Governing is about compromise. Politics is about winning. And Conservative progress requires both.
America is not a collection of red and blue states. Numerous “blue” states actually compromise many red voters. For example, California and New York, long considered safe blue states, are both minded by Republican governors, and contain many consistently red counties merely subordinate to high population urban areas. California’s interior, for example, is a wide red swath from its northern-most counties through the Sacramento and Central Valleys to the Inland Empire. The populous coastal cities, however, remain dependable Democratic bastions. California, long a national trend setter in conservative causes such as illegal immigration reform, property tax reform, affirmative action, and three strikes sentencing reform, presents the perfect proving ground for new Republican strategies and policies.
Initially, the reader should be forewarned. This article accepts certain premises which may be anathema to the philosophical conservative, but which are nonetheless modern-day political realities. As an example, most conservatives including this author oppose on principle the wholesale expansion of federal entitlements including the Medicare prescription drug benefit. A wistful hearkening back to pre-New Deal days before the nation’s citizenry became irrevocably drunk at the federal saloon does nothing to advance the conservative cause today, where a significant segment of the voting population is dependent on, and votes, their benefits. As a result, conservatives must develop new strategies consistent with their beliefs which can win. Now, more than a decade after the Gingrich Revolution and a quarter-century past Ronald Reagan’s heyday, the conservative revolution seems ideologically exhausted, the sedentary effects of power grindingly halting innovation, modesty, evolution and energy. This is particularly true in blue states.
California, long thought to have abandoned its “purple state” status, shows signs of promise. With Republicans now holding two statewide offices (Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Secretary of State Bruce Macpherson), Republicans having managed to maintain the 50th Congressional District seat vacated by disgraced Congressman Duke Cunningham, and with California Democrats having elected perhaps the most liberal democratic nominee since their disastrous selection of Kathleen Brown in 1994, there is a sliver of red hope in California.
Though the contrast between Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the unrelentingly unpopular tax hike proposals of Democratic Treasurer Phil Angelides lends a Republican-friendly platform to the top of the ticket, conservatives require an updated message and, more importantly, enhanced propulsion of new ideas. This proposal identifies several issues upon which Republicans might spur electoral gains.
Public Safety
The primary duty of government is to protect its citizenry. States such as New York and California are primed for renewed debates between liberals and conservatives.
An extraordinarily fertile example lies with Jessica’s Law, the state by state national drive to strengthen sexual offender laws. Named after the tragic case of Jessica Lundsford in Florida, the law seeks to punish and incapacitate through incarceration violent sexual predators through mandatory periods of longer imprisonment. Both California and New York’s statehouses are controlled by the Democratic Party, which in turn is controlled by ideological liberals. In each state powerful Democrats have actively stood in the way of efforts to enact Jessica’s Law, blocking even a vote on the measure. New York’s Speaker of the Assembly, Sheldon Silver, has unabashedly blocked the measure. In California, San Francisco Assemblyman Mark Leno, Chairman of the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee, has road-blocked Jessica’s Law from even passing through Committee to a floor vote. His actions propagated a ballot initiative drive, Prop. 83, using direct democracy to sidestep the obstinate Leno. Recent polling suggests
Prop. 83 is leading by a 7 to1 margin.
While initiatives such as Prop. 83 draw wide bipartisan voter support, the Democratic Party and its elected representatives have stood in the schoolhouse door of greater protection for children. This bears repeating: Democrats in two of the largest states in the country have refused to protect children. This is a bipartisan, resonating issue, an albatross to be hung around blue-state liberal candidates. Unquestionably, ballot initiative drives make powerful platforms for Republican officials. Ronald Reagan’s ascendancy in California was largely rooted in his ardent support of Prop. 13’s property tax reform. Pete Wilson largely rode to the Governor’s Office in support of three initiatives in 2 elections: term limits in 1990, and Prop. 187 (illegal immigration reform) and Prop. 184 (Three Strikes) in 1994.
Democrats have likewise spearheaded efforts to limit or abolish three strikes sentencing laws despite their success. California, for example, following its enactment of a Three Strikes law, saw a decrease in crime and the State’s first ever exodus of felons. Democrats have consistently attempted to roll back Three Strikes’ gains. Voters themselves rejected the latest attempt, a ballot initiative seemingly headed to victory until Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger actively campaigned against the measure. The measure failed.
Crime is not just a present high profile issue; it is the backbone of the conservative premise that government should protect its people. It goes without saying that public safety tracks the public’s concern with terrorism. In an era where the Democratic Party seems intent on running Left with the likes of Ned Lamont, Markos Moulitsas, and Nancy Pelosi, a strong public safety stand is not only consistent with conservative principles, but also sound policy and good politics.
Public opinion surveys continue to show voter concern in areas conservatives have consistently appeared weak. Notably these areas seem to conflict with the Republican philosophies of free commerce, individual liberty and small government and, thus, conservatives are understandably reticent to offer competing public policy proposals. Such recalcitrance is unnecessary.
