New Year’s Old
Wes Riddle
I’m generally glad that time moves, seasons change and years go by. Tearing off a sheet from the desk calendar is like turning over a proverbial new leaf each month. It is nowhere near as fun by the way, using an electronic means to plan or keep schedules. And throwing the whole paper thing away at the end of the year, well that’s truly exhilarating. Talk about new beginnings, where to continue and where to begin anew. Horizons stretch before uncharted.
But then there’s this strange feeling perceived, like an odd stasis in and of all the observable change. The more things change, the more they seem to stay the same—or at least the more familiar they become. There is certainly a time to every purpose under heaven (Ecclesiastes 3:1), but there is also nothing new under the sun (Eccl 1:9). “That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past” (Eccl 3:15). Usually we had to go through the rough and rugged road just to get to where we are, and hopefully year after year it’s to a comparatively better place. Hopefully seeing as how there (not a better place) but for the grace of God, go I.
The fact is that history is replete with ups and downs, betters and also worse. Civilizations are founded; they grow, flourish and then decay. Everything passes away, but then everyday something new is also born. About the time you figure your own situation out, it’s pretty much time to go. The next generation starts its experience, while the old generation (if you’re lucky to find one concerned enough) tries to teach a few lessons learned. You can only do so much though. They can’t teach you everything, because it isn’t even possible to articulate everything—and life never stops long enough for a proper reflection. Struggle gives way to struggle.
Even if you wrote it all down and made somebody read it, he or she would never believe you. It’s in the nature of the way things work. Speaking of which, the new guy at work hardly ever takes advice from an old timer, unless or until he proves through some very personal and hard knocks that the old fool was actually right. The new guy inevitably blames problems on the old guys who left or might still be there and tired, and especially on the poor fellow who used to hold his same position. The reasons become apparent only as you consider the world to be dynamic, even if it approximates dynamic equilibrium, i.e., the world is never good, bad, indifferent, failed or fixed once and for all time, at least not until the Second Coming. Even a status quo requires that there be deliberate and active maintenance.
Now all this might be discouraging if we lived forever. Fortunately we do not. Imagine if you got things to absolute perfection (as only we in the present can), only to see it fall apart again! Since we don’t live forever though, we usually count on making things just a little bit better than what we found it. There are fresh recruits on the way, relief pitchers and catchers waiting on the bench (even if they might be second string, as of course all new guys are). The nature of the way things work, as I’ve described, is why the price of freedom (which is an accomplishment of the Founders in their time) is eternal vigilance. Eternal vigilance.
Freedom can never be safe once and for all. Prosperity is never assured either. Fortunately the same guys don’t have to do it forever. They weather their storms and hopefully pass on the goodly inheritance. We weather ours too, different but oddly similar as if by Design. Which is harder I wonder? The Revolution; the War Between the States; World War II; the Cold War; or the Global War on Terror? Which economic bust would you prefer? I suppose it depends on who you were and who you are. There again but for the grace of God go I, indeed in every conceivable time. Time isn’t just money, by the way—Time is everything you have. The line of time we’re on conveys us, and there’s eternal vigilance of a different sort to think about; that is, the vigilance of the soul. King David marked it well when he said, “My times are in thy hand” (Psalms 120:15) O Lord.
So this “New Year’s Old,” think. It is good to make resolutions and to rededicate oneself to such and such, or head off in a new direction if necessary. Think, however. Take a considered approach to life, because it’s all been done before. From history learn to have a healthy respect for the past, even as you continue to hope in the future and dedicate this present day to glory. If you’ll do that, you begin to understand your parents and grandparents much better and quite possibly your children and grandchildren as well.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Wes Riddle's Horse Sense Column #372
Creeping Coup
Wes Riddle
Something happened along the way to the American mind, and quite frankly it isn’t working well the way it used to. Americans today aren’t half the speculative or political philosophers their grandparents once were. They don’t sit on the porch as much, and they certainly don’t share opinions with family and friends in a constructive way that invites feedback or a counter tirade. They don’t read newspapers much either, or pass them around with or without editorial comment. The pastimes and concerns such habits represent have all but been pushed aside by busy lives and quasi-meaningless competing priorities. Increasingly, the capability to do so has lapsed for the want of practice.
Radio and TV shows talk a lot but without discussing anything, and politicians speechify to no end without real debate. Public education has all but ceased to teach the communicative and intellectual skills needed for critical analysis on which deliberative democracy is thought to rely.
Our opinions are no longer formed from the bottom up as it were, or even from side to side but from the top down. The Party, the Government, and the Media tell us what spin to believe in; and we no longer possess the filter of our own minds to commit to what we boldly call the truth, our truth even if it is a perception. The change is important, because it unhinges our past and supportive culture from the running of constitutional government. It is important to the whole country moreover, because it allows what professor of politics at Catholic University of America, Dr. Claes Ryn observes, is “a creeping coup d’état from within.”
The old American idea of government was likened closely to the Golden Rule “to love thy neighbor.” Its modus morality placed primary emphasis on individuals controlling their passions, fighting personal demons, leading considered and disciplined lives. Liberty depended on as much, since it made for strong communities and minimized the need for overarching government. In the early 19th Century, Alexis de Tocqueville recounted the tremendous reluctance on the part of Americans to give up any power over their lives to distant authorities, whether church or state.
The written Constitution has always rested on foundations unwritten, even upon the character of the American people, upon the quality of received inheritance: the religious, moral, intellectual, cultural and social habits and beliefs of the people. As these have changed, we should not be surprised that constitutional government no longer runs the way it once did, or that checks and balances no longer preclude accretions of power unheard of in the days of the Republic’s Founders. Ryn: “The moral momentum behind the old decentralized society weakened. Today strong, centralized Federal power seems to more and more Americans not merely acceptable but desirable… Americans say increasingly to government: ‘Act for us!’”
Americans no longer run their own government, the government runs them. We know longer tell the government how much tax we’re willing to give, but rather the government informs us how much of our earnings we’re allowed to keep. In the name of social good, in the name of fairness, in the name of crisis or necessity—anything but in the name of Freedom! Americans are detached from their historically unique, even exceptional tradition of constitutionalism with its deep cultural roots. Allegiance has shifted from something real and achievable to plastic abstractions and universal rationalist principles, more akin to the French Revolution than to the American. History and concrete experience once taught us the importance of self-restraint, as well as the importance of restraint on government power. Today we celebrate the unitary power of the modern president in spite of the checks and balances of the Constitution designed to restrain that power. Indeed, we search for an American Caesar to rid us of all our problems and to fix every hurt.
According to Ryn, “We are living through the progressive dismantling of America’s proudest political achievement” as we watch the Constitution die. Strict constructionists, even if the people should elect them to office, will find it nigh impossible to resurrect the constitutional edifice, much less perpetuate a system of government shorn from its moral-ethical and other culture that gave it birth. “Restoring American constitutionalism would presuppose some kind of resurgence of that old culture…[Americans] would have to rearrange their priorities and start acting differently, placing more emphasis on family, private groups and local communities. They would have to want to take back much of the power ceded to politicians.”
Wes Riddle
Something happened along the way to the American mind, and quite frankly it isn’t working well the way it used to. Americans today aren’t half the speculative or political philosophers their grandparents once were. They don’t sit on the porch as much, and they certainly don’t share opinions with family and friends in a constructive way that invites feedback or a counter tirade. They don’t read newspapers much either, or pass them around with or without editorial comment. The pastimes and concerns such habits represent have all but been pushed aside by busy lives and quasi-meaningless competing priorities. Increasingly, the capability to do so has lapsed for the want of practice.
Radio and TV shows talk a lot but without discussing anything, and politicians speechify to no end without real debate. Public education has all but ceased to teach the communicative and intellectual skills needed for critical analysis on which deliberative democracy is thought to rely.
Our opinions are no longer formed from the bottom up as it were, or even from side to side but from the top down. The Party, the Government, and the Media tell us what spin to believe in; and we no longer possess the filter of our own minds to commit to what we boldly call the truth, our truth even if it is a perception. The change is important, because it unhinges our past and supportive culture from the running of constitutional government. It is important to the whole country moreover, because it allows what professor of politics at Catholic University of America, Dr. Claes Ryn observes, is “a creeping coup d’état from within.”
