Mike over at the Big Stick and I have had a little argument about the role of social conservatism (or social liberalism) in the current state of the Republican Party.

In a recent post he talks about how one camp within the GOP has not taken any blame: the national security conservatives. He then goes on to say that it is because of that national security conservatives and how the have prosecuted the war in Iraq that the GOP is in such a sad shape. He then adds that social liberals and fiscal conservatives should place their anger at the national security conservatives who basically got us into this mess.

I have to disagree. I do think that the misadventure in Iraq is a factor for why the party is in such a mess, but it is not the only reason. What has happened in 2006 and 2008 was an “epic fail” of conservatism in America. It failed on all accounts: socially and fiscally as well as in foreign policy.

I think sometimes each of the different parts of the conservative family wants to place all the fault on one area. I know that I tend to focus on social conservatism, and Mike focuses on national security. But what is needed is not just a little remodeling: conservatism needs a total teardown and rebuild.

Republicans need to build trust on fiscal matters again after 8 years of reckless spending. They also need to find a way to be more accepting of those who are more socially liberal and more willing to accept those who are gay, those who support gay marriage and abortion rights. Finally, they must find a way to not go on wild goose chases in foreign lands and ways to work with other nations in achieving objectives (kind of like what Bush the Senior did in the Gulf War).

Everyone’s sacred cow will have to be sacrificed in rejuvinating the party and the philosophy. Scapegoats are not going to solve the problem.

What I like about Republicans as they prepare for 2010 is their ability to offer new ideas, to put alternatives on the table, to meet philosophical challenges head on with … oops, its the Blue Dog Democrats doing that. Where are the Republicans?

A June 29th report from the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) outlines how the progressive and conservative branch of the Democratic party, AKA the Blue Dog Democrats, are butting heads with their liberal brethren over health care, and energy, and all the things that my party should be weighing in with opinions and comprehensive alternative plans (i.e., details included).

The WSJ reported on June 29th that Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), “… who has a long history of irritating fellow Democrats by deviating from party orthodoxy, is working hard to forge a health bill that can attract Republican support.”

Talk about a bipartisan moment, Senator Baucus’ plan slashes the Obama Health Care Plan to $1 trillion from $1.6 trillion, in part by trimming subsidies for the uninsured. Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) contributed to the Baucus plan of by creating a nonprofit cooperatives to offer health insurance, rather than a public plan. These guys should be Republicans … or maybe we should be what they are?

Anyone interested in becoming Red Dog Republicans? That which unites us and the Blue Dogs makes us Americans, seeking answers for a united America — rather than a permanently divided set of colors and dogma. If these Blue Dogs are reaching out their hands to seek our support shouldn’t we be at the table? (Say Yes!)

The energized give-and-take of ideas has even led to growth within the conservative “Blue Dog Coalition” — 52 members in the House — a group of mostly Southern Democrats concerned about fiscal responsibility.

Another Blue Dog-like group, the “New Democrats” with a pro-business agenda have grown their House membership to 68 from 60 since the last election.

So our guys, the Republican Class of 2010, should be thinking that only great things are ahead if the pro-business, pro-fiscal responsibility sector of the Democratic party are growing in numbers … oops, Republican popularity dropped another 2 percentage points over the last month or so. Gosh darn it! What’s up with that?

Thinking to myself that maybe our guys just weren’t getting their point across — not that I can recall any recent points or ideas made by our guys — I went to the source of all knowledge: Google.

Lo and behold the Republicans did offer some ideas in mid-June … so why can’t I recall that? (Must be senility … although I do pay attention and look for this stuff). CNN provided coverage and outlined the Republican 2-page plan (should be easy to understand, eh?!).

One of the Republican point men for the health care alternative plan is Representative Dave Camp (R-MI), with support and ideas from Republican progressives like Representative Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Eric Cantor (R-VA) — although in an interview last week Cantor could not explain what this plan actually did, or how it worked.

Seems to me that we Republicans are getting pummeled on issues that we should be winning on, and the best champions thereof. But pesky details … or plans lacking details or support from more than a handfull of Republicans … just isn’t a plan.

Could it be that to be successful we first need to take on some sacred cows within our own party? Could it be that we progressives are more concerned with being ravaged by the right wing of our own party than any concern for doing battle with the other party.

Could it be that we have followed the party line so closely since 1994 that we do not know how to debate issues without first knowing what the party line is?

Could it be that it’s Red Dog time?

Just a thought.

From Ian Tanner:

The GOP is on pace to be a permanent minority within the next thirty years. Yeah, I said it and its true. The dynamics are changing in this country and the GOP is about three steps behind and walking backwards. For my party to stay prevalent and be the beacon of new ideas and solutions; we have to refocus our efforts and ideas for two particular demographics.