Healthcare
The debate over healthcare and the uninsured in America has long been cast by the Left as a debate over a single-payer system which covers everyone, or an “unacceptable” status quo. Republicans must recast the debate to an individual choice and quality care issue. Lest one forget, the “HillaryCare” proposal of the Clinton first term was rejected overwhelmingly by the public and a Democrat-controlled Congress.
Any effective policy proposals in this area require mastery of at least the basic facts. Fact #1: A large segment of the uninsured population in America is by choice, primarily among younger people in the college and post-college years. By and large this demographic has less need for healthcare services other than preventative health services (e.g., gynecological services, checkups, etc.), and less ability to pay for it. Healthcare targeted at a population which needs less of it is by definition less expensive. In contrast, the elderly population faces far greater health risks and requires more and increasingly expensive services. Common sense suggests differentiating risk in applying reforms.
Fact #2: There is a significant disconnect between healthcare consumers and the cost of their healthcare. For the most part those with insurance in America are covered by third-party employer plans or by government programs. Except for co-pays and deductibles the consumer is effectively divorced from the real costs of his/her healthcare.
Fact #3: Healthcare including Medicaid and Medicare can be reformed. Indisputably, healthcare services delivered at the emergency room are more expensive as are, for example, the costs of a heart bypass operation versus pharmaceutical and lifestyle treatment. Current law requires hospital emergency rooms to treat anyone who walks through their doors, regardless of the patient’s ability to pay. The guarantee of free healthcare encourages overuse of emergency rooms (the most expensive form of care).
Healthcare has a “free rider” problem. The uninsured and those too poor or choosing not to pay, can access the identical services with none of the responsibilities. It is a system destined for collapse. Thus far, Democrats have framed the debate as a Canadian-style single-payer system or nothing. However, there are alternatives consistent with conservative goals.
Health Savings Accounts couple tax-free healthcare savings with high deductible policies. HSA’s both reduce costs and involve the consumer in the actual cost of his/her healthcare. Overuse is discouraged where the consumer is actually paying the cost him/herself. Permitting the consumer to save tax-free for healthcare needs encourages responsibility, healthy living, and prudent spending. Another new strategy is Massachusetts Republican Governor Mitt Romney’s mandatory health insurance program. Every employer and each individual are required to have healthcare insurance: no more free-riding. For the poorest individuals, the State provides a subsidy.
Lost in the ongoing non-dialogue over the Medicare debacle, is the relative success of Jeb Bush’s Florida. Most states, such as California, provide direct provider payment for those on state rolls unable to afford medical care. Administered by unaccountable, well-funded, clumsy bureaucracies, these direct payment systems embolden gratuitous over-billing and outright fraud. For the residents on such rolls who have no concept of the actual costs of care, the system encourages overuse. Florida utilizes its Medicare dollars differently. The State uses its bargaining power and leverage to purchase private insurance on behalf of its neediest citizens. Insurers, forced to compete for the business and with a bottom line to watch, are incentivized to innovate, streamline, and control costs. As the Congressional Budget Office has reported, Florida has begun to see its costs come down.
Some hybrid of the Florida and Massachusetts systems holds promise. A program enforcing personal responsibility and flexible, free choice through mandatory insurance, expanded Healthcare Savings Accounts, and risk-centered care will work. For instance, younger people will fair just fine in an HMO system focused on preventative healthcare. Not only do the young typically not require more expensive healthcare services, but they are less able to afford the deductible and higher premiums of a higher cost preferred provider system. Government-funded programs would extraordinarily benefit in both cost and quality by imposing market forces. Florida’s Medicare system is a model for the nation.
There are alternatives to the Left’s favored single-payer system. Conservatives must develop solutions which avoid the single-payer versus status quo debate. Notably, Democrats have no solution other than the socialized single-payer plan and conservatives can appear far more progressive in the debate by offering sensible reforms. Candidates are encouraged to pick and choose among the various options available, but having an effective and substantive healthcare proposal is mandatory in modern day blue state politics.
Energy/Environment
Higher gas prices, Middle East turbulence, wild weather, and class warfare have all put energy and environmental politics on the blue state map. As Democrats clamor for more and larger big government programs – windfall profit taxes on oil companies, more environmental regulations, and a ban on SUV’s — conservatives can pick their issues successfully.
It is important to note that the issue implicates several broad themes – national security (energy independence and international relations), the environment (conservation, ecology, healthcare, etc.), and quality of life concerns (e.g., the freedom to choose one’s own automobile, falling standard of living as a result of higher energy prices, etc.). This spectrum of issues provides conservatives with abundant options.
The wild and increasingly high volatility of gas prices rebounds negatively against the party in power, in this case Republicans. Free-market conservatives often lament, hollowly to the average voter's ears, that supply and demand dictates gas prices and the government is and should be powerless to intervene. While certainly or somewhat true in a laissez-faire economic sense, this explanation is tone-deaf to public worries.