The old American idea of government was likened closely to the Golden Rule “to love thy neighbor.” Its modus morality placed primary emphasis on individuals controlling their passions, fighting personal demons, leading considered and disciplined lives. Liberty depended on as much, since it made for strong communities and minimized the need for overarching government. In the early 19th Century, Alexis de Tocqueville recounted the tremendous reluctance on the part of Americans to give up any power over their lives to distant authorities, whether church or state.
The written Constitution has always rested on foundations unwritten, even upon the character of the American people, upon the quality of received inheritance: the religious, moral, intellectual, cultural and social habits and beliefs of the people. As these have changed, we should not be surprised that constitutional government no longer runs the way it once did, or that checks and balances no longer preclude accretions of power unheard of in the days of the Republic’s Founders. Ryn: “The moral momentum behind the old decentralized society weakened. Today strong, centralized Federal power seems to more and more Americans not merely acceptable but desirable… Americans say increasingly to government: ‘Act for us!’”
Americans no longer run their own government, the government runs them. We know longer tell the government how much tax we’re willing to give, but rather the government informs us how much of our earnings we’re allowed to keep. In the name of social good, in the name of fairness, in the name of crisis or necessity—anything but in the name of Freedom! Americans are detached from their historically unique, even exceptional tradition of constitutionalism with its deep cultural roots. Allegiance has shifted from something real and achievable to plastic abstractions and universal rationalist principles, more akin to the French Revolution than to the American. History and concrete experience once taught us the importance of self-restraint, as well as the importance of restraint on government power. Today we celebrate the unitary power of the modern president in spite of the checks and balances of the Constitution designed to restrain that power. Indeed, we search for an American Caesar to rid us of all our problems and to fix every hurt.
According to Ryn, “We are living through the progressive dismantling of America’s proudest political achievement” as we watch the Constitution die. Strict constructionists, even if the people should elect them to office, will find it nigh impossible to resurrect the constitutional edifice, much less perpetuate a system of government shorn from its moral-ethical and other culture that gave it birth. “Restoring American constitutionalism would presuppose some kind of resurgence of that old culture…[Americans] would have to rearrange their priorities and start acting differently, placing more emphasis on family, private groups and local communities. They would have to want to take back much of the power ceded to politicians.”
Friday, December 19, 2008
Moses Will Not Deliver Us to Greener Pastures!
Choosing Dr. Mike Moses Demonstrates that Killeen ISD is not Interested in Real Change
Mike Pearce
It amazes me how the more things change in Killeen ISD, the more they stay the same. Most reasonable people who know any KISD teachers recognize that the district is in the midst of a crisis, facing record low morale and poor leadership, among other things. In order to quell this terrible predicament, the Killeen School Board unwisely chose to place its trust and confidence to find a new superintendent in the hands of one of the most incompetent and corrupt education consultants in Texas history, Dr. Mike Moses.
According to education activist Donna Garner, “It is common knowledge that it was also under Moses' DISD administration that charges, allegations, and convictions have occurred involving out-of-control spending with school credit cards, lost dollars for health plans, abuse of federal e-rate funds, irregular technology vendor contracts, misspent federal bilingual education funds, costly deals with Kinko's, apparent conflicts of interest involving Voyager Expanded Learning, contributions by computer vendors, questionable bond sales, multiple teacher grievances, eyebrow-raising private consultancies, lucrative Coca-Cola contracts, and special privileges for vendors participating in the Education Research and Development Institute (ERDI) conferences.”
Moses, the former superintendent of Dallas ISD, has been summarily criticized by many for his "top-down management” style. In fact, he negotiated his DISD contract to state that trustees "shall not" discuss DISD business with any employee without his expressed consent, nor can they “communicate with anyone" regarding DISD personnel assignment, reassignment, salary and benefits, evaluation or any other terms of employment unless he agrees in advance." I guess there’s nothing like a good ‘ole iron fist…
While Dr. Moses was the superintendent of Dallas ISD, he pushed that district into a deal with Mercer Human Resource Consulting which was cited for violating state insurance laws and cheating several ISD’s out of thousands of dollars. At the same time he was making decisions that resulted in the burning of DISD taxpayer dollars, he was earning the highest superintendent salary in the nation (over $400,000). Moses' retirement benefits amounted to approximately $224,400 per year for the rest of his life, and he walked away from DISD with $480,850 for his work from January 1 - August 31, 2004.
Additionally, Moses has a track record of very poor policy changes that generally sank DISD into even greater financial chaos. In 2003, his now-disgraced Director of Technology accepted a gift from FedEx/Kinko’s which included a $2,500 entry fee into the Pro-Am golf tournament, airfare from Dallas to Austin, a banquet, two nights at the golf resort hotel and a $500 gift package of equipment and clothes. (The director of technology was later indicted for running an “elaborate and very profitable bribery and money laundering scheme involving DISD technology contracts.”) This was at the same time that FedEx/Kinko’s signed a deal with Dr. Moses to outsource copying and printing for DISD. Moses assured teachers and administrators that the deal would reduce costs. Unfortunately, DISD’s copying and printing costs more than doubled. In 2003, the district spent $5.87 million; by 2005 it was spending $12.82 million
The most famous scandal of a Moses’ superintendency was the abuse of district credit cards for personal use which came to light after his departure. In the end, DISD investigators recommended that 93 employees suffer sanctions for their theft of tax dollars. Most famously, a secretary in Moses’ office, Marsha Olson, was found guilty of using a DISD credit card to run up $56,000 in personal purchases over the course of three years. Ms. Olsen’s defense attorney had the good sense to note that her superiors escaped punishment, despite the fact that they had the ultimate responsibility of monitoring their subordinates.
It is disconcerting that the KISD School Board would ask Dr. Moses to choose our next superintendent, knowing full well (providing they might glance at the news every now and then) that he is renowned for creating a culture of corruption in DISD that has left an indelible scar on the district. There is far more to the sorted legacy of Dr. Mike Moses. If the Killeen ISD School Board thinks Moses is the shining example of what we need, we are all in serious trouble.
As I have stated before, Dr. Ann Farris has the experience, temperament, and common sense to repair the damage done to Killeen ISD. But it is apparent that the members of the Board have just invested thousands of dollars on a ruse to ensure the Interim Superintendent Bob Muller gets the job. Why? Dr. Moses was Dr. Muller's most immediate past boss, prior to his years of sycophancy under Jim Hawkins. Dr. Muller reported to Dr. Moses at TEA before coming to KISD as Dr. Moses was leaving TEA. Who wants to wager that Muller gets a stellar report from Moses? The fix is in, my friends... and the stench is overwhelming.
Mike Pearce
It amazes me how the more things change in Killeen ISD, the more they stay the same. Most reasonable people who know any KISD teachers recognize that the district is in the midst of a crisis, facing record low morale and poor leadership, among other things. In order to quell this terrible predicament, the Killeen School Board unwisely chose to place its trust and confidence to find a new superintendent in the hands of one of the most incompetent and corrupt education consultants in Texas history, Dr. Mike Moses.
According to education activist Donna Garner, “It is common knowledge that it was also under Moses' DISD administration that charges, allegations, and convictions have occurred involving out-of-control spending with school credit cards, lost dollars for health plans, abuse of federal e-rate funds, irregular technology vendor contracts, misspent federal bilingual education funds, costly deals with Kinko's, apparent conflicts of interest involving Voyager Expanded Learning, contributions by computer vendors, questionable bond sales, multiple teacher grievances, eyebrow-raising private consultancies, lucrative Coca-Cola contracts, and special privileges for vendors participating in the Education Research and Development Institute (ERDI) conferences.”
Moses, the former superintendent of Dallas ISD, has been summarily criticized by many for his "top-down management” style. In fact, he negotiated his DISD contract to state that trustees "shall not" discuss DISD business with any employee without his expressed consent, nor can they “communicate with anyone" regarding DISD personnel assignment, reassignment, salary and benefits, evaluation or any other terms of employment unless he agrees in advance." I guess there’s nothing like a good ‘ole iron fist…
While Dr. Moses was the superintendent of Dallas ISD, he pushed that district into a deal with Mercer Human Resource Consulting which was cited for violating state insurance laws and cheating several ISD’s out of thousands of dollars. At the same time he was making decisions that resulted in the burning of DISD taxpayer dollars, he was earning the highest superintendent salary in the nation (over $400,000). Moses' retirement benefits amounted to approximately $224,400 per year for the rest of his life, and he walked away from DISD with $480,850 for his work from January 1 - August 31, 2004.
