In a recent post, former Reagan aide Bruce Bartlett has correctly noted the sad position of the Republican party these days and gives a somewhat good reason for why he is “anti-Republican.”

He notes that in the eighties, the grown-ups in the Democratic Party created the Democratic Leadership Council to try to steer the party back to the center. Bartlett then notes that there is no such counterpart in the GOP and that has allowed talk show hosts like Glenn Beck to run the party and drive away moderates and independents.

Well, he is partially correct. Talk show hosts have in some way become de facto leaders in the GOP, but unbenownst to Mr. Bartlett there are grown-ups still in the GOP who trying to steer the party towards the center. There are several organizations that are dedicated to this task, but they have little name recognition and are ignored by the mainstream media or as well as the blogosphere.

Mr. Bartlett might want to check out the Republican Leadership Council. It’s not as well known as its Democratic counterpart, but it is trying to get the GOP to welcome centrists again. Lead by former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman and former Senator John Danforth, this group is will to speak up and has done a good job of getting people involved at the state and national level.

He might also want to look at Republicans for Environmental Protection, a grassroots organization that is trying to preserve the environmental heritage of the GOP. They work hard at getting “green” Republicans elected to office and are not afraid to call out those who do not respect the environment.

Let’s not forget Log Cabin Republicans, the national association of gay and lesbians Republicans who are working towards full inclusion in the party and the nation of gay and lesbian Americans. The organization is always looking for straight allies to work with us.

Mr. Bartlett, I think all of these organizations would be pleased to have you join them in trying to make the GOP a sane political party again.

It is easy to complain about the current state of the GOP. I’ve done it myself. But when there are groups out there working hard, like the RLC, Republicans for Environmental Protection and Log Cabin, they need our help and support now more than ever.

Mr. Bartlett you don’t have to call yourself a Republican, but you should try to help the adults that are working for change.

This post originally appeared at New Majority.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

Email this post

Spread the Word:

In a recent post, I shared the news that New York State Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava received the nod to run as the GOP nominee in a special election to replace Congressman John McHugh, who left the House of Representatives to become Secretary of the Army.

You also know that Scozzafava is something of an endangered species: a moderate Northeastern Republican. She has supported same sex marriage not just in name, but actually voting for it in 2007 and is also pro-choice. In many ways she is a good fit for this district, in that she is replacing a moderate Republican.

Of course, the minute a moderate has a chance of winning, the far right tries to find ways to make sure they don’t win. Erik Erikson over at RedState is urging conservatives in the 23rd congressional district in New York to not support Scozzafava because of her “liberal” stances on gay marriage and abortion and instead support the Conservative Party’s candidate for the district, Dough Hoffman. Erikson writes:

Dede Scozzafava is to the left of the party on abortion, taxes, spending, marriage, guns, everything. She is a terrible candidate. The New York GOP had a chance to do right by the people of NY-23. They failed.

Conservatives and Republicans should rally around Dough Hoffman as a viable alternative to Dede Scozzafava. Hoffman has more in common with the people in NY-23 and is closer to the Republican Party on issues across the board.

I have a hard time understanding what makes her “terrible candidate” except that she doesn’t fit Erik’s view of what a “true” Republican should be.

I decided to look into some Scozzafava’s views on various issues while in the New York legislature. There is a lot of info, but here are some of the highlights from Project VoteSmart. Let’s look at taxes:

Maintain Status a) Alcohol taxes
Maintain Status b) Capital gains taxes
Maintain Status c) Cigarette taxes
Maintain Status d) Corporate taxes
Slightly Decrease e) Gasoline taxes
Slightly Decrease f) Income taxes (incomes below $75,000)
Slightly Decrease g) Income taxes (incomes above $75,000)
Slightly Decrease h) Sales taxes
Maintain Status i) Vehicle taxes
Undecided k) Should the state sales taxes be extended to Internet sales?
No l) Should accounts such as a “rainy day” fund be used to balance the state budget?
No m) Should fee increases be used to balance the state budget?
Yes n) Should the New York Legislature list discretionary spending item by item in the budget?

Well, she doesn’t look like a tax and spend liberal. What about crime?

X c) Support programs to provide prison inmates with vocational and job-related skills and job-placement assistance when released.
X d) End parole for repeat violent offenders.
e) Implement penalties other than incarceration for certain non-violent offenders.
X f) Strengthen penalties and sentences for drug-related crimes.
g) Minors accused of a violent crime should be prosecuted as adults.
X h) Require that crimes based on race, ethnic background, religious belief, sex, age, disability, or sexual orientation be prosecuted as hate crimes.
X i) Increase state funding for community centers and other social agencies in areas with at-risk youth.
X j) Eliminate the statute of limitations for criminal sex cases.
k) Eliminate the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits seeking damages in sex cases.
X l) Support the restriction of the sale of products used to make methamphetamine (e.g. tablets containing pseudophedrine, ephedrine and phenylpropanolamine).

