It has been a while since I posted and have been busy with family matters but I thought I would include this interesting perspective on redistributive policies and government intervention:
"U.S. President Grover Cleveland once vetoed an expenditure that would have provided $10,000 of federal aid to drought-stricken Texas farmers. He explained to congress why such an appropriation of taxpayer money was inappropriate:
"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people. ... The friendliness and charity of our fellow countrymen can always be relied on to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."
Monday, August 17, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
“Progressive” Government & Big Business: Common and Corrupt Bedfellows
After examining the moral justification for capitalism and the hypocrisy that exists within government regarding the policy of price controls and monopolies, it would be reasonable to conclude that businesses would want as much freedom and competition free from government control as possible within the marketplace. However, ever since politicians and economists first began enacting policies to regulate and “plan” the free market, there have been a contingent of traditionally larger businesses that have been strong advocates for government control and manipulation of the markets. Why would these businesses jump in bed with the government? The answer lies at the end of what my grandfather wisely taught me about years ago: “Follow the money trail.”
A byproduct of the consumer-friendly competition created by capitalism is the requirement of every business to pull its own weight and create value for consumers or risk being overtaken by more innovative, creative and driven competitors. So what is the best way for a large established company to avoid the hard work required to remain its status at the top of its industry? Run to the only institution capable of forcing businesses and individuals to comply with its demands: the government.
Traditionally, political pundits and historians have painted the interests of big business as being aligned with a conservative agenda. However, an examination of the Obama administration’s “cozy embrace of big business,” through its economic policies and bailouts, persuasively illustrates that big business has rarely had such an ally as the government in shielding them from the cruel realities of competition.
A few examples I have stolen from Jonah Goldberg (writer for National Review) will illustrate my point: (1) it has been well publicized that when President Obama called for healthcare reform, insurance companies quickly adopted the mantra that they wanted to be “at the table rather than on the menu.” Translation – insurance companies wanted to ensure that they were in a position to play a profitable and integral role in the upcoming welfare state that will be created through socialized medicine; (2) Phillip Morris, the largest of the tobacco companies, recently supported and realized passage of a so-called “anti-tobacco” bill that benefited Morris’ position in the market because it made it more difficult for smaller, more innovative competitors to compete (the bill made it more difficult for tobacco companies to advertise their products – a nice bill for a large tobacco company looking to retain its 50% market share); (3) GE has willingly jumped into bed with the government on the global warming hysteria by peddling “green” products to Uncle Sam rather than creating and selling competitive products on the free market that create value for consumers. Why? Because GE knows that it wants to position itself as a “favorite” of Obama when cap-and-trade passes so that it can attain a protected industry status, thereby ensuring decades of government subsidization; (4) finally, the most obvious and blatant example of protectionism for big business is President Obama’s proposed plan to deal with “systemic risk” in the financial markets. A quick summary of the proposal shows that big businesses in the financial markets – large banks, insurance companies, etc – will not be permitted to fail if it is determined by the Federal Reserve that such a failure would threaten the stability of the financial markets. This policy creates an obvious incentive for larger financial firms to grow as quickly and attain as much influence within the markets as possible in order to attain a “too big to fail” status (even if it were to involve irresponsible “investments”). By attaining a “too big to fail” status, a business can become lazy and rest assured that it has become a ward of the state and can operate as a careless chronic welfare recipient that has no incentive to do anything other than maintain its status.
Who loses when big business jumps into bed with the government? You do. Individual consumers and small businesses seeking to expand by offering better products at lower prices lose. Individual consumers lose because we never experience the drop in prices and development of new, innovative and more efficient products by smaller, hungrier and aggressive entrepreneurs. Small businesses lose because they don’t have the benefit of government protection from competition and are required to play from an uneven playing field, thereby limiting the prospects of success.
The examples discussed above provide a wonderful illustration of how a planned economy creates inequities that far outweigh the claimed “unfair” consequences of a free market economy. What is the end result of President Obama’s policies that protect big business at the expense of small business and consumers? Any Rand summarizes it best: “The inevitable result of planned economies is a ‘syndicalist or corporative organization of industry in which competition is more or less suppressed but planning is left in the hands of the independent monopolies of the separate industries. This places the consumer at the mercy of the joint monopolist action of capitalists and the workers in the best organized industries.” See what happens when government confuses and corrupts the free market by taking sides and protecting certain “big” business? I don’t fault big business for looking out for their interests by attempting to capitalize on a corrupt government; I fault our corrupt government for taking sides and corrupting the free market.
A byproduct of the consumer-friendly competition created by capitalism is the requirement of every business to pull its own weight and create value for consumers or risk being overtaken by more innovative, creative and driven competitors. So what is the best way for a large established company to avoid the hard work required to remain its status at the top of its industry? Run to the only institution capable of forcing businesses and individuals to comply with its demands: the government.
Traditionally, political pundits and historians have painted the interests of big business as being aligned with a conservative agenda. However, an examination of the Obama administration’s “cozy embrace of big business,” through its economic policies and bailouts, persuasively illustrates that big business has rarely had such an ally as the government in shielding them from the cruel realities of competition.
A few examples I have stolen from Jonah Goldberg (writer for National Review) will illustrate my point: (1) it has been well publicized that when President Obama called for healthcare reform, insurance companies quickly adopted the mantra that they wanted to be “at the table rather than on the menu.” Translation – insurance companies wanted to ensure that they were in a position to play a profitable and integral role in the upcoming welfare state that will be created through socialized medicine; (2) Phillip Morris, the largest of the tobacco companies, recently supported and realized passage of a so-called “anti-tobacco” bill that benefited Morris’ position in the market because it made it more difficult for smaller, more innovative competitors to compete (the bill made it more difficult for tobacco companies to advertise their products – a nice bill for a large tobacco company looking to retain its 50% market share); (3) GE has willingly jumped into bed with the government on the global warming hysteria by peddling “green” products to Uncle Sam rather than creating and selling competitive products on the free market that create value for consumers. Why? Because GE knows that it wants to position itself as a “favorite” of Obama when cap-and-trade passes so that it can attain a protected industry status, thereby ensuring decades of government subsidization; (4) finally, the most obvious and blatant example of protectionism for big business is President Obama’s proposed plan to deal with “systemic risk” in the financial markets. A quick summary of the proposal shows that big businesses in the financial markets – large banks, insurance companies, etc – will not be permitted to fail if it is determined by the Federal Reserve that such a failure would threaten the stability of the financial markets. This policy creates an obvious incentive for larger financial firms to grow as quickly and attain as much influence within the markets as possible in order to attain a “too big to fail” status (even if it were to involve irresponsible “investments”). By attaining a “too big to fail” status, a business can become lazy and rest assured that it has become a ward of the state and can operate as a careless chronic welfare recipient that has no incentive to do anything other than maintain its status.