Additionally, Moses has a track record of very poor policy changes that generally sank DISD into even greater financial chaos. In 2003, his now-disgraced Director of Technology accepted a gift from FedEx/Kinko’s which included a $2,500 entry fee into the Pro-Am golf tournament, airfare from Dallas to Austin, a banquet, two nights at the golf resort hotel and a $500 gift package of equipment and clothes. (The director of technology was later indicted for running an “elaborate and very profitable bribery and money laundering scheme involving DISD technology contracts.”) This was at the same time that FedEx/Kinko’s signed a deal with Dr. Moses to outsource copying and printing for DISD. Moses assured teachers and administrators that the deal would reduce costs. Unfortunately, DISD’s copying and printing costs more than doubled. In 2003, the district spent $5.87 million; by 2005 it was spending $12.82 million
The most famous scandal of a Moses’ superintendency was the abuse of district credit cards for personal use which came to light after his departure. In the end, DISD investigators recommended that 93 employees suffer sanctions for their theft of tax dollars. Most famously, a secretary in Moses’ office, Marsha Olson, was found guilty of using a DISD credit card to run up $56,000 in personal purchases over the course of three years. Ms. Olsen’s defense attorney had the good sense to note that her superiors escaped punishment, despite the fact that they had the ultimate responsibility of monitoring their subordinates.
It is disconcerting that the KISD School Board would ask Dr. Moses to choose our next superintendent, knowing full well (providing they might glance at the news every now and then) that he is renowned for creating a culture of corruption in DISD that has left an indelible scar on the district. There is far more to the sorted legacy of Dr. Mike Moses. If the Killeen ISD School Board thinks Moses is the shining example of what we need, we are all in serious trouble.
As I have stated before, Dr. Ann Farris has the experience, temperament, and common sense to repair the damage done to Killeen ISD. But it is apparent that the members of the Board have just invested thousands of dollars on a ruse to ensure the Interim Superintendent Bob Muller gets the job. Why? Dr. Moses was Dr. Muller's most immediate past boss, prior to his years of sycophancy under Jim Hawkins. Dr. Muller reported to Dr. Moses at TEA before coming to KISD as Dr. Moses was leaving TEA. Who wants to wager that Muller gets a stellar report from Moses? The fix is in, my friends... and the stench is overwhelming.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Wes Riddle's Horse Sense Column #371
McCain’s Loss Republicans’ Gain
Wes Riddle
Senator John McCain ran a good race in a year that, by all accounts and historic markers, was going to be for the Democrats. When the economy tanked, there was no hope left in numbers. Having said that, his accomplishment as a campaigner was quite remarkable for his having been an agent of Republican disunity through much of the race and for years before. Everyone knows McCain was the dead last choice for a nominee in Texas, and the base still rallied to him! His choice of Governor Palin helped, as did the emerging and stark contrast to the Democrat opponent. Today voters set aside their lingering questions of patriotism, about origins, Marxist ideology and plain bad associations, to give the president-elect our benefit of doubt, well earned and deserved. The electoral landslide and corresponding gains in Congress are such that they give him a political mandate if indeed any president should have one. Moreover, Obama said that he hears the voices of those who did not elect him, that he will be their president too. Expectations and hope are coming from all directions. Virtually everyone wishes him well and to tell the truth, it might just be the best thing for Republicans.
Obama is already being called the black Kennedy. That means a lot to liberals in this country: a personification of hope, a promise of equal justice, and the spreading of wealth around. His triumph is akin to Reagan in key respects. Only a few years after Watergate, President Carter had become so unpopular in office that it gave rise to the Reagan Revolution. President George W. Bush’s tenure, his second term in particular, were so unpopular it gave rise to an Obama Revolution. If Obama doesn’t overplay his mandate or try to enact extreme radical policies, he could very well consolidate the Democratic majority for twenty years to come—and diffuse potential political backlash. Meantime, Republicans will have time to think, as well as for inevitable political infighting. They are going to seek internal scapegoats and factions to blame for defeat. The ins will be outs, and the Republican Party that emerges four years from now is likely to be different in important respects from what went into the 2008 election cycle.
Not only will it not resemble the neoconservative faction leading Bush to ruin, it is doubtful it will resemble McCain very much either. Remember McCain came to national prominence as a “maverick” Republican, meaning he championed controversial causes and policies affronting many parts of the Republican coalition. Indeed, he was one of two GOP senators, who voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts and one of three who opposed reductions in 2003. Senator McCain co-authored legislation for extensive regulations related to the environment. In 2001 he and Senators Ted Kennedy and John Edwards introduced the Patient’s Bill of Rights that included expensive mandates for health coverage. Overall the Senator from Arizona has shown little respect for the free market and had little appeal to economic conservatives. Social and religious conservatives too, who remember the 2000 primaries warmed up to him even less, remembering that he called them “agents of intolerance” and suggested their religious leaders had no place in American politics. McCain also co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which passed over the opposition of 80 percent of congressional Republicans! The reason is that law was designed to restrict political speech of groups at the core of the Republican Party coalition: the National Rifle Association, as well as anti-abortion organizations and businesses. Few in the Republican Party on the right will mourn McCain’s loss this past November 4th.
A prominent McCain sympathizer, The New York Times’ David Brooks, had predicted a President McCain would change not only the nation but also the GOP. He felt people and groups who worked for the Reagan victories and also 1994 Republican return to power would find themselves exiled. McCain’s loss has given them a new lease as it were. McCain styled himself a maverick, whose appeal to independents and Democrats this season would make up lost GOP votes. Except for pressure from the base and strong advice to sidestep outright political suicide, his inclination had actually been to choose his close friend Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, a former Democrat to be his running mate! Independents and Democrats this year wanted change, however, and sixty percent of independents voted for Obama.
McCain wasn’t about change, and the voters saw through the smoke and mirrors. Senator McCain was just as much a hawk on Iraq as President Bush. Of course the irony is that the military surge worked so well there were no U.S. casualties for the entire month before the election. The issue receded entirely from people’s minds. The economy took its place, and McCain had as much principled opposition to government spending as President Bush, which is to say none at all. McCain never did answer Obama’s query: “Name one economic policy of President Bush you weren’t for!” McCain differed from the status quo only in his willingness to tax more. Indeed, McCain was the standard bearer of big-government conservatism: taxing and spending us into the drink at home and crusading stupidly for democracy in foreign lands, while reinvigorating the imperial presidency that brought Republicans low once before during the Nixon Era. This kind of faux conservatism deserved electoral defeat to match its abject political failure. The situation is grim short-term for Republicans, but the election defeat also opens a sorely needed debate about the principles of the Republican Party.
Wes Riddle
Senator John McCain ran a good race in a year that, by all accounts and historic markers, was going to be for the Democrats. When the economy tanked, there was no hope left in numbers. Having said that, his accomplishment as a campaigner was quite remarkable for his having been an agent of Republican disunity through much of the race and for years before. Everyone knows McCain was the dead last choice for a nominee in Texas, and the base still rallied to him! His choice of Governor Palin helped, as did the emerging and stark contrast to the Democrat opponent. Today voters set aside their lingering questions of patriotism, about origins, Marxist ideology and plain bad associations, to give the president-elect our benefit of doubt, well earned and deserved. The electoral landslide and corresponding gains in Congress are such that they give him a political mandate if indeed any president should have one. Moreover, Obama said that he hears the voices of those who did not elect him, that he will be their president too. Expectations and hope are coming from all directions. Virtually everyone wishes him well and to tell the truth, it might just be the best thing for Republicans.
Obama is already being called the black Kennedy. That means a lot to liberals in this country: a personification of hope, a promise of equal justice, and the spreading of wealth around. His triumph is akin to Reagan in key respects. Only a few years after Watergate, President Carter had become so unpopular in office that it gave rise to the Reagan Revolution. President George W. Bush’s tenure, his second term in particular, were so unpopular it gave rise to an Obama Revolution. If Obama doesn’t overplay his mandate or try to enact extreme radical policies, he could very well consolidate the Democratic majority for twenty years to come—and diffuse potential political backlash. Meantime, Republicans will have time to think, as well as for inevitable political infighting. They are going to seek internal scapegoats and factions to blame for defeat. The ins will be outs, and the Republican Party that emerges four years from now is likely to be different in important respects from what went into the 2008 election cycle.
