There are three priorities a strongly empowered conservative government should pursue.
Prospects for Republicans to regain political power — in both the Congress and the Presidency — continue to improve. But as we learned sadly under the administration of George W Bush, Republican power does not necessarily result in conservative governance. In a recent article in this magazine, I speculated about what conservatives might do if they do indeed receive a mandate from the American people. Moreover, I pointed out that such a mandate would come in one of two forms: either clear but limited (as it was for Reagan in the 80's and Gingrich in the 90's) or overwhelming and comprehensive (as it has not been since Coolidge, and perhaps longer ago).
In the last article I outlined three priorities that should determine the agenda in the case of a limited mandate. Those priorities were:
-
Role of Government. Shrink the New Deal/Great Society/Obamania-inspired gargantuan government that is choking freedom out of American life.
-
Defeat Islamic Fundamentalism. Reduce, and hopefully remove the scourge of Islamic fundamentalism as a threat to the US, to the West, indeed to the World.
-
Recapture the culture. Initiate a multi-faceted approach toward rescuing the culture of the US. The basic goal is to restore (a reasonable facsimile) of the traditional culture that permeated American life from the 18th to the 20th century. Start on the long path toward delegitimizing the pornographic, anti-family, anti-religious, egalitarian, multicultural, environmentally wacky, anti-achievement, socialistic cesspool that passes for culture in America today.
Ideas and suggestions for action on each priority were presented in that article. In addition, I also promised that in a forthcoming article, I would outline a program to govern the actions of conservatives if and when the American people come to their senses and install a truly conservative government — with a strong and sustained mandate. Perhaps surprisingly, the same three principles serve as a linchpin for that agenda. Except that, with a strong and sustained mandate, the agenda could be pursued in a much more vigorous manner. It is my purpose to describe, as succinctly as possible, that "grand program" here.
Before I launch into the precise program, let us briefly recall the fundamental idea that fuels progressivism — an idea whose pursuit has led to disastrous changes in our country. I will also explain why, after a century of experimentation, the idea is bankrupt and we must return to the conservative principles that made our country a bastion of freedom and a model for the world.
The fundamental idea that drives progressivism is that the traditional American culture, highlighted by individual liberty, free markets, rugged individualism, limited government, sanctity of private property and a "don't tread on me" mentality, inevitably leads to inequity, unfairness, injustice and oppression. These horrible consequences of the traditional culture are a blatant violation of how human beings should live on our planet. They can only be corrected by replacing the traditional culture with one that emphasizes redistribution of wealth, multiculturalism, a powerful central government acting as the ultimate arbiter of social and economic disparities, group rights and a hypocritical reliance solely on negotiation rather than force to reconcile differences. (I say hypocritical because the principle only applies to international affairs, but not to domestic policies.)
I believe history has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that striving for equality of outcome — aside from whether it is a proper goal for mankind — inevitably leads to tyranny. For proof, see the Soviet Union, East Germany, Cuba, China, Vietnam, Zimbabwe and even the European Union. The forcible taking from one to give to another — however justified it might appear in the abstract — deprives the former of liberty, property and, occasionally, of life. The coercive redistribution of wealth surely is one of the worst ideas that mankind has ever concocted — even if motivated by good intentions. Instead, the fundamental animating principle that should govern human behavior is equality of opportunity — that is, the same rules apply to everyone. After the games begin, some will outperform and out-achieve others. If the society is just and the people morally sound, then those who excel will establish structures to aid those who do not. If, on the other hand, society (in the form of government) compels compulsory generosity, compulsory kindness or compulsory charity, then what it gets is not generosity, kindness or charity, but bitterness on the part of those deprived and resentment and irresponsibility from the benefiters. Charity and kindness can only result from an act performed with free will. Therefore, it is imperative that we reorient our country's underlying philosophy from redistribution to equality of opportunity.
In the previous article I outlined for each of the above three priorities, concrete steps that conservatives could take, which the American people would support — even if they had granted conservatives only a limited mandate. If the mandate is broader, much more could be done. The two prime goals would be: first, a complete undermining of the liberal hegemony that has increasingly ruled the US over the last century; and second, a rekindling of the Constitutional republic that characterized US society in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Of course I am not proposing that we toss out the internet, abandon CAT scans and shun nuclear energy. Progress in technological matters and improvements in the quality of life should be embraced. But the underlying principles of our political and economic systems and, most importantly, of our culture, should be restored to the tried and true conservative paradigms that we benefitted from so greatly and for so long.