Who loses when big business jumps into bed with the government? You do. Individual consumers and small businesses seeking to expand by offering better products at lower prices lose. Individual consumers lose because we never experience the drop in prices and development of new, innovative and more efficient products by smaller, hungrier and aggressive entrepreneurs. Small businesses lose because they don’t have the benefit of government protection from competition and are required to play from an uneven playing field, thereby limiting the prospects of success.
The examples discussed above provide a wonderful illustration of how a planned economy creates inequities that far outweigh the claimed “unfair” consequences of a free market economy. What is the end result of President Obama’s policies that protect big business at the expense of small business and consumers? Any Rand summarizes it best: “The inevitable result of planned economies is a ‘syndicalist or corporative organization of industry in which competition is more or less suppressed but planning is left in the hands of the independent monopolies of the separate industries. This places the consumer at the mercy of the joint monopolist action of capitalists and the workers in the best organized industries.” See what happens when government confuses and corrupts the free market by taking sides and protecting certain “big” business? I don’t fault big business for looking out for their interests by attempting to capitalize on a corrupt government; I fault our corrupt government for taking sides and corrupting the free market.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
The Moral Justification for Capitalism
The topic of capitalism vs. planned/organized economies and their variations (socialism, fascism, communism, etc) is too complex to completely dissect in a blog posting but due to the fact that so many of President Obama’s domestic policies (health care, cap & trade, extensive regulation of the financial industry, wealth redistribution policies employed under the tax system) are based upon a perceived deficiency of capitalism and the free markets, it is important to examine the moral justification for capitalism when compared to planned economies. This blog posting will only examine the moral justification for capitalism and will reserve discussion regarding planned economies and President Obama’s concept of a planned economy for soon-to-be posted blog discussions.
When considering whether a social system should be adopted by a society, it makes sense to ask whether individual citizens will retain their freedom under the proposed system. A number of economists, philosophers, and Founding Fathers of our country have outlined the concept of freedom and the reality that in order to guarantee freedom, a social system must uphold and protect the rights of the individual. As the Declaration of Independence and other Founding documents have indicated, a citizen’s individual rights can only be assured by upholding a political and economic system that guarantees an individual’s right to his own life, his own liberty, and to the pursuit of his own happiness. If we assume that the primary goal of a social system is to provide and protect freedom, we must consider whether the system respects individual rights and whether physical force is banned from human relationships.
Although many of the concepts and thoughts about capitalism that I am about to discuss are common knowledge, I think it is important to revisit them from the moral perspective of who is permitted to make decisions and the freedom provided under capitalism. Generally, capitalism is defined as “an economic and social system in which trade and industry are privately controlled (instead of state-controlled) for profit.” Under capitalism, all human relationships (investments, distribution, income, production, pricing, and supply) are voluntary. As a social system, capitalism respects individual rights by respecting the concept of property rights. A cornerstone of capitalism is the concept of privately-owned property. The concept of private property (the right to keep property purchased and earned as a result of one’s labor) provides an incentive for each individual to strive to pursue his own good for his own sake. By allowing human relationships to remain voluntary, capitalism permits each individual to decide what product or service provides the most value. Additionally, capitalism, through the mechanism of competition, creates an incentive for each producer to continue to provide better quality and lower priced products in order to survive. By allowing every business, producer and consumer to keep the property they have earned as a result of their labor and value created within the market, capitalism provides an incentive and reward for all parties in the market: consumer, producer and service provider.
The economic benefits of capitalism are widely recognized but many proponents of capitalism advocate its use for efficiency reasons, while neglecting the freedom of choice free from coercion that capitalism provides. As an example, many passive proponents of capitalism argue that the concept of the free market can only be justified because it provides for the “best allocation of the national resources” or that it represents “the best way to achieve the common good.” These arguments are misplaced because as Ayn Rand and F.A. Hayek and others have pointed out, man is not a national resource and the fact that capitalism provides the most effective means of achieving the “common good” is merely a secondary consequence and not the primary justification for capitalism.
Many critics of capitalism argue that this desire to act in one’s own self-interest through the existence of the “profit motive” is immoral because it creates greed, excess and a misallocation of resources that leaves a segment of the population neglected and in poverty. This focus on selflessness/altruism is an admirable quality for individuals to pursue in their own lives. However, altruism is a philosophy that should be accepted or rejected by each individual based upon their own decisions, not a political philosophy employed and directed by the government. When government imposes altruism upon its citizens through claims that every citizen must act in the best interest of the public or that each citizen has a social or societal duty, it imposes a moral duty upon the competent to serve the incompetent and the willing to serve the unwilling.
The moral justification for capitalism is that it is the only system that provides for and protects the individual and his right to exist for his own sake. Capitalism provides an equal opportunity to each individual and does not discriminate or make judgments upon individuals: “The economic value of a man’s work is determined, on a free market, by a single principle: by the voluntary consent of those who are willing to trade him their work or products in return. It wholly rejects altruism (the deliberate pursuit of the interests or welfare of others or the public interest). Man is not the property or the servant of society – a man works in order to support his OWN life and must be guided by his own self-interest and if he wants to trade with others he must not expect sacrificial victims.”
The Founding Fathers always expressed their deepest respect and conviction for the freedom of individuals in society and the necessity that governments limit their sphere of influence and control. It was for this reason that America has long remained the most free of all men since its founding. Our Founding Fathers also knew that government should concern itself with providing a framework in which freedom and equality of opportunity can be assured and maintained and understood that it is wiser to leave altruism and benevolence to the moral conviction of each individual and the philanthropy of every man.
