<$BlogRSDUrl$>

My personal musings about anything that gets on my radar screen--heavily dominated by politics.

2007-02-19

Why I Am A Republican, part X

Over the course of the last two weeks, I have attempted to explain the genesis and evolution of my political philosophy. If you recall (if there's anybody still awake out there), it started early, but changed with the birth of my first child. Last night, I concluded with my children, as well--something about "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

And that, at its core, is why I am a Republican--because of my children.

As you have no doubt surmised from my writings, there is a substantial chance that, even without children, I would be a Republican. However, with children in the mix, that pushes any margin for doubt away, and puts me solidly in the GOP camp.

Why, you might ask, wasn't I a Republican before the 2000 election? Fair point. Because 2000 made a few things abundantly clear: one, that the Democrats' pursuit of power, at the expense of the military, made them untrustworthy with power; two, that in a time of peace and prosperity (presumed) the Democrats still wanted more of my money; and three, in a fact that we did not know until a year later, the Democrats had been unwilling to do what it took to secure the country.

And that is, in the end, the whole ballgame.

On every count that the Constitution labels as the province of the government, as I have demonstrated over the past week or so, the Republican Party is better suited, based on its core principles, to serve the American people. A more perfect Union was fought for and died for by the first Republican, that Union was improved in the 60s by a Republican Congress, and a Republican restored the faith of the people in its country after humiliation and recession in the 80s. Justice and domestic Tranquility is far better served by people who believe in the rule of law and who believe in a equal opportunity--not equivalent results. The common Defense is best provided for by those who believe that rhetoric must have force behind it to mean anything, who do not outsource our national defense to corrupt international organizations that hate us, and who recognize that we have real enemies who will not negotiate and who would like nothing better than to see our women and children die slow, painful, horrible deaths. And all of these do far more to secure the Blessings of Liberty than any social progam or sympathetic expression of "feeling pain" ever will.

All the rest is icing.

Education? Important, but not the province of the federal government. And I have personal experience with the screw-ups that happen when the Feds try to do education, and as much as I support the concept of No Child Left Behind, the net result has not particularly enhanced the American education system, and that's STILL better than every attempt before, which left us the beautiful mess of Title IX and a billion unfunded mandates.

Social Security Reform? Necessary, but not central to the function of government. Unfortunately, we're kinda stuck with it at this point, so would somebody--PUHLEEZE--fix the damn thing.

Oh, by the way, which party is talking about a REAL fix? That's right--the Republicans.

Health Care? Not the province of the federal government. And, by the way, does anybody actually think there's any chance at all that the federal government has any chance of doing this right? I don't--and that's okay with me. IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB.

Global Warming? First, color me skeptical--I have just enough of a science background to know that a. things in the natural world tend to happen in cycles, and b. we know next to nothing about all of the cycles that play out in our world. Second, talk to me about this when your "models" or "scenarios" don't include 70% margins of error or out-and-out guesswork about some of the causalities built in to the model. For that matter, talk to me about 100 years from now when somebody can accurately predict the weather a week from now. Is global warming real? I suppose so--some (though certainly not all) of the numbers support that idea. Is it caused by man? Probably not--again, cycles. But in what sense is it the American government's job to Save the Planet? I suspect that the Planet has many, many tricks up its sleeve to save itself, and will get along fine without our help, thank you very much. Talk about your arrogant usurpation of responsibility, at the expense of the prosperity of the nation.

Here's my hypothesis: when elections are about the real issues the Federal Government is charged with, Republicans win; when elections are about the icing, Democrats win. Why did GWBush win in 2000? Because, at it's core, the argument for tax reduction is an argument for smaller government. Why did GWBush win in 2004? Because the election was about the national security. Why did the Republicans lose in 2006? Because they failed to make the case for their prosperity, and the issues were corruption in a bloated government and incompetence in managing the national security--specifically, the War in Iraq.

At the same time, you can never underestimate the power of incompetent campaigning . . . in all three of the above cases.

Nonetheless . . .

Democrats believe in their imagination, and in a utopian world that does not reflect reality and has repeatedly been shown to be unattainable (see "Soviet Union"), and that they can make the world conform to their vision if only they believe it fervently enough and say it loud enough.

I am a Republican because the Republicans (often) are true to the intentions of the Founding Fathers and have, at their core, a set of beliefs that have a real chance of succeeding in the real world.

Specifically, that every person in the United States can attain their dream if they are willing to work hard enough for it within the law and if the government keeps out of their way, except to protect them from enemies foreign and domestic. I say this often, and I think it reflects that reality: don't tell me what you want--tell me what you are willing to do to get what you want.

That is the message I try to drum into my children and my students, and that is the America that I believe in and that I believe will provide my children the best opportunity to realize their hopes and dreams.

And that's the whole ballgame.

Labels:

Posted by: Michael / 2/19/2007 11:12:00 PM

Why I Am A Republican, part IX

" . . . secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

This is the portion of the clause that, at first glance, seems hardest to define. After all, what we take for granted in this day and age as a "blessing of Liberty" would have left the Founding Fathers aghast at what we presume to be the responsibility of the government.

In the time of the Founding Fathers, essential blessings of Liberty would have included, but not be limited to, Freedom of Speech, Freedom OF Religion, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of the Press . . . .

Oh, wait. That's right--they actually wrote down what they considered to be the essential freedoms that government is charged with protecting. It's called the Bill of Rights.

