Currently private citizens in 20 States have filed with the US Government to allow their States to Secede. You can go here to see them.
Now, I don't think any of these petitions will be granted. Among other things, I would think such requests would have to come from the Governments in those States. On the other hand, I think it is very important to sign the petition for your State if there is one, and create one if there is not.
Here's why.
Our Nation has ceased operating within the bounds of its own Constitution. This began with the Civil War when States were denied the right to secede (a right they had been assumed to have from the beginning of the Nation). Now, I'm not going to re-fight the Civil War, here, and I think it was (generally) a good thing that it went as it did, but we cannot deny that the Civil War was the first body-blow against the Republic. It continued from there with great leaps forward during the Great Depression and FDR's New Deal, and again under Jimmy Carter and the "Great Society." Today, the Union little resembles that Republic of Sovereign States designed in Philadelphia in the late 1700s. When ObamaCare goes fully into effect, it won't matter what our nation claims it is, it will actually be a tyrannical oligarchy wherein the Political Class rules over the rest of us. In many ways it is already there, but once the Government is allowed to make direct decisions regarding your health and life, you are no longer a citizen, but a subject.
As such, it is of vital importance to let both Washington, DC, and our own States know how we feel about this. The politicians must be made to see how deeply we believe in our Liberty, and the lengths we are willing to go to preserve it. If we are to repair our Republic, we must start by shaking the politicians' belief that we'll just go along with whatever they decide. We must also make it real in our own minds what we are asking, and what price we are willing to pay for it.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Global Warming? That's what you're going with?
I don't have a link for this, but I figure it's worth mentioning. My local talker subscribes to (I think) CBS as their national news feed. This morning, came a story that "Venice was under water," by which they mean it's experiencing some fairly extreme flooding. In all seriousness they blamed Global Warming.
I guess they missed Climate Gate a couple of years ago.
I guess they missed various groups claiming there has been no statistically significant warming over the last 16 years.
I guess they missed the fact that the polar caps are growing, not shrinking.
I guess they also missed the fact that Venice is built on top of the water.
Seriously, ask Mexico City about the advisability of building a city on top the water. And I don't mean "on top" as in "an emphatic way to say right beside." No, I mean "on top" as in "on top." Venice has been slowly sinking for years. It's hardly surprising that eventually they'd slip beneath the waves.
Hey, Warmists. Get back to me when London is under water. Or Houston. Until then, I'll be over here laughing.
I guess they missed Climate Gate a couple of years ago.
I guess they missed various groups claiming there has been no statistically significant warming over the last 16 years.
I guess they missed the fact that the polar caps are growing, not shrinking.
I guess they also missed the fact that Venice is built on top of the water.
Seriously, ask Mexico City about the advisability of building a city on top the water. And I don't mean "on top" as in "an emphatic way to say right beside." No, I mean "on top" as in "on top." Venice has been slowly sinking for years. It's hardly surprising that eventually they'd slip beneath the waves.
Hey, Warmists. Get back to me when London is under water. Or Houston. Until then, I'll be over here laughing.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Obama: I'll Veto Any Bill With Current Tax Rates
Barack Obama is a saying he will veto any bill with "tax cuts" for the "rich." What he really means, of course, is that he will veto any bill which continues the current tax rates (which, after 11 years, are hardly "tax cuts" anymore) for those making $250,000.00 or more.
To which I say: Fine. Barack Obama has been promising tax hikes since he became President in 2009. He has demonized wealth creators (here's a hint: the ultra-rich don't pay marginal tax rates in the first place, they pay capital gains rates) for far longer than that. The American People, on Tuesday, voted to affirm that vision. So Republicans should give it to them.
But instead of just raising taxes on "the rich," they should point out that if the Clinton tax rates are good enough for one demographic, they should be good enough for all demographics, and simply let the the Bush tax rates expire. In addition, (and I'm completely stealing this from Ace and Glenn Reynolds) they should add a tax premium on income generated from movies, books, TV, and music. Unlike those "evil" oil companies, entertainment companies really do get special tax breaks that apply to them and only to them. Remove them. After all, who makes more money, Mitt Romney, or George Clooney? And aren't there just gaggles of Hollywood types who were assuring us that they'd like to pay higher taxes but, gosh darn it, the IRS wouldn't send them a higher bill? Well, let's send them a higher bill.