When considering whether a social system should be adopted by a society, it makes sense to ask whether individual citizens will retain their freedom under the proposed system. A number of economists, philosophers, and Founding Fathers of our country have outlined the concept of freedom and the reality that in order to guarantee freedom, a social system must uphold and protect the rights of the individual. As the Declaration of Independence and other Founding documents have indicated, a citizen’s individual rights can only be assured by upholding a political and economic system that guarantees an individual’s right to his own life, his own liberty, and to the pursuit of his own happiness. If we assume that the primary goal of a social system is to provide and protect freedom, we must consider whether the system respects individual rights and whether physical force is banned from human relationships.
Although many of the concepts and thoughts about capitalism that I am about to discuss are common knowledge, I think it is important to revisit them from the moral perspective of who is permitted to make decisions and the freedom provided under capitalism. Generally, capitalism is defined as “an economic and social system in which trade and industry are privately controlled (instead of state-controlled) for profit.” Under capitalism, all human relationships (investments, distribution, income, production, pricing, and supply) are voluntary. As a social system, capitalism respects individual rights by respecting the concept of property rights. A cornerstone of capitalism is the concept of privately-owned property. The concept of private property (the right to keep property purchased and earned as a result of one’s labor) provides an incentive for each individual to strive to pursue his own good for his own sake. By allowing human relationships to remain voluntary, capitalism permits each individual to decide what product or service provides the most value. Additionally, capitalism, through the mechanism of competition, creates an incentive for each producer to continue to provide better quality and lower priced products in order to survive. By allowing every business, producer and consumer to keep the property they have earned as a result of their labor and value created within the market, capitalism provides an incentive and reward for all parties in the market: consumer, producer and service provider.
The economic benefits of capitalism are widely recognized but many proponents of capitalism advocate its use for efficiency reasons, while neglecting the freedom of choice free from coercion that capitalism provides. As an example, many passive proponents of capitalism argue that the concept of the free market can only be justified because it provides for the “best allocation of the national resources” or that it represents “the best way to achieve the common good.” These arguments are misplaced because as Ayn Rand and F.A. Hayek and others have pointed out, man is not a national resource and the fact that capitalism provides the most effective means of achieving the “common good” is merely a secondary consequence and not the primary justification for capitalism.
Many critics of capitalism argue that this desire to act in one’s own self-interest through the existence of the “profit motive” is immoral because it creates greed, excess and a misallocation of resources that leaves a segment of the population neglected and in poverty. This focus on selflessness/altruism is an admirable quality for individuals to pursue in their own lives. However, altruism is a philosophy that should be accepted or rejected by each individual based upon their own decisions, not a political philosophy employed and directed by the government. When government imposes altruism upon its citizens through claims that every citizen must act in the best interest of the public or that each citizen has a social or societal duty, it imposes a moral duty upon the competent to serve the incompetent and the willing to serve the unwilling.
The moral justification for capitalism is that it is the only system that provides for and protects the individual and his right to exist for his own sake. Capitalism provides an equal opportunity to each individual and does not discriminate or make judgments upon individuals: “The economic value of a man’s work is determined, on a free market, by a single principle: by the voluntary consent of those who are willing to trade him their work or products in return. It wholly rejects altruism (the deliberate pursuit of the interests or welfare of others or the public interest). Man is not the property or the servant of society – a man works in order to support his OWN life and must be guided by his own self-interest and if he wants to trade with others he must not expect sacrificial victims.”
The Founding Fathers always expressed their deepest respect and conviction for the freedom of individuals in society and the necessity that governments limit their sphere of influence and control. It was for this reason that America has long remained the most free of all men since its founding. Our Founding Fathers also knew that government should concern itself with providing a framework in which freedom and equality of opportunity can be assured and maintained and understood that it is wiser to leave altruism and benevolence to the moral conviction of each individual and the philanthropy of every man.
Friday, June 26, 2009
When is a Monopoly & Price Fixing a Good Thing?
I am starting this posting differently because in the process of writing about the hypocritical economic policies being advocated by the Obama administration and the liberal members of Congress related to the Cap and Trade and socialized medicine proposals, I have realized that capitalism must be thoroughly defended and explained. It has become popular to vilify, denigrate and blame the free market for all of society’s economic problems in order to gain support for new policies that concentrate on government planning. As such, I will begin a series of blog postings related to capitalism/the free market and the fallacies and effects of government planning on our economy and individual liberties. Here are a few of the upcoming topics: (1) The Moral Justification for Capitalism; (2) Why Big Business Supports Obama’s Regulation of the Free Market; (3) Pres. Obama’s Policy of Planned Competition/Capitalism. But, these topics are for another day; back to the topic at hand.
President Obama’s health care reform rhetoric and proposed policy agenda has proposed a clever, yet dangerous twist on applying government control within the framework of competition: Obama proposes to create a public health care option operated and funded by taxpayer funds that will compete with private health insurance companies. On the surface, it sounds like a good idea to many people because it sounds like you still have competition and the free market available to all with the government merely competing as a new member of the group for the benefit of all Americans. However, as pointed out by many economists, the government insurance plan will have many political and economic advantages over private insurance companies (gov’t agency has no need to make money and can run at a loss for decades at the expense of the taxpayer, as well as exclude itself from harsh regulations imposed on the private sector – thereby placing the private sector at a distinct disadvantage) that will ultimately create a government-run health care monopoly.
The health care proposals of President Obama are merely an example of a broader point I am attempting to make: Why is a monopoly and the practice of price fixing a criminal act punishable by prison time when a private business is involved but instantly becomes admirable policy enacted for the “public interest” when instituted and directed by government?
In order to understand why the public accepts such a hypocritical argument by bureaucrats, we have to understand that, over time, the public has accepted a baseless statement: businesses operate solely on a basis of “excessive greed and irresponsibility” and policies enacted by bureaucrats are admirable attempts by “public servants” with “good intentions” to look out for the common people.