Democrats have a multi-decade verifiable history, including recorded votes, advocating for higher gasoline taxes. Even at today’s prices gas is still not as high as Democratic proposals would have it. While government is nearly powerless in the short-term to respond to supply and demand oscillations, government is entirely able to determine its own tax policy. Short-term gas tax holidays and/or permanent gas tax reductions provide an immediate impact on voters’ pocketbooks.
Long-term energy and environmental policy is rooted in often distorted facts. An increasing number of Americans are uncomfortable with America’s foreign oil dependence. This issue has the capability of uniting the Left’s most green progressives with more conservative trade isolationists, and “security moms.”
Gas prices are an almost entirely fiscal issue. The growth in interest among hybrid vehicles has more to do with the cost of fuel than with concerns over global warming and the like. In reality, a 1% increase in China or India’s energy consumption (often coal powered) is equal to the environmental emissions of a billion Ford Expeditions. Another little noticed fact is that the European signatory countries to the Left-favored Kyoto Accord on global warming all not only lag US economic growth, but have reduced greenhouse emissions less than the United States.
The growth in the hybrid vehicle industry illustrates that private sector market forces will in large part shape the outcome. Likewise the development of clean coal technologies, nuclear power, and the commodities market in trading carbon credits, have and will shape the debate’s outcome. Conservatives, however, need to articulate a more comprehensive strategy and communications plan. Candidates are encouraged to adopt positions consistent with their philosophies; however, some points of a successful broad appeal might include:
– A comprehensive plan for energy independence combining, e.g., a twenty-year goal for alternative energy independence supported by higher CAFÉ mileage requirements, research tax credits, and expanded drilling and exploration during the transition period.
– Mandatory gas tax reduction anytime the price of gas exceeds a fixed percentage of the consumer price index.
– Combining industrial brownfield redevelopment with a renewed push for the development of refineries outside the Gulf Coast area. In other words, the government encourages through tax rebates, credits, or grants, industrial revitalization of blighted areas focused on increasing America’s waning refining capacity, and additionally creating job growth and economic development.
– Tax credits to utilities for investing in upgrades to the power grids.
Fiscal Issues
At the national level Republicans are particularly vulnerable to charges of reckless spending. Deficit spending, regardless of its cause or objective, lends itself to such a charge. Blue state conservatives are often trapped in deficit-plagued states such as New Jersey or California where the legislatures are controlled by Democrats.
Conservative candidates can mount successful campaigns on traditional platforms encouraging lower taxex and more fiscally responsible policies. New Jersey’s governor, for example, recently insisted on a sales tax increase in an already heavily taxed state. The California Democratic nominee for governor has likewise proposed a ten billion dollar tax increase in a state which has only recently seen an economic recovery. Thus liberals have positioned the debate into a classic tax-and-spend versus lower taxes and economic growth debate in some of the country’s most high profile races. Conservatives may accordingly mount the types of campaigns which drew large appeal in the 80’s and early 90’s, avoiding the types of contentious social issues such as abortion, which tend to run counter to conservative interests in blue states. However, in mounting such a platform consistency is important. Conservatives should not hesitate to criticize the current Republican Congress’ spending excesses. All ideological revolutions require a certain amount of bloodletting.
Other innovative proposals include concepts such as automatic budget balancing systems – i.e., for every day a budget is late spending is cut by 1% and taxes are raised by 1%, until the budget is balanced. Such proposals potentially punish Democrats and Republicans equally, thus lending a bi-partisan approach conducive to blue state races.
Good government
Everything from the Jack Abramoff scandal in Washington to the resignation of New Jersey Governor Jim Mcgreevey amidst disgrace, to the recall of California Governor Gray Davis, have elevated a myriad of “good government” issues to the voters’ attention. Conservatives can find a natural policy framework among several of these issues.
– Redistricting: conservatives in blue states face significant structural hurdles to election in addition to philosophical differences. Gerrymandered districts in states such as California virtually assure a Democratic majority consisting of primarily very safe, very liberal seats. Conservative inroads require not just developing new strategies and policies, but likely require breaking the electoral district moat around the current power bloc. The most substantive and realistic of redistricting proposals establish independent commissions, often from the ranks of retired jurists, charged with the task of drawing districts.
– Term limits: once a hallmark of conservative politics, term limits are under attack in some states such as California. Much like the redistricting issue, the power of incumbency works against a transformative conservative agenda by stifling new ideas and new leaders.
The United States Supreme Court rejected an Arkansas term limit law as applied to the Congress in 1994. Under the Court’s ruling only a Constitutional Amendment could impose federal term limits. Though the Court’s makeup has since changed in the intervening years, a Constitutional Amendment campaign might be both unifying and invigorating for conservatives. Unifying in that ratification in the 50 state legislatures would create fifty separate campaigns. Invigorating in that conservatism, as the Weekly Standard Editor Fred Barnes has written, works best as an insurgency movement challenging the status quo. Further, fifty separate state campaigns would allow for the experimentation and diversity of distinct themes and strategies.