Hmm…maybe she doesn’t support the death penalty, but she does seem to be tough on crime. What about guns?

X b) Ease state restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns.

No namby-pamby liberal there. One should add that Ms Scozzafava recieved a grade of “A” by the NRA Political Victory Fund in 2008 and an “F” from New Yorkers Against Gun Violence in the same year.

And this is what the liberal blog, the Albany Project has to say about Scozzafava and the district she might represent in Congress:

Scozzafava, while being a social liberal, isn’t liberal on too much else. She, like the man she wants to succeed, is fairly moderate and will vote with the Republicans most of the time…

The reality is that you aren’t going to win NY-23 with a staunch progressive or a staunch conservative. McHugh has served the district well and is known as a moderate. That is why he was such a tough election foe. In order to serve the district, you have to be able to balance yourself.

McHugh’s last elections in 2006 and 2008, the two years when Republicans were getting slaughtered, bear this out. Wikipedia notes he won with 60 percent of the vote in both years.

In reality, Scozzafava is not the liberal that Erikson thinks. The only reason he believes this is because of her support for gay rights and abortion rights, two issues that he deems as liberal. So, he ignores the fact that she is pro Second Amendment, is tough on crime, pro-business and favors lower taxes. Normal people would see that record as mainstream conservative.

Erikson is so against Scozzafava that he even suggests that it would be better for a Democrat to win, than someone like who doesn’t follow the GOP platform. Such a statement only proves what an idiot Erikson is. In the end, Scozzafava will favor and support the GOP when push comes to shove. Sending one more Democrat to Congress means one more supporter for the President and his ideas. He also fails to realize that with McHugh gone, the Empire State only has two Republicans in the whole state delegation. As late as 2005, there were nine Republicans in the state delagation. Does Erikson really want to just let the state of New York become a Democratic bastion? Is his hate really that strong?

Many people like Erikson want to the GOP to be “pure” even at the expense of losing. That might satisfy Erikson, but it is a sure way to make the GOP a rump party. It’s time for the GOP leadership to basically say that winning parties are made up of coalitions and not robots.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

The Washington Post ran a piece entitled Five Myths About Health Care in the Rest of the World on Sunday. It’s not an endorsement of any of the five health care plans Democrats are unwisely trying to sell America by any stretch. But it should be taken as a call to arms to anyone who thinks nothing needs to be done, or that following a European model spells the death knell for America.

The following boils the argument down pretty well, IMO:

In many ways, foreign health-care models are not really “foreign” to America, because our crazy-quilt health-care system uses elements of all of them. For Native Americans or veterans, we’re Britain: The government provides health care, funding it through general taxes, and patients get no bills. For people who get insurance through their jobs, we’re Germany: Premiums are split between workers and employers, and private insurance plans pay private doctors and hospitals. For people over 65, we’re Canada: Everyone pays premiums for an insurance plan run by the government, and the public plan pays private doctors and hospitals according to a set fee schedule. And for the tens of millions without insurance coverage, we’re Burundi or Burma: In the world’s poor nations, sick people pay out of pocket for medical care; those who can’t pay stay sick or die.

Our “crazy quilt” system is bloated and inefficient and needs to be changed. If you’re angry about the current plans, don’t just protest, join the conversation and let’s make a plan that works for all of us.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

Whenever health care reform is talked about, Republicans respond in an almost Pavlov-style manner. Immediately we start talking about the evils of the Canadian and British healthcare systems and about the loss of American freedoms. Some even go a step further and claim as blogger John Vecchione writes in a recent post, that there is no health care crisis and when nations make universal health care a goal it also makes conservative parties unconservative.

Such claims amount to sticking one’s head in the sand and defending a system that really is undefendable. As I have shared in a recent blog posting as well as in the past, the American health care system is broken. That is not some liberal scheme, this is a plain fact. As some conservative bloggers have noted in the past, the current system keeps people tied to jobs they may not want simply to have health insurance benefits. The other problem is that when one loses their job, they also lose their health benefits. People are also faced with rules like pre-exisiting conditions and recission.