Yes, Barack Obama will demagogue this, but he'll demagogue anything. We could offer him everything he's asked for, and then he'd just move the goal posts again. Why worry about that?
To which I say: Fine. Barack Obama has been promising tax hikes since he became President in 2009. He has demonized wealth creators (here's a hint: the ultra-rich don't pay marginal tax rates in the first place, they pay capital gains rates) for far longer than that. The American People, on Tuesday, voted to affirm that vision. So Republicans should give it to them.
But instead of just raising taxes on "the rich," they should point out that if the Clinton tax rates are good enough for one demographic, they should be good enough for all demographics, and simply let the the Bush tax rates expire. In addition, (and I'm completely stealing this from Ace and Glenn Reynolds) they should add a tax premium on income generated from movies, books, TV, and music. Unlike those "evil" oil companies, entertainment companies really do get special tax breaks that apply to them and only to them. Remove them. After all, who makes more money, Mitt Romney, or George Clooney? And aren't there just gaggles of Hollywood types who were assuring us that they'd like to pay higher taxes but, gosh darn it, the IRS wouldn't send them a higher bill? Well, let's send them a higher bill.
Yes, Barack Obama will demagogue this, but he'll demagogue anything. We could offer him everything he's asked for, and then he'd just move the goal posts again. Why worry about that?
A Second Honeymoon?
Do you remember when George W Bush was re-elected in 2004 how the Democrats said, "Oh, the American People have spoken, we have to work with this man?" Yeah, me neither.
Nevertheless, that seems to be what John Boenher and several other Republicans in leadership positions (I won't call them leaders) seem to be doing with Barack Obama, who remains a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant, and a traitor. The two major issues on the plate right now are immigration (read: Amnesty) and The Fiscal Cliff (read: Tax cuts for the Rich!).
Obama wants, as he has maintained for the last several months, to keep the Bush Tax Rates, with the exception that he wants the top marginal rate to return to Clinton-era levels. On immigration, of course, a full amnesty (excuse me, a "path to citizenship") is the goal.
I believe these require two different strategies. Hopefully we won't just get sold out (note: I'm not holding my breath, though).
On taxation, I think Republicans need to say, "No, no, if the Clinton era tax rates are good enough for small business owners, they're good enough for everyone. We'll act to stop sequestration, but tax rates all go back to Clinton era levels." The American people have spoken, after all, and if Clinton rates are good for one group, they should be good enough for every group.
On immigration, I think we need to stick to our guns. No compromise, no surrender. We've granted amnesty-for-enforcement in the past, and we never got the enforcement part. Require enforcement first. Gain real control of the border, start checking immigration status. Deport illegal aliens. Only once that is done and is showing results do we talk about some kind of amnesty or path to citizenship.
Then, in negotiations, we can moderate that stance a little. Offer this (again- start with the other, work toward this, anything past this is no deal): If an illegal alien can prove they've been here since X Date (call it Jan 1 of the year the law is passed. So if they pass it in the next month, Jan 1, 2012), they will be temporarily exempt from deportation. All other laws still apply (especially against employers who hire them), but they won't be subject to deportation. In return, we get 4 years of full enforcement (including deportation on first pick-up) of illegals who cannot prove they were here prior to that date. We get 4 years of full enforcement on the border, including more border patrol agents, better ROE for the border patrol, etc. If, after those 4 years, we see that enforcement really has become a priority, then we will discuss some form of a "path to citizenship" for illegals already in the country.
Any attempt to force a national DREAM act, or path to citizenship (that is: amnesty) before enforcement has been proven should end negotiations immediately- we won't even discuss those issues until enforcement has been agreed upon and implemented.
I have three reasons for the positions. First, I believe they are fairly practical and still conservative. Neither is perfect, but we have a Democrat President and Senate, we're not going to get "perfect." The best we can hope for is "not disastrous." Second, I believe they should actually be obtainable. These are opinions showing we're willing to "meet the President half-way." Finally, I believe they'll show the grassroots- those of us who are licking our wounds from Tuesday and have (either permanently or temporarily) joined the side of "just let it burn"- that the GOP is serious about Conservative ideas, and that we won't be sold out "in the spirit of bipartisanship."
