Stand for Something
A conservative strategist argues that the GOP governs too much like Democrats, and needs to give voters a distinct alternative agenda.
By Denis Calabrese | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Apr 14, 2009
Republican soul-searching about their spectacular decline has been largely focused on the wrong questions. Are social conservatives alienating young and independent voters? Are moderate RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) diluting the conservative cause? Is the message being carried by Rush Limbaugh too mean? What is Twitter? And of course, the timeless old standby, Where is the next Ronald Reagan?
It's really much simpler than all that. In fact, it's largely a two-step operation. Step 1: Join the 21st century. The GOP is still largely running their political operations like it was 1980. While the Democrats have innovated, the Republicans have not. In the business world, small companies and entrepreneurs routinely beat out the lazy big monopolists and force innovation through creative destruction. It happens in politics too, and right now, the Democrats are Fed Ex and the Republicans are the U.S. Post Office.
Reinventing the GOP
Republicans face a daunting challenge in re-making and re-marketing their party. Who will shape that effort? Newsweek spoke to four leading Republicans:
Step 2: Stand for something. Independent voters and even the Republican base do not think the GOP really stands for anything, let alone the principles of small government, individual rights and liberty that they espouse. And when they do stand for something, it is often the opposite of what they tell the public they believe.
Liberals are chronic hypocrites, but compared to many Republicans they are at least consistent hypocrites. While bragging about fighting for the poor and middle class, liberals lavishly fund farm subsidies that make food more expensive for the poor and middle class. While forcing the poor into failing and dangerous public schools in the name of supporting public education, they send their own kids to good, safe private schools. In the name of "empowering patients" they propose to ration health care and empower government to make testing and treatment decisions. While making a noisy show of taxing corporations they pretend that this burden isn't passed on to the middle class in higher prices, lower wages and smaller retirement accounts. They stridently defend free speech—unless of course it occurs on conservative talk radio or a college campus. They fight tooth and nail for certain Constitutional rights, including some that do not even exist, except for those pesky 2nd, 9th and 10th amendments. They decry voter ID bills for intimidating voters but want to allow labor intimidation of workers voting to unionize. Once you get rolling on that list, it's hard to stop! But back to the GOP.
Republicans currently have a worse problem. While liberals pretend that government can solve a lot of problems (history is not their strong suit), Republicans proclaim government is not the solution, and then proceed to vote a lot like Democrats. They spend. They regulate. They tax. They grow government. Then they hold press conferences and send out constituent newsletters claiming credit for "doing something" to fix a problem, even if the solution exacerbates the problem or is diametrically opposed to their stated philosophy. To the average voter, and especially the Republican base, this makes them even worse than Democrats. This is why Republicans can lose to Democrats even when the Democratic Congress is held in such low esteem. If you are going to hire people who live in a fantasy world to solve problems, people will hire the professionals, not the amateurs. Even governing like Democrats might not be enough to sink the GOP if Republicans had strong or even discernable positions on major issues, but they don't. For example, everyone knows that Americans are highly skeptical of socialized medicine, or if you prefer the utopian phrase, "universal health care."
But even a plan as deeply flawed as this, and used in Cuba and Canada, beats nothing. What about medical savings accounts, the longtime GOP throw-down response? MSAs are a kind of tax-code aspirin, beneficial in the short run while we actually reform the system. The core flaw in health care is that only employer plans are tax-deductible. All health insurance (and out-of-pocket health-care expenses for that matter), even if not purchased through an employer, must be made deductible. Companies must be allowed to sell plans nationally, making insurance truly portable and further reducing its cost. Imagine the high price and poor quality that would result from Detroit having to make 50 different cars, one for each state's specific rules ... and if you bought a car in Connecticut you could not use it in New York or any other state ... and if you changed jobs in the same state you had to buy a new car. Yet that is the current American health-care system.
Abusive litigation must also be eliminated to stop defensive medicine and lower insurance costs. And the FDA can't continue to require more than a decade and nearly a billion dollars per drug before approval. The resulting true marketplace for health care will give consumers maximum access, choices and control—the polar opposite of the Democratic solution.