• Young People (18 to 25) – My generation is in no rush to run and join the ranks of the GOP with a lack of leadership, new ideas and solutions, or the party that seems to just give the younger generation the finger. This generation is an active generation, we are active in our community, we like community service, we support helping others. That’s partly why my generation is attracted to the Obama-machine. He talked the talk about giving back to your community, doing what you can to help others, and he even has walked the walk to back it up. My generation does not distrust government. That’s a big one for many republicans to understand. Government is not the boogey-man to the young kids anymore these days. Government is just another avenue to help people, especially those who need it the most.

When it comes to personal politics, my generation is much more in favor of socially liberal record. One of the biggest issues is Gay Marriage. Im not going to give my opinion on the subject just yet, that’s another post in the work but I will say civil unions are a joke. Even Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty understands the different dynamic in the younger generation on gay marriage. Just last night on CNN he said:

“I think there’s a lot of data that says young people feel differently about that issue than older people,” the governor said. “That’s something that we’re going to have to come to terms with down the road”

…The GOP needs to alter its approach in order to stay viable. A stronger libertarian approach to social issues such as gay rights will entice many younger people to take a second look at the GOP, encourage an efficient government which invests in this county and people will have the younger generation wanting to become a part of the party. Support a practical immigration reform which gives immigrants the opportunity to become citizens are only the building blocks to resurrecting the party of Teddy Roosevelt, Abe Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan to the eyes of the younger generation. It has to start sooner rather than later or the GOP will be on life-support in future elections.

Read the whole thing.

From Bruce Bartlett:

The moment the cap-and-trade bill passed yesterday many of my conservative Facebook friends began posting extreme denunciations of the 8 Republican “traitors” who voted for the “largest tax increase in history.” (Actually, it’s not anywhere close, but that’s another issue.) Almost all of them felt that these congressmen should immediately be purged from the Republican Party.

If any of my friends had bothered to try and understand why these Republicans voted contrary to gods of talk radio who now control the Republican Party they would see that they were simply reacting to the demands of their constituents. Since when did it become unacceptable to do what one’s constituents want a member of Congress to do?

The fact is that Obama carried the districts of all but one of these Republicans—in most cases substantially. (Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey is the exception.) For example, Rep. Mark Kirk’s Illinois district went for Obama by a 61% to 38% margin.

The point is that these Republicans mostly represent marginal districts that will almost certainly go to a Democrat if they are subjected to intense opposition from within the GOP. I strongly suspect that should the Club for Growth come after them one or two will probably follow Sen. Arlen Specter and switch rather than fight. (Rep. John McHugh of New York essentially has already switched by accepting Obama’s nomination to be secretary of the Army.)

By contrast, a quick survey of liberal web sites found no demands that the 44 Democrats who voted against the legislation be purged or punished in any way. This is why the Democrats control Congress and why Republicans won’t for a long time to come.

A Challenge to Progressive and traditionally Conservative Republicans: if my thesis below is basically correct then what specific policies should we pursue to move the American worker and economy forward?

---

My assumption and educated guess is that America’s economic recovery is still far off, despite the occasional cheery talk of recovery being just around the corner.

Let’s first define recovery: the restoration of levels of employment to pre-recession levels, and increased employment to account for the natural growth in our population.

Keeping in mind that we need to generate 100,000 jobs per month just to keep up with population growth, we will easily recognize the beginning of economic jobs recovery when we see numbers like those below.

+300K Jobs/Month
Recovery Period:Â 2 Years, 1 Month

+250K Jobs/Month
Recovery Period: 2 Years, 9 Months

+225K Jobs/Month
Recovery Period: 3 Years, 4 Months

+200K Jobs/Month
Recovery Period: 4 Years, 2 Months

+150K Jobs/Month
Recovery Period: 8+ Years

Critical Assumption: the recovery period numbers above are only accurate if we were to stop hemorrhaging jobs today. Or soon. Jobs loss may well continue into early or mid-2010; if so then a full recovery could well take a decade or longer.

The World is Flat and Spiky!

In his book The World Is Flat, Thomas Friedman suggests that jobs fall into three categories.

Below are my interpretation and names for Friedman’s job categories:

Community Anchor Jobs: these folks have jobs that require physical presence. Salaries are very dependent upon supply and demand of local talent; expect flat salaries.

Can Be Done Elsewhere/Anywhere Jobs: any job that is information-based can probably be done elsewhere, and done cheaper. If these jobs are done locally then pressure will be on to minimize salaries — or else to move the job elsewhere. A surprisingly large number of jobs fall in this category.

SME Subject Matter Experts: SMEs are a hybrid of the above two categories. A true SME will have the best employment prospects over the next decade just so long as they follow the jobs. Mobility and the ability to work remotely is essential. This may be the only category where salaries continue to rise.

Often posed as a counter-theory to Friedman is Richard Florida’s The World is Spiky thesis.

Florida’s view is that dense clusters of creative and talented people can reach a critical mass (spikes) that causes flow of economic activity to become become concentrated — jobs and wealth are attracted to these spikes. Yes, it all sounds so academic.