That last one is probably the most important. If Boehner and the House sell out conservatives, the Republicans are done, and a new party will arise- probably giving Democrats the Presidency and Senate (at least) for the next 12 - 20 years.
Nevertheless, that seems to be what John Boenher and several other Republicans in leadership positions (I won't call them leaders) seem to be doing with Barack Obama, who remains a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant, and a traitor. The two major issues on the plate right now are immigration (read: Amnesty) and The Fiscal Cliff (read: Tax cuts for the Rich!).
Obama wants, as he has maintained for the last several months, to keep the Bush Tax Rates, with the exception that he wants the top marginal rate to return to Clinton-era levels. On immigration, of course, a full amnesty (excuse me, a "path to citizenship") is the goal.
I believe these require two different strategies. Hopefully we won't just get sold out (note: I'm not holding my breath, though).
On taxation, I think Republicans need to say, "No, no, if the Clinton era tax rates are good enough for small business owners, they're good enough for everyone. We'll act to stop sequestration, but tax rates all go back to Clinton era levels." The American people have spoken, after all, and if Clinton rates are good for one group, they should be good enough for every group.
On immigration, I think we need to stick to our guns. No compromise, no surrender. We've granted amnesty-for-enforcement in the past, and we never got the enforcement part. Require enforcement first. Gain real control of the border, start checking immigration status. Deport illegal aliens. Only once that is done and is showing results do we talk about some kind of amnesty or path to citizenship.
Then, in negotiations, we can moderate that stance a little. Offer this (again- start with the other, work toward this, anything past this is no deal): If an illegal alien can prove they've been here since X Date (call it Jan 1 of the year the law is passed. So if they pass it in the next month, Jan 1, 2012), they will be temporarily exempt from deportation. All other laws still apply (especially against employers who hire them), but they won't be subject to deportation. In return, we get 4 years of full enforcement (including deportation on first pick-up) of illegals who cannot prove they were here prior to that date. We get 4 years of full enforcement on the border, including more border patrol agents, better ROE for the border patrol, etc. If, after those 4 years, we see that enforcement really has become a priority, then we will discuss some form of a "path to citizenship" for illegals already in the country.
Any attempt to force a national DREAM act, or path to citizenship (that is: amnesty) before enforcement has been proven should end negotiations immediately- we won't even discuss those issues until enforcement has been agreed upon and implemented.
I have three reasons for the positions. First, I believe they are fairly practical and still conservative. Neither is perfect, but we have a Democrat President and Senate, we're not going to get "perfect." The best we can hope for is "not disastrous." Second, I believe they should actually be obtainable. These are opinions showing we're willing to "meet the President half-way." Finally, I believe they'll show the grassroots- those of us who are licking our wounds from Tuesday and have (either permanently or temporarily) joined the side of "just let it burn"- that the GOP is serious about Conservative ideas, and that we won't be sold out "in the spirit of bipartisanship."
That last one is probably the most important. If Boehner and the House sell out conservatives, the Republicans are done, and a new party will arise- probably giving Democrats the Presidency and Senate (at least) for the next 12 - 20 years.
The Culture Wars
Okay, I know I'm screaming into the wind on this one, but I've got to get it off my chest. Heck, maybe someone who can do something about it will even read it and something might happen. Stranger things have, after all. It's rained frogs.
One of the reasons America appears to be a "50/50" nation or a "Center-Right" or (now) "Center-Left" nation is that Conservatives surrendered in the culture wars. Before they surrendered, they weren't fighting it very well to begin with. When the culture is Liberal, the electorate will be predisposed to be Liberal.
Now, I'm not going to waste time saying that the culture is "courser" now than it was. I'm not going to say we need to return to shows like "Leave it to Beaver," or "Father Knows Best." For one thing, that horse has already left the stable. For another, I'm not sure I would recommend it even if it weren't.
No, what we need to do is subvert the culture from within. We need to take back the schools. We need to take back music, TV, and movies. And we need to do it well.