Not only will it not resemble the neoconservative faction leading Bush to ruin, it is doubtful it will resemble McCain very much either. Remember McCain came to national prominence as a “maverick” Republican, meaning he championed controversial causes and policies affronting many parts of the Republican coalition. Indeed, he was one of two GOP senators, who voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts and one of three who opposed reductions in 2003. Senator McCain co-authored legislation for extensive regulations related to the environment. In 2001 he and Senators Ted Kennedy and John Edwards introduced the Patient’s Bill of Rights that included expensive mandates for health coverage. Overall the Senator from Arizona has shown little respect for the free market and had little appeal to economic conservatives. Social and religious conservatives too, who remember the 2000 primaries warmed up to him even less, remembering that he called them “agents of intolerance” and suggested their religious leaders had no place in American politics. McCain also co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which passed over the opposition of 80 percent of congressional Republicans! The reason is that law was designed to restrict political speech of groups at the core of the Republican Party coalition: the National Rifle Association, as well as anti-abortion organizations and businesses. Few in the Republican Party on the right will mourn McCain’s loss this past November 4th.
A prominent McCain sympathizer, The New York Times’ David Brooks, had predicted a President McCain would change not only the nation but also the GOP. He felt people and groups who worked for the Reagan victories and also 1994 Republican return to power would find themselves exiled. McCain’s loss has given them a new lease as it were. McCain styled himself a maverick, whose appeal to independents and Democrats this season would make up lost GOP votes. Except for pressure from the base and strong advice to sidestep outright political suicide, his inclination had actually been to choose his close friend Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, a former Democrat to be his running mate! Independents and Democrats this year wanted change, however, and sixty percent of independents voted for Obama.
McCain wasn’t about change, and the voters saw through the smoke and mirrors. Senator McCain was just as much a hawk on Iraq as President Bush. Of course the irony is that the military surge worked so well there were no U.S. casualties for the entire month before the election. The issue receded entirely from people’s minds. The economy took its place, and McCain had as much principled opposition to government spending as President Bush, which is to say none at all. McCain never did answer Obama’s query: “Name one economic policy of President Bush you weren’t for!” McCain differed from the status quo only in his willingness to tax more. Indeed, McCain was the standard bearer of big-government conservatism: taxing and spending us into the drink at home and crusading stupidly for democracy in foreign lands, while reinvigorating the imperial presidency that brought Republicans low once before during the Nixon Era. This kind of faux conservatism deserved electoral defeat to match its abject political failure. The situation is grim short-term for Republicans, but the election defeat also opens a sorely needed debate about the principles of the Republican Party.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Conservative Treatise, Part II
2. We need to find articulate and intelligent people to lead our cause.
“Eloquence is the essential thing in a speech, not information” - Mark Twain
We have our Bill Bennett’s, our Rush Limbaugh’s, our Peggy Noonan’s, and our George Will’s. The liberals have articulate, passionate, and intelligent people in their ranks too, but more than a few of them enter the fray of politics rather than pursuing private endeavors. Unfortunately, we are not very good at producing candidates who can convey passion and intellect simultaneously. Let us face a simple truth; George W. Bush was not the best we had to offer and his failures were based in his inability to communicate with his national constituency. One of the major reasons that Iraq has become an unpopular war is because Bush does not have a great enough command of the English language to effectively debate his opponents. Bush once told Katie Couric, “"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." In essence, he was admitting his inability to explain that he lacked the eloquence to effectively explain his decisions as Commander-in-Chief. You can allow surrogates to speak on your behalf for a while, but when the Commander-in-Chief seems fastidious about where or when he will fight for his policies, people stop following. In marriages, families, businesses, and in any institution which requires a collective commitment to succeed, communication is essential. Government is no different! When we find leaders within our cause, we must be certain that they have the capacity to argue the issues extemporaneously!
Since President Reagan, the only nationally recognized political leader we have had who possessed both the eloquence and intellect to carry the banner of conservatism and rally the nation behind our cause has been Newt Gingrich. Although Gingrich stumbled with a few problems while Speaker, those matters should not have been insurmountable and should not have led to his departure from the House. The problem was that the media placed crosshairs on him the moment that Dick Gephardt surrendered the gavel. That was further compounded by another foolish GOP presidential nomination in 1996. At a time when new, fresh, and energized conservatives were sprouting all over the country, the Republican Party nominated Senator Bob Dole, a member of the Old Guard who had spend his career (as McCain has) compromising with Democrats and cozying up the left leaning members of his own party, despite maintaining a personally solid conservative scorecard. By 1999, the Republican Party had begun to fall apart as the lust for power enveloped members of Congress, and those who had placed their faith in men and women who had promised to cut the size and scope of government were now dashed. Clinton had survived and impeachment trial for lying under oath, Gingrich was out, but we faced a new millennium with untold opportunities to promote greater liberties, freedom, and justice. Instead, we squandered our opportunity by nominating a very decent man who no real conservative thought would govern from the right. In the midst of war, whether it be physical or cultural, you cannot elect a man who is a “uniter, not a divider” for the sake of unity alone. And as many of us had feared, Bush’s use of principles of utility (like embracing the education and immigration policies of Ted Kennedy) were flawed at best.
So, let us commit to demanding that at the state and national level that our leaders not only know the issues, but can effectively and extemporaneously argue their merits!
“Eloquence is the essential thing in a speech, not information” - Mark Twain
We have our Bill Bennett’s, our Rush Limbaugh’s, our Peggy Noonan’s, and our George Will’s. The liberals have articulate, passionate, and intelligent people in their ranks too, but more than a few of them enter the fray of politics rather than pursuing private endeavors. Unfortunately, we are not very good at producing candidates who can convey passion and intellect simultaneously. Let us face a simple truth; George W. Bush was not the best we had to offer and his failures were based in his inability to communicate with his national constituency. One of the major reasons that Iraq has become an unpopular war is because Bush does not have a great enough command of the English language to effectively debate his opponents. Bush once told Katie Couric, “"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." In essence, he was admitting his inability to explain that he lacked the eloquence to effectively explain his decisions as Commander-in-Chief. You can allow surrogates to speak on your behalf for a while, but when the Commander-in-Chief seems fastidious about where or when he will fight for his policies, people stop following. In marriages, families, businesses, and in any institution which requires a collective commitment to succeed, communication is essential. Government is no different! When we find leaders within our cause, we must be certain that they have the capacity to argue the issues extemporaneously!
Since President Reagan, the only nationally recognized political leader we have had who possessed both the eloquence and intellect to carry the banner of conservatism and rally the nation behind our cause has been Newt Gingrich. Although Gingrich stumbled with a few problems while Speaker, those matters should not have been insurmountable and should not have led to his departure from the House. The problem was that the media placed crosshairs on him the moment that Dick Gephardt surrendered the gavel. That was further compounded by another foolish GOP presidential nomination in 1996. At a time when new, fresh, and energized conservatives were sprouting all over the country, the Republican Party nominated Senator Bob Dole, a member of the Old Guard who had spend his career (as McCain has) compromising with Democrats and cozying up the left leaning members of his own party, despite maintaining a personally solid conservative scorecard. By 1999, the Republican Party had begun to fall apart as the lust for power enveloped members of Congress, and those who had placed their faith in men and women who had promised to cut the size and scope of government were now dashed. Clinton had survived and impeachment trial for lying under oath, Gingrich was out, but we faced a new millennium with untold opportunities to promote greater liberties, freedom, and justice. Instead, we squandered our opportunity by nominating a very decent man who no real conservative thought would govern from the right. In the midst of war, whether it be physical or cultural, you cannot elect a man who is a “uniter, not a divider” for the sake of unity alone. And as many of us had feared, Bush’s use of principles of utility (like embracing the education and immigration policies of Ted Kennedy) were flawed at best.
So, let us commit to demanding that at the state and national level that our leaders not only know the issues, but can effectively and extemporaneously argue their merits!
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Wes Riddle’s Horse Sense #370
Ideology of Liberty
In the late campaign, many stupid things were said on all sides. I suppose that’s normal in American politics, but some undeserving things were accorded the mantle of common wisdom by the media and political analysts. For instance, that we’re too polarized as a nation and ergo, that’s why civility is lacking and Congress can’t lead itself out of a wet paper bag; and we’re too divided according to ideology, so thinking is to blame and a new way of thinking must transcend the old. If only politicians were less ideological the story goes, then they should be more practical in problem solving. If political parties adhered less to certain ideologies, then they should rise above petty little selfish interests and begin to govern effectively for the common good. The critique is like eye candy of rainbows floating on water, where light passes through the prism of a pretty oil slick. It belies the dunce of democratic majorities and special interest lackeys, who lack an understanding of political philosophy, political science and language, whilst they mouth words and feel quite smart.