It is useful to consider the government’s own arguments against the use of monopolies and price fixing (Anti-trust laws) when determining the government’s culpability. The logic behind the Sherman Act and other anti-trust laws as expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court was that business decisions “directed to (take) control of the market by suppression of competition” should be made illegal. “The end sought (by anti-trust laws) was the prevention of restraints to free competition in business and commercial transactions which tended to restrict production, raise prices, or otherwise control the market to the detriment of purchasers or consumers of goods and services, all of which had come to be regarded as a special form of public injury.” The primary purpose of the Sherman Act and similar laws was to protect the consumer from manipulation of the market by businesses that would result in higher prices and the squeezing out of competitors, thereby limiting the effectiveness of the free market. Additionally, the Sherman Act was so concerned about the effect a monopoly would have on the consumer and other competitors that it made it a felony to show “intent to monopolize,” as expressed in Section 2: “Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine to conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony. . .”
If it has been determined by government that price fixing and monopolies are detrimental to the consumer and a “restraint to free competition,” what danger does a government program pose when it possesses inherent advantages that would have the end effect of creating an industry monopoly (a government-run health care monopoly)?
To gain a full understanding of the danger of such a government policy, it is necessary to examine the difference between economic and political power. Ayn Rand’s analysis is illustrative: “Economic power is exercised by means of a positive – offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative – threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, alienation, destruction. The businessman’s tool is values; the politician’s tool is fear. The sole means by which a government can grow big is physical force; the sole means by which a business can grow big, in a free economy, is productive achievement.” Rand makes the insightful point that the only entity in society that holds a legal monopoly on the use of force is the government. Businesses and individuals have no legal power to force individuals to act against their own choice. However, “the nature of governmental action is coercive action.” The public must recognize that when businesses make an error of economic judgment, that business suffers the consequences; when the government makes an error of political judgment, the entire country suffers the consequences.
Perhaps the most important point to take from the government’s proposal is that just as bureaucrats consistently propose legislation from which they exclude themselves (excluding Congress from the proposed government-run health care monopoly), so too they vilify, criminalize and regulate business under the disguise of “protecting the public,” only to accept and implement the same monopolistic policies for the “protection of the public.” Which is more dangerous and capable of corruption and control, business or government?
President Obama’s health care reform rhetoric and proposed policy agenda has proposed a clever, yet dangerous twist on applying government control within the framework of competition: Obama proposes to create a public health care option operated and funded by taxpayer funds that will compete with private health insurance companies. On the surface, it sounds like a good idea to many people because it sounds like you still have competition and the free market available to all with the government merely competing as a new member of the group for the benefit of all Americans. However, as pointed out by many economists, the government insurance plan will have many political and economic advantages over private insurance companies (gov’t agency has no need to make money and can run at a loss for decades at the expense of the taxpayer, as well as exclude itself from harsh regulations imposed on the private sector – thereby placing the private sector at a distinct disadvantage) that will ultimately create a government-run health care monopoly.
The health care proposals of President Obama are merely an example of a broader point I am attempting to make: Why is a monopoly and the practice of price fixing a criminal act punishable by prison time when a private business is involved but instantly becomes admirable policy enacted for the “public interest” when instituted and directed by government?
In order to understand why the public accepts such a hypocritical argument by bureaucrats, we have to understand that, over time, the public has accepted a baseless statement: businesses operate solely on a basis of “excessive greed and irresponsibility” and policies enacted by bureaucrats are admirable attempts by “public servants” with “good intentions” to look out for the common people.
It is useful to consider the government’s own arguments against the use of monopolies and price fixing (Anti-trust laws) when determining the government’s culpability. The logic behind the Sherman Act and other anti-trust laws as expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court was that business decisions “directed to (take) control of the market by suppression of competition” should be made illegal. “The end sought (by anti-trust laws) was the prevention of restraints to free competition in business and commercial transactions which tended to restrict production, raise prices, or otherwise control the market to the detriment of purchasers or consumers of goods and services, all of which had come to be regarded as a special form of public injury.” The primary purpose of the Sherman Act and similar laws was to protect the consumer from manipulation of the market by businesses that would result in higher prices and the squeezing out of competitors, thereby limiting the effectiveness of the free market. Additionally, the Sherman Act was so concerned about the effect a monopoly would have on the consumer and other competitors that it made it a felony to show “intent to monopolize,” as expressed in Section 2: “Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine to conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony. . .”
If it has been determined by government that price fixing and monopolies are detrimental to the consumer and a “restraint to free competition,” what danger does a government program pose when it possesses inherent advantages that would have the end effect of creating an industry monopoly (a government-run health care monopoly)?
To gain a full understanding of the danger of such a government policy, it is necessary to examine the difference between economic and political power. Ayn Rand’s analysis is illustrative: “Economic power is exercised by means of a positive – offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative – threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, alienation, destruction. The businessman’s tool is values; the politician’s tool is fear. The sole means by which a government can grow big is physical force; the sole means by which a business can grow big, in a free economy, is productive achievement.” Rand makes the insightful point that the only entity in society that holds a legal monopoly on the use of force is the government. Businesses and individuals have no legal power to force individuals to act against their own choice. However, “the nature of governmental action is coercive action.” The public must recognize that when businesses make an error of economic judgment, that business suffers the consequences; when the government makes an error of political judgment, the entire country suffers the consequences.
Perhaps the most important point to take from the government’s proposal is that just as bureaucrats consistently propose legislation from which they exclude themselves (excluding Congress from the proposed government-run health care monopoly), so too they vilify, criminalize and regulate business under the disguise of “protecting the public,” only to accept and implement the same monopolistic policies for the “protection of the public.” Which is more dangerous and capable of corruption and control, business or government?
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Social Justice: The Goal of President Obama and Sotomayor’s Application of Empathy and Race
On May 1, 2009, President Obama was very clear in his conclusion that in determining a qualified candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court, the “quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles, (w)as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decision(s) and outcomes.” Pres. Obama further elaborated his thoughts on empathy as a necessary quality to justice on July 17, 2007 during a speech to Planned Parenthood Action Fund: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old -- and that’s the criteria by which I’m going to select my judges.”
In the same spirit as her husband, Michelle Obama has voiced her views regarding race and her opinion that an “(African-American) separationist may better understand the desperation of their (Black lower class) situation and feel more hopeless about a resolution as opposed to an integrationist who is ignorant to their plight.”
