So, it is pretty clear that the GOP has had its ass handed to it. So where do we go now and what do we do? Several thoughts occurred to me while watching the red dawn.
This is our biggest and best opportunity in over 50 years. We're at the bottom. The dictatorial social conservatives and the pre-emptive war neocons have successfully run the party into the ground. We now have good reason to eject them from the drivers seat of the party. It is finally time to once again erect the "big tent" and return to our principles of small government, personal liberty, free markets and speaking softly while carrying a big stick. As McCain said just a few days ago, "we have them right where we want them."
The Democrats will certainly overreach in the next two years and the electorate will get a bad taste in their mouths. If the Democrats get the 60 seats in the senate they will absolutely do something stupid. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We must be prepared to capitalize on that.
When the party machine revs up again, we must not forget that forcing conservative social values on people is as offensive to voters as Democrats forcing liberal ones. We must rebuild the party as the party of liberty and smaller government, of responsibility and prosperity, of opportunity and hope. Starting today, the central message should be that the size of the government is the problem. A big, intrusive government drastically raises the stakes of any election; elevating the passion and hatred between people. It is the blade that divides us. On a larger scale it causes the ups and downs in the economy and erodes the stability of our way of life. The only way to protect us from liberal and religious-right ideologs is to slash the size of the federal government and to restore federalism.
Federalism is essential to reducing the divisiveness in our social dialog. It is idiotic to think that Californians will ever agree with Nebraskans or that Alaskans will ever agree with Floridians. We need to remind people that we are a union of individual states not one giant monolithic nation. It is both immoral and dispassionate to expect everybody to be the same. Giving people the power to live out their lives the way they choose brings happiness and peace. Forcing everybody into a single set of values creates hardship and a poverty of heart.
Reagan recognized that we're all different. And that's why he ran on a set of principled values of freedom and opportunity and a message of a stronger America. It was a message that appealed to most people in most states, regardless of race or gender or economic status. We can't let the Democrats divide us up into neat little demographics and then use our differences to conquer our freedom.
If we return to our principles, consider for a moment the debate arguments of the other side. Our opponents will have to argue that it is right and proper for the government to force people to behave a certain way or that they no longer have the right to the fruits of their labor. They will have to argue that private property isn't really private anymore. They will have to argue that reducing choices, hope and opportunity is good for the voters. They will have to argue that the government must pick winners and losers in the economy causing boom and bust cycles and reducing our global competitiveness. All of these arguments are easily shot down. The liberty position is the strong one.
The protectionist policies that are certain to come will exacerbate the current economic situation by 2010; we must be ready to turn that into votes. We should point to the success of the Chilean private social security system. The average Chilean makes 1/5 the annual income of an American and yet they retire with pension payments on par with our own social security payments and their system isn't going broke. We should point to the vibrant economies of eastern Europe to show how a flat tax creates prosperity. We have to show how international economic ties run counter to military aggression and forms the foundation of long lasting peace. We've been beaten now, but I promise that the consequences of higher taxes, protectionism, government welfare checks, and class warfare will give us the chance to capture the majority once again.
The liberty argument against government running the economy will resonate even in the presence of powerful entitlement programs buying votes. Because even though people will be getting checks from the government, the inflation created by protectionism and overspending will continue to erode the quality of life for everybody. Hope will be on the rocks again and people will be open to the idea that the government can't really save them. We will have a chance to use liberty as source of hope and to reach into non-traditionally Republican voter blocks to earn votes.
The "big tent" is the way America is and was supposed to work. Now is our best chance to set it up again by returning to our principles. In 2010, let us give the electorate a real choice between federalism with individual liberty and socialism with rampant nanny-statism. Without that choice, the voters will always choose who will give them the biggest welfare checks and that won't be Republicans.
Posted by blindman.sp at November 05, 2008 11:56 AM | Email ThisTrust me, the big increase in government is going to mess things up worse. The pendulum will most certainly swing back the other way. The only question is when. I'm betting that with solid majorities in Congress and a President that the Democrats won't be able to contain themselves. It's going to be a leftist orgy in DC. They'll shill for the unions, they'll shill for the corporations, they'll set up their cronies just like Bush and company did. Their increases in taxes and spending will hurt the economy even further.
I give it a 75/25 chance that 2010 will be like 1994. It all depends on if the GOP can get their act together and return to their principles instead of the bomb-everybody-force-homosexuals-back-in-the-closet-fuck-the-environment path they're currently on.
Posted by: blindman on November 5, 2008 02:20 PMI didn't vote for Alan Keyes, whom I actually respect, hoping to defeat Obama by voting McCain.
Dems kicked us out back in 73. Reps have done it now. No more compromise. I'm done.
Posted by: ljm on November 5, 2008 10:18 PMYour economic prescription, itself, is blindman forcing his social values on everyone. If you are serious, it means, among other things, the eradication of Social Security and Public Education. That, you will find, is "offensive" to too many Americans. If you are not serious, you are exactly what we just got in this election. You are the McCain campaign.
You can't have "lesser government" that does not deteriorate to "smaller spending increases than the Democrats want" unles you are willing to define the line between the legitimate and illegitimate functions of government. Where, philosophically, is that line?
You are suggesting that the message be reduced to fiscal policy, and that controlling economic outcomes is not legitimate function of government (which I agree with). That means you don't believe there is ANY legitimate funciton of government. If you are principled in this, you are an anarchist.
If only "fiscal policy" is within the legitimate purview of government (that is, we can't enforce laws based on religious concepts like "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not steal") and we don't want the government having anything to do with controlling fiscal outcomes, then our only role is to oppose all government all the time.
Killing people is not a civil right, but Obama, NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood, National Socialists, Stalin, Mao and the Democratic Party have treated it as one and are organized behind it. Laws against killing are "social control."