Why this matters: our current economic situation will be so prolonged that industry will naturally evolve to account for doing more with less, and working in the most efficient manner and/or location and/or method possible. There will be an expectation by industry that we cannot return to pre-2007 economic structures. (Think about it: Foreign auto manufacturers are actually building car plants in the USA while GM and Chrysler are busy declaring bankruptcy). Efficiencies may occur which are not readily capable of supporting the pre-2007 workforce numbers without a physical shift in the geography of the workforce also occuring.

I view both theories as complementary, and both are right. The future of the American workforce is moving into unchartered territory. Waiting for the end of the recession and a return to normalcy is both misguided and dangerous. The future arrived yesterday. The recession will be prolonged and we will emerge a very different workforce — and there will be both big winners and big losers.

Globalization v3.0

Globalization v1 pitted the resources of one country against another. Version 2 saw the rise of ever larger mulitnational corporations. Globalization v3 allows cities, regions and individuals to compete on a larger scale than ever previously possible.

Globalization and the forces of The World is Flat brought great wealth to India. New ways and methods of working were developed. Perhaps most importantly is that the recession will cause parts of the American economy to reflect and to Indianize their economic base. Not a quick and easy task to be sure. To be competitive also requires a workforce and the local economic base to consider changes in standards and methods of living — both at the personal and community level. America 2010+ cannot afford to live and work the same as in the decade prior, probably a good thing.

Iowa has been quietly laboring away at reinventing itself for some time now. A recent Iowa television news report lamented that unemployment had hit 5.8% (1 in 17 unemployed, May 2009), which is actually among the lowest rates within the USA.

An educated workforce, an aggressive outreach plan to business, and a statewide focus on preparing Iowa communities to be knowledge competitive has made it possible for Iowa to take business away from other American locales. Iowa is both Flat and Spiky (the spikes may be small but they are growing).

If you think back to the three categories of jobs listed above, Iowa has focused on all three categories. And the state’s current unemployment level shows the results.

Why this matters: there has always been competition for what the other fellow has. Recent trends make it possible for Americans to become more competitive, even to gain a significant edge on the competition. But for the first time perhaps globalization is possible where the threat to one part of the economy is not just India or China, but Iowa, Georgia and Utah and any other city, state or region that moves to embrace the flattened leveled playing field of globalization v3 and to embrace spikiness (if they have any – those that don’t:Â bad news).

The following is from Jim DePeso, the policy director for Republicans for Environmental Protection:

The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), which the House is scheduled to vote upon this Friday, totals some 1,200 pages.

In a perfect world, the bill would have taken up no more than 10 pages. It would set a price on carbon, sell all emissions allowances to a manageable set of large fossil fuel producers and importers, and return the proceeds to the taxpayers in the form of rebates or tax reductions.

It would be easy to explain: We must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by putting a price on carbon and driving energy markets towards low-carbon alternatives. To keep people whole and build support for the program, we must return the proceeds of higher energy prices to the taxpayers.

We don’t live in a perfect world. Getting a handle on climate change means reworking a highly capital-intensive energy system that depends on abundant and portable fossil fuels that, unfortunately, emit a great deal of heat-trapping carbon dioxide.

That makeover will affect every nook and cranny of the world’s biggest, most complex economy. It will affect the lives of people, communities, and businesses in a thousand and one ways, so it’s entirely unsurprising that accommodations for umpteen interests were made in the House bill.

As a result, the cap-and-trade system that the bill would establish to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is one of many moving parts. If the bill is enacted and implemented, there is little doubt that there will be unintended and unforeseen consequences that follow from its complexity.

When all is said and done, however, climate change will not go away. It is here. It will become bigger and more difficult and costly to deal with the longer that we wait to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

The conservative course of action is to face facts and to take prudent actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We owe it to our country and our country’s future citizens to be good stewards.

It’s time to act, before Congress moves on to other issues and the distractions of the 2010 election cycle set in. For all its faults, the American Clean Energy and Security Act is the only game in town. The House should pass it and send it on its way to the Senate, where there will be further opportunities to improve the bill.

From the Wall Street Journal:

South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis made a name for himself in the late 1990s as one of Bill Clinton’s most zealous pursuers, an impeachment “manager” who attacked the moral failings of the president with a gusto that earned him a devoted following in the staunchly conservative “Upstate” of conservative South Carolina.

But with his governor now felled by similar temptations, Inglis sees an opening for the Republican Party, a chance to “lose the stinking rot of self-righteousness” and “to understand we are all in need of some grace.”

This is not “Bob Inglis 1.0,” the one that was a “self-righteous” expletive, he said in an interview with Washington Wire today. It is a Bob Inglis that is, if anything, more Christian, more attuned to the Gospels, he said.