Conservatives are not crazy about having a government-run system for many reasons. One big reason is that such systems tend to be unsustainable. For example, Travis Frey noted in a recent blog post that France is faced with a healthcare system that is cracking under the strain on rising costs:

France claims it long ago achieved much of what today’s U.S. health-care overhaul is seeking: It covers everyone, and provides what supporters say is high-quality care. But soaring costs are pushing the system into crisis. The result: As Congress fights over whether America should be more like France, the French government is trying to borrow U.S. tactics.

In recent months, France imposed American-style “co-pays” on patients to try to throttle back prescription-drug costs and forced state hospitals to crack down on expenses. “A hospital doesn’t need to be money-losing to provide good-quality treatment,” President Nicolas Sarkozy thundered in a recent speech to doctors.

And service cuts – such as the closure of a maternity ward near Ms. Cuccarolo’s home – are prompting complaints from patients, doctors and nurses that care is being rationed. That concern echos worries among some Americans that the U.S. changes could lead to rationing.

The French system’s fragile solvency shows how tough it is to provide universal coverage while controlling costs, the professed twin goals of President Barack Obama’s proposed overhaul.

Conservatives rightly point out the problems in health care systems that have a high amount of government control. But the problems is that we stop there. We pretend there is no problem and maybe offer a few sops to change the system.

But the fact is, as more and more people lose their health care or face problems with the insurance that they have, people are looking more and more to Washington to help solve the problem. If Republicans decide to take John Vecchione’s advice, we can expect the public will look towards those who are providing solutions, namely the Democrats. The best way to assure that we have single payer is for Republicans to simply ignore the issue and not care.

But the fact is there are two plans that offer some real change without creating a large new governmental program. If the GOP really cared about offering solutions and not just political one-upsmanship, they could really make a difference.

The first plan is the Healthy Americans Act supported by Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon and Bill Bennett, the Republican Senator from Utah. Their plan basically is a grand compromise that achieves universal coverage and fulfills the aims of both Democrats and Republicans: it allows for the universal coverage that Democrats want and it also injects market forces into the system, something that Republicans would like to see.

The other option is modifying the model that is used by the nation of Singapore. The plan basically is basically as follows:

Singapore’s system requires individuals to take responsibility for their own health, and for much of their own spending on medical care. As the Health Ministry puts it, “Patients are expected to co-pay part of their medical expenses and to pay more when they demand a higher level of service. At the same time, government subsidies help to keep basic healthcare affordable.”

The reason the system works so well is that it puts decisions in the hands of patients and doctors rather than of government bureaucrats and insurers. The state’s role is to provide a safety net for the few people unable to save enough to pay their way, to subsidize public hospitals, and to fund preventative health campaigns. (emphasis mine)

Medisave, which covers about 85 percent of all Singaporeans, is a component of a mandatory pension program. Employees typically pay 20 percent of their wages into the Central Provident Fund (CPF), while employers pay 13 percent. (Since 1992, the self-employed have also participated.) At the beginning of 2007, CPF had over $1 billion in surpluses.

In Singapore’s system, the primary role of government is to require people to save in order to meet medical expenses they don’t expect.Medisave accounts can be used to pay directly for hospital expenses incurred by an individual or his immediate family. Limits are in place on the extent of Medisave funds that can be used for daily hospital charges, physicians’ fees, and surgical fees. The idea is to cover fully the bills of most patients in state-subsidized wards of public hospitals. Beyond that, individuals dip into their own pockets or use benefits from insurance plans (see more on this below). Medisave can also be used for expensive outpatient treatments such as chemotherapy, renal dialysis, or HIV drugs.

Medishield, the second part of the program, is a national insurance plan that covers the higher cost of especially serious illness or accident, which in Singapore’s system is described as “catastrophic.” Singaporeans can choose Medishield or several private alternatives, some offered by firms listed on the Singaporean stock exchange. Premiums for the insurance plans, including Medishield, can be paid using Medisave accounts.

Medifund, the third part, was established by the government for the roughly 10 percent of Singaporeans who don’t have the means to pay for their medical needs, despite the government’s subsidy of hospital and outpatient costs. The fund was set up in 1993 with $150 million, with the budget surplus providing additional contributions since then. Only interest income, not capital, may be disbursed.

Finally, there’s Eldershield, an addition to the 3M structure that offers private insurance for disability as a result of old age. It pays a monthly cash allowance to those unable to perform three or more basic activities of daily living.

The Singapore plan is not a plan that would please liberals, but it would please those who think government should have a minimal role in providing a safety net and putting the power in the lap of the consumer.

