Right

The War at Home While brave men and women fight overseas for our American way of life, we have a war raging at home that many Americans are just waking up to. Some try to label this war Right versus Left, or Republican versus Democrat, but those are smoke screens for the real battle – Statism versus Individual Liberty. It’s time we get down to the crux of the disagreement – do you believe you know best how to run your life or do you believe that the government knows best how to run your life?

Let’s look at a couple of battles in this war.

HEALTHCARE

Our current system has never operated under free market capitalism. Statism won this battle from the start. Since the first health insurance program was conceived by Blue Cross in the 1920’s, government has been involved in subsidizing and controlling how health insurance is offered. Since that time, there has been increasing government intrusion in the health care industry to the point that in 2010, the government has effectively taken over the industry. The “Individual Liberty” option never had a chance, even though we have seen Statism tried and failed in Europe. Universal health care is bankrupting Europe while providing inferior service.

So, what would the “Individual Liberty” option look like as applied to health care? 1. Competition amongst insurance companies, including the ability to buy health insurance over state lines (the original intent of the Commerce Clause), which would be an incentive to lower the cost of coverage. 2. Owning your own insurance versus employer-paid insurance. Which means you don’t lose insurance if you lose your job. 3. Choice on scope of coverage just like in your auto or home insurance, you don’t pay for the coverage of expenses your lifestyle doesn’t require. Repealing the laws that prevent these 3 changes would deal with most of the problems in today’s health care chaos.

BAILOUTS

Here again, we have tried the Statism approach of the Federal government making the decision for all of us that certain business were “too big to fail”. The bailouts didn’t achieve their stated goals and arguably made the problems worse. GM claims they paid off their loan but, in reality, they just borrowed more money from you and me to pay off what they already owed you and me. TARP (for which Congressman Wamp and other Republicans voted yes) transferred billions of dollars from taxpayers to a select few bank executives to do with what they willed with essentially no strings attached. Has credit been freed up? Have you been able to get a better mortgage or business loan?

Now let’s look at the “Individual Liberty” approach. GM made a series of poor decisions that led them into bankruptcy. GM would argue that the government is to blame as there were so many regulations to comply with. They are right, in part, there are too many regulations that make doing business in the US very difficult, and that should be changed. However, other car companies are surviving even this economy. The Liberty approach would have let GM fail; we wouldn’t be out the billions of dollars we gave them, other companies would have bought up GM’s assets and put them back to use and employed the laid off workers. Same story for the failed banks. The bailouts have actually prolonged the recession by preventing this natural recovery process.

These are just two of the many examples of Statism making problems worse instead of solving them, so why this battle against Individual Liberty? It’s simple. Statism empowers those in government, typically by appealing to the busybodies that want to “help” others with taxpayer money. They convince voters of their concern for the “environment” or for “the children” or for “the less privileged” and that they know what to do about it.

The battle between Statism and Individual Liberty rages on now more than ever because the Statists aren’t willing to give up the power that they have accumulated, and because the busybodies aren’t willing to give up the baseless notion that they can solve all our problems for us. Americans are finally waking up to this war at home. The economic collapse in Europe and repeated failures of socialistic countries give us stark examples of how Statism turns out. The question for voters this 2010 election will be this: do you recognize what’s really going on? Will you pick Liberty or Statism?

Van Irion, Candidate for Congress, Tennessee District 3

www.van4congress.org

The right has lost its way and a lot of people are starting to recognize this.  Books are being written (The Death of Conservatism, Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement that Shattered the Party, etc.)  Here are my thougths on what is wrong and what needs to be done about it.

Discredit those who are not helpful

Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, etc. have said a lot of downright crazy and dumb things (people with AIDS should be quarantined, etc.)  and are far too tied to Christianity.  They should be called out for that and pushed to the side so that true leaders on the right can rise to the top and give the right a real chance at regaining credibility and the minds of those who are undecided or in the center.  Those who espose hate, and anger should also be discredited and pushed to the side (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.).  It is long past time for Conservative talk radio to become more academic, constructive, and hopeful sounding, and cater to the best in us (love, hope, unity, civics, etc.), rather than the worst (fear, anger, race, etc.).

Stop catering to the Christian right

Christianity has nothing to do with conservative ideas and theory on money, foreign policy, etc.  There is also supposed to be a strong seperation of church and state.  Our country was formed partially for freedom of religion, and if our government is run by someone who wants to impose their religion through laws and perspective, then we lose that.  In addition, America is not a Christian nation; though nearly 80% are Christian, there is still another 20% that are not.