His last conversation with Gov. Mark Sanford was about the hundreds of millions of dollars in stimulus money that the uncompromising governor was trying to refuse for his impoverished state. Inglis had voted against President Barack Obama’s $787 billion stimulus bill, ardently, he said.

But he said he told the governor, now that it was approved, “for goodness sake, take the money.” It might just help.

Indeed, Sanford’s political fall could be a saving grace for what remains of his governorship, Inglis suggested. “This may be an opportunity to extend a little grace to other people, to realize that maybe it’s not 100% this way or that way,” Inglis said.

Unfortunately for him, the attitudes of “Bob Inglis 2.0” are not all that popular among many of the voters who once adored him. He now has five primary candidates fighting his re-election, and another conservative independent, should he clear the primaries.

“They want me to walk around saying I am the paragon of virtue,” Inglis said. “But that is unrecognizable to the Gospels.”

Amen.

I was born a Son of the South. There has always been personal pride in that. That informed me. It guided me. It gave me a sense of right and wrong.

Of course, I was also born a Democrat. Back in 1956 Virginians had to chose to become Republicans, but they were almost always literally born as Democrats. The very term ‘Republican’ was so strange, so foreign … perhaps even a little repulsive.

My family moved to Florida when I started the 2nd Grade. Florida was uber-Democratic. The first Republican was not elected to state office until 1978. You could be liberal or conservative, or just about anything just so long as you were a Democrat.

Like many children of the 1960s I was politically active at an early age: 12. My first presidential campaign was George Wallace’s 1968 bid for the White House. We took #10 coffee cans and covered them in Wallace stickers and went house-to-house handing out literature and asking for donations — I was especially good at getting donations — and later marketing: in 4th Grade, I once sold all of a friend’s alloted Girl Scout cookies (she was sick) … and I’m a boy, or was … now I’m a cuddly 53 year old if the truth be told.

Then in 1972 I again went to work for the Wallace presidential campaign at the age of 16. Florida, my Florida, was so conservative that Wallace won every county in the state. And there was such pride that he kicked butt in places like Massachusetts and Wisconsin and Michigan. Then he was shot down in Laurel, Maryland.

The shooting of Wallace signaled the end of the Democratic party for many years to come. Wallace made Nixon and Reagan possible. We conservatives had no place to go. The Democratic party left us.

In both 1968 and 1972, Nixon offered ‘law and order’ at a time when American cities seemed under siege. Nixon offered a way out of Vietnam when the evening news daily contained images of hundreds of Americans dying in combat. Nixon offered pragmatism when the economy buckled in the early 1970s and the marketplace failed to deliver solutions.

But I was born a Democrat! After Wallace’s shooting, I joined ‘Democrats for Nixon’ and that is how I proudly campaigned as a good Southerner. I was not about to taint myself with mingling with actual Republicans. And I don’t think that they wanted much to do with us either.

Nixon the Great and Fallen

Nixon did what no other Republican could: he opened the door to eventual acceptance of the Republican Party as a viable option with his Southern Strategy — and the South was absolutely sold on Republicans when Ronald Reagan talked about a bright and shining city on a hill, destiny, and traditional moral values.

Nixon delivered on the great historical achievements of war and economics and so many other things, but his moral character failed us. The means do not justify the end. Not then. Not now.

A somewhat new Nixon emerged this week with recently released materials from the Nixon Library: a Nixon that thought abortion possibly justified for interracial children, Jews having a “death wish” and causing a good deal of the anti-Semitism against them, and pressure on the South Vietnamese to sign an unenforceable peace treaty. It is a kindness to say that Nixon was product of his time, at least in hindsight. In truth, Nixon is Nixon — ever so focused on the strategic objective that his assessment of the lives of ordinary people seems harsh and uninvolved. Nixon was Realpolitik; collateral damage happens.

My life as a Democrat came to an end on November 16th, 1979 when Ronald Reagan announced his run for the presidency. Here was someone worth following: I knew him as child from the movies, and his ‘Death Valley Days’ wisdom of what we learned from that night’s story always seemed so … well, wise. He may not have spoken with depth but he spoke with great eloquence as an American who loved his country and its people. Reagan was involved. The lives of ordinary people mattered. And he didn’t care what party you belonged to (… except maybe the Communists).

The Moral of the Story

Political success may take generations to achieve, and just moments to lose.

Loss of trust cannot be overcome by a six month retooling of party banners and a few new slogans.

Just as I have evolved (progressive and conservative but not right wing, proudly Southern but not racist, strongly principled but not dogmatic) the Republican party has evolved, although in an opposite direction. In some ways it is 1974 all over again — maybe worse: many Republicans now seem more focused on returning to power than earning the right to govern. Our moral compasses are certainly in disarray and discredited when a Republican governor (Sanford, R-SC) and senator (Ensign, R-NV) both admit to extramarital affairs — all the more damaging since they were rising stars and possible 2012 candidates, and another Nevadan, Governor Jim Gibbons (R-NV) is being divorced by his wife for allegedly having a double affair. Evolution like this we don’t need.