Though, let's all remember, the Bill of Rights came AFTER the Constitution, and was an essential part of the compromise that led to the ratification of the Constitution. And, let's also remember, another essential compromise that led to the ratification of the Constitution was language which continued the slave trade in the U.S. So they weren't perfect.

But those blessings were, essentially, limits on what the government could do TO people. In this day and age, we seem to have a mistaken idea that the blessings are all involved in what the government can do FOR people. And this is wrong.

If you read James Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention, you would come away with--or, at least, I came away with--the idea that the primary concern of the C.C. was that the government not be intrusive, that power was never vested in an isolated segment of society, and that most of the acts of government be subject to checks at the local level. In other words, they were terrified that a federal government, once established, would become a burden on society in the way that the king had become one in the decades before.

I think most of them would find the bureaucracy entrenched in Washington right now offensive. I think the idea that the largest budget items are entitlements would have them laughing, and crying. I think the role that the Courts have arrogated to themselves would stun and amaze them.

But that is what "the blessings of Liberty" have come to mean. Or maybe they're assumed under "promote the general welfare." It doesn't really matter.

What it means is that we have a really muddled idea of what the "blessings of Liberty" really are.

So, I'll take the easy route, and skip that for now.

What gives me the most guidance on this clause is the last word: posterity. To my mind, what the Founders wanted was an America that would be the free for themselves, for their kids, and for their kid's kids. This clause is all about the future and about the America we want to leave our children.

And that is what matters most in my formulation of why I am a Republican.

To secure that Blessings of Liberty for my children, I need to be clear in my own head on what role the government plays in my life. And more importantly, how maleable is that role. For my part, I don't have a great deal of difficulty deciding what that is.

But that is anethema to the liberal mind. The very idea of a fixed point of reference is at odds with everything they believe in. If an idea or law doesn't feed YOUR needs and whims, the liberal "progressive" says that the law is wrong, not that the need is wrong. Thus we get judges who don't like that the Takings Clause doesn't really help feed the government beast, so they decide that the Takings Clause doesn't mean what it says and we get Kelo; or a legislator doesn't like how much money is influencing politics, regardless of "make no law abridging Free Speech," so we get BCRA, and then we get a Court affirming it. But you get the idea.

The Blessings of Liberty cannot be secured so long as what those blessings are is constantly subject to the changing whims of legislators and Courts. And while it is possible to be too slow in positively addressing the changing norms of society (see Dred Scott), I think my posterity is far better secured by a strong reliance on the text of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, rather than the ever-changing whims of the liberal mind.

Of course, that places an awful lot of the burden for securing Liberty onto the Courts; that is not how I imagined the Founders pictured it, but that is part of how our system has "evolved," starting at Madison v. Marbury. Be that as it may, I think the best thing that can be done to secure Liberty then, is to ensure that Judges interpret the Constitution and the Law, not feel the right to create it.

And, of course, that is the province of the Republican Party.

Never mind that an America ruled exclusively by Democrats would abbrogate much of its sovereignty to the United Nations, and would be unlikely to protect my "posterity" from violence in the way it should. And ignoring that those most likely to disturb the "domestic tranquility" are from in their camp (see "Chicago Convention, 1968" and "OJ Simpson verdict riots" (see also "Timothy McVeigh", just for balance)).

The central question is whether there is a core of values that guide our understanding of Liberty, so that we may act in a way that preserves that for our children. The Republican Party has a core--whether you like it or not, whether they live up to it or not--, and the Democratic Party tends to have emotion and whim, subject to change at moment's notice.

And so I am a Republican.

Labels:

Posted by: Michael / 2/19/2007 12:26:00 AM

2007-02-17

Why I Am A Republican, supplemental

The Democratic-controlled House issued a symbolic rejection of President Bush's decision to deploy more troops to Iraq on Friday, opening an epic confrontation between Congress and commander in chief over an unpopular war that has taken the lives of more than 3,100 U.S. troops.

The vote on the nonbinding measure was 246-182. . . .

Supporters of the nonbinding resolution included 229 Democrats and 17 Republicans

AND . . .

House Democrats today outlined their plan to restrict President Bush's use of war funding, with the goal of gradually ending the war in Iraq. . . .

Mr. Murtha detailed, during a 24-minute interview, his plan to use the appropriations process to hamstring the president's use of war funds. Mr. Murtha's plan is supported by House Democratic leaders, and is thought to be the less politically risky alternative.

In other words, "we have no strategy, but we don't like yours, but we don't want to be seen as {what we are} unsupportive of the troops, so we will take a cowardly back-door way to force our defeat."

A. Murtha is not just wrong about the war, but he's a political coward--with his Democratic allies--for not taking this head-on. He has a Democratic majority now: why not just vote to cut off funding immediately? Declare defeat and come home now if that's what you want to do.

B. Imagine Pat Bowlen telling Mike Shanahan that he likes his players too much to let them continue to try to win football games--too many of them are getting hurt and it's too difficult. Now imagine him telling Shanahan this in the fourth quarter of a big game in December with the playoffs on the line. And the outcome of the game is still in doubt.

That is what "supporting the troops" while "rejecting the mission" is.

Now, what really rankles is why NOBODY in the media has bothered to ask any of these Democrats how they can support the troops while hoping for their defeat--in a mission which the troops who have been a part of it overwhelmingly support.

That's what rankles. It doesn't surprise me. But it ticks me off.

