Who is to blame for our current out of touch elected officials?
Monday, 15 February 2010 21:36
Christian J. Riehle
In the last year we have seen protests against out of control Federal and State spending and there is a general feeling against incumbency. While there is so much anger at the elected officials who are often so disappointing, we must look at the real culprit that keeps these out of control politicians in power. The real culprit is that too few people pay attention and too few people are civically involved.
Evan Bayh, Democrat Senator of Indiana, has announced his retirement, coming at the end of 2010. Bayh has been polling poorly versus Republican opponents and his retirement has followed quite a few other Democrat retirements for both House and Senate seats. The Democratic leadership is making an attempt to prevent what could be a major loss in both legislative houses. So, in attempting to hold disputed seats, they are removing some at risk incumbents and pushing candidates that are less well known. Why? For the first time in several generations there is a palpable, anti-incumbent sentiment that pertains to both major parties but it pertains disproportionately to Democrats. Right now, people are paying attention. The discontent for Democrat incumbents could easily by tied to the back door deals that were so rampant in the last few months in the Health Care debate. Democrats, by pushing for newer candidates instead of incumbents, are attempting to continue their agenda while removing unpopular names. The incumbents however, are often unpopular due to their embracing those unpopular Democrat agenda items. So, I must warn the moderate Democrat electorates, in the States and districts where this maneuver is being orchestrated, don’t be fooled. The Democratic leadership are hoping that you’re not paying attention. Attention Democratic electorate, if you buy that a new name, in place of an old one, will miraculously represent an independent voter, then you will be sorely disappointed. Look at the last few months. When more independent Democrats had the perceived insolence to not vote the party line, they were attacked in the media, called into the Oval Office, and some even had their wives and religions assaulted. Eventually, the “independently” minded Democrats were bought off or beaten into submission. In the current conditions in Washington, non-compliance will not be tolerated. Remember that when Pennsylvania Senator, Arlen Specter switched from the Republicans to the Democrats, he claimed that he would continue to be an “independent” voice in the Senate. If you buy that, apparently you’re not paying attention. Specter has walked the Democrat party line fully. He has backed away from his opposition of “Card Check,” fully supported every spending package and has been a dutiful voice for the Health Care bills on the Sunday morning talk shows. If you are paying attention then you understand the ‘independent” voice, in the Democrat party is a myth. Republicans are also guilty of not paying attention. I recently
Last Updated on Monday, 15 February 2010 21:41
Read more...
Five Principles of Conservatism
Monday, 18 January 2010 21:02
Alfus/ Christian the Rhant.
When discussing Conservatism, I think that it is best to put the philosophy of the right into simple language and simple principles. If there is a major problem with Conservatism, which I doubt, it is that the language coming from the right, is not always clear. It is becoming more and more obvious that straight forward and simple points win. The left, or for our purposes today we will call them “the truly wise” feel justified in their plans to intervene in countless free market entities. Rather than surrendering to the attacks on the left, that would attempt to sell the right as “do nothing, or the party of no,” it is essential to put out easy to understand statements, to explain why the solutions of the right are superior to those on the left. Before that can happen it is important to describe what the most basic principles of Conservatism are.
- When you tax something, you get less of it.
This is a simple principle. If taxes are increased on employers, fewer jobs are created. Increase taxes on creativity, the result is fewer creative products. If an economy as a whole is taxed at a higher rate, all who rely on that economy will see negative results from it. Taxes should be seen as a necessary evil. The Federal Government does have basic responsibilities that require taxation; but, beyond that, taxation is a stumbling block to the free market and to more people having abundance.
How does abundance work with lower taxes? Let’s look at places that are run by high taxes and how that effects peoples lives. The “truly wise” love to preach the wisdom of public transit and higher fuel prices. They will then talk about how European Metro areas have higher public transit use and how these wise European Countries consume less gasoline. They are absolutely right, Europe is as they describe, but why? CNN.Money reported that in 2005, the average gas price was about $6.00/gallon for most Western and Northern European countries, while the average gas price was $2.27/gallon (according to the Energy Information Administration) in the U.S. No wonder public transit is so popular in European countries. If you can afford to buy a car, you would have to be rich to drive it. However, many cities in the U.S. are doing there best to follow Europe’s model as federal taxes increase. The point is, if you want less money to flow in the private sector tax at a higher rate.