Of course, there are those who will say that any government intervention is an anathema. Such a view is not only cold hearted, but will not help the GOP in the long run. The average American isn’t looking for a womb-to-tomb welfare state, but they do want help. Most Americans might not like the Obama plan, but they still fear losing their health care or getting sick and finding out that their insurance company will not help them.

It’s way past time for Republicans to be truly concerned with health care. Let’s stop sticking our heads in the sand and offer real practical solutions.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

Note, the following was originally posted at New Majority.com.

Bradley Smith notes that the United States already has a universal health care system called “show up at the emergency room” which he thinks works pretty well and that it makes no sense for Republicans to push for universal healthcare since it messes with freedom.

Frankly his idea of universal healthcare is probably the most expensive kind of healthcare, tackling problems when they are more serious and therefore more costly.

In 1996, I moved to Minneapolis. I was in my mid-20s and making $6 an hour and not able to buy healthcare insurance. I got sick with the flu in November of that year and the flu later became pneumonia. When I had trouble breathing, I went to an emergency room and was looked at. The doctor on call gave me a five-day supply of antibiotics and sent me on my way. My illness only became worse. Days later I went to a clinic for low income people and the nurse practitioner found out that I had a massive infection and needed to be placed in the hospital immediately. I was afraid since I didn’t have health insurance, but she told me not to worry about it.

In the end, I was able to get on to Medicaid which paid for a good chunk of what turned out to be a two week hospital stay.

I don’t favor single payer, or Obama’s public option. I also don’t think healthcare is a “right.” That said, I do think that Republicans should find a way to ensure that when someone is faced with illness, they are able to focus on getting well and not about if they can afford it.

Republicans should try to get to some sort of universal healthcare through things like health savings accounts and subsidies. We can show that one can achieve this without a massive government program.

My illness taught me that relying on emergency room care is not a good approach from a physical or fiscal standpoint. If Republicans truly care about this issue (which at times I wonder about), then we need to find ways to make sure that all Americans have access to affordable healthcare.

New Majority is looking for other viewpoints on this issue. If you want to share your two cents, please go to www.newmajority.com.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

I don’t know whether President Obama has any musical talent or if he plays any particular instrument. But his actions over the past few weeks have made me start to wonder if he’s taking a page from the Clinton playbook. After his landslide defeat in the 1994 elections President Clinton adopted the the now famous triangulation strategy in which he pitted himself against Congressional Republicans on one side and Congressional Democrats on the other. Read more »

Email this post

Spread the Word:

From the Real Republican Majority Blog:

There are three things that any Republican can say about the current raging debate over health care: that it’s polarizing; that many Americans are hesitant to endorse a plan that gives the government too much control; and that fiscal conservatism could provide the ideal solution to this problem. Republicans have spent the last couple months offering a strong opposition to the public option, which the Obama Administration seems ready to drop.

We’ve rallied citizens, exposed flaws and problems with the government’s proposal, and yet, we still haven’t truly stepped up in the plate in offering and promoting a valid, fiscally conservative solution that would not only solve the healthcare problem but allow the GOP to stop being the Party of No and instead become the Party of Solutions.

Not only is the door wide open for Republicans, but moderate Republicans should especially be stepping up to the plate on this issue. Senator Olympia Snowe (ME) has been working on a bipartisan co-operative option, but more Republicans need to be pro-active and offering real solutions, not just dissent. Again, this is a prime opportunity for the moderate Republican movement. Moderate Republicans won’t create bills that will end up hurting the American economy, but also won’t spend their time dwelling on divisive social issues that, in the end, drive away more Americans.

RRM wants to hear from more moderate Republicans on what they think health care reform should encompass- and how the GOP needs to market it. Sound off below and tell us what you think.

So, what do you think? If you consider yourself a moderate Republican, take a few moments to and write a comment at the RRM blog.

qhadmk8ir5

Email this post

Spread the Word:

It was San Angelo, Texas and I was stationed at Goodfellow Air Force Base. A favorite hangout was the New Dixie Club — a great place to drink, to dance and to just be a people watcher.

One evening I stepped into the restroom. Immediately upon entering someone grabbed me and threw me against the wall and started pounding, all the while screaming “I hate f**king Air Force people!”

“But I’m Army” say I, and with that I heard “Then you are OK” and out they walked.

That person didn’t know me. They didn’t care whether I was good, bad or even lying. I was just a target of opportunity.

TALKING OUR WAY INTO A NEW CIVIL WAR

Within the Republican party there are new targets of opportunity: each other.

Thomas Sowell (TownHall): “As if it is not enough that they have been decimated by the Democrats in the past couple of elections, the Republican survivors are now turning their guns on each other.”