Labels:

Posted by: Michael / 2/17/2007 09:39:00 AM

2007-02-16

Why I Am A Republican, part VIII

" . . . to promote the General Welfare, . . ."

If there is another word that has suffered in its meaning so much since the liberals took over acedamia, I welcome you to propose it.

As it stands, "welfare" no longer means means what Webster says it means: "the state of doing well esp. in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity." Rather, "welfare" has come to be shorthand for the acts of the government which prop up those who--for whatever reason--are unable to stand on their own two feet.

"Welfare," as it now stands, has come to mean that process whereby the government confiscates the wealth of one portion of society and redistributes it into the hands of another portion of society for the purpose of giving the second portion a chance to re-establish themselves within the norms of general society.

As that second meaning has come to be, I see absolutely no way to reconcile what it has become with what it was intended. The "general welfare" is ill-served by a policy of taking from the one to give to the other--the state has no right to act as Robin Hood. And there is, of course, nothing in the Constitution which enables such an act.

But, more importantly, the general welfare is best promoted by guaranteeing the rights and freedoms of all the citizenry; it is best promoted by protecting the citizens from the encroachments of those acting outside of the law; it is best promoted by allowing all the citizens an equal access to--NOT SHARE OF--the wealth and blessings of this country; it is best promoted by establishing Justice and ensuring domestic tranquility.

In short, the government exists to guarantee that the playing field is level for all of its citizens, and that the citizenry has every fair opportunity to pursue their own welfare--"promote" the general welfare, not "guarantee" the welfare of all.

To believe that the government exists, in part, to take the lowly and prop them up, is to believe that a person working 40+ hours a week for a salary to pay a mortgage and keep their children clothed and fed should have to "donate" a sizeable chunk of their salary to a 19-year old mother of three children (by three different fathers) who goes to the bar on Friday night to drink too much and sleep with another man.

Is this the case for all welfare cases? Of course not. There are certainly cases in which welfare does give a victim of circumstance enough of a crutch to learn to walk again on their own. And that is a good thing--but it hardly justifies the other case, in which an undeserving person who has no capacity to make good decisions becomes a perpetual burden on society.

Did welfare reform work? Clearly. The reforms pushed through by a Republican Congress and signed by Pres. Bill Clinton has reduced the number of people living on the government dole, without any corresponding "human tragedies" that were predicted, like increased homelessness and deaths on the street because children couldn't eat. In short, taking away the umbilical cord successfully forced people to eat and breathe on their own.

Is there a compelling societal interest in giving the destitute a hand out? Perhaps. Those who have help are less likely--perhaps--to commit crimes against the innocent, or to turn to prostitution, drugs or violence to stay alive, and that is all positive. Perhaps.

But, at the same time, sending the message to any segment of society that it does not need to contribute to its own survival sends the message to all of society that the playing field is not level. And that does not promote the general welfare.

If there is one idea around which both meanings of "welfare" could be brought together, it may be in the idea of persistent poverty--the sort of poverty that passes from one generation to another in a family, with no sign or expectation that it will ever change. This is an unhealthy development for society: it creates the sort of permanent underclass from which the greatest violence and discontent has always flowed. Government efforts to break this persistent poverty would be in the interest of the society in general, and is the sort of effort I could support.

The problem with persistent poverty in this day and age is that it is as much a cultural phenomenon as it is an economic one. And we, as a society, have a difficult time addressing cultural phenomena. For instance, if (and we know it does) single parenthood leads to poverty, and if (and we know they are) children of unwed mothers are more likely to become unwed mothers themselves, then you would think it would be in the interest of that segment of society in which such conditions are prevalent to address the problem and try to make it better. But, because that segment of society also happens to be ethnically oriented, people who address that issue directly are immediately decried as "racist", and their ideas are dismissed without any discussion of the merits. Even a person sharing that ethnicity is accused of racism, called an "oreo", and dismissed.

But, again, that is only a small part of "promoting the general welfare."

In total, the general wlfare involves a great deal more than just the 10% impoverished--it means all 100%. And for that, I echo my previous post, that the general welfare is much like domestic tranquility in that it is best promoted by justice, security, and equal opportunity. And, as I have expounded upon before, all of these purposes are best served by Republicans, so it must follow that the general welfare is best served by Republicans.

Labels:

Posted by: Michael / 2/16/2007 10:36:00 PM

2007-02-15

Why I Am A Republican, part VII

"to provide for the Common Defense . . ."

I wish this were a more difficult point to make. There was a time when both parties were equally committed to American security, to defending the principles upon which this country was founded, and to extending Liberty around the world. Sadly, that idea seems to have become isolated now in one party--actually, in one wing of one party.

Defending America in this day and age requires both a thorough understanding of the nature of those who would harm America, and of the means by which they might accomplish such harm.

At this point in history, those who would harm America fall into two basic (and, admittedly, over-simplified) groups: state players who would dismantle America's influence so as to extend theirs, and non-state actors who would destroy us to end our "corruption," thereby enabling their own ambitions for world domination. The first group is a diverse and complex conglomeration of countries who do not act in concert, but, instead, have as their motivation the forced retreat of America. Include among them the French, who have a sort of Racial Jealousy going against the very peoples who have bailed them out of two world wars but who refuse to succumb to their "enlightened" world view; the Chinese, whose needs in the world economy grow every day, but their own borders make their access to resources cripplingly limited; the Islamic states, who, first and foremost, want to eradicate Israel, but who can take no action in that regard while America stands watch; the North Koreans, whose own state system can only survive if they're allowed to pillage the rest of the Korean Peninsula and beyond; and perhaps Russia, whose former KGB leader hopes once again for a Russian state that sits astride Europe and Asia in dominance.