– Eminent domain: the controversy surrounding the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision empowering municipalities to condemn and seize property for any public purpose implicates most conservative principles: an ever-encroaching big government, an attack on individual liberty and choice, and the preservation of property rights.
The Supreme Court’s decision resolved certain issues concerning property condemnation under the federal 5th Amendment; the Court’s decision leaves the question of the individual state constitutions untouched. As numerous property rights advocates and legal foundations have opined and already begun, there is the potential for a 50-state campaign to amend state laws to prevent eminent domain abuse. Not only does this issue implicate conservatives’ core values such as property rights and limited government, the issue has broad appeal to independent, moderate and even liberal blue state voters. Because many of the properties condemned by municipalities are in low income areas, disproportionately affect the elderly, and often involve transfer to wealthy private parties for development, liberal grassroots groups have also criticized the Kelo decision. These types of bipartisan issues are particularly well-suited for blue state conservatives. California’s Proposition 90, requiring that eminent domain be restricted to only public uses (and not purposes such as tax receipt enhancement), set for the November ballot, easily qualified for the coming election with over one million signatures.
Education
The status quo debate on education is unacceptable. Conservatives currently pit themselves against teachers unions and civil liberties groups in a pitched battle over vouchers or the status quo. While that battle may be an argument worth winning, in the long-term it is a hopeless political strategy for Blue-state conservatives. Particularly, moderate voters in both parties fear the “who will be left behind” teachers union argument about vouchers and consistently vote with it. However, there are areas in which conservatives can make inroads and usurp the debate with fresh alternatives.
– Charter & Magnet schools: while some may criticize the charter school concept as “diet vouchers,” the concept works. Charter schools can be innovative, forward thinking, and efficient. Many eliminate the curriculum and bureaucratic nightmares of the typical public school, replacing them with goal-oriented, focused curriculums, and efficient administrations. Teacher accountability, parental involvement, and motivated students become the norm. Charter schools also permit experimentation with decoupling union representation and pay, allowing motivated successful teachers to earn commensurate with their skill and achievements. Because the charter phenomenon does not implicate the religious objections often made to voucher programs, the system paralyzes the usual arguments brought by its opponents. Notably, Eli Broad, a longtime Democratic king-maker and fundraiser, has devoted millions to a system of charter and magnet schools throughout the country, many of which have combined motivated teachers and kids to produce extraordinary results. The concept thus has broad appeal in many areas and present opportunities particularly in urban areas.
– Higher Education: an often missed issue concerns the state of higher education in America. Without the large, well-funded teachers unions to push for its advocacy, higher education has fallen aside. Surveys routinely show that the US is not producing enough science, math, computer science and engineering graduates. Experts agree this threatens economic superiority and potentially our national security edge. This area is fertile ground for new policies. Proposals might include: federally funded National Security Scholarships for students who agree to pursue hard science degrees and commit to serving their nation upon graduation; enhanced GI Bill scholarships for pursuit of the hard sciences; a renewal of the old college land grant system by the states to encourage development of new universities dedicated to the study of e.g., hard sciences, international relations, or languages.
– Longer School Schedules: US students attend school in far less time than their international counterparts. Longer school days, weeks and years, offer not just more educational opportunities, but might be utilized in other ways. Property crime, for example, is often a function of bored kids out of school. Municipalities prosecuting truancy have seen commensurate declines in property crimes. Further, there is a well-documented pediatric obesity and fitness problem in America. While the Left’s lament of this problem offers only demands that junk foods be banned, conservatives can do better. Longer school days could offer renewed physical education programs. Moreover, the health impact of these policies could significantly alter the costs of healthcare in America by decreasing the need for services.
Social Issues
It is elementary that social conservative themes fare less well in blue states. This Paper does not suggest conservatives change their beliefs or dedication to issues such as abortion, stem cell research, or same-sex marriage. This paper does, however, urge conservatives to consider in blue state races, the locus, priority, and tone of the debate.
For instance, consider both the abortion and same-sex marriage questions. The traditional debates focus on morality issues or the necessity of reversing Roe v. Wade. While legal and scientific advances may settle the question one day, they have not yet. The contentiousness of the debate can be moderated by recasting the question as one of democracy: should the voters of each state have the right to determine their laws. If the voters of California wish for abortion on demand laws, that is their chosen exercise of democracy. Conversely, the choice of South Dakota to ban the practice is equally acceptable. Similarly, the same-sex marriage question is one of democracy. These arguments often dovetail with debates over the proper role of the judiciary and the qualifications of judges.