Taking the schools back over is a very tall order, and will take a minimum of 30 years to accomplish. We need to be encouraging our children to become teachers, and then teach conservative values in the classroom. I'm not talking about the question of Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, either. I'm talking focusing on a Conservative take on History. Were you aware that most factory owners and mine owners were already undertaking to shorten the work week and make things safer for workers before unions came into the picture? Probably not, because that's not taught. But it's true. I'm talking about a Conservative curriculum in the first place- more emphasis on "real-world" math and economics, for instance. Not everyone needs to learn trigonometry. Everyone needs to learn how to write, and stick to, a budget.
Interestingly, I believe that taking back music, TV, and movies will actually prove easier than taking back the schools. For one thing, we already know we have some heavy-weights (and middle-weights) in show-business. Clint Eastwood is such an icon in Hollywood that he is unassailable even when he talks openly about conservatism. There are others as well. They might not be quite as iconic, but there are enough of them that they'd be fine if they'd band together.
Currently, conservative entries in pop-culture (which will eventually just become "culture") are some combination of badly done, poorly funded, and under-exposed. We need to fix all of those.
The typical "Conservative" film in Hollywood is usually a "film" in every since of the word. It's usually some high-minded concept piece that few will watch. Or it's some way-too-sappy movie that, again, few will watch. What we need are not films, but movies.
We need action movies with explosions, and bad guys dying in impressive ways, and a good guy who is definably conservative. The Governator has made a few of these, but we need more. We need zombie movies where stereotypical examples of the things we don't like die in gruesome and inventive ways, while stereotypical examples of things we support win the day through self-sacrifice and teamwork. We need romantic comedies where the main characters epitomize purity and kindness and all of those things, and the conflict comes from something other than one of them lying to the other, or assuming the worst about the other.
We need to promote bands like Madison Rising who sing a conservative message and do it well.
We need Drama TV shows that follow the ups and downs of (just spit balling here) a corporate investment firm. We could watch them agonize over decisions and find the best way forward for their own employees. Or maybe a TV show that follows a small business owner, trying to balance a life at home with family against the needs of the business to make it succeed. We need comedies where the affable, relatable character is a Conservative, with conservative answers to problems.
I can't do this. That's not the kind of writing at which I'm any good. I acknowledge this. But there are those out there who can do that writing, and who should do that writing. There are those out there who can fund and produce that kind of entertainment, and they should. There are those out there who can act, or sing, or whatever- and should.
Start fighting back in the culture, it may be the most important battleground between Liberalism and Conservatism.
One of the reasons America appears to be a "50/50" nation or a "Center-Right" or (now) "Center-Left" nation is that Conservatives surrendered in the culture wars. Before they surrendered, they weren't fighting it very well to begin with. When the culture is Liberal, the electorate will be predisposed to be Liberal.
Now, I'm not going to waste time saying that the culture is "courser" now than it was. I'm not going to say we need to return to shows like "Leave it to Beaver," or "Father Knows Best." For one thing, that horse has already left the stable. For another, I'm not sure I would recommend it even if it weren't.
No, what we need to do is subvert the culture from within. We need to take back the schools. We need to take back music, TV, and movies. And we need to do it well.
Taking the schools back over is a very tall order, and will take a minimum of 30 years to accomplish. We need to be encouraging our children to become teachers, and then teach conservative values in the classroom. I'm not talking about the question of Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, either. I'm talking focusing on a Conservative take on History. Were you aware that most factory owners and mine owners were already undertaking to shorten the work week and make things safer for workers before unions came into the picture? Probably not, because that's not taught. But it's true. I'm talking about a Conservative curriculum in the first place- more emphasis on "real-world" math and economics, for instance. Not everyone needs to learn trigonometry. Everyone needs to learn how to write, and stick to, a budget.
Interestingly, I believe that taking back music, TV, and movies will actually prove easier than taking back the schools. For one thing, we already know we have some heavy-weights (and middle-weights) in show-business. Clint Eastwood is such an icon in Hollywood that he is unassailable even when he talks openly about conservatism. There are others as well. They might not be quite as iconic, but there are enough of them that they'd be fine if they'd band together.