"Private Property" is a social norm based on Judeo-Christian concepts. It is not the norm in tribal cultures that practice collective, tribal property and tend to nomadic and warlike, raiding-party paradigms. The Amnesty for Illegals movement is such a force. Laws against stealing are "social control."
I don't think you've thought this through.
I'm not excluding them. I'm arguing that they need to scoot over and let the small government, low tax, liberty crowd drive for a while.
It was big government republicans like the social conservatives and the neocons that have set up this situation.
Posted by: blindman on November 6, 2008 10:56 AMDoug, I appreciate your response and I can see why you would think I haven't thought this through. I can assure you that I have. I could have written a book on this subject but I was both limited in time and space when writing this post.
You seem to have missed my assertion that we need to "slash the size of the federal government and to restore federalism". I am a deep believer in American libertarianism. I am no anarchist and I certainly am aware of the compromises necessary to govern from the center.
My argument in this whole post is that the Republicans have been punished for abusing the constitution by growing government with huge new entitlements, spending and printing money with no fiscal restraint and using the federal government to enforce social policy.
The federal government is no place for legislating social policy except for enforcing the protections afforded by the Constitution. Republicans need to return to our core principals and fight to restore federalism.
The way to a new Republican majority is to let states once again decide the contentious social issues. We should be for overturning Roe v. Wade, not on pro-life grounds, but on pro-federalism grounds. It is an unnecessary federal intrusion into states rights that needs to end. The issue is so divisive simply because it tries to force everybody into a single social policy combined with the general misunderstanding that if it were overturned abortion would be illegal everywhere.
The same goes for environmental policy. The EPA takes all control over environmental regulation out of the hands of the states. I don't think it is right and proper for a politicians in Florida to tell the Alaskans that they can't drill for oil somewhere in their state. And it isn't right for Alaskans to force Californians to drill off of their beaches.
Again, the same goes for the Department of Education. I think the NCLBA is objectionable because it doesn't take local conditions into account. It is a blow to federalism. It fails to account for the values of the local communities and robs them of control over their schools. There are a whole lot of people who voted for Democrats this time that would agree with me. If Republicans fall in line against it on federalist grounds, we'd also have a good chance of gaining votes from the center and some of the left as well.
For the record, I am against any federal mandates for public education. There is a legitimate defense argument for federal intervention in education, but I would rather err on the side of federalism since education is so important to parents that federal control inevitably run counter to the wishes of some parents. We should abolish the Department of Education as well. Fortunately all 50 states have public education systems, so we can safely remove the federal department with no negative consequences.
Here in WA, I am for a voucher system because I think the publicly run system and WEA are failing to uphold their part of the public education bargain. The schools are getting worse and there is no choice for parents who can't afford private school. This is one area where the WEA is arguing against liberty and choice to protect their monopoly. I think the continual failure of the schools is making parents open to a message of choice and I think we can win a voucher system if the argument is framed in terms of liberty instead of anti-unionism. This is one case where liberty and choice would better distribute the wealth of a good education to all children than the existing public school monopoly. All children would have better options and the competition would create a marketplace for teacher talent. I think Washington DC's voucher system proves that.
Doug, I don't think you understand my post. I was trying to suggest that we dust off the old blueprint for the Republican party while you're off in the weeds talking about the ancient roots of private property and such. We're talking past each other. My arguments for restoring federalism and liberty are by no means an argument for anarchy. I just want to rebuild the party back into one that Taft or Lincoln would recognize.
We have lost our way by engaging in the culture war. We can end the culture war outright or at least sideline it by pushing it to the states under the banner of federalism. We have lost our way by engaging in the Wilsonian vision of making the world safe for Democracy. We have lost our way by ceding too much of our sovereignty to organizations like the WTO. We have lost our way by accepting that we must privatize the profits and socialize the losses. If there are no consequences for failure, our society will only get more irresponsible behavior, not less. We have lost our way by allowing entitlement programs to give people a false sense of security. Social security is anything but financial security for retirees and just a bad joke for the people in my generation.
There are examples all over the world of how liberty, private property, free market solutions, and smaller government create true prosperity and security for people at all levels of the socio-economic spectrum. We as Republicans are the only ones who have the ideological legitimacy to show the voters what is possible and give them a real alternative before committing to the socialist nanny-state rubicon.
Posted by: blindman on November 6, 2008 12:21 PM"forcing conservative social values on people is as offensive to voters as Democrats forcing liberal ones" This assertion is demographic nonsense, based solely on your personal prejudice, but let's talk about it from a different angle, because it is a self-defeating idea.
This is not self-defeating at all and it certainly is not my personal prejudice. Some people would be just as offended if their child was expected to pray at school as a religious parent would be that their child is not.
The problem lies with the government deciding the social issue one way or another. The answer is to get government out of running public schools and instead give vouchers to parents so they can choose which school is right for their kids.
Some parents will send their kids to Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Interfaith schools that are accommodating and supportive of their faith. Other parents will send their kids to secular or non-denominational schools that don't hold religion as a prominent part of their internal culture.
It's not self-defeating, it is called liberty. It's called freedom of conscience.
Federalism balances the pure libertarianism with the necessity to make decisions that affect groups of people. The higher up the government is, the less control it should have over your daily life. We should be caring more about our City, County, and State elections than the Presidential one because it is local officials that should have more control over your life.
This is a good way to organize government power because we are far more likely to know and talk with our local government officials than the POTUS or a senator. Our local officials are also infinitely more likely to listen and heed our concerns. If not for the fact that we're neighbors, then at least for the fact that we have torches and pitchforks and know where they live.
Posted by: blindman on November 6, 2008 12:50 PM