Sowell was quick to identify the perps of this new war, “At the heart of these internal battles have been attacks on Rush Limbaugh by Republicans who imagine themselves to be so much more sophisticated because they are so much more in step with the political fashions of the time.”

Moderates are the attackers? Non-conservatives are inflamming the base by first selling out the party and now defaming its few remaining defenders?

Hello?! I didn’t start anything that night in San Angelo, and I don’t remember being part of any mob now in 2009 launching attacks on rightwingers. And since I’m conservative in both mind and spirit then I surely am not part of any attack there either.

On August 17th there was this headline on the ‘DownWithTyranny’ blog: Texas Republican Civil War Officially Kicks Off. Obviously favoring Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson’s run for governor against Texas’ incumbent, Gov. Rick Perry is described as a “… far right extremist and secessionist …”

Bailey is described as a Reagan big tent conservative, but she let loose with a full volley. The target has been engaged. Perhaps the war has begun. Perhaps it will be a real war.

Texas Republicans have many issues facing them, but words like civil war and secession seem to be what has them all fired up — with 48% both supporting and opposing Texas becoming its own independent nation (Salon).

In Georgia, back in April, state Senate Resolution 632 passed by a 43-1 vote; the resolution threatened to to secede from and even disband the United States citing Jeffersonian principles.

The strange thing is that most of the ’states right, Jeffersonian principles, and civil war’ debate seems to be between Republicans, either for or against.

Now talk is cheap, but resolutions and continuous use of “brother against brother” language (GOP12) is dangerous; worthy of great thought and consideration as being more than a passing fad.

As Americans we need to think before we speak. The next attack on Fort Sumter, whether political or actual physical act, will not be so easy to end as Civil War v1.0.

Be careful of what you wish for. I’ve walked the battlefields of Fredericksburg, Manassas and Gettysburg. There are monuments everywhere to the valiant, the sometimes vain, and mostly to those that died for plans and strategies that someone else devised.

Best regards,
Bill4DogCatcher.com

Sources:

TownHall, Thomas Sowell, ‘The Republican Civil War’, http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/03/17/the_republican_civil_war

Down With Tyranny Blog, ‘Texas Republican Civil War Officially Kicks Off’, http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2009/08/texas-republican-civil-war-officially.html

Salon, ‘Half of Texas Republicans favor secession’, http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/04/23/texas_secession/

Atlanta Journal-Constitution, ‘Georgia Senate endorses radical idea’, http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2009/04/16/bookmaned_0416.html and you can read the original “ADOPTED” version here: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2009_10/pdf/sr632.pdf

GOP12.com, “This is a civil war, brother against brother”, http://www.gop12.com/2009/08/this-is-civil-war-brother-against.html

Email this post

Spread the Word:

New Majority’s podcast  recently interviewed former Yale Professor Geoffrey Kabaservice about moderates and their role in the GOP now and in the past. Among the highlights is how Ronald Reagan’s winning coalition owes its success partly to moderates, something conservatives don’t want to admit.

Kabaservice has written several profiles of moderate Republicans at New Majority and he is also writing a book on this history of moderates in the GOP.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

The following is a post by a writer that called “Lobotero.”

In my early years of political activism I was a radical and then as I got older I became a Republican, but a liberal republican….that soon went the way of the dinosaur as the GOP was hijacked by the extreme right wing and there was nothing about the GOP that appealed to me…after the hijacking of the party I became basically…a social democrat…for lack of a better title….but I always hoped that the GOP would reverse its course…so far I have been disappointed.

We hear all about the conservative Blue Dog Dems, but I wanted to know if there were such a beast as a liberal Repub. If so, what would they believe in? What would be their stance on certain issues?

After doing a little research, I hit the Google button and here is what I found:

1. Step 1Trust in a women’s right to choose. Roe vs. Wade was a landmark decision that gave a woman the right to choose her own destiny. This country’s basic tenets are freedom and liberty. The Liberal Republican understands this and supports, defends and trusts in this right to choose.
2. Step 2Believe in evolution. Evolution while controversial in some areas of the Republican party, is not the hot button topic in liberal wing of the Republican party. Liberal Republicans accept the scientific evidence in this case.
3. Step 3Maintain equality for all, including gays and lesbians. Again, this country is based on liberty and freedom for all. A liberal republican believes in excluding no one based on his or her sexual orientation.
4. Step 4Support stem cell research. Stem cell research has the possibility to save and extend millions of lives throughout the world. A liberal Republican believes in allowing science to determine its own course regardless of their personal beliefs on issues.
5. Step 5Protect the environment. With weather patterns becoming more and more erratic, the liberal Republican understands the importance of the environment to the survival of future generations. Environmental threats and concerns are to be one of the main topics in elections for the next generation or more.
6. Step 6Keep an open mind. Liberal Republicans understand that they may not have all the answers and that some questions are still unanswered. Too many politicians think that an issue is black and white. A liberal Republican realizes the nuances and grey areas that come with some issues.