The second group is led by, though by no means is limited to, al-Qaeda and affiliated Islamicist groups who aspire to recreate the ancient Caliphate across Europe and Asia. With them are the many offshoots that find harbor around the world and wreak their own havoc in whatever little ways they can. Include among them al-Qaeda in Iraq, of course, Ansar al Islam, the Islamic Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad, along with Hamas and Hezbollah.

America has managed to amass an impressive list of enemies. But, and let me state this very clearly, NONE of those enemies could in any way have been turned to friends. Whether it be countries whose jealousies make it impossible for them to share in our successes, or countries who would vie for dominion over a region of the world, held in check only by American power, or the Islamicist movement which aims only to extend an ancient ideal across lands which do not belong to them and whose current occupants enjoy freedoms despised by the Islamists, there is no amount of American diplomacy or "engagement" which could have turned them.

As evidence, let us take the most complex country on the list: France. This is a country that has no ambition for conquest, has no illusions about its influence in the world, and which has, not all that long ago, been one of America's strongest military allies. Yet, when America played the game of going before the United Nations to make a case for an International act to depose Saddam Hussein, in a way that would have involved absolutely no threat to France's sovereignty, France's Foreign Minister betrayed our Secretary of State, drew him away from the U.N. building, and then hastily arranged for a surprise vote that turned against the United States. Such an act undermined U.S. interests and embarrased both our SecState and our President, for no tangible benefit to the state of France. It is difficult to imagine the calculus involved in such an act, except to preserve a corrupt kickback scheme and embarrass the U.S.

Such is not the act of a friend; and, though no shots were fired, it was just much an act of sabotage as your run-of-the-mill I.E.D.

The more complex players have ravenous self-interest at heart, and not even blatant bribery works to curtail their activity (see "Clinton/Carter Deal With North Korea").

When this President called out the North Koreans for breaking their treaty obligations, he was roundly criticized by one side of the legislative chambers. His crime? an "unsophisticated" act of undiplomatic speech which would only "antagonize" the NoKos. When he called Vladimir Putin a man of honor . . .

Bad example--the President was COMPLETELY wrong about this one, and has paid a price in humiliation as the Russians have acted in concert with the French to undermine American interests.

The point is, one side of the political divide seems willing to acknowledge the bad players on the world scene, and deal with them accordingly, the other side wants to "understand" them, "engage" with them, and, ultimately, acquiesce to them. And while I am willing to acknowledge that perhaps American diplomacy has not been completely successful in every regard, I also would posit that diplomacy is only effective when it is backed up by the credible threat of consequences. I would also put out there that diplomacy that contributes to and furthers the delusions of the diplomatic world is dangerous and foolish. I would rather be clumsy than deluded; the Republicans fit better in the first category, the Democrats the latter.

But it is how one deals with the threats posed that makes all the difference.

In the 80's the threat was the Soviet Union: a similarly clumsy and "unsophisticated" President called out the Soviets, was criticized all across America for doing so, but was proven correct through his steadfastness and vision. In 1979 a foreign country invaded sovereign U.S. territory; a Democratic President failed to take appropriate action, and the forces that led that attack were emboldened. In 1983 a non-state player perpetrated a cowardly asymmetrical attack on U.S. personnel in Lebanon; a Republican President failed to avenge the act, and the forces that plotted that attack were emboldened. In the 90s those same forces attacked U.S. interests on five separate occasions; a Democratic President took almost no action in response, and those forces were, again, emboldened. While that same President was still in office the planning phase of a horrible attack was launched. That attack arrived on September 11th.

After September 11th, this Republican President took action both rhetorical and military. For it, he was widely criticized by Democrats for his "lack of sophistication." Ted Kennedy warned that 10s of thousands of Americans would die in the Afghan winter. This President then pushed his action into another country, one which every intelligence service on earth said was a bad player. He was again criticized, but this new war led to another bad player giving up their weapons (Libya), and Democratic warnings of a "massacre" failed to materialize.

This President also took action to disrupt both the informational and financial supply lines that the enemy uses to plot and stage their attacks on America. For these acts, he has, again, been widely criticized by Democrats. He has also acted to prevent enemies from returning to the battlefields; for this, he has been similarly criticized by Democrats (mostly).

And in the five years since 9/11, not a single successful attack has been committed against the American homeland--a circumstance which NOBODY predicted post 9/11, and which absolutely justifies the President's offensive strategy to fighting the war.

And which absolutely refutes the Democrat's reliance on talk and reflexive mistrust of the projection of power.

Have mistakes been made in Iraq. Yes. Is it a mess? Yes.

Is retreat an option? NO!! We have seen the comparative results of an offensive vs. a defensive strategy, and, frankly, I like the results of the offensive strategy better.

If the purpose of the "common defense" is, well, protecting the American people, I'll take the Republican record on this one. The Democratic ideals have repeatedly been revealed as naive and dangerous; and while the Republican record is far from unblemished, I prefer that our battles be fought with an eye towards winning, towards staying on offense and keeping the enemy away from our homeland, and with an understanding that leaving the enemy alone will not make them return to their fields--it will bring them back to our shores.

Labels:

Posted by: Michael / 2/15/2007 11:11:00 PM

2007-02-14

Why I Am A Republican, part VI

"Establishing Justice" requires two things: Freedom, and the Rule of Law.