Stem cell research may invoke questions of democracy as various sates such as California fund their own research; however, it is not the primary objection in blue state races. Nor is morality. The primary objection to stem cell research is that it is inefficient. To date, stem cell research holds only promise, but it has provided not one cure. Adult stem cell lines, however, have provided over 80 treatments for everything from sickle cell anemia to spinal injuries. Stem cell funding is objectionable because it does not work yet; it is currently yet another government program financed to excess at the expense of more deserving, proven adult stem cell research. Conservatives ought to push the compassionate debate at what has been demonstrated as compassionate or treating.
Conclusion
Governing is about compromise. Politics is about winning. Conservative progress requires exactly that – forward evolution of ideas, strategies, and tactics. Conservative philosophies are diverse enough to enable changes in themes, policies and strategies. Blue state conservatives hold the most promise for developing strategies appealing to the broadest group of voters.
We gain NOTHING with liberal concession. I am sure the first income taxers of this country never believed we would reach 30 percent of GDP when they waved the flag of compromise. Winning an election has become easy for a republican, acting like a conservative is now politically on the endangered species list. When the democrats win this election, it will be a direct result of the GOP winning elections and taking the compromise route with liberals. To make the argument that only by giving in more is the way to serve the people who elect republican officials is dishonest and immoral. I believe in conservatism, and I believe liberalism is the cancer that destroys this country. I will not support anyone who believes in liberalism and if that makes me a stubborn, narrow minded, red state neo-con, so be it. Moderates will take this country over the same bridge as liberals, where we drown in our entitlements, lose our property rights, and refuse to distinguish between good and evil, they just take a longer route.
Quite right, honker. Governing cannot be about compromise. A little less evil achieved as a result of compromise is still evil. Politics and governing can only be about winning.
There is only one reason that leftist ideas gain any traction at all: We conservatives have allowed leftists to define us, and therefore they set the terms of the debate. This strategy does two things – 1) it keeps a large part of the citizenry believing caricatures about conservatives, and 2) it keeps conservatives on the defensive.
Many people have heard little refutation of leftistism because of the formerly monolithic media, but this is thankfully changing. Voices like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are being heard, despite the left’s attempts to demonize and misrepresent them. Coulter and Limbaugh are at their best by attacking the manifest weaknesses of leftist philosophy. Their ideas are more and more gaining a place in mainstream of America’s attention.
We as individuals can continue to influence our own circle as well. This is a battle for victory, not compromise. This is for the heart and soul, and dare I say, future of America.
We cannot allow leftist philosophy to continue destroying peoples’ lives.
Mountain man,
We didn’t define you.
you defined yourselves.
Anne and Rush define
your movement perfectly.
I believe Americans in
general have had enough
of what ” conserativism ”
and the GOP has done
to the country.
Pandering is the reason why Republicans risk losing elections this mid-term. People like conservative ideas, that’s why they voted in a Republican president for two consecutive terms, and a Republican house and senate. Unfortunately, once the Republicans get elected, they forget that they’re conservatives. Then when their constituents become disenchanted with them, they assume that it’s because they were “too right-wing”, and they pander even more. The Left has an entire army of fanatic radicals who openly and devoutly tout their agenda – they stand for something. What they stand for is ridiculous, but they stand for it, is the point. Republicans on the other hand are terrified to admit what they believe in; they’re terrified of looking conservative. If they would stop trying to hide who and what they are, conservative candidates would be pleasantly surprised to find that they have a much larger “base” than they give themselves credit for. Liberal Democrats don’t compromise on anything – quite the contrary! They stubbornly, childishly, pathetically, fillibuster issues they don’t want to deal with, keep qualified judges off the bench and stall any effort to get anything accomplished. By contrast, a Republican senate allowed Bill Clinton to put Ruth Bader Ginsburg on our Supreme Court! Republican compromis-ism has created far more problems than it has solved. What conservatives need to do is grow a back bone.
Oh, and Patrick, I’d rather have Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh define my ideology than uneducated hollywood actors with billions of dollars who supposedly represent the “little people”, or by fanatics who insist on repeating ideas that have proved disastrous time and time again (communism/socialism, inflationary Keynsian economic policy, etc), or by a president who was having oral sex in the white house, or by senators who use words like “white nigger” and kill people driving under the influence. I think the fact that the presidency and both houses are currently held by Republicans, and have been for several terms now, pretty much serves as proof that the country is tired of what “conservatism” has done, don’t you?
Patrick- I’ll take Ann and Rush over
Ted Kennedy- murderer
Senator Byrd- KKK leadership
anyday of the week.
One defines liberalism- Kennedy.
One is the longest serving Senator in U.S. history- and a democrat. He is an embarrassment to America- Byrd.
Ann and Rush certainly have faults- as entertainers and media types all do- but they are not elected representatives of Conservatism. We have members with ethical issues that have been and will continue to be addressed- but we have yet to have murderers and white supremacist go unchecked while holding leadership positions. That is what I call great direction for a party- what a joke.