Currently, conservative entries in pop-culture (which will eventually just become "culture") are some combination of badly done, poorly funded, and under-exposed. We need to fix all of those.
The typical "Conservative" film in Hollywood is usually a "film" in every since of the word. It's usually some high-minded concept piece that few will watch. Or it's some way-too-sappy movie that, again, few will watch. What we need are not films, but movies.
We need action movies with explosions, and bad guys dying in impressive ways, and a good guy who is definably conservative. The Governator has made a few of these, but we need more. We need zombie movies where stereotypical examples of the things we don't like die in gruesome and inventive ways, while stereotypical examples of things we support win the day through self-sacrifice and teamwork. We need romantic comedies where the main characters epitomize purity and kindness and all of those things, and the conflict comes from something other than one of them lying to the other, or assuming the worst about the other.
We need to promote bands like Madison Rising who sing a conservative message and do it well.
We need Drama TV shows that follow the ups and downs of (just spit balling here) a corporate investment firm. We could watch them agonize over decisions and find the best way forward for their own employees. Or maybe a TV show that follows a small business owner, trying to balance a life at home with family against the needs of the business to make it succeed. We need comedies where the affable, relatable character is a Conservative, with conservative answers to problems.
I can't do this. That's not the kind of writing at which I'm any good. I acknowledge this. But there are those out there who can do that writing, and who should do that writing. There are those out there who can fund and produce that kind of entertainment, and they should. There are those out there who can act, or sing, or whatever- and should.
Start fighting back in the culture, it may be the most important battleground between Liberalism and Conservatism.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
On Messaging
One of the things I've been hearing the last couple of days is that Republicans need a new message- or to refine our messaging. Part of this comes from this post from DrewM at the Ace of Spades HQ, the other from an anecdotal comment from friend-of-the-blog tsrblke on twitter. Drew points out that 81% to 18%, the electorate believed that Obama "cares more about people like me" than Mitt Romney. On a related note, tsrblke points out that many believe that Republicans see everyone on welfare as "takers."
Now, both of these are silly. They're even stupid. They're also both absolutely correct. What Republicans believe doesn't matter. What people believe that Republicans believe is what matters. Mitt Romney is a very caring man. The stories of his being a caring man are poignant and hardly rare- except that he wouldn't talk about them. As for all those on welfare being "takers?" Well, that comes down to the "47%" comment.
So what do we do? If we change our principles, then we're not the same Republican party. We could do that, but we'd have to recognize we're giving up on things that have been core conservative values for generations. If we won't change the product, though, maybe we have to change the packaging.
But how do we do that? We can't just offer people free stuff, nor should we. It's weak and cowardly to do so, which makes it all the more vexing that Democrats get away with it cycle after cycle.
I have a couple of ideas, here.
First off, about the "makers versus takers," we need to radically shift our language there. Mark Davis (formerly of WBAP in Dallas/Fort Worth, now on 660 KSKY ("The Answer")) has recommended using the term "Economic Liberty." We're not for "Tax cuts for the rich" we're for increased economic liberty. We're not for a national sales tax, or a flat tax, we're against the economic repression of a too-bulky, hard-to-understand progressive tax system. We don't want to "privatize Social Security" we want to expand Seniors' economic liberty by giving them additional choices to fund their retirement.
Second, on the "he cares about me," stuff, there are two steps. The first, and most simple, is simply to say that, over and over. Not flippantly, dismissively, or in exasperation. "Of course we care" is not the correct answer. "Republicans care deeply about the plight of young urban youths. That's why we want plans that will empower them to reach their goals and achieve their dreams." "Martin Luther King, Jr., a Republican, believed in a world where your abilities, not your skin color, determined your success. Republicans still believe in that dream." Yes, it's touchy-feely, mealy-mouthed crap. It's also absolutely necessary.
For those of you who are married- what do you think would happen to your marriage if you never, ever told your spouse, "I love you?" Or, when you did, it was "Well of course I love you, I can't believe you'd ask that question! Would I work 50 hour weeks to keep a roof over your head if I didn't love you?" That wouldn't do much for your marital bliss, would it?
Well, the voters we need to reach are the same way. They have to hear "we care," over and over and over.