With that in mind, I will list, for each of the three priorities, some bold steps that I believe a strongly empowered conservative government should pursue. Each step merits a full essay. I and others will write those essays when the day of reckoning draws nearer. For now, let's just settle on the broad strokes of the program — more of a conservative manifesto than a conservative playbook.
1. Shrink the government. Reagan failed to do it. So did Gingrich. This must be Job One of a new, powerful conservative government. Here's how to do it:
-
A renewed emphasis on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution must be implemented. These amendments make clear that the people are sovereign and that, aside from the limited and defined powers granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution, all remaining powers are reserved to the States and to the people. The willful ignoring of these Amendments by the Federal Government — and the people's acquiescence in that usurpation — are at the root of the unchecked growth in the power of the Federal Government.
-
The Federal Government's budget must be restricted to a percentage of GDP more in line with historic figures. Before WWI, it was less than 10%; since WWII, it has ranged between 25 and 35%; and in the age of Obama it is over 40%.We should reduce it to no more than 20%.
-
Federal entitlement programs are out of control and by themselves threaten to bankrupt the country. They all should be severely curtailed and ultimately privatized. This is a huge challenge and unfortunately has to be done somewhat gradually as an overnight implementation would wreak chaos.
-
Every federal agency's budget should be cut by at least 25%, and at least 25% of the agencies should be phased out. Several cabinet level departments should be axed. More draconian cuts would be a worthy goal.
-
All federal taxes (income, payroll, capital gains, estate, etc.) should be cut by at least 25% and preferably more.
-
The number of federal regulations should be cut by at least 50%.
-
The deficit and national debt must be addressed. If all the previous steps were taken, they would go a long way toward substantially reducing the deficit. In addition, there should be statutory or constitutional limits set on the permissible size of the deficit as a percentage of GDP — never more than 5% as it has been historically (except during the two world wars); now it exceeds 10% and is increasing. But even better would be a Constitutional mandate for a balanced budget (as is the case in virtually all the States), which could only be violated in times of national emergency and only upon a three-quarters vote of Congress. These steps and a growing economy will enable us to start paying off the debt.
-
The Federal Government should sell off large portions of its tangible assets including buildings, land and equipment. The proceeds should go toward reducing the national debt.
-
Judicial power must be reined in. Appointments for life should be terminated. Justices should serve fixed terms (e.g., 10, perhaps 15 years), renewable by the consent of the Senate at most once.
-
The Federal Reserve should be reexamined. Its power and related controversial issues — such as whether a return to the gold standard is wise — should be open for serious discussion.
2. Defeat Islamic Fundamentalism. Above all, we must recognize and appropriately name the danger we face: A resurgent, worldwide and radical Muslim movement that intends to destroy the United States, Israel and Western Civilization. Like the previous totalitarian movements we defeated, Nazism and Communism, radical Islam is bent on world domination. Unlike the previous two, radical Islam is not led from a single nation-state. But that does not make the threat to us any less dangerous. Thus far, we have been reluctant to name our enemy and we have refused to acknowledge that we are in an existential battle. The sooner we do so, the better able we will be to deal with and win that battle. Here, in brief, are some of the steps we must take:
-
Although there is not a single source, there are identifiable sites of greatest strength — for example, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. We must impose severe sanctions on the first and punitive measures on the latter two to induce modified behavior. Military action must never be ruled out.
-
We must make clear that, should circumstances warrant, Teheran is a potential military target — but so are Medina and Mecca. That will focus their attention on the price they might pay for pursuing their mad quest.
-
The US must beef up its military. That means a larger force and the most advanced weapons — conventional, nuclear and those designed for asymmetric warfare. We must restore the capabilities of our intelligence services.
-
We should recognize that Israel is our most reliable ally in this struggle and cease our fixation on the so-called "Palestinian problem." Were Israel to disappear and Fatah/Hamas/Hizbollah to rule the Holy Land, it would not change by one iota the fundamental goal of the Islamic radicals to obliterate the West.
-
We must find a way to reenergize our NATO allies: they should cease their appeasement of our common Muslim enemies (which are increasingly found inside their borders); beef up their military capabilities; and seriously engage in this global struggle that threatens their existence even more than ours.
-
We should stop apologizing for "past American sins," reaffirm our role as the world's chief bastion and model of freedom and go on the offensive against the enemy that endangers us. We need to engage the Jihadists in the court of world opinion as well as on the batttlefield.