Ever see that bumper sticker: "There Can Be No Peace Without Justice." What a load of crap. Of course, there can be no peace without justice, but there can be absolutely no justice without freedom. As Mel Gibson once asked on film, "What would you do without your freedom?" Justice implies fairness, impartiality of process and a balancing of the individual with the society--no such implication is possible in situations in which political power is anywhere other than with the people. Only when people are free to choose their leaders as they will is there any hope for justice.

Doubt it? Try a thought experiment: If power is vested in an individual, or in a committee, how will they use that power--what is the primary purpose of their existence? The law of bureaucracies tells us that the primary purpose of such a person/body is to perpetuate itself. So, given the choice between the good of the individual, the good of the state, or the good of the powerful, how will that body act? Of course, in its own interests, regardless of whether it is right or not--fair or not, just or not. Further, if that power appoints others to arbitrate justice in its place, how will they act? As we've seen all over the world, such appointees act to preserve the Powerful, because it both protects their positions and because it prevents them from being arbitrarily executed, and replaced with those who will act in the interest of the Power.

Only when the real power lies with the people freely choosing the Power will those in a position of arbitration act according to fairness and justice. And, certainly, there come times when those freely chosen act unjustly and unfairly--and in Free societies, they get replaced by the people freely choosing better representation.

So once the people choose their leadership, how do they ensure Justice? By establishing a set of rules by which every person must abide to be a part of that Free society. Mostly, this is done by the elected representatives, but in any case, such rules are subject to the review and approval of the people (disapproval equals electoral defeat). These rules, when they are best, are usually fairly simple, straightforward, and obvious; likewise, not terribly subject to "interpretation."

Once these rules become established, THEY THEMSELVES BECOME THE BASIS FOR DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY. Domestic tranquility, we have learned from our own history, is most likely to be disturbed when some members of society live outside the rules--whether by usurping too much power or by being forced outside the rules and not enjoying the same freedoms as everybody else. And, as we have also learned from our own history, often the source of the problem is the people acting in power to subject a segment of the society . . .

Which is why Rule of Law must be an integral part of the arrangement.

If it seems like I'm making a circular argument, it's only because I am. Freedom to choose/elect leads to Rule of Law which leads to Justice which ensures Domestic Tranquility which increases Freedom which strengthens Rule of Law . . . The above are not severable from each other.

Which leads to why this, too, is the strong suit of Republicans. Which party, at its core, is stronger on the Rule of Law? Republicans--we tend to believe in actions and consequences and enforcement of consequences; Democrats tend to believe in interpretations and nuances and severing action from consequence (see "abortion"). Which party is better at Freedom? Republicans--not only do we tend to want to reduce regulation and let free markets act freely and let people act freely (so long as they don't infringe on others' freedom), but we're willing to extend freedom to others in the world. There was a time when Democrats were willing to stand for Freedom, and fight two wars in southeast Asia to preserve freedom; those days are past. Which party is better at Justice? Following the logic, Republicans. Often that Justice is unpleasant, but it is the consequence of choices that leads to it; and only Republicans believe the Law says what the Law says--Democrats want nuances and divining intent and the interpretations of "emanations from the penumbrae".

And the Establishment of Justice, the imposition of the Rule of Law, leads to Domestic Tranquility.

Tomorrow: provide for the Common Defense.

Labels:

Posted by: Michael / 2/14/2007 11:16:00 PM

2007-02-12

Why I Am A Republican, part V

Over the past week, I have attempted to explain why I am the political creature that I am. I have tried to track my genesis from a confirmed, dyed-in-the-wool Moderate Independent into the partisan Republican that I now am. However, I noticed in the process that most of my reasons were actually why I WASN'T a Democrat. So tonight, I will begin to take a more affirmative approach to my belief system.

And it all begins with the Myers-Briggs Personality Test.

Ever taken it? It's one of about a million little "personality tests" out there that asks a series of questions (for example: rank the following--tree, leaf, forest, root) and extrapolates from your answers many things about your personality. The Myers-Briggs is one of the better ones out there, used by businesses and leadership academies to assess a person's strengths and potential weaknesses.

And, no, it wasn't in "Cosmo"

I had to take the test as part of a class I was taking about four years ago. And, to be honest, I don't remember much about it--I think I am an "INTJ", though I can't tell you exactly what each initial stands for.

But the one takeaway I got from this assessment was one that struck pretty close to home, and also goes to explaining why I am a Republican. There was a line in the explanation of this personality type that went something like this: "an INTJ will ruthlessly apply to every decision the question 'does it work?'"

And that does fit me, it seems to me. And that is why I am a Republican--because Republican ideals work.

What is THE core Republican ideal--the one from which the name of the party derives? That the governed are far better suited to make more decisions in their lives than the government. Therefore, government should be limited in size, limited in scope of jurisdiction, and have clearly and easily defined limits on what it can and can not be responsible for. And what, exactly, is the government responsible for?

" . . . .to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

The greatest President ever understood better than any President before or since the deep meaning of "a more perfect union." On this day in which we remember Abraham Lincoln's birthday, let us remember that he believed so strongly in a more perfect union that he was willing to split the Union in two to be able to remake it more perfectly. Let us remember that he knew that a union divided against itself, between owners and slaves, COULD not stand. Let us also remember that he believed so strongly in the correctness of his beliefs that he came to Washington for his inauguration through threats to his life, stayed in his job through the death of a child, the madness of his beloved wife, and his own deep, deep depression, fully expected to lose re-election (in fact, wrote his concession speech just three weeks prior to the election), and eventually was repaid for his troubles with an assassin's bullet.