What happens to a city when the city's taxes are too high? Beautiful cities in the U.S, Canada and Europe were once places of exciting new architecture and private sector growth. Today, if new architecture rises in these cities, it comes through public spending. Taxes have in many ways stunted the growth of these cities if not putting private ventures in full retreat. Once San Francisco, Manhattan, London, Munich, Vancouver, Chicago and Seattle were the images of exciting capitalism. Now, these cities have been replaced by names like Haifa, Tel Aviv, Kuwait City, Doha, Abu Dhabi and Dubai. Many of these new names were small desert villages just twenty years ago. These are now places that encourage new development by low taxes and by encouraging wealth, not demonizing it. These cities capitalize off the west’s anti-business taxes and policies. Despite the recent slowing in the Emirate, Dubai is the fastest growing city in the world, has the tallest building (by at least double it’s closest competitor) and is quickly becoming the financial, shipping, and real estate capital of the world.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 15:59
Read more...
|
The Real Cost of “Action.”
Saturday, 06 February 2010 21:21
Christian J. Riehle
When discussing large federal programs, there is a tendency to focus on whether they are effective or ineffective. These discussions often lack the greater question. Did interference in business and individual lives inhibit freedom? Does bureaucratic “help” rob us of a freedom little mentioned , the right to self reliance?
“It is not a question of whether government is too big, or too small, but whether it works.”
This quote is one of the more memorable pieces of President Obama’s inaugural address. In that short phrase, is the difference between supply side Conservatism, and nanny state, big government liberalism. FDR also made Liberalism quite pronounced when he said,
“Not only our future economic soundness, but, the very soundness of our democratic institutions, depends on the determination of our government to give employment to idle men.”
So, what do these two quotes tell us about the mentality of these two men? It should be obvious that both believe in top down governance and aid.
Top down governance is based in a mistrust of people’s ability to solve their own problems. Apologists and defenders of massive spending programs, argue that these actions helped the economy and employment, which is certainly a dubious conclusion. Voices in the Obama Administration claim that their actions have saved and created thousands,
Last Updated on Thursday, 04 March 2010 23:11
Read more...
Reid’s comments tell us little new about Reid, but more about a larger issue.
Wednesday, 13 January 2010 20:01
Christian J. Riehle
Conservative writers and talkers have made much of Harry Reid’s (D-NV) comments about then Senator Obama’s skin tone and speech patterns. (I’m not going to use the quote because the quote is already all over the media.) Rather then making political hay out of these words, I think it would be appropriate for Conservatives to take the high ground and focus on real ways to win.
Using Reid’s unfortunate verbal missteps, especially when it comes to race, is attempting an emotional and superficial tool of the Left. It won’t work for the right. There is a general understanding that because the right has principle and accountability, sticking a Conservative with their own words, puts them in full defense mode. When the shoe is on the other foot, those on the left can’t be pinned by racial or ethnic misstatements, because all the candidate has to say is “I didn’t mean it.” Why? Because those on the left are used to their candidates saying things that they never meant. Hillary Clinton said something that could have easily been construed as offensive, when she made a comment about Gandhi being a convenience store owner. In Clinton’s case these words didn’t detrimentally affect her, because her supporters were used to her saying things with no substance.
Attempting to cause a racial or ethnic phrase to stick to someone on the left shows a misunderstanding about the left.
Race in the mind of a liberal is as follows;
If someone supports left wing policies, then they can’t be racist. In contrast right wing policies are by nature unequal and racist. Reid and Clinton can therefore not be racists because they are liberal. Gingrich, Romney and even Giuliani are racists because they oppose liberal policies. Those who are not white and oppose liberal policies are dangerous because they don’t fit the mold, so they are open game for what ever attacks are necessary to discredit them. Even if it means accusing Justice Thomas of sexual harassment or calling Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice any number of racist terms. Those in the middle, if they are Republicans who support liberal policies, are useful but aren’t to be trusted, because they are too close to the racist right.