The second step is more difficult. We have to actively change our image from one of "big ideas" to one of "personal ideas." Republicans typically reject this approach. "We don't worry about [group], because we know that our policies are good for everybody." Well, we need to be seen as worrying about [group] more often. We need to be seen as thinking for X many minutes every day, "I wonder what I can do to help young blacks," or, "We've got to do better helping rape victims," or, "What can we do to make sure women are successful?"
Ultimately, this question constantly trips up Republicans in debates, "I'm a member of [insert group here], what are you going to do for me?" Republicans respond with the quite factually correct answer that getting government out of the way is good for everybody. Then the Democrat says, "See, I see people in exactly your situation every day. What I propose to do is have group X fund a plan to give you more free stuff."
Republicans can't win against "free stuff" but we don't really have to. We just have to be more competitive. So, when the question of (for instance) student loans comes up, a good answer might be something along these lines:
"You know, I talk to college kids who are either just graduating, or looking at graduation pretty quickly all the time. And their number one concern, as soon-to-be or recent graduates is 'how do I pay for these loans.' Well, let me tell you what I'm going to do about that. First off, I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure your loans stay as affordable as possible. The last thing you need is for your interest rate suddenly to go up. The next thing I'm going to do is everything in my power to make sure you can get a job that will let you then pay back those loans as quickly as possible.
Then, for people who are further away from graduation, or aren't even in college yet, I'm going to do one more thing: I'm going to use what power I'll have to encourage colleges to offer a streamlined degree program that can be completed in 3 years of full-time work. Right now, a lot of the cost of your education is taking credits that don't actually have anything to do with your major. Now, that's really good from the standpoint of a well-rounded education, but when you're trying to get a degree so you can get a good job, you don't need those extra hours which cost you so much."
Now, here's the thing: realize how many weasel words you've left in. "Everything in my power." "What power I'll have" "Encourage." "As quickly as possible." Just as importantly, realize that I can achieve all of those goals through conservative means, with the possible exception of the low interest rate (see also: weasel words). A good job? Lowering regulations, cutting the minimum wage, and all kinds of conservative ideas will make business boom- leading to more jobs. Encouraging colleges can be done, not by increasing their grants and subsidies, but by threatening to cut them.
Messaging is important. It doesn't matter how good your product is if no one will buy it. We've got to figure our our messaging and get it fixed- fast.
Now, both of these are silly. They're even stupid. They're also both absolutely correct. What Republicans believe doesn't matter. What people believe that Republicans believe is what matters. Mitt Romney is a very caring man. The stories of his being a caring man are poignant and hardly rare- except that he wouldn't talk about them. As for all those on welfare being "takers?" Well, that comes down to the "47%" comment.
So what do we do? If we change our principles, then we're not the same Republican party. We could do that, but we'd have to recognize we're giving up on things that have been core conservative values for generations. If we won't change the product, though, maybe we have to change the packaging.
But how do we do that? We can't just offer people free stuff, nor should we. It's weak and cowardly to do so, which makes it all the more vexing that Democrats get away with it cycle after cycle.
I have a couple of ideas, here.
First off, about the "makers versus takers," we need to radically shift our language there. Mark Davis (formerly of WBAP in Dallas/Fort Worth, now on 660 KSKY ("The Answer")) has recommended using the term "Economic Liberty." We're not for "Tax cuts for the rich" we're for increased economic liberty. We're not for a national sales tax, or a flat tax, we're against the economic repression of a too-bulky, hard-to-understand progressive tax system. We don't want to "privatize Social Security" we want to expand Seniors' economic liberty by giving them additional choices to fund their retirement.
Second, on the "he cares about me," stuff, there are two steps. The first, and most simple, is simply to say that, over and over. Not flippantly, dismissively, or in exasperation. "Of course we care" is not the correct answer. "Republicans care deeply about the plight of young urban youths. That's why we want plans that will empower them to reach their goals and achieve their dreams." "Martin Luther King, Jr., a Republican, believed in a world where your abilities, not your skin color, determined your success. Republicans still believe in that dream." Yes, it's touchy-feely, mealy-mouthed crap. It's also absolutely necessary.