In more recent history, we see that the ideal of a more perfect union was enacted by the REPUBLICANS in the Congress, who forced the Civil Rights Act through over the filibuster of the southern Democrats, and the obstruction of a southern Democratic governor to extend that vision to everyone. And then, more recently, it has been only Republicans tying to prevent the pendulum from swinging too far from where they were in the 60s, and trying to limit or end race-based decision-making like Affirmative Action. In the America of James Madison and Abe Lincoln, a person gets what they deserved based on their merits; only the Republicans stand for that right now.

I know there are those out there that say that discrimination is still a problem. And, to a degree, I do not disagree with that. But if discrimination against non-whites is a problem, why are Asians not considered a protected class any more? Their history is tragic as any minority: brought as slaves to build the railroads, subjected to horrible discrimination, and even systematically rounded up and incarcerated just 60 years ago based strictly on their ethnicity. So why are Affirmative Action programs not extended to them? Why are test scores not disaggregated to show the "achievement gap" between whites and Asians?

Simple: the Asians have been successful. The only "achievement gap" that pertains to Asians is the one in which they dance circles around every ethnicity in educational tests. They don't demand special breaks because they don't need them: they simply earn what they want, and don't make excuses.

Is there still discrimination? Almost certainly. Does Affirmative Action do anything to solve it? Almost certainly not--in fact, I think it AA may contribute to divisions between the races.

I think Lincoln would find it unconscienable that we have decided to give special considerations to people based strictly on their skin tone and their lack of success. Is America better as a "melting pot," in which all become a part of the fabric of the nation working together, or is America better as a salad, in which all remain separate and act accordingly?

Which model makes a "more perfect union"? Which Party stands for that model?

But just as importantly, do you actually believe that a larger federal government, with increased regulation and confiscatory policies would contribute to that union? Or do you believe that a more perfect union is the responsibility of individual citizens doing their share to improve their lots in life, and by raising the standard for everyone around them?

That gets to the Republican ideal: a larger government tends to drive home the imperfections of the union, to highlight them, to make them worse, and to create bureaucracies to address them without ever making them better. And ask yourself, (this most recent Congress notwithstanding) which party's ideals WORK to achieve a better union?

Clearly, my answer is the Republican Party.

Tomorrow: establishing Justice and Ensuring Domestic Tranquility. Here's a surpise: they are the same thing!

Labels:

Posted by: Michael / 2/12/2007 10:35:00 PM

2007-02-10

Why I Am A Republican, part IV

And now . . . The 2000 Florida Recount fiasco.

As I indicated once before, I started paying attention to the recount in the first hours of it--that is, at about 2 in the morning on election night, right about the time when Al Gore retracted his concession.

At first, I could sort of see the point of Gore not conceding--it was very close, the margin of error was almost absurdly small, and the possibility that absentee ballots would change the outcome was very real.

But within a few days it became apparent that the real arguments had nothing to do with how the ballots actually played out, and everything to do with the Democrats wresting the power away from the voters. I think the first sign that mischief was afoot was the presence of Jesse Jackson on the ground the next day, with busloads of lawyers. It certainly smelled like there was a plan already in place to contest the results, regardless of what the ballots showed. Jackson, of course, fell back on the most predictable racist hyperbole--cops were driving through black neighborhoods, and such.

And then the real absurdities began--as if Jesse Jackson weren't absurd enough. When the Democrats started claiming that the problem was that the ballots were too complicated to understand for the elderly, they lost me completely. Never mind that that very same ballot is the one I had been voting with in every election of my life, with nary a moment of confusion; never mind that the unfortunate elderly had been using that very same ballot for years, without anybody ever raising a stink; but to label ALL elderly as too stupid to figure out a ballot--no, wait, that's not right; to label all elderly DEMOCRATS as too stupid to figure out the ballot struck me as the total depth of ridiculousness. When the lawyers started arguing that a "dimpled chad"--a ballot whose punch hole seems to be marked, but failed to dislodge from the ballot--should be counted as a vote took the silliness to a whole different level. In fact, I remember one night NBC News' Brian Williams attempted, on-air, to create a dimpled chad, and failed on six attempts. Nonetheless, the Democrats stuck to the party line that either their voters were too dumb to pick the right hole or too weak to create the right hole.

Just for the purposes of shortening this post, I'll skip over how the Democrats called an elected official of Florida, and a woman, of being a Soviet-style "Commisar;" and I'll skip over the silly Democratic "outrage" over the highly intimidating khaki-clad young republicans asserting their right to oversee elements of the recount which the Democrats wanted done in secret; I'll even skip over the Florida Supreme Court taking a case before it had been appealed, needing to overturn four prior courts' decisions to make their rulings, then ignoring an order by the U.S. Supreme Court, and then finding for the Gore campaign in a split decision that one of the dissenting Justices predicted would "forever mark the reputation of this Court." Because what really pushed me over the edge was another dirty trick.

Imagine my surprise.