Stop simply opposing every idea President Obama has and propose alternative solutions

The right has really been a thorn in our Presidents side instead of working with him to solve the problems in America.  The way to gain credibility and get some conservative ideas into law is to honestly work with the left to create good policy, and also proactively propose laws to solve some of our problems before the left takes up the problem.

Stop supporting causes that have nothing to do with Conservative ideology

The right should disassociate itself with such issues as abortion, and other things that are outside of the ideas of conservatism.  Abortion is an issue thats argument against it is primarily based in religion.  The same applies to marriage equality for gays; the argument against it can only be made from a religious standpoint.  Because of this, and because no party should be tied to any religion, just as our government should not be tied to any religion, the right as a whole and Republicans as a party should disassociate theirselves with abortion and start supporting equal rights for gays.  These two issues alone keep some of those in the center and on the left from ever supporting a Republican candidate.  It might cause a lot of those on the Christian right to be upset, but then they can choose the party that best conforms to what their idea of government should do on all other issues, or form a new 3rd party that is tightly tied to Christianity.

Stop being inconsistent

Right now many on the right are opposing government run health care on the idea that even though it may save a lot of lives, it isn't proper for the government or taxpayers to help others.  Yet, many of those same people are in support of the war in Iraq to give people in another country freedom and save their lives.  Why should we spend taxpayer dollars to police the world yet not spend taxpayer dollars to save those within our own borders?  Either we shouldn't spend money to help others, or we should and if we should then we should definitely want to help those within our own borders before those who are not within our borders.

Stop being hawks

The right has become a group of hawks and this is contrary to conservative ideas on foreign policy.  Conservative ideas on foreign policy are as spelled out by the Cato Institute:

Cato's foreign policy vision is guided by the idea of our national defense and security strategy being appropriate for a constitutional republic, not an empire. Cato's foreign policy scholars question the presumption that an interventionist foreign policy enhances the security of Americans in the post-Cold War world, and maintain instead that interventionism has consequences, including the formation of countervailing alliances, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and even terrorism. The use of U.S. military force should be limited to those occasions when the territorial integrity, national sovereignty, or liberty of the United States is at risk.

Conservatives need to re-embrace those ideas.  They are the ideas that our nations founders had in mind, and they are the ideas that are the most ethical and that might also allow some on the left to consider the rest of our ideas.

Have a well thought out income tax policy

There either should not be an income tax as Libertarians would like, or there should be an income tax that works to support Conservative values.  A tax that is progressive helps strengthen families at the lower incomes and therefore helps literacy rates, etc. which helps to preserve conservative values of strong families, an educated populace, etc.  Right now the government has taken on far too much responsibility and therefore spends too much and our national debt is growing because of it.  It is time to start cutting back on spending, but at the same time increasing revenue and the only realistic way to increase revenue is through a progressive income tax because those in the middle and lower class cannot support any higher tax burden.

Start supporting alternative energy and embrace that global warming is real and might be caused by us

The science is in, global warming is real and it is probably caused by our actions (and can we afford to gamble that it is not?).  Most of the oil that is easily available is in countries with citizens that do not like us.  Because of these two things, it is long past time to start looking into energy sources that do not emit CO2, and that do not require us to work with countries that are not friendly to us.

Stop catering to Israel

We give far too much money and support to Israel and it hurts our credibilty around the world and doesn't help to reduce the hatred towards us in the Muslim world.  It is time to treat Israel as we would any other country that is a friend and ally of ours.  We should work with them, and be friends with them, but we should point out when they are doing something that works against peace in the middle east and use our monetary aid as a tool to help control their actions rather than blindly supporting them at all times.

Start rethinking drug policy

The war on drugs does not work, and will never work so long as it is punitive rather than based in medicine.  It only makes organized crime stronger, and leads to a larger role of government and often leads to violations of our constitutional rights.  The punitive war on drugs was originally based on racism, and is now based in morality that is derived from religion.  For these reasons, it is time for the federal government to take a non punitive role and start considering policy that would put organized crime out of business, make drug use safer and less damaging to society, and help those who are ready to reform their lives through cessation of drug abuse.

I received a copy of this request -- from UHCAN Ohio to promote government healthcare reform -- we must communicate our opposition!!!!