For those of you who are married- what do you think would happen to your marriage if you never, ever told your spouse, "I love you?" Or, when you did, it was "Well of course I love you, I can't believe you'd ask that question! Would I work 50 hour weeks to keep a roof over your head if I didn't love you?" That wouldn't do much for your marital bliss, would it?
Well, the voters we need to reach are the same way. They have to hear "we care," over and over and over.
The second step is more difficult. We have to actively change our image from one of "big ideas" to one of "personal ideas." Republicans typically reject this approach. "We don't worry about [group], because we know that our policies are good for everybody." Well, we need to be seen as worrying about [group] more often. We need to be seen as thinking for X many minutes every day, "I wonder what I can do to help young blacks," or, "We've got to do better helping rape victims," or, "What can we do to make sure women are successful?"
Ultimately, this question constantly trips up Republicans in debates, "I'm a member of [insert group here], what are you going to do for me?" Republicans respond with the quite factually correct answer that getting government out of the way is good for everybody. Then the Democrat says, "See, I see people in exactly your situation every day. What I propose to do is have group X fund a plan to give you more free stuff."
Republicans can't win against "free stuff" but we don't really have to. We just have to be more competitive. So, when the question of (for instance) student loans comes up, a good answer might be something along these lines:
"You know, I talk to college kids who are either just graduating, or looking at graduation pretty quickly all the time. And their number one concern, as soon-to-be or recent graduates is 'how do I pay for these loans.' Well, let me tell you what I'm going to do about that. First off, I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure your loans stay as affordable as possible. The last thing you need is for your interest rate suddenly to go up. The next thing I'm going to do is everything in my power to make sure you can get a job that will let you then pay back those loans as quickly as possible.
Then, for people who are further away from graduation, or aren't even in college yet, I'm going to do one more thing: I'm going to use what power I'll have to encourage colleges to offer a streamlined degree program that can be completed in 3 years of full-time work. Right now, a lot of the cost of your education is taking credits that don't actually have anything to do with your major. Now, that's really good from the standpoint of a well-rounded education, but when you're trying to get a degree so you can get a good job, you don't need those extra hours which cost you so much."
Now, here's the thing: realize how many weasel words you've left in. "Everything in my power." "What power I'll have" "Encourage." "As quickly as possible." Just as importantly, realize that I can achieve all of those goals through conservative means, with the possible exception of the low interest rate (see also: weasel words). A good job? Lowering regulations, cutting the minimum wage, and all kinds of conservative ideas will make business boom- leading to more jobs. Encouraging colleges can be done, not by increasing their grants and subsidies, but by threatening to cut them.
Messaging is important. It doesn't matter how good your product is if no one will buy it. We've got to figure our our messaging and get it fixed- fast.
Why Federalism?
Yesterday, I posted a fairly academic piece about Federalism and Taxation. I think it's important to understand exactly why I did that, and why I think that what Conservatives need to be fighting for is a return to Federalism.
Federalism is the single most important defense the framers of the Constitution put in to protect individual citizens from the tyranny of a monolithic national government. Because of Federalism, they believed that giving the Federal government an unlimited power to tax would be checked. One of the primary reasons they never specifically wrote the idea of Judicial Review (as it is currently practiced, at any rate) into the Constitution is that they believed that Federalism would prevent Congress from passing unconstitutional laws.
To understand why the believed this, we have to examine what Federalism really is. The simple answer, taught to school children, is that Federalism is a hierarchical government. That there's the Federal Government on top, and the States below that, and local communities below that. That is not, however, what Federalism is. If that were Federalism, then the USSR would have been a Federalist system. If that were Federalism, then the League of Nations would have worked.
No, Federalism is the concept of shared government. Yes, the Federal Government is the "supreme" government. When it speaks, you must listen. However, part of Federalism is the very fact that lower levels of government have a "seat at the table." It is important to realize that the only nationally elected office has no seat at the legislative table. The President can recommend laws. He can provide his assent to, or veto laws. But when it comes to actually writing them, he has no say beyond his "bully pulpit" and communicating with the American People. The only true "Federal" offices- that of the President and the Supreme Court- did not have any say in how laws were written. This is because a Federal Government, as opposed to a National Government, is built very firmly on the "consent of the governed."