At one point during the fiasco, two Democratic operatives sent out a memo to all of their campaign workers around the state of Florida with instructions on how to recognized elements of a military absentee ballot that would make it disqualifyable. In other words, the Democrat's next move was to try to silence the voice of the men and women tasked with defending this country, and doing so away from their home--in many cases, thousands of miles away from home. About three days after news of this memo leaked, the Democrats trotted out a ridiculous justification about "we think every vote should count"--never apologizing, never saying "of course this was wrong, we should make every effort to guarantee that our soldier's votes count," never retracting. And it took them THREE DAYS to figure out that it was a mistake and issue any kind of statement!

Two things about this bothered me . . . well, okay, the list of things that bother me about this is endless, but two things really stand out. One, my brother was one of those absentee ballots that the Democrats tried to disqualify (I think--I can never keep straight where and when he has been). And two, after eight years of a Democratic Commander-in-Chief who had a history of speaking disparagingly about the U.S. military, the Democrats actually took steps to lower the democratic value of the U.S. military.

Please, somebody tell me how that first meeting of a President Gore with the Joint Chiefs of Staff was supposed to play out after this.

But, more importantly, it showed that the Democrats were willing to use ANYTHING--even the men and women in uniform--as pawns in their quest to obtain power. There may be a reason that the military absentee ballots broke better than 2 to 1 in favor of the Republican candidate.

At that point, I vowed to NEVER again vote for a Democrat--on any level--until a prominent Democrat disavowed that act and apologized for it. To date, now six years later, none has.

Which explains why I will never be a Democrat; tomorrow, I'll get more into why I AM a Republican. Here's a hint: it comes down to one simple question.

Labels:

Posted by: Michael / 2/10/2007 11:14:00 PM

2007-02-09

Why I Am A Republican, part III [addended]

It took quite a while for me to start paying attention to the 2000 election. I knew, of course, that Al Gore would be the Dem nominee--the prince-in-waiting, the "best prepared candidate ever." But the Republicans were pretty hard to figure, and I wasn't paying attention to the primaries. Of course, by early summer it was obvious that it would George W. Bush, and the choice was there.

In the end, after listening to everything the two men said, and paying strangely close attention to the debates, I arrive at the decision to support George W. Bush. My decision was largely based on two things:

:tax policy--Gore seemed to believe that the money the government collected was their right, and the disposition thereof was best left to the "experts" in the government; Bush, on the other hand, worked from the assumption that the money belonged to the people, and the the government had a duty to use it responsibly, and return to the people what it didn't need.

:"the working poor"--I got so sick of hearing this phrase from Gore that it made me ill; I have been working my whole life--in middle school I worked to qualify to get into advanced classes; in high school I worked to get grades to get a scholarship and get accepted to a good school while I was working a part-time job to save money while I was working to be a better trumpet player so I could pursue my ultimate goals; in college I worked to pay for college while working to get good grades to get other scholarships while working to build a resume that might get me a decent shot at a good job; ever since I've been working, often picking up jobs during the summer to afford a better life and a future for my family. But, somehow, in the liberal world, the only people who count as "working" are those who work with their hands and their backs, and that mostly only applies to people who never rose to management or who lived at or below poverty; and there is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with that--just don't imply that because I started doing the hard work when I was 12 that I no longer work. So, yeah, the assumptions behind Gore's populist platform turned me off--"targeted tax cuts" that only Robin Hood could hit don't do much for me.

And then I started watching the campaign. Whew, what a mess.

I had a pretty good idea a couple weeks out that it would be close, but I thought W had a pretty good hold on the election. And then the Dems dropped the dirty trick--seriously, in what world does a 25-year old incident constitute a pivotal consideration? But it did.

And my anger at the liberal machine began to grow.

I watched the coverage on election night VERY closely--close enough that I knew that the very early call of Florida for Gore had to be a crock. Honestly, at the time they made the call, it was something like 7% of precincts reporting and Bush out in front 52-47. And my anger at the liberal machine grew still more.

Eventually, of course, the networks reversed themselves; this was at about 1130 pm local time. But I sensed it wasn't over, so I fell asleep on the couch watching the coverage. I guess it was about 2 in the morning when Gore reversed himself on his concession, and the games began.

And my anger at the liberal machine grew . . .

And THEN there was the Florida recount . . .

tomorrow.

[ADDENDUM] It occurs to me that I forgot two fairly significant considerations in my choice to support George W. Bush in 2000: Israel and the U.S.S. Cole.

I watched with horror, as I think did most Americans, as the summer intifada played out in Israel in 2000. To me, the idea that Bill Clinton had basically strong-armed the Israelis into offering Yasser Arafat almost everything he asked for, only to be repaid by submachine guns at wedding parties and bombs in pizzarias, laid lie to everything the liberals held dear. "Talk, not guns; negotiation not confrontation . . . " blah blah blah. NO foreign leader occupied as much of Bill Clinton's time as Yasser Arafat, and as soon as he finally gets what he wants he initiates one of the bloodiest summers in recent memories. And, of course, that folly isn't enough for the liberals; no, no, no, they had to add to the problem by blaming the Israelis for their own dead. While a lot of the world began to understand that Arafat's refusal to accept "yes" for an answer defined the problem as existential for Israel, the Left and the Clinton/Gore administration blithely continued to preach at the Israelis and demur towards the most anti-Semitic body in the western world: the U.N. It was embarrasing.

Add to that the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in the Fall of 2000, and the picture began to develop pretty clearly of what happens when the U.S. abdicates its authority in the world to the feckless and impotent United Nations: a place more dangerous for Americans than in our worst "war-mongering" years. My brother is a pilot for the U.S. Navy, and 17 of his brothers-in-arms went down on that day. That struck a little closer to home than I care to think about, and I'm quite convinced that, though Clinton was in no way to blame directly, the idea of approaching terrorism as a law enforcement problem and only with the approval of our "allies" contributed to that day.