But what bothers me most is that not a single idea worth remembering has emerged from national Republican leadership since our defeat at the hands of a group that would have trouble organizing a birthday party.

As a business leader and as someone involved in my community, what we need most are a new generation of Republican leaders that truly do put America first. We need to walk the talk.

We need to show that family values and traditional Republican principles have meaning.

I look forward to supporting the next generation of progressives where and when family, community and country are what comes first in our leader’s decisions.

Shay over at Booker Rising, has this to say on my prior post:

I guess Mr. Sanders didn’t see the recent Washington
Post-ABC News poll showing that most American voters prefer ’smaller government with fewer services’ to ‘larger government with more services’. This Big Government moderate-liberal Republicanism ain’t gonna cut it. Government cannot lift poverty because it doesn’t create wealth. Black Americans support
Big Government more than American society in general – I remember a poll a few years ago showing almost 70% of black Americans supported a larger government, and only 22% preferring a smaller government – and we see the results in too many of our neighborhoods.

Hmmm…leaving aside the poll numbers for a moment, I have to wonder a few things:

First, what is meant by “smaller government?” Republicans have been tossing that phrase around for years, but we have never adequately defined it. Does it mean government has to do things more efficiently, or does it mean it only does a few things?

Second, I think Shay is guilty of putting forth a false choice that has bedeviled Republicans: either we have Big Government or Small Government. Arthur Larson, an aide to President Eisenhower and the author of the book, A Republican Looks at His Party said that the modern Republicanism espoused by Ike faced two schools of thought: the “1896 School” that believed government should do very little and business should be free to do as it pleases, and the “1936 School” which placed huge trust in government, but was generally anti-business. Larson wanted to put forth that Modern Republicanism was all about “balance” being pro-business and also seeing that government can and should do some things to create freedom among Americans.

For example, Shay notes that government can’t lift people out of poverty because it doesn’t create wealth. Well, I wasn’t trying to say that government can create wealth. If the government comes in and just offers cash assistance to the poor, you have then made a population dependent on the dole. That isn’t good for anyone.

However, government could finds ways to help people start small businesses which does create wealth. I’m not in favor of the typical liberal style of large programs that create more dependence than wealth, but the “small government” crowd doesn’t even recognize poverty or what should be done help alleviate it. Government can’t create wealth, but it can create spaces where wealth can happen. What government can do is create policies that spur freedom and independence, instead of depair or depenedence.

So, instead of doing too much or doing nothing, why don’t we try to be smart in how we approach this and other issues?

E.D. Kain from the League of Ordinary Gentleman has this to say about how conservatives view government:

…one flaw that permeates modern conservatism which is this deep, deep distrust of all things having to do with the state. This, coupled with far too much faith in markets and corporations and so forth have led to a “shrinking” of government by essentially just contracting out government duties to private firms. In all fairness, this was also a central practice of Bill Clinton who famously claimed that the days of big government were over. Of course, when you shrink government by simply paying private firms to do government work you’re not really shrinking or limiting it at all. What you are doing is displaying a deep distrust of all things political. And this makes it very hard, I would argue, for conservatives to govern competently. Which, conversely, leads to growth of government in ways that simply don’t make sense.

This is why the last eight years were such a complete mess, and why by contrast I’d say that George Bush Sr. was such an effective president in comparison albeit a very under appreciated one. Conservatives have always believed in limited government, but lately it seems as though limited is not good enough. Government of any sort save perhaps defense is decried as evil or ineffective, and any move toward providing social services of any kind is demonized as statist or socialist or worse.

As I’ve indicated before, I am somewhat perplexed by the viewpoint of many Republicans towards government. One can be concerned about how big government is and if it is working effectively, but many on the right seem to go farther, viewing anything short of the military as setting us on the road to serfdom.

But the fact is, most people want a government that does things. It doesn’t mean that government should run the whole show, but they do want government to DO something. Very few people are voting for politicians to do nothing. In my view, this a reason why the GOP has a hard time courting African Americans: most African Americans who might live in areas filled with harsh deprivation, are looking for the government to help rejuventate their cities. Does, this make African Americans Marxists? Of course not. But they are looking for ways that can help uplift millions of African Americans from poverty and bring economic vitality.

In the January 2009 issue of the Ripon Forum, author Kelly Pipes notes that the Republican party should look to former President Dwight Eisenhower as a model of govering, one that has a positive view of government, but isn’t what one could consider “liberal.” This is what Pipes has to say about how Ike viewed government:

For starters, Ike tried to run the government like a business. Many politicians say this; Ike lived it. He balanced the federal budget three times in his eight years. Yet he understood the difference between spending and investment. While he opposed frivolous programs, he invested heavily in national defense, education, space and transportation. These investments provided huge dividends for the country. The president saw all these programs as part of his Cold War strategy. For example, he had seen the need for better roads in a time of crisis as a young Army officer. The interstate highway system was designed not just to help move people around, but troops and equipment, too.