The reason is polarization can have many causes, not the least of which is the concentration of power in Washington. Some people have asked why I ran for U.S. Congress before, and not for a county or state position first. My answer is grounded in the unfortunate reality that Austin can do almost nothing when the federal government has arrogated to itself power to make every decision and the authority to enforce every decision beyond checks and balances or separation of powers; in spite of the text of the Constitution, and the Original Intent of the Founders; and notwithstanding the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, or quaint federalist constructs in American political tradition involving dual sovereignty. Today we face the political prospect of restoring constitutional government and decentralizing power from within at the source of power or not at all.
The impressive police and military might of the present empire will not be assailed from without, nor confronted or avoided from within without a corresponding political change. There is hope for change from where power lies, however, if and when the people effect their representation; that is, if and when they will elect representatives grounded in the ideas and ideology of Liberty. This means they will get busy, informed and serious about voting for men and women who are committed to free markets and free minds, and to the government that governs least, i.e., according to the strictures of the Constitution. This means they will themselves respect again the historic, textual, ideational reality of the Constitution—and that instrument as the organic law of the Land. It means they will not stand down their effort after this election, as no patriot ever stands down completely knowing the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
The situation in Washington today is a huge and daunting challenge, an American equivalent to bringing down the Soviet Union. It cannot be done with improvised explosives, but rather only with ideas. Now if the people are too far-gone as it were, the fact the political system may still open to change is of little consequence and no avail. We vote and hope there will be enough people like us to make any difference. Else we settle for the placid answers and easy solutions so many politicians parrot and spout; and follow those rainbows floating on water, to the pots of fool’s gold nested firmly at the bottom of seas of tyranny and oppression.
And if this sounds like a riddle, how ever we should elect politicians to restore lost Liberty, then it is because we have lost a basic American tenet and popular understanding about the workings and nature of power and power’s cousin, politics: namely, that individuals and communities empowered by freedom can do just about anything, but there are serious limitations to what politics can accomplish and also what politicians plausibly and legitimately may promise under the Constitution. We need our politicians to do and to try to do less than what they are doing now, but it takes men and women of character and intelligence, and statesmen to do the less, and to discern and accomplish what is needed well. P.J. O’Rourke said recently, “I wish I had better news for you, but the barbarians are at the gates. We are besieged by…worshippers of big government.”
The quote is an oblique reference to the historic sack of Rome, but also metaphorically to the loss of Western Civilization occurring today. By implication, it foreshadows the onset of darkness and new Dark Ages. The barbarian perpetrators are those who have lost faith in themselves and the people, and the American Republic. They attribute instead all power, omniscience, glory and honor to national state planning and central government. After the last election, you might call it a bipartisan consensus. It seems we are all socialists now.
The truth is that we have become far too comfortable with state regulation of speech and expression, of business and the economy, of schools, churches, boy scouts, factories, airlines, fraternities, state and local government entities. As Mark Steyn describes it, we’re conditioned to the idea of regulating freedom in the interest of social harmony so-called, indeed to such a degree that we use the legal system to circumscribe debate and criminalize vigilance. The great world historian Arnold Toynbee wrote, “Civilizations die from suicide, not murder” and it is clear Americans have a most peculiar death wish on many levels. For those who choose to wriggle in their death grip and pray without ceasing for supernatural intervention unto the end, we ought also to cry out “No” as often as we can—being altogether less socially harmonious and cooperative with our own destruction, and parting ways with errors in common wisdom repeated so often that you start to believe it. ‘Do not go gentle into that Good Night!’ The worst ideology of all is the one that says resistance is futile. We ought to stop sending the oligarchs to Washington and elect true representatives who believe in Liberty. The door to freedom is not yet closed, even as darkness falls.
_____________________
Wesley Allen Riddle is a retired military officer with degrees and honors from West Point and Oxford. Widely published in the academic and opinion press, he ran for U.S. Congress (TX-District 31) in the 2004 Republican Primary. Email: wes@wesriddle.com.
In the late campaign, many stupid things were said on all sides. I suppose that’s normal in American politics, but some undeserving things were accorded the mantle of common wisdom by the media and political analysts. For instance, that we’re too polarized as a nation and ergo, that’s why civility is lacking and Congress can’t lead itself out of a wet paper bag; and we’re too divided according to ideology, so thinking is to blame and a new way of thinking must transcend the old. If only politicians were less ideological the story goes, then they should be more practical in problem solving. If political parties adhered less to certain ideologies, then they should rise above petty little selfish interests and begin to govern effectively for the common good. The critique is like eye candy of rainbows floating on water, where light passes through the prism of a pretty oil slick. It belies the dunce of democratic majorities and special interest lackeys, who lack an understanding of political philosophy, political science and language, whilst they mouth words and feel quite smart.
The reason is polarization can have many causes, not the least of which is the concentration of power in Washington. Some people have asked why I ran for U.S. Congress before, and not for a county or state position first. My answer is grounded in the unfortunate reality that Austin can do almost nothing when the federal government has arrogated to itself power to make every decision and the authority to enforce every decision beyond checks and balances or separation of powers; in spite of the text of the Constitution, and the Original Intent of the Founders; and notwithstanding the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, or quaint federalist constructs in American political tradition involving dual sovereignty. Today we face the political prospect of restoring constitutional government and decentralizing power from within at the source of power or not at all.
The impressive police and military might of the present empire will not be assailed from without, nor confronted or avoided from within without a corresponding political change. There is hope for change from where power lies, however, if and when the people effect their representation; that is, if and when they will elect representatives grounded in the ideas and ideology of Liberty. This means they will get busy, informed and serious about voting for men and women who are committed to free markets and free minds, and to the government that governs least, i.e., according to the strictures of the Constitution. This means they will themselves respect again the historic, textual, ideational reality of the Constitution—and that instrument as the organic law of the Land. It means they will not stand down their effort after this election, as no patriot ever stands down completely knowing the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
The situation in Washington today is a huge and daunting challenge, an American equivalent to bringing down the Soviet Union. It cannot be done with improvised explosives, but rather only with ideas. Now if the people are too far-gone as it were, the fact the political system may still open to change is of little consequence and no avail. We vote and hope there will be enough people like us to make any difference. Else we settle for the placid answers and easy solutions so many politicians parrot and spout; and follow those rainbows floating on water, to the pots of fool’s gold nested firmly at the bottom of seas of tyranny and oppression.
And if this sounds like a riddle, how ever we should elect politicians to restore lost Liberty, then it is because we have lost a basic American tenet and popular understanding about the workings and nature of power and power’s cousin, politics: namely, that individuals and communities empowered by freedom can do just about anything, but there are serious limitations to what politics can accomplish and also what politicians plausibly and legitimately may promise under the Constitution. We need our politicians to do and to try to do less than what they are doing now, but it takes men and women of character and intelligence, and statesmen to do the less, and to discern and accomplish what is needed well. P.J. O’Rourke said recently, “I wish I had better news for you, but the barbarians are at the gates. We are besieged by…worshippers of big government.”
The quote is an oblique reference to the historic sack of Rome, but also metaphorically to the loss of Western Civilization occurring today. By implication, it foreshadows the onset of darkness and new Dark Ages. The barbarian perpetrators are those who have lost faith in themselves and the people, and the American Republic. They attribute instead all power, omniscience, glory and honor to national state planning and central government. After the last election, you might call it a bipartisan consensus. It seems we are all socialists now.
The truth is that we have become far too comfortable with state regulation of speech and expression, of business and the economy, of schools, churches, boy scouts, factories, airlines, fraternities, state and local government entities. As Mark Steyn describes it, we’re conditioned to the idea of regulating freedom in the interest of social harmony so-called, indeed to such a degree that we use the legal system to circumscribe debate and criminalize vigilance. The great world historian Arnold Toynbee wrote, “Civilizations die from suicide, not murder” and it is clear Americans have a most peculiar death wish on many levels. For those who choose to wriggle in their death grip and pray without ceasing for supernatural intervention unto the end, we ought also to cry out “No” as often as we can—being altogether less socially harmonious and cooperative with our own destruction, and parting ways with errors in common wisdom repeated so often that you start to believe it. ‘Do not go gentle into that Good Night!’ The worst ideology of all is the one that says resistance is futile. We ought to stop sending the oligarchs to Washington and elect true representatives who believe in Liberty. The door to freedom is not yet closed, even as darkness falls.