The right can’t win anything by playing the racial/ethnic gotcha game. There are ways to win more non-white votes that don‘t involve using the left’s playbook. One day while, driving through Mississippi, I heard an ad that demonstrated the right strategy to win these votes. The ad had an older black voice speaking in an extremely “matter of fact” way. The voice asked those blacks who were listening, to look deeply at why they vote for the same congressmen (in this case all the names in question were those of men). The voice then asked “is there more opportunity for our people after years of Democrat control?” This message, from a voice of the same race, was poignant and direct. In the election that followed one of the long standing Democrat congressmen lost his seat. This ad didn’t play games, it didn’t attempt to scare the listener and it didn’t paint an image of helplessness. Opportunity and individual liberty are the winning phrases that connect with all voters. Racial or Ethnic games, along with portrayals of victimization and desolation are the tools of the left.
Identity Politics.
It’s time to redefine the misconceptions of who Conservative are.
The left would love to portray the right as all white, never experiencing hardship and wishing only to be surrounded by those of the same ilk. While the benevolent left are the diverse, understanding, working class folk. They get away with it because when they have people of various races, ethnicities or disabilities the left will bring as much attention to these individuals as possible. The right has diversity at many levels but makes no effort to bring attention to it.
When Hispanic Sonya Sotomayer was nominated to a seat on the Supreme Court, there was much attention placed on her diverse and meager upbringing. In stark contrast when African American Clarence Thomas was nominated for the same court, little attention was paid to his upbringing. Justice Thomas was raised by a poor Grandfather. Young Clarence slept in a chair at night. Yet the determined young man had the educational discipline to graduate from law school. Larry Elder, also African American, had a radio talk show for years. On his show callers would call and lecture him on his mischaracterization of blacks in America, assuming that with his Conservative stances he must be white. Elder also came from a humble background. The son of a janitor, Larry worked hard and earned a law degree. The Conservative movement is full of various racial and ethnic backgrounds. How about Hispanic Linda Chavez, Arab American Spencer Abraham, the son of East Indian parents Bobby Jindal and several other names, each with stories of perseverance and individual achievement.
The tent gets bigger when you consider those with disabilities. John McCain was injured in Vietnam and now struggles to do many basic movements like shaking hands. Charles Krauthammer is best known as a writer or the member of a news-panel who makes Liberals look silly, with his blunt, eloquent and factual rebuttals of left wing policy. Watching him on television with his ever-calm smugness, one might never know that he is a paraplegic. Stories like this are prevalent among those on the right but they are largely unheard.
Why are they generally unheard? The answer is at the root of Conservative versus Liberal perspectives on diversity. Conservatives want the best person for the job. If this person is gay, suffers from polio and was born a tribal refugee from Burma, none of that matters if the work at hand is done well. Liberals seek out diverse people to promote them as the first of their kind to achieve such a station. How many people voted for Barrack Obama because he would be the first black President? The left simply loves “firsts,” the first woman Speaker of the House, Secretary of State, Attorney General and the first African American Supreme Court Justice. The results of these “firsts” are mixed but in nearly every case these people were appointed because they were the “firsts.” By contrast Republican firsts are less noticed. First Indian American Governor, First African American Secretary of State, First black woman National Security Adviser and First black woman Secretary of State. That is because the “firsts” on the right were not touted as “firsts,” nor are they generally picked to be first. The first of any position may be a nice subscript in a history book, but it is their policies and service to the whole country that defines greatness.
Greatness is what the right must embrace and promote. Conservatives won’t win larger numbers of non-white voters by attacking Harry Reid on a stupid verbal fumble. They will win these voters by setting the right apart as the ideology of personal liberty and individual prosperity. The left has the upper hand on media “gotchas,” due to their vacillating morals. So the right must do a better job presenting a stark difference between themselves and those who promote victim status. It is time for the right to highlight the diversity within their ranks, who have made incredible strides, using hard work, individual accountability and espousing Conservatism.
|