There is a wonderful pragmatism found in this view of government. Ike actually believed in balancing the budget and did it, but also invested in many government programs like the Interstate Highway System. Ike did not see government as the answer to everything, but he did see it as an effective tool to bring about a better society.

Here in Minnesota, Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty has made a name for himself in not raising taxes, at all. That has won the hearts of many on the right. But it also exposes the many contradictions of modern conservatism. On the one hand, Pawlenty rails against the Democrats and their taxing ways. Fair enough, but he also knows that the state government needs money and that people want good roads and schools. Even the most ardent anti-government conservative wants these things. So, if you are a Republican governor who wants to maintain his anti-tax street creds, but also wants to be seen doing something, what does one do?

Well, in the case of Pawlenty, a lot of odd stuff. He has done accounting shifts, spending cuts, using the “state credit card” in the form of borrowing and even trying to get a state-run casino off the ground. All this to prevent raising taxes.

It’s not that the Dems in Minnesota have any good ideas, most of their plans are the same old, same old- tax the wealthy. What is needed is a better way of tax collection that doesn’t impede the freedom of Minnesotans to grow their economy. In short it is not as much about smaller government but efficient or smarter government.

At the national level, Republicans are not much better. We rail against more taxes, but we know that Americans want their government to fix problems. So, we give the public some of the things they want, like perscription drug benefits, but then don’t bother to find a way to pay for it.

It’s way past time that Republicans grow up in their attitudes toward government. We have to see government not as a leviathan that will destroy us all, but as a tool to help get things done. Again, E.D. Kain:

I think there is much to be said for a conservatism that does not promote any and all deregulation but instead does a good job at weeding out bad regulations, ineffective or damaging taxes, and so forth, and communicates this effectively to the American people. At the same time, conservatives need to distinguish between limited government – the running, in other words, of a tight ship – and all government being bad and unwanted and oppressive. This is simply not true. Government is an extension of society, and while it is prone to abuse and overreach, nevertheless in our system it is also representative and we are all a part of it.

Once we get over our phobia of government, then we might be able to be a real governing party again.

From the Green Conservative:

Climate Change

House Republicans are not acquitting themselves well in the battle over climate legislation. Most are playing political games rather than offering constructive ideas for improving the legislation.

But the climate issue will not go away. The science is solid and the business community is jumping on board the legislation bandwagon. As the late William F. Buckley once noted, “Conservatism implies a certain submission to reality.”

Putting a price on carbon emissions must be the centerpiece of a national climate policy. Republicans interested in working seriously on the issue could start by checking out Congressman Bob Inglis’ proposal to levy a carbon tax and return the proceeds to citizens as payroll tax reductions.

Energy Security

Republicans still not sure about climate change must care about the strategic liabilities of oil dependence and its dangerous implications for national security.

Republicans often describe their energy security plan as “all of the above.” A real “all of the above” energy plan would start with fuel efficiency, since, Dick Cheney’s dismissive attitudes about conservation notwithstanding, no true conservative tolerates waste.

The next step is to push policies that will accelerate use of fuel and drive train technologies, including electric cars, that will get America off the oil dependence treadmill once and for all.

Clean Energy

Electrifying transportation is critical for energy security. But it wouldn’t do to burn more coal in conventional power plants in order to supply electricity for EVs. Aggressive diversification of power generation into low-carbon technologies would reduce emissions, make the electric power system more robust, and offer consumers more freedom of choice.

Republicans should get behind a diversification strategy that includes adopting portfolio standards for renewables, figuring out the spent fuel conundrum for nukes, and cracking the carbon sequestration nut.

Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/blogs/republican/republican-environmental-47061503#ixzz0JHXFynTi&C

From the Huffington Post:

Several weeks back, I was talking with a friend who is politically conservative. I praised a recent Obama bill for remarkably getting bi-partisan support, when he cut me off. “Oh, you mean those two women?” he interrupted, with ridicule dripping from his voice. “They’re not Republicans. They’re Democrats!”

(A quick digression out of fairness. “Those women” was not meant dismissively towards Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. My friend has a memory like a bad sieve. “Those two women” was the best he could do.)

Anyway, I was certain he was exaggerating – but he wasn’t. “Oh, please,” he kept scoffing, “they’re Democrats.”

It was clear that this was something he and his circle had previously settled among themselves. And I realized what the problem was, and it wasn’t obstinance or gross stupidity.

Here’s the thing, I told him. You’ve confused being conservative with being Republican. But there are conservative Democrats. And once there were moderate and even liberal Republicans, too. But you’ve pushed them all out, to the degree that you now can only recognize a Republican as someone who is conservative. And that’s just not the case at all. There are moderate Republicans. And liberal ones.