Or let's consider that great core GOP issue: taxes. Will a majority of Republicans ever have the courage to move past the simplistic chants of "lower taxes?" Sure it worked great for Ronald Reagan, but the top rates were astronomical then (70 percent) and the tax debate was not as mature. The American public has a huge appetite for fundamental reform, not just for rate cuts and tinkering. Even for those with a rate obsession, a national sales tax is the far superior approach because it would make taxes much harder to raise in the future. With no deductions, exemptions and exclusions to hide rate increases, and no income-rate distinctions, everyone's rate would have to be raised at once. In this way taxpayers could finally get a permanent edge in the never-ending tax-rate fight. But the real pot of gold, both politically and economically, is the elimination of the regressive payroll tax, which is quite simply a tax on work. If the Democrats figure this out first and pass it, the GOP is going to be in a very deep hole for a very long time. Even the flat tax would be a vast improvement. Regardless of the new tax plan, advocating for ground-up reform is a surefire winner, and anything less is a losing strategy.
Another automatic winner is lawsuit reform. Litigation is a huge cost to society, and the plaintiff lawyers have bought and paid for the Democratic Party many times over. As governor, George W. Bush helped lead a hugely successful tort reform effort in Texas, but he couldn't do it in Washington in large part because of Republicans who have sold out to the trial bar, or are themselves connected to the profession in one way or another. Even Dan Quayle was able to score at least rhetorical points on litigation abuse when he was vice president. Plaintiff lawyers have very low approval ratings, and they are well-earned. This is an absolute slam dunk—so what are you waiting for? This issue has the added benefit of flushing out the party's philosophical double agents while highlighting the real puppet-masters of the Democratic Party—personal-injury lawyers.
As for immigration, stop the insanity! Latinos are now at a political tipping point in many parts of the south and west, and they comprise a culture of social conservatives, small businesspeople and entrepreneurs—natural conservative allies. They are essentially economic refugees, and as free-market advocates, Republicans should support the legal flow of capital and labor. The current flow of labor is largely illegal because our immigration system is badly broken. One need not be forced into an extreme at either end—amnesty or deportation—to address the immigration issue. The longer this is unresolved the more Democrats benefit politically, yet it has been conservatives blocking a resolution. Strong border enforcement and tough employer rules form the foundation of real reform, so there is no need for the GOP to sell out their law-and-order credentials. We also need an effective system for employers to check the status of workers and a penalty-based resolution for the 12 million who are here illegally. Just pass it. Now.
There are scores of other issues just waiting for leadership, and even more voters waiting for the same. It's time for Republicans to reacquaint themselves with that majority of Americans who will pick freedom over collectivism if given a real choice.
Calabrese is the former chief of staff to former House majority leader Dick Armey, and founder of the Patriot Group, a Texas-based consulting firm working to advance a conservative agenda in business and politics.
In my mind, it's clear that today's Democrats are more Republican than the Republicans.
We have two (2) Republican parties - take your choice which one you like the most.
I recall at a Democrat meeting that the County Chairman made the statement that all
Southern Democrats ought to leave the Democrat party to switch to the Republican.
He was a former a Republican himself finding glorification in the Democrat party like alot of 'em have.
more......Dr. Walter Williams
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=94937
You know.. I was talking to a client of mine this morning.. and I really truly believe that we better get our heads all put together and just be Americans.. I personally don't believe you can have a penny's worth of difference anymore in the "parties"..
The corruption and deceit in all of them runs so deep that you couldn't dig hard enough to get to the beginning or the end..
I believe in what I believe in.. you can not put a party to it. I suppose if someone had a gun to my head aI would have to say I was more Republican than anything.. unless of course it came to certain issues.. theeeennn I seem to be more liberal.. theeen a few more issues come around and shocker... I seem to lean toward the Libertarian side of the fence..
I think there should be a party called Hard Working Frredom Fighting Americans... THAT is the line I will stand in. ;D
Oh Teresa, you must have missed the sign over the line, you're looking for the "Right Wing Extermist" line. Well, that is according the Department of Homeland Defense.
Varmit.........
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Six Things You Should Know About the Homeland Security Report on 'Rightwing Extremism'
By Judge Andrew Napolitano
FOX News Senior Judicial Analyst
Homeland Security Warns of Rise in Right-Wing Extremism
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment", dated April 7, 2009, which I have read, is apparently an unclassified summary of a larger classified report.
**To read all 6 click on link:
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/15/napolitano_homeland_security/
Teresa, maybe you are a closet Republicrateral.
Teresa, thanks for posting that. Scary stuff. And, Diane...A whosit-whatsit?
;D ;D ;D
I agree with Teresa, we need to start thinking "AMERICAN". The following is a letter I wrote to the Prairie Star and was published a few weeks ago. Course, by now you all know I'm not afraid to say what I believe, whether you agree or not. ;D but I defend my right to say it.