In an attempt to establish a presence of empathy on the U.S. Supreme Court, President Obama has chosen Sonia Sotomayor, an appellate judge who has repeatedly asserted that she “embraces the view that ‘Our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions’ and explicitly disagrees with Justice O’Connor’s assessment that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion. According to Judge Sotomayor, ‘I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a while male who hasn’t lived that life.’ Judge Sotomayor challenges the belief that the law needs to be knowable and predictable, borrowing from the early 20th century Legal Realists who rejected the idea that judging involves the impartial application of neutral principles.”
With such a judicial philosophy in mind, the conservative Republicans involved in the confirmation hearings must focus on what Sotomayor’s ultimate goal is when applying empathy, race and economic status in the evaluation of cases. Why would empathy be required when applying the law to a set of facts? Social justice is the ultimate goal of President Obama and Judge Sotomayor.
Social justice has long been a goal of many philosophers and politicians and originated as a moral duty by each individual to assist individuals and groups in receiving fair treatment and an opportunity to an impartial share of the benefits of society. However, Socialism imposed a political duty on governments to ensure social justice to identified groups or individuals deemed to have experienced some form of injustice. Social justice, as a political duty, has long been defined by results. All of the named people groups Pres. Obama and Judge Sotomayor identified were all groups statistically deemed to have experienced some form of discrimination or stigma: unwed teenage mothers, the poor, gay, disabled, elderly, African-Americans, Latina women, etc. Additionally, Judge Sotomayor has explicitly identified which groups should receive empathy and at whose expense: wise Latina women would make better decisions than white males presumably because minority women would be able to account for how judicial decisions would affect minorities and other groups that have experienced some form of discrimination or injustice.
What the concept of social justice, as applied in the judicial context, truly means is that judges must, in the words of the renowned liberal constitutional law professor Lawrence Tribe, “get into the kind of controversial substantive choices that the process components are so anxious to leave to the electorate and its representatives.” More specifically, the written law is “neither irrelevant NOR all-determining and the U.S. Constitution is to be interpreted broadly as moral values to be applied rather than as explicit rules to follow.” Under Sotomayor’s view, empathy is a necessary ingredient in judicial decision-making because the decisions being made are not mere issues of law, but also issues of morality and equality.
An essential component in ensuring social justice is achieved is the belief that assistance to the less fortunate must come not through merely the means of charity, but by the transfer of benefits to the less fortunate from the more affluent of society. This transfer of wealth is viewed as a matter of justice – “individuals are entitled to some share of the wealth produced by society, simply by virtue of being members of that society, and irrespective of any individual contributions made or not made to the production of that wealth.” Empathy would be an empowering quality to an activist judge seeking social justice through redistribution of wealth and property rights in the application of the law.
Oliver Wendell Holmes opposed “confounding morality with law” and held the essential function of the law was to preserve society and strongly opposed the application of empathy or other “emotional applications,” as this quote illustrates: “The law takes no account of the infinite varieties of temperament, intellect, and education which makes the internal character of a given act so different in different men. It does not attempt to see men as God sees them.” Justice Holmes knew that to apply empathy and other emotional arguments to law was to imply a drastic change in the judicial process under the disguise of a mere preference for one group over another, with the end result being an expansion of the power of government to make “discretionary determinations in domains once exempt from its power.” Finally, to assume the judicial branch or any other branch is capable of producing specific social results is presupposing “a mastery of social details inherently beyond our ken.”
The point of this post was to point out that although the nomination of Judge Sotomayor may ultimately be confirmed due to the make-up of Congress, conservatives in Congress must use this time as an opportunity to teach and expose the true ideology behind the application of empathy, race and economic status to the judiciary. Questions should require Sotomayor to illustrate how empathy would result in better decisions and how race and an understanding of certain groups of individuals would result in more “just” decisions. If the questions are tailored appropriately, the answers from Sotomayor will illustrate that her adherence to such principles of judicial activism are the means by which she wishes to ensure social justice is achieved at the expense of the law.
In the same spirit as her husband, Michelle Obama has voiced her views regarding race and her opinion that an “(African-American) separationist may better understand the desperation of their (Black lower class) situation and feel more hopeless about a resolution as opposed to an integrationist who is ignorant to their plight.”
In an attempt to establish a presence of empathy on the U.S. Supreme Court, President Obama has chosen Sonia Sotomayor, an appellate judge who has repeatedly asserted that she “embraces the view that ‘Our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions’ and explicitly disagrees with Justice O’Connor’s assessment that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion. According to Judge Sotomayor, ‘I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a while male who hasn’t lived that life.’ Judge Sotomayor challenges the belief that the law needs to be knowable and predictable, borrowing from the early 20th century Legal Realists who rejected the idea that judging involves the impartial application of neutral principles.”
With such a judicial philosophy in mind, the conservative Republicans involved in the confirmation hearings must focus on what Sotomayor’s ultimate goal is when applying empathy, race and economic status in the evaluation of cases. Why would empathy be required when applying the law to a set of facts? Social justice is the ultimate goal of President Obama and Judge Sotomayor.
Social justice has long been a goal of many philosophers and politicians and originated as a moral duty by each individual to assist individuals and groups in receiving fair treatment and an opportunity to an impartial share of the benefits of society. However, Socialism imposed a political duty on governments to ensure social justice to identified groups or individuals deemed to have experienced some form of injustice. Social justice, as a political duty, has long been defined by results. All of the named people groups Pres. Obama and Judge Sotomayor identified were all groups statistically deemed to have experienced some form of discrimination or stigma: unwed teenage mothers, the poor, gay, disabled, elderly, African-Americans, Latina women, etc. Additionally, Judge Sotomayor has explicitly identified which groups should receive empathy and at whose expense: wise Latina women would make better decisions than white males presumably because minority women would be able to account for how judicial decisions would affect minorities and other groups that have experienced some form of discrimination or injustice.
What the concept of social justice, as applied in the judicial context, truly means is that judges must, in the words of the renowned liberal constitutional law professor Lawrence Tribe, “get into the kind of controversial substantive choices that the process components are so anxious to leave to the electorate and its representatives.” More specifically, the written law is “neither irrelevant NOR all-determining and the U.S. Constitution is to be interpreted broadly as moral values to be applied rather than as explicit rules to follow.” Under Sotomayor’s view, empathy is a necessary ingredient in judicial decision-making because the decisions being made are not mere issues of law, but also issues of morality and equality.