To my friend’s great credit, he stopped a moment, and then actually agreed. Mind you, I have little doubt that the next day this all was forgotten. Putting life into convenient boxes gives too much comforting order, no matter how false. His loss is that the reality would have been so much more rewarding.

You see, time was when the Grand Old Party did, indeed, have grandness to it. When it was a party of mixed views, and moderates and liberals could be seen as actual Republicans, alongside the conservative party elders.

Continue reading…

There has been an interesting exchange between Freddie deBoer and Mark Thompson over at League of Ordinary Gentlemen on how conservatives approach health care reform. It’s been fascinating because I think it explains why the conservative arguments against major change doesn’t ring very true to the larger public.

I don’t always agree with Freddie, but this has been on of the few times that he is very spot on. Read more »

One of the more controversial aspects of President Obama’s health care plan is the inclusion of a “public option” run by the government. The reason to have such an option mixed in with private plans, is to keep the private insurers honest.

I’ve always found this an odd assertion: that the only way to keep the private plans running well and playing fair is to have a government-run plan. Isn’t regulation a better way of keeping the private plans honest?

For Republicans and moderate or conservative Democrats, the mention of a public plan makes them nervous. There are fears that a public-plan will under cut private plans in price and effectively run those insurers out of business, leaving a defacto single-payer system in the United States.

Such a prospect is fine with liberal Democrats who have no love for the current system. The liberal base of the Democratic Party has long championed single-payer ala Canada, and Obama might be sneaking it in through the back door.

Clive Crook has a good article in the Financial Times about the prospect of a single-payer system in the US. Even though I am not a fan of single-payer, Crook does a good job of showing its benefits which are appealing:

In my view, there are worse things than Medicare for all – and the present system might be one of them. Medicare for all would give the US truly universal coverage and better control of costs. It would preserve choice of doctor and hospital, and private insurance for supplementary services could co-exist for those who wanted it. The demise of employer-provided plans would make labour more mobile and relieve workers of the worry that losing their job means losing their health insurance.

So a health care system based on Medicare could control costs, provide choice, and make health care more portable. All good things.

So, what are the down sides? Crook continues:

A less obvious objection is that a healthy private insurance market is worth preserving. The seething hatred many Democrats – and many other Americans of no fixed ideology – feel for private health insurers ignores the value they bring – and the extra value they could add if their incentives were better designed and their customers had the information they needed to make intelligent choices.

If competition is a good thing, competition among insurance providers is a good thing too. Yes, abolishing it reduces one kind of lump-sum administrative overhead, which is all some Democrats seem to care about. But it also abolishes pressures for innovation and other kinds of cost reduction. In other industries, competition pays for itself in spite of the apparent waste of marketing and other forms of duplicated effort. Healthcare is different – but not that different. At the very least, one should pause before shutting competition down.

So, a single-payer system could impede innovation which could also slow cutting costs. Not so good. Crook goes on to note that the whole “keeping them honest” line would mean that the public plan would have to play hardball: using its might to force down payments and make the market less competative.

In the end, I think that if the President want to keep the private insurers honest, then he should as Crook argues, favor a regulated private system, something I support. If they really think the government should be running the show, they should just say so and give good reasons why such a route is better.

The following is by Mike, the blogger at The Big Stick and it is written in response to several  prior postings.

may upset some readers with this post and I am okay with that. In the coming months and years if the GOP is going to resume its place of importance in American politics we are all going to have to have to say hard things. So here’s my gripe: I don’t like the ‘Moderate’ label. This post will hopefully explain why.

One of the things I love about the right sphere of American politics is that in general we are more willing to talk about intellectual pedigrees. Unlike the Left who mostly likes to think of themselves as one big, homogeneous group of people (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) intellectuals on the Right are okay with describing those subdivisions on our side of the aisle. Now before anyone says, “Yeah, but…” I will be the first to say that the Rush Limbaughs of the world don’t seem comfortable with those hyphenated conservatives. To that I will say we must deal with that problem as well, but that isn’t the goal of this piece. I’m not trying to justify the existence of subgroups within the Right. If you’re reading this then I would probably be preaching to the choir with a defense of hyphenated conservatism. Instead, my goal here is to point out the problems I see within one of those groups.

Many of us who happily embrace sub-labels for our conservatism could fairly be lumped under the general heading of ‘dissident conservatism’ meaning we diverge from mainline conservatism in one way or another. For myself the main area of difference I have is that I believe conservatism does not always have to be fighting a holding action and we can actually move society forward within a conservative framework. Like Travis I use the ‘progressive’ label to describe my own brand of conservatism. For others the difference may come in fiscal policy. They may believe that the fiscal conservatism of Grover Norquist is impractical and they seek a realist-based budgetary policy. Still others may diverge in areas regarding national defense, foreign policy or social issues. Those that diverge on one or more issue usually decide for themselves if they need a label that sets them apart. Over the years we have had many; neo-conservatives, paleo-conservatives, realists, Rockefeller Republicans, Goldwater Republicans, etc. All of them describe a certain group within the larger Republican crowd fairly accurately.