Now with those characteristics can you think of any liberal Repubs in Congress? I cannot think of one right now, but I will say that Meghan McCain comes pretty close to being a liberal Republican.

If you cannot think of any liberal Repubs and want to be one for a future run for office here are a few instructions:

1. Step 1The first step to becoming a Liberal Republican is to take a hard stance on traditional Republican base beliefs such as strong National Security policies.
2. Step 2To be a Liberal Republican you must also believe in a smaller federal government and lower taxes.
3. Step 3Subscribe to the belief that religion is important to society and be driven by moralistic values and expect fairness and responsibility in all things.
4. Step 4Next, embrace social views that are generally associated with liberalism or the democratic party. Socially liberal views include, but not limited to; supporting gay marriage, pro choice when it comes to abortion and the support of social programs for the less fortunate.
5. Step 5Following these steps should make you a Liberal Republican.

There you are all you need to know about becoming a Liberal Republican. Personally, I think that the GOP would be better off if there were some actual liberals in their midst.

The only one that I have a problem with is no. 3 -why?-I believe that religion is important to the individual not necessarily to society as a whole and to pick a person to represent you just because of his religion is lunacy. But the part about having a moralistic outlook toward society is a necessity, in my opinion, but being religious does not make it so.

I am a capitalist, but not in the sense that it is defined nowadays…..I guess that is what a geolibertarian is about….I wait for the GOP to regain its wide appeal…but it does not look that will happen any time soon.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

I’ve  (rightly, I think) accused my fellow Republicans of cynically appealing to fear instead of hope and reason to win the health care debate.  What I didn’t mention, however, was that President Obama has also  been engaged in more than his fair share of cynical politics.  He and the Democrats have taken what is a legitimate problem in America, our historic inability to scale our health care system to meet the needs of every American no matter their economic circumstances without jacking up costs across the entire thing, and turned it into immediate CRISIS(!!!!).

Email this post

Spread the Word:

By Blake Sietz

“Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels – men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.” –Dwight Eisenhower

As you may have already seen, the media is abuzz with news of town hall meetings, “death panels” <sigh>, and the “emergence of socialized medicine”. But what us generally-healthy teenagers don’t take the time to consider is that the health care debate (and some would say debacle) is important to everyone, regardless of age. It’s an intricate issue, with long-lasting ideological, moral, fiscal, and political implications.

It’s our job as citizens and dependents of the health care system to cut through the rhetoric and outright lies of biased media outlets to understand the implications of proposed reforms.

So what’s this bill about, anyway? Read more »

Email this post

Spread the Word:

In a conference room. Maybe seven or eight government employees in their late 30s-early 40s. They’re wearing suits from Ann Taylor, or Men’s Wearhouse sitting on one side of a conference table that looks like it came right out of the Office Depot catalog In one hand they’re holding cups of coffee, or cans of Diet Coke (or some other caffeinated drink – they’ve been working late the last couple of nights) , the other hand busily hammering the keyboards of their mid-tier laptop computers, jotting down notes, trying to capture what the lady on the side of the table is saying.

Across the table is a woman in her mid 60s. Her blouse and pants recently purchased from the local Wal-Mart, her shoes from Payless Shoes. She’s nervously playing with her purse handles as she shuffles her feet. She’s not sure how to answer this last question. She should have been prepared for this question. She was…until just this second.

“We’d all like to get out of here today, Ma’am, so please answer as best you can,” the Committee chair sighs as she asks the question for the third time, “When you the government no longer finds you insurable…” she pauses, not for effect, but because she still can’t believe she has to ask the question.

“…how do you want to die?”

Chilling isn’t it? Â Cold, bureaucratic evil, like a scene out of the film CONSPIRACY. Â If certain right wing celebrities are to be believed this won ‘t be that far from the truth should Barack Obama’s health care plan pass both House of Congress.

But they are not to be believed. Â This is a a nightmare scenario crafted by self-styled leaders of the Republican Party. Â This is the kind of thing that has to stop.
*************************************

Let’s be honest: Obama’s Plan is a bad one. It’s costly beyond comprehension. It adds bureaucratic roadblocks to an already excessively bureaucratic process. And, despite all the costs, it only provides additional care for a small percentage of the nation’s uninsured.