_____________________
Wesley Allen Riddle is a retired military officer with degrees and honors from West Point and Oxford. Widely published in the academic and opinion press, he ran for U.S. Congress (TX-District 31) in the 2004 Republican Primary. Email: wes@wesriddle.com.
Welcome Wes Riddle and his "Horse Sense"
I am pleased and honored to announce that my friend, soldier, scholar, and patriot Wes Riddle has allowed me to add his brilliant, insightful, and always inspiring words to my blog.By way of backgroung, Wes was born and raised in Houston, Texas and graduated from Houston’s Northbrook High School and the United States Military Academy at West Point, NY (Class of 1983). He spent twenty years in the U.S. Army and, at the time of his retirement in 2003 served at Fort Hood, Texas, on the III Corps Staff as Chief of the Air Defense Element (ADE).
Previous assignments include both stateside and overseas tours in Europe and the Pacific. Awards and decorations include the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal and Defense Meritorious Service Medal.
During the Gulf War, he commanded a Patriot Missile battery which intercepted SCUD missiles in northern Saudi Arabia. From August 2000 to August 2002, he was assigned to the Office of Military Cooperation-Kuwait, U.S. Embassy, as Air Defense Advisor to the State of Kuwait.
Wes obtained his Master of Philosophy degree in Modern History from Oxford University in 1993 where he graduated with Distinction, after which he taught Advanced American History and American Political Tradition for three years at West Point. He was awarded a Salvatori Fellowship by The Heritage Foundation for 1996-97 and is widely published in the academic and opinion press on matters of American history and political theory. He is Fellow at the National Humanities Institute in Washington, D.C., and Policy Advisor to the Virginia-based Future of Freedom Foundation.
After his race for U. S. Congress (TX-District 31) in the 2004 Republican Primary, Wes joined the Adjunct Faculty at Central Texas College in Killeen, Texas and taught U.S. History. Shortly afterwards, Vinnell Arabia, a subsidiary of Northrop Grumman asked him to join its senior management team in Riyadh where it assists the U.S. Army in training the Saudi Arabian National Guard. Wes is currently Manager of the Office of Force Integration, Office of the Program General Manager, with Vinnell.
Wes and his wife Aida live in Belton, Texas where he is probably best known for his weekly conservative column called “Horse Sense” in area newspapers. His column also appears on websites, including BeLogical.com and is frequently featured on Dallasblog.com.
To the Starboard welcomes Wes and I thank him for his lifetime of service to our nation!
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Conservative Treatise, Part I
So often, well intentioned individuals mark elections as the beginning and the end of a particular era. But I tend to view things very differently. Wars are not won by counting the number of battle victories. In the end, some battles are more significant than others and turning points do occur. Ultimately, victories come only when the enemy recognizes their defeat. They must either be converted or willing to submit to whatever reality exists.
Trivializing the defeat suffered by the conservative movement on November 4, 2008 would be foolish and demonstrate a lack of humility that will ensure future defeats. Victories are won by setting goals, by being collectively introspective about past failures, by studying foes, and ultimately by doing what is just.
Therefore, I have developed a series of proposals I believe that conservatives must consider in order to regain momentum and ultimately take back our nation. I will post these ideas periodically over the course of a few weeks to provide adequate time for commentary on each idea.
1. Conservatism is the paradigm of our founders- don’t be duped by those who suggest that conservatism is the problem.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. ... Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." – Barry Goldwater
Talking heads, like those we witnessed since our defeat in November, have already launched into their analysis of what went wrong. As I said, collective introspection is necessary, but beware! Their “inside-the-beltway” reaction has been nothing less than predictable. I have already heard disseminators of propaganda from both parties speak of Republicans “running right, when they should have run left”. First, let us remember that John McCain had no traction in this election until he demonstrated to the conservative base of his party that they were part of his vision. By nominating Sarah Palin, a social and fiscal conservative, as his running mate he energized his base and saw the ONLY surge he experienced at any part of his campaign until “Joe the Plumber” entered the fray (from all indications, another social and fiscal conservative). Pundits like now Republican leaning Dick Morris (the man who engineered Clinton’s 1996 victory), Republicans need to ignore those on the “fringe” of their party (as he puts it), because they have no place else to go. Morris’ advice should be quite telling to us! We are seen by the dominating forces of the Republican Party in Washington as dim-witted step-children who are allowed to go for the drive, providing that we sit in the back seat, shut up, and keep our thoughts about the direction we should go to ourselves. There must come a time when we unite and forcefully reclaim the Republican Party. And yes, that could be a long and grueling process.
Another pundit suggested that we need to be a more “inclusive” party, appealing to those in the broad spectrum of America, and therefore we must abandon our stringent and “intolerant” commitment to national sovereignty by opening our borders. This is the type of rhetoric we should get used to… The most effective tactic employed by liberals and the media (but I repeat myself) is to contrive erroneous claims and reiterate them over and over until they are believed, and ultimately embraced. The entire “open borders” argument stems from another globalistic view which posits that because Americans live a good and healthy lifestyle, the world is entitled to equal status. In a sense, it calls for the “redistribution of lifestyles”. The problem with this view is that is that it fails to recognize that the United States is not merely a nation with borders; it’s an idea founded on the basic rights of man, the value of personal industry, and the embrace of a unique social contract. Once upon a time, immigrants to this nation sought to become Americans, and they had a clear understanding that of what constituted citizenship and they relished the opportunity. Today, many immigrants seem obstinate about assimilating to the values of their nation, and come only to line their pockets with US currency while maintaining a loyalty to the nation of their birth. Finding English speaking citizens along the US Mexican border in Texas is often an arduous task. Entire communities within the United States along the Mexican border show signs of national unity to their ancestral neighbors to the south, and little gratitude for the freedoms they have earned through US citizenship. Yesterday evening, I watched a boxing match between Oscar De La Hoya and Manny Pacquiao. Three national anthems were sung at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, Nevada; The Anthems of the Philippines, Mexico, and the United States. I could certainly understand singing the national anthems of the Philippines and the US… Manny Pacquiao is from General Santos City, South Cotabato, Philippines. Oscar De La Hoya was born and raised in East Los Angeles, California, hence the US national anthem. But why the Mexican anthem for a man who is American by birth? Because we have perpetuated a culture (as Teddy Roosevelt referred to it) of “Hyphenated Americanism”. So long as we perpetuate the idea that the US is merely a “place” with political borders, we are doomed to become a nation of strangers. We are doomed to become a nation in which citizens enjoy the benefits of being Americans, whilst allowing their loyalties to belong to other nations. We must recognize that assimilation and the ultimate embracing of this nation the bearer of all of our loyalty is absolutely necessary. But I digress…
Another pundit suggested (as many have) that conservative thought runs counter to the “needs of the global community” and that the standing of our country in the eyes of the world is far more important that the vision Americans have for America. These individuals have an obvious affection for the European world view which sees sovereignty as an antiquated and obtuse concept. For years we have heard leftists complain about the deleterious effect George W. Bush has had on the American image abroad. We are a nation that fights tyranny while others placate despotic leaders; we contribute more foreign aid than any country on the planet; and we are still mobbed by foreigners trying to get into this country to escape poverty and/or oppression. Therefore, I think it is time that we stop asking “why don’t foreign nations like us” and begin to ask “what’s wrong with foreign nations that they do not like us.” And then, we need to let them work that problem out for themselves. Diplomacy is important, but when we set forth to do all the right things and still find no friends, then diplomacy becomes a token of weakness.
Finally, others demand greater populism, crediting Obama’s victory to his ability to speak to “all people” and give them a sense of ownership of this nation. Ownership of this nation? I always believed that if you embraced the basic rights of man and gave your greatest measure of devotion to our sacred principles, ownership became yours. Now, students in this nation are indoctrinated in the rewards of the culture of dependency. There was a time in the US when our parents told us that if we wanted something deeply enough, that we should work keenly toward that goal. There was never a guarantee, and failure was a necessary part of the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, the belief that we are all entitled to “happiness” has replaced the pursuit of it. To a liberal, this is achieved by taking from some and giving to others and by legislating away inequity through policies that lower standards to meet the least common denominator… among others.