Mr. DeBurg,
Simple denial is not an argument. Try again.
Mr Mulligan,
What is uneducated about these hollywood actors? Have not most of them travelled to the places of which they speak? At least they have seen with their own eyes. Is it merely they say things you dislike that makes them uneducated? I don’t beleive Anne and Rush have moved off their chairs since the inception of their beliefs. Communism folded in under its own weight much like the US is doing now. Socialism? Many European countries have survived with mild combinations of Capitalism and Socialism for centuries. No crumbling countries in Germany, Switzerland, France, Canada, Holland, Denmark. I could list more examples. Government works if you let it. Your rabid fear of government holds you back from finding real solutions to the problems in front of you. Just look at the merest mention of compromise here and it shows an unwillingness to find solution other than that which you wish to impose. As for oral sex in the white house you must concede a point to the fact we would have never known about it if Republicans had not dragged this fact screaming and kicking into the light. We never need to air this in public. The right wing gave this sordid story legs. We know Me Clinton went to great lenght to keep this away from his wife and daughter and the public at large. The right wing dragged every minute detail into the light. If the FBI had been looking at some certain saudi nationals instead of stains on a dress the world would be a different place and we might not be here writing across one another. Beside I find it curious; wy is a sexual liazon so evil yet lie to start a war, have thousands of countymen die, a hundred thousand Iraqis die and not a peep? As for the Kennedys, are you going to tell me no Republican with money has paid a good lawyer to absolve guilt? The kennedys made sacrifices plenty enough to be called good Americans. Why is your hatred so bright and pure? I detest the current Bush administration because of what they did to the country and its policies. I don’t hate them as individuals. Probably nice guys to a one. But you cannot allow them to take the country in a handbasket. As for the house we will see won’t we? The numbers don’t look good for you.
Honker ,
You can have Anne and Rush to yourself. No one else wants them. Byrd is an old man soon to pass into history. Don’t you have a few old supremacists in your ranks? As for their positions sir they were elected. That’s what we do here. If you feel so strongly go and help unelect them.
Mountain Man,
I deny what? This post is clear. To right this ship you have to compromise. America’s doing that for the November vote. You will have to accept the outcome or move to a more right leaning country. Not too many around. Last time I checked I was not the one destroying lives. You rhetoric is a bit desperate…..
Interesting how instead of addressing legitimate arguments brought by others that you simply continue to spew rhetoric and liberal pre-programmed nonsense about how tired America is of conservatives. Actually not so interesting I guess, just a typical liberal with more gusto than brains.
Mr. Mulligan,
This is typical from Mr. DeBurg. If you check his posts elsewhere on this site, you’ll find that he rarely brings an argument, rarely cites facts or figures, and almost never engages the topic at hand. I find that he is barely worth the time to make a response, but I shall try yet again.
Mr. DeBurg, you said, “We didn’t define you. you defined yourselves.” That is a simple, empty
denial. You provide no basis for dialogue, no facts to examine, no thesis to refute.
Allow me to assist you in what it takes to engage in conversation. You would have to respond, “Rush Limbaugh said such-and-such on this date, which proves he is a racist/bigot/homophobe.” Or, “I read Ann Coulter’s book, and on page 16 she said…”
You see Mr. DeBurg, this is the bare minimum of what it takes to discuss ideas.
Mountain Man,
Thanks for taking one last chance on me. Let me discuss ideas with you. Post 11. What Rush says.
Rush is what is known as a bully, a hypocrite and a loudmouth. , do you need examples? How about referring to addicts as scum? Until he was found out to be a “hillbilly heroin” user. Then we were to feel sorry for him. He is a man in love with his own voice. Like Anne. For the hard of thinking let me spell it out. They speak you support them. They have become your voice. Therefore they define you. Is that hard to grasp for you? In post 2 you speak of winning at any cost. You feel that winning can be the only outcome. America is infected with this outlook. That’s why American Atheletes have been disgraced around the world. They are ramped up on steroids to a one. America must win even if it cheats. Look at the elections with gerrymandering, hanging chads, vote supression, and other words and functions for cheating. And we are to bring democracy to the third world? You have slandered democracy in this country. But you feel no shame other than getting caught. Why don’t you take out the time to responde to post 7 and show where I am wrong? This thread was about compromise and I addressed that here. Here are some facts. The polling resuts are extremely low. Even dyed in the wool republicans are voting against you in November. The house will be lost to you. So I ask you again where will you go?
Mr Mulligan,
Where is your legitimate argument? Compromise is bad! Never will do it! Hold my breath till my face turns blue! You sound like a five year old child. Respond to post seven! You always respond in this site wit the h tired liberal rhetoric line. Everything in post 7 is true. You have not the ability to face the truth. Clintion was not vile you were. You wallowed in the mud like pigs with this story. And you still remain silent on the Iraq disaster. Face up to what you lend your credence to. YOU HAVE DEFINED YOURSELVES!! Most of what you spout her Mr Mulligan is your opinion or can you no longer see where opinion stops and facts start anymore. I truly think you confuse the two. Your world is imploding and you are too engulfed in yourself to see it.