An essential component in ensuring social justice is achieved is the belief that assistance to the less fortunate must come not through merely the means of charity, but by the transfer of benefits to the less fortunate from the more affluent of society. This transfer of wealth is viewed as a matter of justice – “individuals are entitled to some share of the wealth produced by society, simply by virtue of being members of that society, and irrespective of any individual contributions made or not made to the production of that wealth.” Empathy would be an empowering quality to an activist judge seeking social justice through redistribution of wealth and property rights in the application of the law.
Oliver Wendell Holmes opposed “confounding morality with law” and held the essential function of the law was to preserve society and strongly opposed the application of empathy or other “emotional applications,” as this quote illustrates: “The law takes no account of the infinite varieties of temperament, intellect, and education which makes the internal character of a given act so different in different men. It does not attempt to see men as God sees them.” Justice Holmes knew that to apply empathy and other emotional arguments to law was to imply a drastic change in the judicial process under the disguise of a mere preference for one group over another, with the end result being an expansion of the power of government to make “discretionary determinations in domains once exempt from its power.” Finally, to assume the judicial branch or any other branch is capable of producing specific social results is presupposing “a mastery of social details inherently beyond our ken.”
The point of this post was to point out that although the nomination of Judge Sotomayor may ultimately be confirmed due to the make-up of Congress, conservatives in Congress must use this time as an opportunity to teach and expose the true ideology behind the application of empathy, race and economic status to the judiciary. Questions should require Sotomayor to illustrate how empathy would result in better decisions and how race and an understanding of certain groups of individuals would result in more “just” decisions. If the questions are tailored appropriately, the answers from Sotomayor will illustrate that her adherence to such principles of judicial activism are the means by which she wishes to ensure social justice is achieved at the expense of the law.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
What It Means To Be a “Moderate”
What does it mean to be a “Moderate?” What ideological approach do “moderates” adhere to? What does it mean to moderate on your principles? Why has it become so desirable for Republicans to moderate their political and moral principles?
“Moderate” Republicans have recently come forward with the charge that in order for the Republican Party to remain relevant and in-touch with the American public, Republicans must become more moderate in their views/ideology. Although it is true that politics does routinely involve negotiation and posturing, “moderate” Republicans have come forward with a philosophy of compromise and moderation as an ideology and political strategy by which to govern. In order to evaluate the validity of such a strategy, it is necessary to consider what a “moderate” claims his principles and values are and how the principle of political moderation can and will affect the American people.
As a general matter, a principle is “a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other principles depend.” A man of principle is a man that has a framework or foundation of core values and concrete concepts by which he can set goals and determine the viability of a given proposal. However, “Moderates” have articulated a self-righteous ideology that requires one to compromise with an opponent on anything in an effort to be “practical.” In an effort to be politically “practical,” Moderates have been relegated to a role of responding to policies, as they are proposed by liberals, rather than leading by principles.
Over 45 years ago, Ayn Rand wrote a defense of capitalism (“Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”) in which she addressed the issue of moderation and the effects moderation would have on capitalism and the political direction of the United States. Although this blog posting is not directly discussing the moral and societal benefits of capitalism, Rand’s analysis of moderation provides an excellent explanation of how the concept of political moderation results in unacceptable costs to the representative party and society.
Rand offered three rules about the relationship of principles to goals:
(1) In any conflict between two groups who hold the same basic principles (conservative Republicans and supposedly Moderate Republicans) it is the more consistent one who wins. The group holding a clearer, more consistent view of the end to be achieved will be more consistently right in his choice of means; and the contradictions of his opponent will work to his advantage
(2) In any collaboration between two groups who hold different basic principles (liberals and Moderate Republicans), it is the more evil or irrational who wins because a group that pursues mixed goals will find that its bad/compromised principles drive out the good principles. Compromising basic principles results in a slow slide further to the political left with no possible return to one’s previous principled position.
(3) When opposite basic principles (conservatism and liberalism) are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side but when they are not clearly defined, it works to the advantage of the irrational side – in order to win, the rational side of any controversy requires that its goals be clearly understood and defined, not hidden or confused.
Applying the rules above, it shows that a philosophy of political moderation would result in a Republican Party lacking any direction or leadership. Republicans would be relegated to responding to liberal policies/legislation by saying “no” or “me-too’ing” any program initiated by Democrats while claiming they seek to achieve “the same ends as Democrats,” but by different means. Does this strategy sound familiar? A similar strategy to John McCain, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and other “moderate” Republicans?
The goal of most liberal/statist politicans is to “change” the country through the means of a welfare state by using “single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles.” The overall effect of the liberal policies was to create statism by “slow rot.” Apparently, the goal of moderates is to merely retard this process by a series of compromises in which certain statist policies are accepted in exchange for some specified concession. This shows the primary reason liberals like/promote “moderates:” they know they can incrementally wipe out the relevancy of moderates through a policy of bargaining and compromise in which the ultimate result is voluntary compliance to the statist.
So what is the safely undefined, indeterminate “moderate” middle? It is “a moderate amount of government favors and special privileges to the rich and a moderate amount of government handouts to the poor – with a moderate respect for rights and a moderate degree of brute governmental force – with a moderate amount of freedom and a moderate amount of slavery – with a moderate degree of justice and a moderate degree of injustice – with a moderate amount of security and a moderate amount of terror – and with a moderate amount of tolerance for all, except those “extremists” who uphold principles, consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise.”
What can one say about a man with “moderate” integrity? Only truly uncompromising virtue can be properly termed as virtue. “If an uncompromising stand is to be smeared as ‘extremism,’ then that smear is directed at any devotion to values, any loyalty to principles, any profound conviction, any consistency, any steadfastness, any passion, any dedication to an unbreached, inviolate truth – any man of integrity.”” There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction. “
What can Republicans expect if “moderates” define the party with their compromising philosophy? “A docile, pliable, moderate Milquetoast who never gets excited, never makes trouble, never cares too much, adjusts to anything and upholds nothing. . . the best proof of an intellectual movement’s collapse is the day when it has nothing to offer as an ultimate ideal but a plea for moderation.”