We use that phrase a lot: "Consent of the governed." People assume it means that we merely consent to *be* governed. That is, as long as the people don't revolt, that consent is assumed. That is also not quite right. Consent of the governed means that those who are governed have some say in their government.
With that in mind, realize that the arm of government which is supposed to write the laws is not a Federal arm of government. Even in today's broken system, I do not vote for the Senators from New Hampshire. I vote for my own Senators. In the original system, the People had a voice in what laws were made through their Representatives- who were elected every 2 years. The States *also* had a voice in what laws were made through the Senate- who were appointed by their State Legislatures.
Now, it was that balance of power- that the Federal Government itself had no say in laws, that the States' interests were looked after by the Senate, and that the People's interests were looked after by the House- that was supposed to protect the people from all kinds of Tyranny. Now that balance of power is broken. The States have no say. Worse, while Senators run on the same populist sentiment that Representatives run on, they maintain the elevated powers of being a Senator. How many Senators voted for ObamaCare who would not have if they'd had to face re-election in 2010? The very fact that some retired rather than facing re-election then, or this year, should be enough proof that many only voted for it because they felt their 4 or 6 years left before re-election would be enough to distract "the mob."
Federalism is the battle of the future. I'm not sure how we win that battle, frankly. I'm not sure that we can win that battle. But if that battle is not won, it doesn't matter how many we do win; we'll lose the war.
Federalism is the single most important defense the framers of the Constitution put in to protect individual citizens from the tyranny of a monolithic national government. Because of Federalism, they believed that giving the Federal government an unlimited power to tax would be checked. One of the primary reasons they never specifically wrote the idea of Judicial Review (as it is currently practiced, at any rate) into the Constitution is that they believed that Federalism would prevent Congress from passing unconstitutional laws.
To understand why the believed this, we have to examine what Federalism really is. The simple answer, taught to school children, is that Federalism is a hierarchical government. That there's the Federal Government on top, and the States below that, and local communities below that. That is not, however, what Federalism is. If that were Federalism, then the USSR would have been a Federalist system. If that were Federalism, then the League of Nations would have worked.
No, Federalism is the concept of shared government. Yes, the Federal Government is the "supreme" government. When it speaks, you must listen. However, part of Federalism is the very fact that lower levels of government have a "seat at the table." It is important to realize that the only nationally elected office has no seat at the legislative table. The President can recommend laws. He can provide his assent to, or veto laws. But when it comes to actually writing them, he has no say beyond his "bully pulpit" and communicating with the American People. The only true "Federal" offices- that of the President and the Supreme Court- did not have any say in how laws were written. This is because a Federal Government, as opposed to a National Government, is built very firmly on the "consent of the governed."
We use that phrase a lot: "Consent of the governed." People assume it means that we merely consent to *be* governed. That is, as long as the people don't revolt, that consent is assumed. That is also not quite right. Consent of the governed means that those who are governed have some say in their government.
With that in mind, realize that the arm of government which is supposed to write the laws is not a Federal arm of government. Even in today's broken system, I do not vote for the Senators from New Hampshire. I vote for my own Senators. In the original system, the People had a voice in what laws were made through their Representatives- who were elected every 2 years. The States *also* had a voice in what laws were made through the Senate- who were appointed by their State Legislatures.
Now, it was that balance of power- that the Federal Government itself had no say in laws, that the States' interests were looked after by the Senate, and that the People's interests were looked after by the House- that was supposed to protect the people from all kinds of Tyranny. Now that balance of power is broken. The States have no say. Worse, while Senators run on the same populist sentiment that Representatives run on, they maintain the elevated powers of being a Senator. How many Senators voted for ObamaCare who would not have if they'd had to face re-election in 2010? The very fact that some retired rather than facing re-election then, or this year, should be enough proof that many only voted for it because they felt their 4 or 6 years left before re-election would be enough to distract "the mob."
Federalism is the battle of the future. I'm not sure how we win that battle, frankly. I'm not sure that we can win that battle. But if that battle is not won, it doesn't matter how many we do win; we'll lose the war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)