It’s a bad plan with any number of weaknesses that Republicans can point to as reasons we should be vehemently against it. Is it necessary to make things up about it?

Who is helped by devising scenarios like the one described above? Does Sara Palin making up spooky stories about Obama’s DEATH PANEL, really add weight to the argument against the real plan?

Does comparing the health plan to Nazis [limbaugh-20090806-hitler.flv] like friend of the blog, Rush Limbaugh, has done?

Email this post

Spread the Word:

“…Roosevelt had treated union workers as legitimate participants in the bargaining process. This did not mean that Roosevelt was pro-union. He regarded what he had done as simple justice or, as he would come to call it, the Square Deal. He also established the precedent that the White House should not remain aloof during a domestic economic crisis.” The Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt by Lewis L. Gould

While progressive republicans would push for a stimulus that while acknowledging the accepted belief that heavy spending is necessary to get us out of crisis, whether it be a Great Depression or recession, it would draw a stark difference with the pet project plan put forth by democrats. Fiscal responsibility would be key obviously in a republican plan, one that would focus in making sure that every dollar spent has as much impact as possible; to get as much “bang for your buck” using this old phrase as the base of any major stimulus or spending legislation. Useless pet projects need to be identified as those which do not fit the bill of creating as many jobs as possible and to be as widely used as possible. While there need to be projects for short term stimulus, scrutiny and just better decision making on whether these projects actually do the best at stimulating the environment must be done for the moderate and long term financial health of the nation.

A stimulus package needs to be just that, an economic stimulus. There needs to be a part of the plan, much larger than what is in the current plan, which would do the intended job of creating short term boosts to the economy so it may again start fully functioning. Shovel ready projects must be done for this, but they also must be done and targeted to create the best boost possible instead of pet projects that don’t have as much of an impact as possible, something that has been missing or lackluster at best in the stimulus that was passed. Later, projects aimed at directing and forming the new economy that should be included as well since government creating jobs through spending on this scale can only be maintained for so long. A new green based economy is what should be aimed for, and while the administration may have included that, it still did quite a mediocre if not poor job on the basic idea of the stimulus in formulating a fast widespread and effective economic boost.

The stimulus project while being better than the alternative ideas of do nothing or more failed tax cuts put forth by the conservatives was bungled by the democrats. Mr. Zuckerman puts it nicely when he says we needed and still need something that will have a “real multiplier effect, not a congressional wish list of pet programs”. While the economy may recover in part due to the stimulus, because of it becoming much more of a pet program and pork filled wish list than an effective stimulus it will take a longer time with results that should have been much better.
It must be realized that this is taxpayer money or borrowed money and as with either one of those it cannot simply be thrown at any project regardless of its impact to the general population. If the American people are going to see their money being spent at the national level, it must be for purposes that are applicable to a large swath of people and that do the intended job of stimulating the economy.

Of course, if proper pre-cautions and regulations/oversight were to be done beforehand, a scenario such as this may be averted. But extreme cases like these that would call for bailouts must be the exception to the rule, and they should be done, and clearly so with the best interest of the people, not the corporations. If the economy is stabilized and an overall healthy and a major company failed, it would not present a problem because the many smaller competing businesses could hire up those that have been laid off. Therefore, allowing major businesses to fail, and failure due to mismanagement is part of the game that is capitalism, would not pose such a great problem except when a situation presents itself where so many fail near the same time to the point where the average American would suffer unduly because of the failures of the boards and CEO’s and who would not be able to find new jobs to replace their lost ones because of how great the collapse would be.

Our party’s answer to problems must always place the middle and lower class as the focus when making decisions onto whether we need government to save a company, or let it go as is the nature of business. Though for far too long, it has been about helping already large corporations continue to grow even larger. We cannot simply say that we will save all, or let them all fail. It is a case by case issue that requires the principle of doing what is best in such a situation listening to those with economic expertise and avoiding those whose advice automatically stems from hardcore ideology such as the so called conservative think tanks who adhere to solutions based only on strict, unrelenting even when wrong, ideological extremes.

Even if unpopular the best course of action must be taken and if it means that a major company needs to be bailed out, then so be it. If a risk prone entity gets bailed out and who had obviously used the “too big to fail” philosophy, after a bailout if it is decided that one is necessary, then needed regulations and oversight need to be implemented to ensure that they don’t lead the nation over the cliff once more. If it is seen that a company needs to file for bankruptcy in order to bring in an immediate and long needed restructuring, then so be it. Adherence to failure and avoiding realism and pragmatism is not good principle, but mere stupidity. Adherence to extremism is not a virtue as Goldwater would see it; it is an abandonment of the American people for a mere extreme and failed ideology.