“Moderate” Republicans have recently come forward with the charge that in order for the Republican Party to remain relevant and in-touch with the American public, Republicans must become more moderate in their views/ideology. Although it is true that politics does routinely involve negotiation and posturing, “moderate” Republicans have come forward with a philosophy of compromise and moderation as an ideology and political strategy by which to govern. In order to evaluate the validity of such a strategy, it is necessary to consider what a “moderate” claims his principles and values are and how the principle of political moderation can and will affect the American people.
As a general matter, a principle is “a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other principles depend.” A man of principle is a man that has a framework or foundation of core values and concrete concepts by which he can set goals and determine the viability of a given proposal. However, “Moderates” have articulated a self-righteous ideology that requires one to compromise with an opponent on anything in an effort to be “practical.” In an effort to be politically “practical,” Moderates have been relegated to a role of responding to policies, as they are proposed by liberals, rather than leading by principles.
Over 45 years ago, Ayn Rand wrote a defense of capitalism (“Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”) in which she addressed the issue of moderation and the effects moderation would have on capitalism and the political direction of the United States. Although this blog posting is not directly discussing the moral and societal benefits of capitalism, Rand’s analysis of moderation provides an excellent explanation of how the concept of political moderation results in unacceptable costs to the representative party and society.
Rand offered three rules about the relationship of principles to goals:
(1) In any conflict between two groups who hold the same basic principles (conservative Republicans and supposedly Moderate Republicans) it is the more consistent one who wins. The group holding a clearer, more consistent view of the end to be achieved will be more consistently right in his choice of means; and the contradictions of his opponent will work to his advantage
(2) In any collaboration between two groups who hold different basic principles (liberals and Moderate Republicans), it is the more evil or irrational who wins because a group that pursues mixed goals will find that its bad/compromised principles drive out the good principles. Compromising basic principles results in a slow slide further to the political left with no possible return to one’s previous principled position.
(3) When opposite basic principles (conservatism and liberalism) are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side but when they are not clearly defined, it works to the advantage of the irrational side – in order to win, the rational side of any controversy requires that its goals be clearly understood and defined, not hidden or confused.
Applying the rules above, it shows that a philosophy of political moderation would result in a Republican Party lacking any direction or leadership. Republicans would be relegated to responding to liberal policies/legislation by saying “no” or “me-too’ing” any program initiated by Democrats while claiming they seek to achieve “the same ends as Democrats,” but by different means. Does this strategy sound familiar? A similar strategy to John McCain, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and other “moderate” Republicans?
The goal of most liberal/statist politicans is to “change” the country through the means of a welfare state by using “single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles.” The overall effect of the liberal policies was to create statism by “slow rot.” Apparently, the goal of moderates is to merely retard this process by a series of compromises in which certain statist policies are accepted in exchange for some specified concession. This shows the primary reason liberals like/promote “moderates:” they know they can incrementally wipe out the relevancy of moderates through a policy of bargaining and compromise in which the ultimate result is voluntary compliance to the statist.
So what is the safely undefined, indeterminate “moderate” middle? It is “a moderate amount of government favors and special privileges to the rich and a moderate amount of government handouts to the poor – with a moderate respect for rights and a moderate degree of brute governmental force – with a moderate amount of freedom and a moderate amount of slavery – with a moderate degree of justice and a moderate degree of injustice – with a moderate amount of security and a moderate amount of terror – and with a moderate amount of tolerance for all, except those “extremists” who uphold principles, consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise.”
What can one say about a man with “moderate” integrity? Only truly uncompromising virtue can be properly termed as virtue. “If an uncompromising stand is to be smeared as ‘extremism,’ then that smear is directed at any devotion to values, any loyalty to principles, any profound conviction, any consistency, any steadfastness, any passion, any dedication to an unbreached, inviolate truth – any man of integrity.”” There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction. “
What can Republicans expect if “moderates” define the party with their compromising philosophy? “A docile, pliable, moderate Milquetoast who never gets excited, never makes trouble, never cares too much, adjusts to anything and upholds nothing. . . the best proof of an intellectual movement’s collapse is the day when it has nothing to offer as an ultimate ideal but a plea for moderation.”
Monday, May 4, 2009
The Republican Party Solution: Become a Broader Party by Being a Purer Party
Is the Republican Party dead? If you listen to the media and political pundits, the resounding conclusion is that not only is the Republican Party dead, Reaganism and traditional conservatism is dead. In fact, many political “experts” now say that the only way the Republican Party can experience resurgence is to learn from Arlen Specter and other “moderates” by adopting liberal stances on many social, environmental and economic issues. Is this true? Jeb Bush recently stated that “it’s time for Republicans to give up ‘nostalgia’ and look forward, even if it means stealing the Democrats’ winning strategy.” Are Republicans doomed to an existence of lukewarm conservatism?
Republicans that feel their party is doomed should look back at history and feel some reassurance. For at least a century, Republicans have had an internal debate regarding whether the party should moderate its conservative principles. You only have to look back 50 years to see the most recent example of the “moderation” debate that is occurring today. Barry Goldwater ran for President against LBJ in 1964. LBJ won the election in a landslide (6th most lopsided election in American history) by carrying 44 of the 50 states. LBJ’s victory was decisive (22.6% margin of victory and 61.1% of the national popular vote). Many Republicans (i.e. Nelson Rockefeller and other “Rockefeller Republicans”) understandably analyzed this defeat and similar electoral defeats during this time as a sign that Republicans must become more and more “moderate” in order to remain relevant. However, Goldwater and other principled conservatives understood that the American people lived their lives based on conservative principles and understood that Republicans must remain true to those principles. Otherwise, Republicans and conservatism becomes nothing more than watered-down liberalism. Goldwater and other conservatives pressed forward with their conservative message by laying the groundwork for Reagan’s gubernatorial and presidential elections. Imagine if Goldwater and other true conservatives had decided to throw in the towel and give up their conservative principles? What if they decided to moderate their views by adopting New Deal/Great Society, welfare, and other entitlement programs? What true legitimacy would they have had and would the Republican Party have ever been relevant again?