So we must fight and expect to be bloodied. We must embrace truth and righteousness as our guiding principles and become unyielding in the fight to speak with passion and eloquence about those issues that are key to the survival of this nation. Conservatives are often very much like the loyal family dog. They do what is expected of them, and will only snap at their masters when beaten and trapped in a corner. Well, that time has come.
Trivializing the defeat suffered by the conservative movement on November 4, 2008 would be foolish and demonstrate a lack of humility that will ensure future defeats. Victories are won by setting goals, by being collectively introspective about past failures, by studying foes, and ultimately by doing what is just.
Therefore, I have developed a series of proposals I believe that conservatives must consider in order to regain momentum and ultimately take back our nation. I will post these ideas periodically over the course of a few weeks to provide adequate time for commentary on each idea.
1. Conservatism is the paradigm of our founders- don’t be duped by those who suggest that conservatism is the problem.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. ... Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." – Barry Goldwater
Talking heads, like those we witnessed since our defeat in November, have already launched into their analysis of what went wrong. As I said, collective introspection is necessary, but beware! Their “inside-the-beltway” reaction has been nothing less than predictable. I have already heard disseminators of propaganda from both parties speak of Republicans “running right, when they should have run left”. First, let us remember that John McCain had no traction in this election until he demonstrated to the conservative base of his party that they were part of his vision. By nominating Sarah Palin, a social and fiscal conservative, as his running mate he energized his base and saw the ONLY surge he experienced at any part of his campaign until “Joe the Plumber” entered the fray (from all indications, another social and fiscal conservative). Pundits like now Republican leaning Dick Morris (the man who engineered Clinton’s 1996 victory), Republicans need to ignore those on the “fringe” of their party (as he puts it), because they have no place else to go. Morris’ advice should be quite telling to us! We are seen by the dominating forces of the Republican Party in Washington as dim-witted step-children who are allowed to go for the drive, providing that we sit in the back seat, shut up, and keep our thoughts about the direction we should go to ourselves. There must come a time when we unite and forcefully reclaim the Republican Party. And yes, that could be a long and grueling process.
Another pundit suggested that we need to be a more “inclusive” party, appealing to those in the broad spectrum of America, and therefore we must abandon our stringent and “intolerant” commitment to national sovereignty by opening our borders. This is the type of rhetoric we should get used to… The most effective tactic employed by liberals and the media (but I repeat myself) is to contrive erroneous claims and reiterate them over and over until they are believed, and ultimately embraced. The entire “open borders” argument stems from another globalistic view which posits that because Americans live a good and healthy lifestyle, the world is entitled to equal status. In a sense, it calls for the “redistribution of lifestyles”. The problem with this view is that is that it fails to recognize that the United States is not merely a nation with borders; it’s an idea founded on the basic rights of man, the value of personal industry, and the embrace of a unique social contract. Once upon a time, immigrants to this nation sought to become Americans, and they had a clear understanding that of what constituted citizenship and they relished the opportunity. Today, many immigrants seem obstinate about assimilating to the values of their nation, and come only to line their pockets with US currency while maintaining a loyalty to the nation of their birth. Finding English speaking citizens along the US Mexican border in Texas is often an arduous task. Entire communities within the United States along the Mexican border show signs of national unity to their ancestral neighbors to the south, and little gratitude for the freedoms they have earned through US citizenship. Yesterday evening, I watched a boxing match between Oscar De La Hoya and Manny Pacquiao. Three national anthems were sung at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, Nevada; The Anthems of the Philippines, Mexico, and the United States. I could certainly understand singing the national anthems of the Philippines and the US… Manny Pacquiao is from General Santos City, South Cotabato, Philippines. Oscar De La Hoya was born and raised in East Los Angeles, California, hence the US national anthem. But why the Mexican anthem for a man who is American by birth? Because we have perpetuated a culture (as Teddy Roosevelt referred to it) of “Hyphenated Americanism”. So long as we perpetuate the idea that the US is merely a “place” with political borders, we are doomed to become a nation of strangers. We are doomed to become a nation in which citizens enjoy the benefits of being Americans, whilst allowing their loyalties to belong to other nations. We must recognize that assimilation and the ultimate embracing of this nation the bearer of all of our loyalty is absolutely necessary. But I digress…
Another pundit suggested (as many have) that conservative thought runs counter to the “needs of the global community” and that the standing of our country in the eyes of the world is far more important that the vision Americans have for America. These individuals have an obvious affection for the European world view which sees sovereignty as an antiquated and obtuse concept. For years we have heard leftists complain about the deleterious effect George W. Bush has had on the American image abroad. We are a nation that fights tyranny while others placate despotic leaders; we contribute more foreign aid than any country on the planet; and we are still mobbed by foreigners trying to get into this country to escape poverty and/or oppression. Therefore, I think it is time that we stop asking “why don’t foreign nations like us” and begin to ask “what’s wrong with foreign nations that they do not like us.” And then, we need to let them work that problem out for themselves. Diplomacy is important, but when we set forth to do all the right things and still find no friends, then diplomacy becomes a token of weakness.
Finally, others demand greater populism, crediting Obama’s victory to his ability to speak to “all people” and give them a sense of ownership of this nation. Ownership of this nation? I always believed that if you embraced the basic rights of man and gave your greatest measure of devotion to our sacred principles, ownership became yours. Now, students in this nation are indoctrinated in the rewards of the culture of dependency. There was a time in the US when our parents told us that if we wanted something deeply enough, that we should work keenly toward that goal. There was never a guarantee, and failure was a necessary part of the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, the belief that we are all entitled to “happiness” has replaced the pursuit of it. To a liberal, this is achieved by taking from some and giving to others and by legislating away inequity through policies that lower standards to meet the least common denominator… among others.
So we must fight and expect to be bloodied. We must embrace truth and righteousness as our guiding principles and become unyielding in the fight to speak with passion and eloquence about those issues that are key to the survival of this nation. Conservatives are often very much like the loyal family dog. They do what is expected of them, and will only snap at their masters when beaten and trapped in a corner. Well, that time has come.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Look South, Rhode Island
I just returned from a Thanksgiving holiday in the People’s Republic of Rhode Island, the state of my birth. It was my first trip there in 8 years. Throughout my childhood I could never quite figure out why the good Lord would place me in an area where the culture, in every respect (political, social, economic), was so contrary to my own values. I tend to think that he just wanted me to appreciate my beloved State of Texas.
As I crossed the state line into Rhode Island from Massachusetts (we landed at the Boston-Logan Airport), I was immediately taken aback by the obvious infrastructure problems the state was facing. The roads may have been the worst upon which I have ever traveled! But apparently, according to a Providence Journal article I read, the State of Rhode Island has a plan… One which will do nothing more than sink Rhode Islanders into a further abyss of economic woes.
Rhode Islanders reap what they sow; it is a state that has been in Democrat hands almost completely since the 1930’s. Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 4-to-1 in Rhode Island today and they maintain this control despite an abysmal record (Also note that Rhode Island’s Republicans are some of the most liberal in the nation- Lincoln Chaffee should come to mind). Amazingly, they have a decent Republican governor in Donald L. Carcieri, but a man made impotent by Democrat dominance in the legislature.
As I crossed the state line into Rhode Island from Massachusetts (we landed at the Boston-Logan Airport), I was immediately taken aback by the obvious infrastructure problems the state was facing. The roads may have been the worst upon which I have ever traveled! But apparently, according to a Providence Journal article I read, the State of Rhode Island has a plan… One which will do nothing more than sink Rhode Islanders into a further abyss of economic woes.
Rhode Islanders reap what they sow; it is a state that has been in Democrat hands almost completely since the 1930’s. Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 4-to-1 in Rhode Island today and they maintain this control despite an abysmal record (Also note that Rhode Island’s Republicans are some of the most liberal in the nation- Lincoln Chaffee should come to mind). Amazingly, they have a decent Republican governor in Donald L. Carcieri, but a man made impotent by Democrat dominance in the legislature.
Rhode Island has strong union dominance in every corner of business and government, from supermarkets to teachers unions. According to successful former General Electric CEO Jack Welch (a Massachusetts native), “[Rhode Island is] not a right to work state. It's driven all big business out of the state. It is a state that has 80% of the business[es] in the state employ 20 people or less.”
Welch continued, "Rhode Island has the... second highest [taxes] in the nation. 48th worst state to do business." He asserted, “… they tax the hell out of you, and you don't want to be there. Welch lambasted the New York times for an article it published stating, “[The Times] talked about all the job losses on the front page, and then it swung over to the middle of the paper, and the paper had two pages on the state of Rhode Island, and it had these tragic stories of who was out of work, a hairdresser, a restaurant owner, somebody else, but they didn't make the connection of why they were out of work."
