Search This Blog

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

No Rules - Just Right

The conduct of the social progressives’ (“Democrats”) primary and their political maneuvering in Congress provides insight into how they will govern if they win the White House. Consider these facts:

  1. Prior to the primary season, Clinton and Obama agreed with their party that Florida and Michigan primaries would not count toward the selection of the party’s presidential nominee. Now that the race is close and these votes would benefit one candidate or the other, at least one of the candidates and the party want to change the rules! One can argue that a decision to not seat these delegations in the first place was poor judgment; however, that is not my point. Besides being a prima facie example of anti-democratic voter disenfranchisement, it demonstrates the social progressives willingness to change the rules, whenever it is in their interest to do so.


  2. Recently, social progressive Nancy Pelosi (the “Speaker” of the House of Representatives), preemptively changed the Fast Track rules in the House, to preclude the Colombian Free Trade Agreement from coming to a floor vote within 60 days. This action was taken in spite of the fact that the trade agreement negotiation was completed 16 months ago and the Fast Track provision has been honored for many years, on a non-partisan basis. Contrast this with the Republican’s threat to kill a rule in the Senate that would have allowed an up or down vote on Supreme Court justices. In that case, the social progressives cried foul, labeled such an act “the nuclear option” in the media, and ultimately prevailed (even, when in the minority), because a coalition of social progressives and Republicans banded together to preserve precedent and act within the mutually agreed senate rules (note I did not use the term “law,” because the “rule” is simply that … not a constitutional requirement).


  3. Clinton’s campaign threatens to destroy the democratic “party” because of her unwillingness to cede defeat, identify mutual interests with her rival, bring the party together, and actually put together realistic strategies for governing from the middle. Her behavior is strangely reminiscent of her husband’s behavior: it is all about her. She will do whatever it takes to win … sort of a modern political version of Sherman’s march to the sea. “Gracious” loser is not in her vocabulary. Instead, she continues to divide her party and our country by promoting her version of the democratic party three point strategy: victimization (i.e., all problems are some else’s fault, usually George Bush’s); entitlement (i.e., she once stated she had more programs than the American people were capable of funding); and anti-intellectualism (viz., for the life of me, I see no integrated, well thought out plan to address our issues: its all about “change” wherever that takes us).

So, here is what I conclude from this. There are no rules. It is all about winning at any cost. “Reaching across the aisle” is simply a feel good slogan, and bi-partisan politics is a thing of the past. We are in the middle of two ideological wars: one against fundamental Islam and one against social progressive humanism. The social progressives believe in equality of outocome, not equality of opportunity. They embrace collectivism, not capitalism. Conservatives need to wake-up, face the brutal facts, and win back our country. As someone once observed “ words form ideas, and ideas have consequences.”

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

We Need Leaders Not Followers

The political discourse in the country has become more and more about addressing symptoms than addressing the underlying sickness. This is true because it is easier to be elected (and continue to be re-elected) by empathizing with the electorate’s indifference to substantive issues, susceptibility to irrational fears, and feckless personal financial behavior than to inform, educate, and lead by example. In fact, the federal government and most of its elected officials (social progressives, in particular) continue to promote a culture of anti-intellectualism (spending on education without accountability for results), entitlement (rights without responsibility), and victimization (its always someone else’s fault). While this is a wonderful way to get elected, it is not a particularly effective method for ensuring the continuance of the Republic. My perspective is that we should elect people to lead not follow. Sometimes, this is a difficult position and may actually result in the elected official not being re-elected, which is a tough position to find yourself in when 8-years as president could result in $109-million post-presidency income.

The most recent volley in this exchange is congress’s dissembling over progress in Iraq and the economy. No where in either debate does the congress compare progress to prior wars or economic performance. If one were to do so, I believe they would find that, from a historical perspective, we have made excellent progress on both fronts. The problem is that the facts to do not fit the socially progressive Democrats’ ideological purposes, which are to turn a capitalistic society, built on strong moral principles, into a humanistic, socialistic one.

So, this brings me to my point. I expect our elected represtentatives to lead. I expect themto win the war on terrorism, of which Iraq and Afghanistan are only a small part. I expect them to be more quantitative in their assessment and communication of economic performance. I expect them to be principle-based decision makers, to vote their conscience and, once they have, to stick to their convictions and not to avoid or seek politically expedient solutions to complex, core issues that threaten the long-term viability of our society. In all of this, I expect them to promote intellectualism, capitalism, and personal moral responsibility. If they do not, I will work hard to make sure that they are replaced with someone else who does embrace these principles.

Remember ...

"You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts," Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

"Against public stupidity, the gods themselves are powerless." Schiller.

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” – George Orwell, 1984

"Statistics are no substitute for judgement," Henry Clay

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money," Margaret Thatcher