On Mar 19, 2009, at 5:32 PM, Florene Smith wrote:
This country needs to forget democrat/republican and start thinking AMERICAN. That would be AMERICAN with no hyphen as to the origin of your ancestors. Sorry, if you are here illegally, then you are not an AMERICAN so you don't count. It seems the poor get mad if the rich get richer and they didn't get their share and the rich get mad if they didn't get their share before the poor got richer. Republicans don't like what the democrats do and vise versa. This country has been living too high on the hog for too long and this is where it has gotten us. Greed has played a part in this situation. Have we forgotten the "lean" years? Most younger generations don't know what "lean" years are but they just might find out before long. There's no doubt that things will get worse before they start getting better. We didn't get in this shape overnight, and it won't get fixed overnight. Let's let our bickering about political parties go and get behind our elected officials and trust that they know what they are doing, whether you agree with them or not. Don't sit and say "If there's nothing in it for me and I won't benefit, then I don't like it". Think of the country and AMERICAN's as a whole and what's good for all. Now I'll step down from my soap box and wait for someone to throw it at me.
I agree with some of that, don't understand some of it, and just plain completely disagree with the rest.
What you said about being American, is absolutely correct.
Poor get mad if the rich get richer...they always have, but they don't understand the in's and out's of it either.
Repub.'s and Dem's...well, that has pretty much always been the case (as far as I remember anyway)
Too high on the hog...if you are talking about folks living above their means, then you're right, if you are not then I don't understand your opinion on that one.
The last part of your letter is where I completely disagree with you. While we do need to stop bickering about political parties (lets face it theres not much difference between them), judging from track records, I don't think any of them really know what they are doing. That being said I cannot, will not stand behind someone when I disagree with the way they are running my country. More importantly, why would I want to?? I mean would you keep going to the same doctor if you didn't trust him??
So, what is your alternative?
Electing leaders who govern according to the Constitution, and the principals it was constructed on.
Isn't that what we tried to do last fall?
No, last fall we voted in a president based on his skin tone. It had nothing to do with "hope" and "change".
And if his skin tone were different, would feel differently about him?
Quote from: Varmit on April 16, 2009, 08:27:53 PM
No, last fall we voted in a president based on his skin tone. It had nothing to do with "hope" and "change".
This "we" didn't vote for him... ;) And I wouldn't have cared what skin color his empty suit carried..
The African Americans were the "WE" that voted on skin color...
Quote from: Wilma on April 16, 2009, 08:53:33 PM
And if his skin tone were different, would feel differently about him?
Absolutely NOT! I wouldn't care if he was as white as the driven snow... I would still hate everything he stands for...
Let me make this point crystal clear. I was raised to judge a man on his character, his actions, and his word. Not his skin tone. I have nothing but contempt, and loathing that borders very close open hatred for racists. My oldest son is half black. Technically, he is my step son, but I have raised him since he was barely a year old, he carries my last name, changed legally on his birth certificate, and I love him just as much as my other 2 children.
So to answer your question Wilma, no...obamas skin color doesn't mean a thing to me. The only people it mattered to were the first time (and only time) voters who couldn't get past his charm or color. In fact, obama was the only canidate during the campaign to bring it up.
I will oppose any politican who seeks to trample on my Constitution. I have to, I took an Oath on it, fought to protect it, which I might add, is more than he ever did.
A gentleman from western Oklahoma sent this to me a couple of days ago
and since it is so timely, I got his permission to post it. This looks like a
good place to put it:
Jefferson Davis said, "The contest is not over, the strife is not ended. It has only entered upon a
new and enlarged arena, and the principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though
it may be at another time and in another form."
President Davis was indeed prescient in his statement more than a century ago. Without realizing the
relation of their actions to the principle for which our Confederate fathers contended, folks who gathered
yesterday for the Tea Parties across the nation are contending for that principle. So also are the state
legislatures who have passed, or are considering, state sovereignty resolutions. The principle of which Davis
spoke is the sovereignty of the states and it is reasserting itself in another form at another time from that
of Davis and our Confederate Fathers. In my one-man play about the last days of Davis, he said, "like a great
Phoenix, that cause still reposes in the human breast, awaiting the day when it will again rise from the ashes
of Lincoln's war." The Phoenix is stirring in our day and I am hopeful that it is the precursor to another
secessionist movement.
The time comes when an entity becomes so corrupted that reforming it is an impossibility. That was true of
religion in the dark ages and it is true of this "democracy" that has supplanted the Republic our Fathers founded
and for which they contended from 1860-1865. Washington cannot be reformed, nor can the Republic be
restored upon the political, entitlement-oriented, cesspool that swirls in Washington City. The only hope for my
children and grandchildren (which none of them comprehend and which few people in this land comprehend) is
secession and the establishment of a true Constitutional Republic as envisioned by the South in 1860. That is the
only true return to the intent of the Founders.