As I mentioned once before, the basic liberal tripe and cliche about the world failed both the Israelis and our own sailors in the buildup to the 2000 election. So, as Al Gore campaigned on a platform of "peace and prosperity," I could only laugh at the cluelessness.

And, of course, support the oher guy.

Labels:

Posted by: Michael / 2/09/2007 12:14:00 AM

2007-02-06

Why I Am a Republican, part II

In last night's post, I gave some basic history of my life in an effort to provide a basis for understanding the underpinnings of my belief system. I left off at about the point my first child was born.

Which, if you've never had children, changes the world in pretty dramatic ways--especially if that child is a girl.

I have a friend who used to joke that he never, ever, used to cry at anything, especially movies! Fried Green Tomatoes? nothing. Forever Young? blank. Rudy? maybe, but not likely. After his son was born? still nothing, though Rudy and Field of Dreams might inspire a little tear. But THEN he had girls. After that, Teminator was a full box of Kleenex experience.

I suppose he exaggerates, but not by a whole lot. Being responsible for a little girl is a life-altering experience for a man--every boy is viewed with, at best, suspicion, and for every danger you hear about on the evening news, there is an imaginary scenario by which your child is a victim, and you have a duty to think through a proper response which would keep your child safe.

This, it must be said, is also about the same time that two cowards opened fire in a local high school and killed 12 other students and one teacher before taking their own lives. Of course, picturing my own child in that situation, I would have wanted the police to move in quickly, identify the shooters, and SHOOT FIRST . . .ask questions later.

This is about the point in my life that all the basic liberal tripe about "understanding" and
"victims of society" started ringing most hollow. After six years as a teacher, and now a father, it occurred to me that most of the problems in society have, at their core, not a "lack of understanding and compassion", but a lack of discipline and consequences.

And as I looked across the political spectrum, there was a clear difference between the two parties on this point--and not just on the issue of crime. Republicans wanted actions and enforceable/enforced consequences for transgressions, Democrats seemed to want therapy. Republicans wanted serial, violent pedophiles put behind bars permanently with, perhaps, surgical . . .um, correction; Democrats wanted same pedophiles in "interventions" where they could gradually be put back into general society.

Republicans wanted al-Qaeda bombed into oblivion after WTC I and the East African Embassy bombings; Democrats wanted an indictment, and an "engagement" with Islamic extremists.

And realizing that fundamental difference between the two parties was very important to defining why I am a Republican today.

Tomorrow, . . .the 2000 election.

Labels:

Posted by: Michael / 2/06/2007 11:58:00 PM

2007-02-05

Why I Am A Republican, part I

First, I should say that I suppose there is a bit of a genetic predisposition towards the Republican Party. My father is a life-long Republican, and my mother, though she only in the last fifteen years or so changed her official affiliation, was always of a conservative bent. It was probably only natural--they both being devout Catholics from birth, and my father being a veteran of the Korean War, I think they saw very few options on either social issues or national security. And though I do have siblings who are more center-left to liberal, I think the household, as a whole, was pretty conservative.

My first memories of the life of politics was in fifth grade. I had become slightly aware of the Iran Hostage Crisis, and I followed the news just enough to know that the economy was in a complete shambles, and that the mood of the country was surly. So I, really not knowing a darn thing about anything, supported Ronald Reagan for President.

So I had that going for me.

But the life politic still sort of escaped me. I don't remember paying too much attention as I was going through school. I remember Reagan being dismissed by most as a buffoon and a war-monger, but he was brilliant in front of a camera, and he kept managing to out-maneuver his opponents--including the Soviet Union. So, it seemed to me that his detractors were the buffoons, while he was doing a great job turning the economy around and improving America's position in the world.

And, I gotta say, the Democrats managed during this time to put forward two of the most singularly uninspiring Presidential candidates the country has ever seen. So that helped.

But I am a big fan of Winston Churchill; and, in fact, I held true to one of his tenets--I was NOT heartless when I was 25. Comng out of college I tilted slightly to the Left, though in Boulder that put me somewhere close to Moussolini on the spectrum. Actually, it was many of the excesses of the goofy Left that pushed me away from that ideology. From dirty, smelly shanty-towns in the middle of campus to preachy Socialist trust-fund babies, the plain and obvious hypocrisy of the Left was in full bloom on the campus. And, in my last semester of college, the first Iraq War started . . .and ended.

And so, as I began my adult life, I was uncomfortable claiming any particular Party--I chose to be Unaffiliated, and to describe myself as a Moderate. I valued public education and thought government had a role in propping up the lowly in society, but I couldn't accept the idea of abortion on demand and thought low taxes and a strong military were good things.

I even held to that philosophy throughout the 90's. Most elections I would deliberately split my ballot if I didn't know the candidates, and I voted for Bill Clinton twice (I think) and Democrat Roy Romer for Governor. In the case of voting for Clinton, I thought he presented a better vision to the table than the non-vision of GHWBush ( I was too stupid to realize that stewardship can be a vision of its own), and Bob Dole just never connected for me.

But my first child was born in 1996, and the world around me became a whole different place. And that started my slow move towards the GOP, which will be the subject of my next post.

Labels:

Posted by: Michael / 2/05/2007 11:16:00 PM

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?