Request for Proposals for Targeted Media in Southwest Ohio UHCAN Ohio and the Ohio Consumers for Health Coverage is engaged in a campaign to inform the public about the importance of federal health care reform and reduce the fear that is being created by opponents of health care reform who are spreading misinformation. We are looking for a media/communications consultant who can secure for us earned media opportunities to spread a positive message on health care reform and inform the public on the many areas that are rife with confusion. Our target market is the eight counties of Adams, Brown, Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton, Highland and Warren. We desire to mount a media campaign over the next three months that will cross print, broadcast, cable, and internet media. We are looking for opportunities to reach a broad swath of the public and of interest groups, such as business or religious constituencies. The pace of federal health care reform efforts has dramatically accelerated since early June 2009. If meaningful health care reform is to happen two needs must be met:(1)   Voters need to remain positive about reform, even as contentious debate arises over details of reform (such as the public health insurance option and the financing of reform) and as opponents of reform undermine public support with fear mongering.(2)   Federal legislators need to hear from voters that they want to see federal action on health care this year and that they care about affordability, quality, and health care security for all Americans. For voters to remain positive about health care reform, they need to receive positive messages and reliable information that reinforces the benefits they will derive from health care reform.  Meeting the Need for Clear Messages that Reduce the Fear Being Engendered by the Opponents of Health Care Reform.  People get most of their information from broadcast, cable and internet media, as well as people (family, friends, co-workers and others) who repeat to them what they heard in the mass media. The opponents of health care reform are spending millions of dollars on persuading the public that health care reform will result in a “government takeover” and “get in between them and their doctor.” The proponents of health care reform need to find ways to gain earned media to let people know that health care reform will protect and improve their choices.  We are looking for a PR consultant local to Southwest Ohio who will secure opportunities in Southwest Ohio across media types for UHCAN Ohio and Ohio Consumers for Health Coverage staff and partners to discuss health care reform.  We need a PR consultant to secure for us these opportunities:1.      Appearances on radio talk shows2.      Appearances on “drive time” radio programs3.      Appearances on broadcast and cable TV4.      Articles in daily and weekly newspapers targeted at the general public5.      Articles in specialty newspapers, such as those targeted at religious communities or the business community6.      Connections made through social networking sites including the blogosphere Time Frame:·         This will be a three month contract taking place between August and October.  Contractor Responsibilities:·         Contractor will pitch stories and potential interviewees to the media. Contractor will identify blogs that discuss health care (among other topics) that have a readership in Southwest Ohio and refer Client to those blogs.  Client will be responsible for furnishing the person(s) to be interviewed, and for developing messaging around health care reform. Client works with a communications organization in Columbus, and has some outside technical assistance from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation on messaging. Client primarily needs a consultant who has local connections and can secure media exposure.  Please submit a brief proposal to UHCAN Ohio stating(1)   Your history of securing media for small groups and not-for-profit groups(2)   Your history of handling communications that are part of a campaign(3)   Your history of working with health care professional or advocacy groups(4)   The plan you would undertake to secure significant earned media coverage in the next three months in Southwest Ohio on health care reform (including how you track media hits)(5)   Your fee. Ohio Consumers for Health Coverage is a consumer-based coalition seeking fundamental health care reform benefitting consumers. It is staffed by UHCAN Ohio. Information about UHCAN Ohio and OCHC can be found at their web sites:www.uhcanohio.orgwww.ohioconsumersforhealth.org Proposals should be submitted no later than 5 PM

Capitalizing on America’s displeasure with Democrat overreach, corporate welfare and dependency politics means the Right is soon going to need that rebrand they’ve been promising. To be successful, Rs messaging will complement the electorate’s consternation and offer a contrast without signaling any return to the Bush years:

Tapping the “WTF?” – Americans are whispering a collective WTF? at what Obama and Congress have been up to. The Rs should be standing alongside America with similar headshaking. What’s happening is beyond the pale to be sure, but righteous indignation won’t work as well as a tone of empathy-cum-bewilderment. In other words a tone of: “They seem to have gone off the deep end” is probably better than “This is an outrage!”

New Blood – Signal that the new GOP is smarter, younger and more diverse. You can’t out-Obama Obama, but you can flood the market with fresh faces and smart, succinct messages coming from those faces. The old power-players can work behind the scenes, but let the principled New Blood stand at the fore.

Innovation without Insanity – The best ideas for America don’t require raising taxes and spending other people’s money. We need to unleash entrepreneurship, not bureaucracy and profligacy. We need political entrepreneurship, too—that is, leadership with a view to freedom, pragmatism and common sense—all of which the left has abandoned.

Pullback from the Precipice – The Democrats are trying to reshape America in their image. Trouble is, they’re not God. We now see what can happen to things in six months if you try to play God. It’s time to pull America back from the precipice by turning away from centralized power and toward citizen-based cooperation, open markets and civil society.