Masses of people throughout this land are now unwittingly contending for that principle. Without realizing what
they are doing, they are echoing William Wallace, Patrick Henry, Jefferson Davis, and every other man who ever
loved freedom from the tyranny of a central government. They are voicing the cause of our Confederate Fathers
and we need to encourage that voice to be heard across the land. There is a great opportunity before us to
capitalize on these things by presenting our true Southern history.
Deo Vindice,
name witheld
Was wondering when somone would point that out.
Hey We always said the South was gonna rise again................................
The South was supporting the Constitution and
standing with the Founding Fathers. Lincoln did
not.
That ought to tell something about the
foundation of the Republican party and it's modern
day followers - the Democrats.
Hey, just thought of something...Lincoln was one of the only presidents to raise a Federal army to invade his own country...obama models himself after lincoln...talk about coincidence
And Bush makes beans....so what. The Civil War was a huge mistake, but at the time they didn't see any other way. I'd like to think we have learned from that history. Did Pres. O say he models himself after Lincoln? I must have missed that.
And throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama -- a Democrat who hails from the Land of Lincoln -- reminded audiences from coast to coast about the similarities between himself and the beloved political leader.
Obama told CBS last year that he was studying up on Lincoln -- who belonged to the Republican Party -- by reading presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin's 2005 book "Team of Rivals," which focuses on Lincoln's Cabinet.
"There is a wisdom there and a humility about his approach to government, even before he was president, that I just find very helpful," he said.-CNN
you can read the rest of the atricle here: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/17/lincoln.obsession/index.html
Thanks. Doris Kearns spoke in San Antonio when I was there last November. Good speaker.
Obama has been compared to almost every recent democrat president, but he still has to prove it. If he wants to be another Lincoln he could start by becoming Republican, then the Democrats could diss on him.
Quote from: Wilma on April 18, 2009, 02:57:31 PM
Obama has been compared to almost every recent democrat president, but he still has to prove it. If he wants to be another Lincoln he could start by becoming Republican, then the Democrats could diss on him.
Well put, Wilma..... and a number of demo_RATS have all ready started!
Hey! >:(
Quote from: dnalexander on April 15, 2009, 11:30:09 AM
Stand for Something
A conservative strategist argues that the GOP governs too much like Democrats, and needs to give voters a distinct alternative agenda.
By Denis Calabrese | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Apr 14, 2009
In a word, "HorseShit"
For shame... Don't drag the poor horses into this. ;D
Quote from: Diane Amberg on April 18, 2009, 04:51:26 PM
For shame... Don't drag the poor horses into this. ;D
HorseShit!
I don't know Warph, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of difference between the parties anymore.
Wow, we do think alike! I know I had a terrible time last summer trying to figure out the party planks and policies. I was willing to vote either way. I truly couldn't figure it out, except no matter which either said, the other would oppose it. Now that's fine when someone is doing banter back and forth, but it didn't help me very much to choose. I didn't really make up my mind until the week before the election.
Why such an early decision, Diane. I made my decision when I marked the ballot.
;)
Quote from: Warph on April 18, 2009, 04:47:48 PM
Quote from: dnalexander on April 15, 2009, 11:30:09 AM
Stand for Something
A conservative strategist argues that the GOP governs too much like Democrats, and needs to give voters a distinct alternative agenda.
By Denis Calabrese | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Apr 14, 2009
In a word, "HorseShit"
Somebody must have hijacked Warph's id.
Quote from: Warph on April 18, 2009, 05:23:43 PM
Quote from: Diane Amberg on April 18, 2009, 04:51:26 PM
For shame... Don't drag the poor horses into this. ;D
HorseShit!
Well he said it again. I thought he would have nothing to say or a well thought out rebuttal. Not just a useless vulgar response.
Horse shit?, Bull shit?, Elk Shit?
Sorry, Warph I tried to read your response to find some value. Just not there. Still just vulgar. I know you can do better.
David
The goals of the Democrats and Republicans are the same.
It's how they go about reaching the goals that are different.
Just say no to socialism, after all - it's their goal.
Ya really think so? Both sides? It sure does seem that way, at least part of the time.
I sure do.
Other than Reagan being a little stumbling block to them - it looks like they
have the "all clear" for the future.
How can you see less socialism ahead for us from the Fed's by the Democrats and
Republicans?
Sadly, you can't.