influence the Democrats. As usual, recently, they are deciding between two pretty liberal candidates.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if every state allowed voters registered as independents to simply walk into the polls on election day, choose their preferred primary, and vote in it without party affiliation?
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Real Conservatism in Louisiana
Kim Strassel wrote a wonderful piece in her 'Potomac Watch' column in Friday's Wall Street Journal entitled "A Louisiana Lesson for the GOP."
In her piece, Ms. Strassel contrasted two Republican House candidates in the state. Both ran as 'conservatives,' but Strassel's column explains how misleading this name can be.
The losing candidate, Woody Jenkins, is described as,
"By the lazy standards of the GOP, Mr. Jenkins should've been a cinch to win a Baton Rouge district in Republican hands for 34 years, and that President Bush won with 59% in 2004. Their candidate was a rock-solid social conservative who, in 28 statehouse years, had never voted for a tax increase, and who wanted to erect a U.S.-Mexico wall.
Yet Mr. Jenkins was also a divisive firebrand. He was infamous for carrying around plastic fetuses, to demonstrate his opposition to abortion. He'd previously landed in a weird entanglement with former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. This history made even conservatives fidgety, and crowded out anything Mr. Jenkins had to say on issues.
More debilitating to the Jenkins campaign was a strong whiff of the ethical problems that have plagued Republicans. A labor union ran ads noting Mr. Jenkins's had seen 19 tax liens filed against him and his broadcasting company since 1990. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee pointed out that a murky Jenkins charity had paid him consulting fees, paid rent to his company, and paid more than a half-a-million dollars to his wife. He'd been in hot water over campaign contributions, and voted against financial disclosure.
Democrats, meanwhile, have realized it's more important to win than to impose liberal litmus tests on candidates. Mr. Jenkins's opponent, Don Cazayoux, was pro-life and pro-gun. He had nice things to say about John McCain, and rarely mentioned Mr. Obama or Hillary Clinton. A self-styled "John Breaux Democrat," he focused on education and health care."
As more independent than Republican, and more conservative fiscally than socially, I think I'd probably have voted for Cazayoux, too, were I a resident of that district.
Jenkins impresses me as the type of 'conservative' that gives the movement a bad name. Rather than focus on operational issues over which there is now wide disagreement, such as healthcare, what, if anything, the Federal government should do about energy policy, and the economy, Jenkins seems to have clung to old emotional issues like abortion.
In contrast, Ms. Strassel described another Louisiana House candidate for the GOP, Steve Scalise. About him, she wrote,
"The 43-year-old Republican, Steve Scalise, had pinpointed today's GOP vulnerabilities, and ran an anti-status-quo campaign. His focal point was wasteful spending, and he touted his legislation to reform Louisiana's earmark process. Another hallmark was ethics reform and his fight against public corruption. He talked up competitive private health care, lower taxes and school choice.
Republicans looking for an Obama doppelganger would have been better served by his Democratic competitor, Gilda Reed. She campaigned on immediate withdrawal from Iraq and "universal" health care. Trade came in for a bashing, as did secret ballots in union-organizing elections. Ms. Reed explained she was personally pro-life, but felt abortion needed to remain legal. Her cause became that of the liberal left, with the Daily Kos hosting an online fund-raiser on her behalf. Mr. Scalise won 75% of the vote."
This makes a lot of sense to me. Scalise focused on the issues that make a difference in his constituents' everyday lives. To me, that is espousing workable, salable conservatism to voters.
Strassel's column ends with the warning,
"With Democrats actively recruiting conservative candidates, it's no longer good enough for the GOP names to fall back on cultural credentials, to demagogue immigration, or to simply promise lower taxes. Voters care about the size of government, but they are equally worried about the cost of doctor visits and gas prices. The winners will be those who explain the merits of a private health-care reform, who talk about vouchers, who push for energy production. And given its reputation on ethics, it's clear the GOP has to recruit Mr. Cleans, who also make voters believe they are more interested in solving problems than bringing home pork.
Mr. Jenkins's defeat says little about how Republicans will fare in defining Mr. Obama or local competitors this fall. It says plenty about how the GOP continues to define itself, and why it remains in trouble."
I think she's right on target. Conservatism is not, or doesn't have to be, about party or historic affiliations. It's about preferring sensible, less-government solutions to pressing social and economic challenges.
For what it's worth, this article sparked in me the hope that now, with some real choices on the table this year, and upcoming ones, about economics, defense, foreign policy and healthcare, the conservatism of Ronald Reagan can make a comeback.
I don't personally fault George Bush for failing as a President. I don't think he has. But the time hasn't been ripe for the idiots running the GOP to realize that people want solutions more than postures on single issues like abortion.
Now that the White House is up for grabs in a way that it hasn't been since 1952, perhaps conservatives and their typical partisan affiliation, the Republican party, can gain seats in Congress based upon their approach to problem solving, rather than grandstanding on issues that are more theoretical and less-impacting on a daily basis in most voters' lives.