Restoring Greatness – Remember when the Berlin Wall fell? America was once a beacon of freedom and prosperity. In an effort to mimic France, we may end up being like them in all the worst ways—decades of 10-plus percent unemployment, unfunded liabilities and the bureaucratization of everything.

Common Sense – “If we have to balance our budgets and cut household spending, so does the federal government.” This type of message is working. More like it can’t hurt and even if the economy starts to right itself a little, it may very well be due to more Bubblenomics. (Be prepared to deal with b.s. from the left if and when an upturn materializes.)

Principles Work. Policy Should Flow from Principles – Remind Americans that the Democrats gave us a bunch of spin and vagueness during the election. What became of all that? Destructive policies. America deserves something more straightforward. Find the best policy ideas, then remind them that we’re great because of our principles. To be great again, policy must flow from principles.

Hello all,

I've enjoyed reading many of the articles here, especially from some of the posters, such as Daniel Ruwe and Mytheos Holt. However, I find there are some unexplained inconsistencies. These questions are up in the air for anyone who cares to answer them.

When and where should we limit freedom? Do you think that the US court system is set up as a fair way to try any person, or only American citizens? Why is it necessary to limit freedom in some cases (FISA, anti gay marriage/civil rights legislature) and not others (gun licenses, financial regulations)?

What programs should be cut first in order to reduce spending?

What is an acceptable size for our national defense funding? Where is the point where we would consider it too large?

What should be the military's primary focus in the years to come? Should they change over to a pseudo-police-keeping force, holding and clearing and winning hearts and minds, as is necessary in places like Iraq? Or should they maintain the classic idea of a war-fighting military (ie, bomb and get out of there)?

What should be done about illegal immigration? Should we take a hard anti-illegal immigration stance and promote laws that punish business for hiring undocumented workers, and try to round up illegal immigrants? Or should we try to provide a path to citizenship instead? In the same vein, should we allow more or less legal immigration than we do now?

Finally, should the Right reject elitism, embrace it, or perform some balancing act?

I appreciate any and all answers, and think it'd be great to get people talking about some specifics.

It seems to me there are three main factions within the Republican Party, and while we can see strengths and weaknesses in each of them, the future of the Right is far from clear.

1. Progressive Republicans (aka: Teddy Roosevelt Republicans) - These are the Republicans who may be solid allies on many issues, but who also seem to want a Great Leader who can do Big Things. They are Crusader Conservatives - generally reliable on limited government, but willing to go off on Big Government crusades.

   Illustrative Quote: "The object of government is the welfare of the people," (Teddy Roosevelt)

2. Goldwater Republicans - These Republicans vote for limited government, individual liberty and strong defense; they may have various opinions on social issues, but they subsume those views to the goal at hand: limiting government

   Illustrative Quote: "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom." (Goldwater

3. Bush Republicans - these voters may or may not care about limited government, but they're willing to accept Big Government, so long as the government does socially conservative things. (See: Mike Huckabee, Christian Democracy)

   Illustrative Quote: "Prayers can help, and so can the government." - President Bush, February 6, 2008

Of those mentioned, many have fallen into a fourth camp - Status Quo Republicans. They are mostly focused on winning that next election and consolidating their own power.

So, where does the Right stand?

At this point, the Progressive Republicans are in the drivers seat - partly because John McCain (a Progressive Republican) has the Republican nomination, and partly because a charismatic figure with some Big Ideas beats factions with no attention-grabbing ideas. At this point, no other faction has the policy ideas and grassroots support to challenge for leadership. But that position can only be maintained by a charismatic leader for a short time. It is not sustainable, At some point, the other coalitions will see to fill the core policy vacuums McCain may leave open.

The Bush Republicans are doing badly right now - you've all seen the polling - but the social conservative/evangelical base is still strong (as evidenced by the out-of-nowhere Huckabee campaign) They're not gone yet, and they could make a quick comeback with a charismatic candidate. Like, you know, Mike Huckabee. If they do that, it will mark the GOP's turn towards the European Christian Democracy style of political parties.

Finally, there are the Goldwater Republicans. They have been relegated to lesser roles, or turned into Status Quo Republicans. While a few still make appropriate noises on the Hill, a lack of publicly appealing, political viable ideas for limiting government has rendered them mostly impotent. The Goldwater Republicans have the greatest opportunity, however, because it is they who will have the most compelling arguments against Democratic and/or McCain poliices, and it is they who will need to begin driving a narrative about the impact of Big Government poicy. If they do it well, they will have a chance to reassert the Goldwater brand. If they don't, they will probably become marginalized.

It's impossible to tell which of these factions will dominate. Your predictions are welcomed.