I think we have to distinguish between compromise when the only realistic alternative is something worse, and compromise for the sake of “bipartisanship.” Compromise is something you do, it seems to me, when you cannot win. It is a means to a lesser evil, not an end in and of itself.
Government is not “about” compromise, but only people who are occassionally willing to compromise (at least about some things) will enjoy success in government.
Now, as for the conservatives of Rhode Island, I don’t envy their choice this fall. But while Lincoln Chafee won’t vote to confirm judges like Samuel Alito, people who will vote to confirm judges like Alito are more likely to control the Sentate Judiciary Committee if Mr. Chafee wins. With that in mind, I have to hope that Rhode Island conservatives turn out to vote for the senator’s re-election. Even though principle dictates they shouldn’t.
And on issues, one must observe that conservatives seem to do most of the compromising. For instance, many of us would like to get rid of the Department of Education, or at least cut its funding. Instead, the “compromise” is that we agree to increase the department’s funding, but not by as much as most liberals would like. Which is more a defeat than a compromise, but it is not as much of a defeat conservatives are likely to suffer if we hold out for what we ultimately want.
I wrote that response before yours, it got re-shuffled later on (probably because of comments that were in queue). So let me ask you, Mr. Deburg, in your uncommon maturity and intelligence, on what issues would you compromise with a conservative idealogue? The maturity of your party has led to judges being left off the bench for 6 years, important bills being killed in committee to avoid having to deal with any real issues, and such excessive fillibustering that a bi-partisan agreement had to be made. I mean for God’s sakes, a Harvard Law Suma Cum Laude with years of bench experience made it through senate approval by only a handful of votes while Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a clearly partisan candidate who had worked for the ACLU, passed through a Republican senate with only, what, 15 dissenters? That’s what I love about Democrats – that maturity and tolerance.
Now let’s discuss some of your comments.
“What is uneducated about these hollywood actors? Have not most of them travelled to the places of which they speak?”
What is uneducated about them? How about Sean Penn and Tom Cruise didn’t graduate high school? Hollywood is known for it’s beauty, not it’s brains. You mature liberal debaters routinely tout the stupidity of our president, who graudated from one of your Ivy League bastions of liberal hope, and yet hollywood actors are qualified to speak about political issues simply because they’ve visited tourist resort destinatios in select foreign countries?
“Communism folded in under its own weight much like the US is doing now. Socialism? Many European countries have survived with mild combinations of Capitalism and Socialism for centuries. No crumbling countries in Germany, Switzerland, France, Canada, Holland, Denmark. I could list more examples.”
First of all, that very fact that you would try to make a defense for communism pretty much proves that you’re every bit as ignorant of the world and self-involved as you accuse me of being later on in another post. But keep it up, because you basically just proved my point about liberals constantly wanting to re-invent failed ideas. Communism has historically failed and failed and failed (FYI, Marx wasn’t the inventor of communism anymore than Smith was the inventor of capitalism, it’s failed more than couple times in the last thousand years) because totalitarian dictatorship and re-distribution of wealth are really stupid ideas. As far as socialism, have you ever been to any of the countries you mention? If France is your example of the success of socialism then it’s hard to imagine what you would consider a failure. Their government is bankrupt trying to subsidize a population that refuses to work, dealing with the resultant double digit unemployment numbers, and dealing with rioutous youth who wonder why their government is failing them. Canada? Are you serious? Great, so Canada has chepaer drugs, right? Ever been to a Canadian hospital? Ever waited for 10 years on a waiting list to have life-saving surgery performed by an underpaid, overworked doctor? Have any of your hollywood friends with all of their extensive experience in global affairs? Canadian people have. Your socialist savior Hugo Chavez has 35% of his people living below the Venezualan poverty level (which isn’t like the cushy, under $20,000 per year poverty in America, by the way). The ihherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of poverty. Your perspective might change if you were the 30% of France with no job living off of government stipends or the 35% of Venezuala living in abject poverty.
“As for oral sex in the white house you must concede a point to the fact we would have never known about it if Republicans had not dragged this fact screaming and kicking into the light. ”
Your point, please? Democrats have MADE UP scandals for our current president that never even happened!
“If the FBI had been looking at some certain Saudi nationals instead of stains on a dress the world would be a different place and we might not be here writing across one another. Beside I find it curious; why is a sexual liason so evil yet someone lies to start a war, have thousands of countymen die, a hundred thousand Iraqis die and not a peep?”