In the end, perhaps more crisis, not less, is going to open the door to a resurgence of conservative values and legislators at the national level.
In her piece, Ms. Strassel contrasted two Republican House candidates in the state. Both ran as 'conservatives,' but Strassel's column explains how misleading this name can be.
The losing candidate, Woody Jenkins, is described as,
"By the lazy standards of the GOP, Mr. Jenkins should've been a cinch to win a Baton Rouge district in Republican hands for 34 years, and that President Bush won with 59% in 2004. Their candidate was a rock-solid social conservative who, in 28 statehouse years, had never voted for a tax increase, and who wanted to erect a U.S.-Mexico wall.
Yet Mr. Jenkins was also a divisive firebrand. He was infamous for carrying around plastic fetuses, to demonstrate his opposition to abortion. He'd previously landed in a weird entanglement with former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. This history made even conservatives fidgety, and crowded out anything Mr. Jenkins had to say on issues.
More debilitating to the Jenkins campaign was a strong whiff of the ethical problems that have plagued Republicans. A labor union ran ads noting Mr. Jenkins's had seen 19 tax liens filed against him and his broadcasting company since 1990. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee pointed out that a murky Jenkins charity had paid him consulting fees, paid rent to his company, and paid more than a half-a-million dollars to his wife. He'd been in hot water over campaign contributions, and voted against financial disclosure.
Democrats, meanwhile, have realized it's more important to win than to impose liberal litmus tests on candidates. Mr. Jenkins's opponent, Don Cazayoux, was pro-life and pro-gun. He had nice things to say about John McCain, and rarely mentioned Mr. Obama or Hillary Clinton. A self-styled "John Breaux Democrat," he focused on education and health care."
As more independent than Republican, and more conservative fiscally than socially, I think I'd probably have voted for Cazayoux, too, were I a resident of that district.
Jenkins impresses me as the type of 'conservative' that gives the movement a bad name. Rather than focus on operational issues over which there is now wide disagreement, such as healthcare, what, if anything, the Federal government should do about energy policy, and the economy, Jenkins seems to have clung to old emotional issues like abortion.
In contrast, Ms. Strassel described another Louisiana House candidate for the GOP, Steve Scalise. About him, she wrote,
"The 43-year-old Republican, Steve Scalise, had pinpointed today's GOP vulnerabilities, and ran an anti-status-quo campaign. His focal point was wasteful spending, and he touted his legislation to reform Louisiana's earmark process. Another hallmark was ethics reform and his fight against public corruption. He talked up competitive private health care, lower taxes and school choice.
Republicans looking for an Obama doppelganger would have been better served by his Democratic competitor, Gilda Reed. She campaigned on immediate withdrawal from Iraq and "universal" health care. Trade came in for a bashing, as did secret ballots in union-organizing elections. Ms. Reed explained she was personally pro-life, but felt abortion needed to remain legal. Her cause became that of the liberal left, with the Daily Kos hosting an online fund-raiser on her behalf. Mr. Scalise won 75% of the vote."
This makes a lot of sense to me. Scalise focused on the issues that make a difference in his constituents' everyday lives. To me, that is espousing workable, salable conservatism to voters.
Strassel's column ends with the warning,
"With Democrats actively recruiting conservative candidates, it's no longer good enough for the GOP names to fall back on cultural credentials, to demagogue immigration, or to simply promise lower taxes. Voters care about the size of government, but they are equally worried about the cost of doctor visits and gas prices. The winners will be those who explain the merits of a private health-care reform, who talk about vouchers, who push for energy production. And given its reputation on ethics, it's clear the GOP has to recruit Mr. Cleans, who also make voters believe they are more interested in solving problems than bringing home pork.
Mr. Jenkins's defeat says little about how Republicans will fare in defining Mr. Obama or local competitors this fall. It says plenty about how the GOP continues to define itself, and why it remains in trouble."
I think she's right on target. Conservatism is not, or doesn't have to be, about party or historic affiliations. It's about preferring sensible, less-government solutions to pressing social and economic challenges.
For what it's worth, this article sparked in me the hope that now, with some real choices on the table this year, and upcoming ones, about economics, defense, foreign policy and healthcare, the conservatism of Ronald Reagan can make a comeback.
I don't personally fault George Bush for failing as a President. I don't think he has. But the time hasn't been ripe for the idiots running the GOP to realize that people want solutions more than postures on single issues like abortion.
Now that the White House is up for grabs in a way that it hasn't been since 1952, perhaps conservatives and their typical partisan affiliation, the Republican party, can gain seats in Congress based upon their approach to problem solving, rather than grandstanding on issues that are more theoretical and less-impacting on a daily basis in most voters' lives.
In the end, perhaps more crisis, not less, is going to open the door to a resurgence of conservative values and legislators at the national level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