3. Culture. As I have argued forcefully in the previous article and elsewhere, this is the greatest challenge facing conservatives — that is, recapturing the culture from the Left that has almost completely usurped it over the last century. Here are the key philosophical principles that should guide us. (Some concrete action steps were described in the last article.)
-
A reverence for, allegiance to and study of the US Constitution must be a characteristic of all Americans, both young and old.
-
Similarly, the study of and pride in US history must be ubiquitous among the people.
-
Individual liberty must be restored as our highest goal. This does not mean an entitlement mentality that sees all of us with equal outcomes at the end of the day, but rather equal opportunity for all of us to achieve at the highest levels we can attain.
-
A belief in free markets, entrepreneurship, democratic capitalism and a rejection of the idea that the government can run our economy more effectively than the entrepreneurs, investors, shopkeepers and laborers who create and populate our job market.
-
Clean up the filth and degeneracy, propagated by the media, academia and the legal profession, which poses for culture in liberal America. This will not be an easy task. It requires higher moral standards among the people. Religion needs to play a role.
-
Restore pride in myriad aspects of the traditional culture that have been marginalized: Calvinist work ethic, humility, restraint, thrift, nuclear family.
-
Cease and desist all multicultural crap like: bilingual education, diversity programs, group rights, gay marriage and coddling of illegal immigrants.
-
Look to religious, civic, neighborhood and private philanthropic organizations to provide charity to the less fortunate — NOT the government.
Here's the icing on the cake — two bold steps that would truly herald a refounding of America as a Constitutional republic. First, some of the above-mentioned steps might require a modification of the Constitution. The standard Amendment process is long and difficult. How about a Constitutional Convention? The Constitution provides for it. Just because we have not done it since 1787 does not mean that it is not a good idea. Second, it is not only Supreme Court justices who pledge to protect and defend the Constitution. Members of Congress and the President do the same. Perhaps it is time for them, like the members of the Court, to deem themselves responsible for deciding constitutionality of laws. I acknowledge this is a tricky matter, but I believe the founders foresaw that all the members of the government at the highest level would be equally responsible for safeguarding the Constitution.
Is America ready to embark on such a journey? I wish I could say that I was optimistic about the possibility. But the US has exhibited remarkable rejuvenative powers in response to numerous existential crises in the past. This one poses a greater problem in that the crisis has been festering for a century and its true nature is hidden from much of the population. Yet, unlike our President, I believe in American exceptionalism. It might ride to the rescue after all.


























"More draconian cuts would be a worthy goal."
Hear, hear!!!
The really great thing about your suggestions is that the will address social issues without seeming "devisive". By believing in less goverment and more God and liberty, abortions, gay-marriage, etc. will simply wither on the vine.
Good article, however it misses one of the major issues facing the country illegal immigration. The fixes for this issue consist of actually enforcing our laws and clearly criminalizing illegal entry and overstays by making them a felony. Fixing this one goes a long way to fixing our schools and reducing some of government. Coupled with this legal immigration should be reduced to those skills that we are truly short of and have no reasonable expectation of retraining citizens (this would mean very little immigration since we have a large pool of workers capable of retraining).
Then we need to cut down the horrible effect of the attitude "let's make a law" by requiring any new law passed to include a law repealed before the new one can be enacted.
Lastly a strict adherence to the constitution as written not as one would like it to be written.
Yesterday a Rep. Senator (Kit Bond? maybe?) commented that the only reason he voted for the bank bail-outs and the takeover of AIG (both of which happened under Bush) was because he feared that should the country fall into another great depression, the backlash would be so severe that Obama would be able to push through his most radical agenda. Hence he voted for the massive bailouts so the damage Obama and the Dems would be able to inflict could be minimized.
This sounds like revisionist history, and too clever by half, but let's take him at his word. Given that many of the precipitating events of the debacle were realizations of conservative philosophy (deregulation of banking, Bush putting foxes in charge of every regulatory hen-house, untrammeled greed, etc) and given the observation that had Bush actually achieved his 2nd term dream of privatizing Social Security then everyone's granny would be living in the streets as a result of the crash, my question is this: Conservatives win BIG in 2010 and 2012, retaking both houses and the presidency, and President Palin goes about enacting just such an agenda outlined. More deregulation and oodles of new money (from privatized accounts) come flowing Wall Street's way, and like the greedy bastards they are, they get too greedy. After couple of years of hoovering up as much cash as they can, another bubble bursts and both Citi and Goldman-Sachs are teetering on the brink, threatening to take down the entire global economy again. It's 2015, you are a Senator. Do you bail them out again, or do you let them fail, sending us into another depression and potentially unleashing the mother of all backlashes in the next years elections?