"Rhode Island had the highest unemployment in the country. 8.8%. 40% higher than the country," He concluded, “And that's a small picture, and The Times didn't make the connection with these tragic stories which were tragic -- didn't make the connection with what the tax policies of Rhode Island are with the plight of the state."
So what do we know when we compare Texas and Rhode Island’s economies? Consider the following (Statistics from June 2007-2008):
- Texas was responsible for 73.4% of all net job creation in the United States.
- Rhode Island was responsible for -3.6% of all net job creation in the United States.
- Texas was responsible for a staggering 289.8% of all net private-sector job creation in the United States.
- Rhode Island was responsible for a staggering 1.4% of all net private-sector job creation in the United States.
- Employment level in Texas increased by 2.4%
- Employment level in Rhode Island decreased by 2.4% (The irony…)
- Texas has one of the lowest state tax burdens at 9%.
- Rhode Island has one of the highest state tax burdens at 12.7%.
- Texas' unemployment rate is 5.6% (as of October 21, 2008, better than the national average)
- Rhode Island's unemployment rate is 9.3% (as of October 21, 2008, far worse than the national average) *
And in 2008, Rhode Island elected even more liberal Democrats to the legislature. As I told a friend, Rhode Islanders are like the struggling guy who says “I’m going to buy $100 worth of lottery tickets every week this year, hit the jackpot, and pay all of my bills.” After 52 weeks, he realizes that he lost the vast majority of his $5200. So his solution? He decides, “Next year I’ll just have to buy $200 worth of lottery tickets every week!” And so it goes… Rhode Islanders think that the solution to their problems is more government, less liberty, and sticking with those who think sucking more tax dollars out of the pockets of their citizens is the key to prosperity.
I wish these folks would figure out what Texas has know for a long time… Leave business alone, let them grow, reinvest, create jobs, and from a booming economy, sales taxes will bring in greater revenue. I just count my blessings that I live in God’s Country!
Mike Pearce
* Statistics complied by Will Franklin, formerly of the Texas Public Policy Institute
To repair Rhode Island roads, report calls for new tolls, taxes and higher fees
09:32 AM EST on Friday, December 5, 2008
By Bruce LandisJournal Staff Writer
PROVIDENCE — Driving your car may take on a new and larger meaning — for your wallet.
To fix its crumbling roads and bridges and rescue the state’s financially challenged public transit system, a draft report made public yesterday says the state should consider charging tolls at the state line on every interstate highway and creating a new tax for each mile a vehicle is driven.
The report calls for tolls on a new Sakonnet River Bridge, increasing the state gas tax and a long list of other things related to using the roads. One proposed tax would apply to anything made from petroleum, from paint to detergent to plastics.
The proposals would mean a drastic shift in the way the state finances transportation — away from borrowing and near-complete reliance on federal money — toward spending more by using money raised through taxes and fees.
It could also mean a large policy shift on public transportation. The Rhode Island Public Transit Authority is in such financial trouble that officials have been planning major service cutbacks and calculating just when it would run out of money during the next several months. The draft report includes plans to save the bus system from immediate dismemberment by covering its $8-million budget deficit and to maintain existing service for at least 10 years.
The panel, Governor Carcieri’s Blue Ribbon Panel for Transportation Funding, was formed because the lack of maintenance over the years has caught up with the system. More than half of the state’s roads are in fair, poor or “failed” condition, according to the Department of Transportation, and 164 bridges of 772 are classified as structurally deficient.
Two of the state’s most important bridges, the Pawtucket River Bridge, carrying Route 95, and the Sakonnet River Bridge, carrying Route 24 to Aquidneck Island, have 18-ton weight limits, are off-limits to large trucks and need to be replaced before they get worse.
The panel is supposed to produce a final report shortly. The members took no votes yesterday but seemed in agreement on most of the major elements of the plan. An exception that will apparently be removed involved diverting some state sales tax money that is used to support the existing state budget. The recommendations will go to the governor, and most would also need approval by the General Assembly.
Carcieri has not endorsed any of the recommendations.
“We’re not ready to decide what we’re going to choose,” spokeswoman Amy Kempe said. However, the panel is co-chaired by the governor’s top present and past transportation appointees, DOT Director Michael P. Lewis and Jerome F. Williams, the previous DOT director who is now state director of administration.
The draft report, prepared by the DOT, includes two “scenarios,” one producing an estimated $150 million per year and the other $300 million per year, the amount the DOT says it really needs to make necessary repairs within 10 years.
The major elements include:
•Both new and higher fuel taxes. The proposals include increasing the gasoline tax, now 30 cents, by up to 15 cents per gallon by 2016, which would raise an estimated $64 million per year. They also include a new “petroleum products gross earning tax,” beginning with the equivalent of 10 cents per gallon of gasoline in 2010 and adding another 5 cents in 2014. That would affect all petroleum products, from gasoline and aviation fuel to those made from petroleum derivatives, such as plastics, paint and fertilizer. It would eventually raise about $66 million per year, the draft report says.
•Car registration fees, now $60 for two years, would rise $40 per year immediately and could more than double, to $140, by 2013, depending on which version was used, raising up to $46 million per year.
•A new mileage fee. The $150-million plan would not include it, but the $300-million plan would impose a half-cent-per-mile fee, raising an estimated $50 million per year. But officials said yesterday that they expect to eliminate the transfer of some sales tax revenue to the transportation system, proposed elsewhere in the report. Raising the mileage fee to 1 cent per mile would make up the difference.
At a half-cent per mile, driving 10,000 miles per year would cost $50 per vehicle. One cent would cost $100.
Also referred to as a VMT fee (for vehicle miles traveled), the mileage fee would be based on odometer readings reported by vehicle owners when they renew their registrations. The mileage could be verified during mandatory auto inspections, the study says. Robert A. Shawver, the DOT’s assistant director, said that although one state, Oregon, is pilot-testing a similar fee, Rhode Island’s would be the first of its kind in the country.
•Tolls. The $150-million plan could include tolls, $3 per car and $6 per truck, only at the Connecticut border, yielding an estimated $39 million per year. The $300-million plan would include similar tolls where all of the state’s interstate highways (Routes 95, 295 and 195) cross the state line, and would raise $60 million per year.
While most of the other fees and taxes would affect primarily Rhode Islanders, the tolls would be aimed at out-of-state vehicles which, if they pass through the state without stopping for fuel, now use the roads for free.
•Tolls on a new Sakonnet River Bridge. The plan relies heavily on shifting the estimated $210-million cost of a new Sakonnet River Bridge, now the DOT’s responsibility, to the Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority. It also assumes that the authority would borrow the money to pay for the bridge and charge tolls to pay the cost. Shawver said it isn’t clear how much the tolls would be, but guessed they would be in the $3-per-car range. That would take the cost of the new bridge off the DOT’s hands, while giving the authority the prickly job of imposing the tolls.
Some recommendations, such as a higher gas tax, could be put into effect quickly. Others, such as tolls, would take years to put into effect. Lewis said the state would try to implement the tolls jointly with Massachusetts and Connecticut, building one set of tollbooths and splitting the money.
The DOT has had a series of expensive embarrassments involving its construction projects over the years. One question yesterday concerned the agency’s ability to efficiently spend roughly twice as much money per year as the $354 million it spends now.
Suzanne Greschner, policy director at the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council and a panel member, said she looked through the draft report and found nothing about making sure that the DOT can handle the money effectively. Taxpayers, she said, need to know that the money would be spent effectively.
Several of the proposals are certain to be controversial. In addition to imposing new taxes and sharply higher fees that would affect most citizens, one is already starting to heat up an old regional dispute.
Putting tolls on the new Sakonnet River Bridge attracted loud opposition in the past from legislators whose constituents now use the existing deteriorating bridge for free.
Yesterday, Keith W. Stokes, executive director of the Newport County Chamber of Commerce, denounced the toll proposal and said he wanted to know why tolls on the heavily traveled Washington Bridge, on Route 195 in Providence, isn’t one of the proposals.
One major difference between the two plans involves borrowing. The $150-million plan would rely on $450 million in borrowing, something that has already gotten the DOT into a financial hole. The $300-million plan would eliminate the borrowing and rely instead on higher registration fees and the proposed tax on mileage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