My problem lies with another label, the so-called Moderate Republican. While the other labels I mentioned are specific enough that we can understand what position they hold, ‘moderate’ remains a vague concept. I have put some thought into the issue and I have come up with four new labels that I think more accurately describe Moderate Republicans.

The Confused Republican

The Confused Republican typically holds positions that could be defined as conservative, yet because they perceive those positions to no longer be mainline they feel like an outsider. They know their positions are slightly to the left of the majority, so they call themselves a Moderate. It is these folks that I have the most hope for. Often their positions are solid and reasonable and it is for that reason that they need a loud voice in our party.

The Centrist

Often I think that many so-called Moderates are afflicted with something I call a ‘compromise fetish’. These are the Moderates who also gravitate towards the label of Centrist. Back in May, fresh on the heels of Arlen Spector’s defection to the Democratic fold, Daniel Larison wrote a stinging critique of the Centrist. He made many good points but the one that struck me was this:

It is debatable whether any “centrism” is possible that does not end up in practice as a form of triangulation or a split-the-difference, worst-of-both-worlds muddle.

It seems to me that a Centrist isn’t really a member of either party. A Centrist is largely someone who just wants to see things move forward. They are the Rodney Kings of politics asking, “Can’t we all just get along?” In order to achieve this goal the Centrist often plays the role of reactionary. They wait for both sides to stake out their positions and then they advocate a new position that is exactly in the middle. They say things like, “Shouldn’t we care about progress?” while not really holding strong principles of their own. They also end up with a disproportional amount of power because they act as power brokers between the two sides.

The Social Liberal

Let’s be honest. Most Moderate Republicans fall into this group and these Moderates are the ones I am the most aggravated with these days. These Republicans would have been simply called New England Republicans or social liberals 20 years ago. The party accepted that we would only have their vote on fiscal or foreign policy issues and we would lose them on social policy. What was fair about that arrangement is that these social liberals understood they weren’t going to move the party in their direction and they didn’t really try. 30 years ago socially liberal Republicans departed from the party on issues like crime, welfare or affirmative action. With conservative success in all three areas, what issues are important to them today? Primarily their ‘moderate’ stance revolves around abortion and gay marriage. Socially liberal Republicans see the party as inflexible on these positions and despite the fact that there has been little or no conservative success in either areas, they let rhetoric alone motivate them. On the surface this would be okay if they were more honest about their position as social liberals. Instead they remain vague and call themselves Moderates. As I have mentioned in posts at The Big Stick I don’t like the Moderate label because it suggests that anything to the right of it is extreme. But opposition to abortion and gay marriage are not extreme positions. They are quite mainstream and both positions are easily defensible within a conservative framework. The other danger social liberals pose today is that unlike their predecessors, they seem to want to pull the party towards them. The only thing I can’t figure out is whether they really think Republicans should adopt socially liberal views, or if they are just bothered that they are mostly ignored on social policy.

The Libertarian

For a long time libertarians have identified with conservatism because they embrace a similar affinity for traditions and values. But they also love personal freedom and that makes liberalism a tempting choice at times. Quite often libertarians reach the same end conclusions as liberals on issues of personal freedom, with abortion and gay marriage being two good examples. The libertarian is okay with gay marriage because it’s a personal choice. So is the liberal. But if pressed we would discover that their opinions of the institution are radically different. I often characterize the libertarian response to gay marriage as, “You’re probably going to hell but it’s none of my business.” On the other hand the liberal truly believes that gay marriage is beneficial to society.

What I believe is happening with some libertarians is that quite frankly they don’t know the difference between themselves and liberals. They know they have the same end positions and so they start thinking of themselves as liberal-leaning on certain issues even though the label is incorrect. And when you hold mostly conservative positions but you think a few of your leanings are liberal…you start calling yourself a Moderate.

At the end of the day the trouble with the Moderate label is that it’s vague and often a bit arrogant. No one can seems able to describe where mainline Republicanism ends and Moderation begins. And again, the implication that everyone else is an extremist is always present. So here is my suggestion for the four types of Moderates I describe above:

- If you’re a Confused Conservative, recognize the conservative legitimacy of your position and help shape the party.

- If you’re a Centrist, put an (I) next to your name and own it.

- If you’re a Social Liberal, be honest about it and be okay with the party not embracing your position. Work with us 0n areas of agreement and don’t try to drag the party leftward on the others just so you fit in a little better.

- If you’re a Libertarian, support us when you can and we’ll understand when you don’t.

There’s nothing wrong with a diversity of opinion within the party and outside the party. We just need labels that more accurately reflect our positions. To use broad generalizations with the implication of non-extremism is unfair. From my view that’s exactly what the ‘Moderate’ label does.