"…precipitating events of the debacle were realizations of conservative philosophy (deregulation of banking, Bush putting foxes in charge of every regulatory hen-house, untrammeled greed, etc)…" Your premise is false, therefore the rest of your analysis is false.
Chasm is apparently unable to understand that making bad loans a goverment policy initiative will eventually lead to the Democrat depression we are in. Beyond that minor point we have a system where we claim welfare reform because welfare costs are hidden in areas such as section 8 housing, Pell grants, equal opportunity hiring (read select the lowest level person able to come close to meeting the minimum job requirements), social security (where have you ever seen a ponzi plan that offers the largest returns to the smallest contributors), medicaid and others.
Essays such as this one make a thinking person sigh with exasperation – what is it with male Republicans – why do they revert to the arcane ritual of the Freemasons, engage in repetitive chanting and spout esoteric philosophy as soon as they gain, or regain, power? To counter this blather, consider the following:
First, review Phil Jackson’s essays on pragmatic politics for big boys and girls. By winning an election, a seat that would have bolstered the Democrats’ numbers and agenda goes to a Republican instead. The Democrats are stymied, their ability to create all manner of Big Government mischief is held in check. But, denying a Democrat more years in the seat of power is exactly like a major snow storm descending on Washington, the citizenry is safe for a brief time but 3 feet of snow doesn’t undo the damage previously done, it simply prevents more damage being done and for however short a time.
Second, drop the dogma and blind assurance you, as a Republican, understand what the electorate needs. Ask them and then ask them again until you understand, Obama doesn’t ask, he tells and he’s in trouble for it – take the hint. Vague generalizations and boilerplate Conservative wisdom is fine at a rubber chicken dinner party, it gets applause from a select and sympathetic audience, it means less than nothing to the general citizenry – deeds, not words, guys. If Conservative words alone worked, there would be no Democrats elected – ever.
Third, go after the domestic terrorists – no, not those strange souls living in Montana with 8,000 rounds of .223 Remington ammo, investigate the Wall St. crooks, flush them out into the open, name names, propose regulations which are actually intended to regulate, list campaign donations earmarked for buying influence, hold public hearings on exactly what the donations were intended to buy, expose government sponsored programs which are intended solely to benefit the insider few at the expense of the taxpayers and remember that the Republican Party needs money for various expenses, but hopping in bed with every Wall St. bimbo isn’t Conservatism, it’s simply “acting Democrat”.
Fourth, we all want security from foreign aggression, defense is no joke but drop the Policeman of the World mindset. Look closely at our armed forces, our ability to make war is supported by weapons designed for a declared and unrestricted major war. Get it through your heads, a policeman is NOT a soldier, you can be one or the other, but not both. A policeman goes into the house, searches out the suspect, offers a chance to surrender peacefully, avoids any damage to the innocent, is individually responsible under law for any innocents he may injure no matter how closely “procedure” was followed and so forth. The arrested suspect is granted “bail”, is back on the streets, the policeman’s efforts undone by a judge and the cycle repeats itself. Our armed forces aren’t policemen, we can’t fight terrorists like policemen, nor can we fight terrorists like soldiers under our modern and absurdly Liberal rules of engagement.
Example – in WWII, while Allied Forces were breaching the Rhine, a German town was in the path of an American unit. Initially, the citizens were ready to surrender and allow unrestricted passage through their streets. During a white flag truce powwow, a German fanatic and local hero stepped forward and told the American commander there would be no surrender. Then the German citizens foolishly opposed our soldiers, dropped bricks, tossed flaming bottles, took pot shots. The American unit pulled back from the town, they opened up with the tubes on their battle tanks, ordered air strikes and dropped mortar rounds into the buildings, they leveled the entire town, they killed civilians, Nazi fanatics to be sure but also ordinary men, women and children. They then proceeded through the town.
No one investigated the American commander for war crimes, no Congressional hearings were held, no one suggested the Americans should have dismounted and fought through the streets, being careful to shoot only in self-defense while avoiding innocent civilians. And we honored these fighting men, both then and now. They were under orders to advance and advance quickly, it was necessary, they were supporting other American units under fire and their actions no doubt saved American lives. Ugly, yes. But necessary.