The FBI wasn’t looking at Saudi nationals at the time because they weren’t allowed to. See, when Clinton decided to cut their budgets and hamstring their undercover operatives in foreign countries (like making it illegal to wiretap phones without a 14-day warrant approval process and forbidding American operatives to make associations with criminals in foreign countries), it made their job quite a bit tougher. That’s not mentioning that if Clinton hadn’t refused to take Osama bin Laden when he was offered for extradition, we would probably be in a different place right now, don’t you think? As long as we’re talking about senselessly starting wars, by the way, how about Somalia? Rwanda? Bosnia? Albania? How many soldiers died in those places accomplishing NOTHING. How many died INTERFERING in localized civil wars that were none of our business? If liberals were so concerned about US interventionism, you wouldn’t think those conflicts would have taken place under the watch of their messiah, would you? Strange indeed how politics can cloud one’s judgement of fact from opinion, as you point out.
“As for the Kennedys, are you going to tell me no Republican with money has paid a good lawyer to absolve guilt? The kennedys made sacrifices plenty enough to be called good Americans. Why is your hatred so bright and pure?”
Well I can’t think off-hand of any Republican senators who have been accused of rape, drunken driving or manslaughter who still hold their office, no. And not that it has anything to do with this topic (typical diversionary liberal tactics, good job, your handlers would be proud), but tell me, what exactly did the Kennedy’s sacrifice for their country? Let’s see, we had a bootlegger who bought his sickly son into the US military so that he could have a politcal career, the subsequent coverup of a disaster that took place on his ship for which he was hailed a hero, and a presidency spent abusing prescription drugs to maintain a youthful facade to sell to the American people in order to get elected. And that’s just John John! Hatred? I don’t have any hatred for those people. But I surely don’t have any respect for them either.
“I detest the current Bush administration because of what they did to the country and its policies. I don?t hate them as individuals. Probably nice guys to a one. But you cannot allow them to take the country in a handbasket. As for the house we will see won?t we? The numbers don?t look good for you.”
Well actually, I don’t care much for the Bush administration either. For entirely different reasons, I’m sure, but I’m not a drone to a party leader. I know that’s an incomprehensible idea to a liberal, but my political ideals aren’t dictated by the Fuhrer du jour. As for the house, yes, we will see. Don’t get too excited though, mid-term predictions for Republicans were bleak in ’94 too.
“YOU HAVE DEFINED YOURSELVES!!”
FANTASTIC! As I recall, you were the one who first accused an entire group of people of being defined by a few, and I for one appreciate your concession that we (conservatives) are capable of defining ourselves. You’ve defined yourself too. Good job! You should be proud!
To quote Rodney King, “Can’t we all just get along…?”
The comments to this article have gotten so far out of control so as to prove neither side of the spectrum read it very carefully.
First, the article does not suggest compromise. On the contrary, it emphatically states that while compromise may be an objective of governing, the point of politics is winning. That some have read into it a call for some kind of RINO-like compromise indicates only a shortsighted view of the reader. The article in fact calls for fidelity to conservative principles, but a moderation or “tweaking’ of the message in those blue states where a conservative can’t win using traditional themes. For example, a pro-life conservative will not succeed in a state like California by rallying against the immorality of the practice when at least a majority of the populous disagrees or sees room for disagreement. So the article suggests tweaking the message to encompass a less morality-dependent, more pro-democracy message. The article only suggests, do you want to win blue states?
Second, the article does not suggest that conservatism has failed or is failing. What it suggests is that it’s an evolutionary process which needs to be invigorated from time to time, not abandoned. Take the Social Security example. Most conservatives believe that Social Security and Medicare are a boondoggle New Deal disaster, and favor privatization. The program is in fact a disaster and privatization is in fact a better approach. And in a think tank format it might be enough to leave it there. In the real world however, the public mandate and the Congressional votes are not there. Social Security dependent seniors make up a large voting bloc particularly in high growth states like Florida and Arizona. And they vote those benefits. The question then for conservatives is do you come up with strategies and policies which attempt to scale back the disaster realistically, e.g., a smaller drug benefit plan than the massive entitlement demanded by the Left, and win or do you scream and holler for a complete roll back and at the same time wallow in electoral defeats?
Before you cream stand on principle or die recognize two things. One, conservatism is supposed to be about gradual change not radicalism. Two, before you martyr yourself on one issue recognize elections have consequences. Conservative candidates can martyr themselves to a currently unachievable goal like eliminating Social Security or abortion and declare themselves ideologically pure, but they abandon the country to the Pelosi, Reid, Gore, Dean bloc on very other issue which might matter. In time of war no less….
Finally, recognize that goals may be out of reach now, but not forever. President Bush’s Social Security partial privatization plan failed, but was actually very popular among younger demographics of all races and both genders. Polling suggests that the younger generation, teens and particularly girl teens, are far more likely to be pro-life. So do you continue to articulate conservative principles, recast for certain races, and wait for the culture to catch up, probably bringing in new voters on the basis of alternative themes, or do you martyr yourself on the altar of perceived ideological purity?