This brief history lesson illustrates that Republicans must not “jump the gun” when it comes to decisions to abandon conservative principles. Perhaps the best evidence that Republicans should not abandon their philosophy comes in the form of polls showing strong support for conservative principles and the example of President Barack Obama’s public perception campaign he has been waging since his election. Although polls continue to show a high approval rating for President Obama related to his job performance, polls show a lack of support for a number of policy and ideological stances taken by the President: a majority of voters believe the economic stimulus and auto bailouts were a bad idea and a large percentage of voters believe a smaller and limited government are more beneficial for our country. Additionally, Pres. Obama’s April 29th press conference illustrated his understanding that the American public still adheres to conservative principles (at least as related to economic principles and the size of government). During a portion of Pres. Obama’s speech he mentioned that he did not want to run auto companies and banks and that he wants a smaller, leaner and more efficient government. It is obvious from the President’s policies that he believes in growing government and allowing government to take a larger role in the lives of its citizens. So why say this? President Obama is attempting to play the role of the thoughtful and “sober centrist,” while underneath enacting radical policies in an attempt to transform America through an ever-growing federal government. Obama can read the polls and knows that America may like his personality and demeanor (as shown by his approval ratings), but the gap between personality and policies/ideology shows Americans do not believe many of his radically liberal policies are good for America.
Republicans must take full advantage of this opportunity to show the American people the distinction between Pres. Obama, the personality and rhetoric, and Pres. Obama the ideologue and liberal. After all, what value does a President provide to the People if he is not judged by his policies and ideology? Republicans must remember that the “moderate” candidate, John McCain, was a failure and lost the election precisely because he presented the American people with watered-down conservatism. Why should Republicans water down conservatism even more? Why do Republicans think that will somehow result in victory? The Republican Party can become a broader party by being a purer party – the goals are not mutually exclusive. Liberals are not apologizing for their views. Similarly, conservatives have no reason to apologize for being conservative by diluting the conservative message and philosophy by adopting liberal tendencies. Conservatives must boldly reclaim their position by articulating what it means to be conservative and how conservative policies differ from Obama’s radical liberal agenda. Conservatism can win the battle on substance; where conservatism is lacking is in form and perception. Conservatism doesn’t need defenders; it needs articulate and charismatic mouthpieces to voice conservative philosophy. By remaining true to conservative principles and unashamedly remaining a purely conservative party, Republicans can broaden its base of support and reclaim its influence.
Republicans that feel their party is doomed should look back at history and feel some reassurance. For at least a century, Republicans have had an internal debate regarding whether the party should moderate its conservative principles. You only have to look back 50 years to see the most recent example of the “moderation” debate that is occurring today. Barry Goldwater ran for President against LBJ in 1964. LBJ won the election in a landslide (6th most lopsided election in American history) by carrying 44 of the 50 states. LBJ’s victory was decisive (22.6% margin of victory and 61.1% of the national popular vote). Many Republicans (i.e. Nelson Rockefeller and other “Rockefeller Republicans”) understandably analyzed this defeat and similar electoral defeats during this time as a sign that Republicans must become more and more “moderate” in order to remain relevant. However, Goldwater and other principled conservatives understood that the American people lived their lives based on conservative principles and understood that Republicans must remain true to those principles. Otherwise, Republicans and conservatism becomes nothing more than watered-down liberalism. Goldwater and other conservatives pressed forward with their conservative message by laying the groundwork for Reagan’s gubernatorial and presidential elections. Imagine if Goldwater and other true conservatives had decided to throw in the towel and give up their conservative principles? What if they decided to moderate their views by adopting New Deal/Great Society, welfare, and other entitlement programs? What true legitimacy would they have had and would the Republican Party have ever been relevant again?
This brief history lesson illustrates that Republicans must not “jump the gun” when it comes to decisions to abandon conservative principles. Perhaps the best evidence that Republicans should not abandon their philosophy comes in the form of polls showing strong support for conservative principles and the example of President Barack Obama’s public perception campaign he has been waging since his election. Although polls continue to show a high approval rating for President Obama related to his job performance, polls show a lack of support for a number of policy and ideological stances taken by the President: a majority of voters believe the economic stimulus and auto bailouts were a bad idea and a large percentage of voters believe a smaller and limited government are more beneficial for our country. Additionally, Pres. Obama’s April 29th press conference illustrated his understanding that the American public still adheres to conservative principles (at least as related to economic principles and the size of government). During a portion of Pres. Obama’s speech he mentioned that he did not want to run auto companies and banks and that he wants a smaller, leaner and more efficient government. It is obvious from the President’s policies that he believes in growing government and allowing government to take a larger role in the lives of its citizens. So why say this? President Obama is attempting to play the role of the thoughtful and “sober centrist,” while underneath enacting radical policies in an attempt to transform America through an ever-growing federal government. Obama can read the polls and knows that America may like his personality and demeanor (as shown by his approval ratings), but the gap between personality and policies/ideology shows Americans do not believe many of his radically liberal policies are good for America.
Republicans must take full advantage of this opportunity to show the American people the distinction between Pres. Obama, the personality and rhetoric, and Pres. Obama the ideologue and liberal. After all, what value does a President provide to the People if he is not judged by his policies and ideology? Republicans must remember that the “moderate” candidate, John McCain, was a failure and lost the election precisely because he presented the American people with watered-down conservatism. Why should Republicans water down conservatism even more? Why do Republicans think that will somehow result in victory? The Republican Party can become a broader party by being a purer party – the goals are not mutually exclusive. Liberals are not apologizing for their views. Similarly, conservatives have no reason to apologize for being conservative by diluting the conservative message and philosophy by adopting liberal tendencies. Conservatives must boldly reclaim their position by articulating what it means to be conservative and how conservative policies differ from Obama’s radical liberal agenda. Conservatism can win the battle on substance; where conservatism is lacking is in form and perception. Conservatism doesn’t need defenders; it needs articulate and charismatic mouthpieces to voice conservative philosophy. By remaining true to conservative principles and unashamedly remaining a purely conservative party, Republicans can broaden its base of support and reclaim its influence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)