We can’t fight humane “police action” wars in a similar manner. Our nuclear submarines, stealth bombers, 60 ton main battle tanks, impressive aircraft carriers, advanced tactical fighters cannot carry the war to an enemy hiding in plain sight. Our soldiers are like the British redcoats advancing in line abreast while the Muslim colonials shoot from behind rocks and trees. This isn’t “National Defense”, it’s National Idiocy and the Republicans send proxies in the persons of our young men and women to enforce such idiocy.
You could pick apart this author’s essay point by point, but it isn’t worth the effort. Einstein cautioned against doing the same things over and over but expecting different results. He thought only idiots followed such behavior patterns but nowadays Republicans follow them as well – think outside the box, stop reciting the Conservative catechism word for word, make old Albert proud of you.
Great goals. We need 80+ senators and 330+ House of Representatives to make it happen. Until then it has to be death by a 1000 cuts to stop the train to disaster.
Permit me to comment on my interlocutors' remarks. I am grateful to all who commented.
I found it woeful to read in Chasm's note the old, dreary blame for the crash of 08 on deregulation and corporate greed. If we should address the crash by creating new federal regulatory agencies modeled on FEMA, the FDA, the FDIC and every other failed government agency, then our economy will purr along like the US Post Office, Amtrak, the MVA, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—i.e., incompetence, inefficiency, corruption and extraordinary waste will become the norm. The deregulatory policies of Ronald Reagan helped to fuel 25 years of economic growth. Reversing them will institutionalize the economic paralysis that Obama's economy now manifests.
As for corporate greed, yes it exists. Corporate moguls are greedy—as are virtually all human beings. When you encourage greed and collude with it through acts of governmental stupidity like the Community Reinvestment Act, then the greed can indeed become dangerous. If we had let the market punish the greedy moguls' companies instead of bailing them out, our economy would be in better shape now and in far better shape down the road.
Thanks to Mickey G and Mountain Man for also pointing out the weakness in Chasm's argument.
I don't know what to say about the long, rambling message from Pat Skurka. I remind him that I was ruminating about what conservatives might do if they receive an overwhelming mandate from the people. Also, I emphasize, I am talking about conservatives, not necessarily Republicans—and while it is virtually impossible to find any conservatives among Democrats, it is, alas, easy to find Republicans who are not conservative. Finally, much of the long message, while interesting and entertaining, was beside the point of my piece.
To Mickey G, yes I did not discuss immigration. Nor did I discuss abortion or gun control. I worried that the piece was already too long. But should we have a bona fide conservative revolution in the country, the people will do the right thing on those issues.
Finally, thank you to Steve Laib, deleeuw and hvance for their friendly remarks.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by America1First: A Flight of Fantasy II: A Manifesto for Conservatives When They Regain Power http://bit.ly/b3NTL4...
Ron, I want to apologize for hijacking the thread with such a curveball question, though it might not be as out there as it seems. I think that when I read this post I was just so shocked, especially in tandem with the GOP 'budget' that they floated this week, by the implications of what the far-right is proposing. I think I was just too much for me to absorb and respond to properly, so I responded with a scenario. I will try and respond in a more reasoned way to your post in future, but for now I want to at least get an answer to my question.
You see, my post wasn't an argument or analysis, and Mountain Man's claim of false premise is irrelevant. I just proposed a scenario (out of many, you can imagine Obama causes it if you like), which results in the sputtering (again) of our economic engine: What if, in 6 mos, 1 year, 2 years… the banks take a big hit and Citi and B of A fail (threatening Sachs, etc), would you support bailing them out again, or letting them fail, chips fall where they may?
Please, I'd love to hear your actual thoughts on what to do if we are faced (again) with another Depression.
I hope I have the energy at some point to make a point on this article, because I think it's important, but I'm really not an economist so that makes it more difficult for me.
Quick comment on Pat's post: I think(?) I think that points 3 & 4 should be moved up to slots 1 & 2, and that 1&2, uh, I not sure what they mean, but, yea!? Unless I misunderstood him. In which case, not. ;)
"I just proposed a scenario …" No, you made a slanderous assertion regarding conservative philosophy as if it were established fact. Not a single part of the statement you made was factual, therefore any conclusions you draw from it are faulty.
Of course my conclusions are faulty, they contain the prediction "President Palin," the point being to put a conservative in the position of advocating bailouts. I restated the whole question the second go around, in much simpler terms, which apparently weren't simple enough. I will write more slowly:
The banks are failing. Depression is looming. You are a Senator. Whats your decision – economic collapse, or 2nd bailout? Go.
Chasm, I will answer slowly, no bailout. Period. You say economic collapse as if it an established fact.