We should not become enemies of corporations, that should be clarified, but always have a healthy distrust of monopolizing businesses and how large they get and the power they can accumulate as well as influence. Even Teddy himself did not think the idea of a business that had basically won out in the capitalistic race was wrong, but that if it is was done in unethical ways and means were done that would unfairly stifle competition from rivals whether on its way up towards monopoly, or when it reached the top. If they reach the top because through fair play, and the people like it so much that they do win then there is nothing wrong with that. But corporate welfare must end. Assistance and tax cuts for the wealthy that already have made it to the top must end. Basically, let us stop being the lapdogs and megaphones for corporate boards and seek to treat them fairly as we should with their workers.

This was something that was mentioned before and it should be known that allowing poverty to simply exist and even grow will lead to exactly what the far-right does not want and yet are ignorantly pursuing. They are pursuing a policy that will lead to a direct road to complete Socialism. If the steady path of Goldwater/Reagan conservatism of increasing class division between the upper class and everyone else, a byproduct product of Reaganomics, were to continue then possible future discourse and resentment and a subsequent hard push towards socialism would be the logical outcome. In such a case the only question would be when it would happen. Quite ironic, considering the far-right’s supposedly staunch hatred of socialism that their policies would set up the nation for a hardcore socialist future that would make Obama’s leftward administration seem quite timid. In contrast to the hard-right conservatives a progressive Republicanism based on progressive and centrist principles would not allow that to happen.

Progressive values are rooted in government activism, and great progressive leaders such as Republican Teddy Roosevelt for just one example grew government by creating regulations of the food market out of health concerns, notably the Food and Drug Act, and Lincoln being the first Republican president grew government by creating the Department of Agriculture. But while these growths were necessary to better the well being of the people, it is true that government at times can become so over bloated to the point that its sheer inefficiency and tangled bureaucracy could hinder progress and assistance.

Based on this, progressive republicanism is about making government work best, be it in efficiency, assisting the nation in economic recovery or better yet, keeping the nation from getting to this point in the first place. If a certain part of local, state or the federal government needs to be grown to best tackle an issue then there is a place for the liberals in the GOP under the progressive banner. If growth is done though, it must be as efficient and lean as possible in order to avoid unneeded waste. If government at any level needs to remain the same but needs to be reformed and “rewired” in order to provide the best it can with its current size then moderates have their place as well under the term progressive republicanism. Sometimes government is so large and cumbersome that it needs to not only be reformed but also reduced somewhat in size and streamlined, and then center-right conservatives have their work within progressive republicanism as well. This is why conservatism itself has a place in a future progressive Republican Party granted that it would be a different conservatism from that as advocated by the far-right talk radio.

It would reject the hyper individualism that conservatism from the 1980’s on came to represent. Just one example would be to embrace the “local foods” movement. What is more true to good honest conservatism than having a town be able to provide its own people with its own grown and harvested food, ending the waste inducing numbers of trucks that need to bring in load after load of food products, many of which can be made in these towns. It would be a realistic, doable, and healthy self-reliance not for a mere individual but a united small town. This would be an idea which could be shared not just among pragmatic center-right conservatives in the rural populations, but also by the moderates and liberals of the party in the urban and suburban areas.

Progressive Republicans would bring back the old Republican push for environmental conservationism, something long forgotten among today’s “smoke and belch” conservatives. The protection of our environment, an idea that should easily find a home whether it is among the sky-scraper and museum building liberal republicans or the more rural center-right conservatives must come back if our party is to be viable again. “Drill, Baby Drill” is not a slogan for the future, especially among the younger and greener generation. Conserving the natural land and wildlife, as well as making it so that land that is used, is used responsibly and sustainably is only opposed to corporate conservatism/libertarianism, not honest and educated small town pragmatic conservatism. And there is absolutely nothing that is progressive or conservative about allowing companies to pollute waters and streams that we still walk upon and use for necessity or recreation. Regulations on industries may be needed, smartly done so as not to cause major harm to the economy of course, although the far-right believes any environmental regulation on industry is harm. Cap and trade needs to be reassessed in our party, since it wasn’t too long ago that George H.W. Bush implemented cap and trade policy to help deal with the environmental aspect of acid rain with great effect and little or no economic harm. This party had a proud history of being led by the first truly environmental conservationist president in the form of Teddy Roosevelt and for many years after it continued that proud heritage. Only relatively recently has the party lost this great pillar of our party. As progressive republicans, it is time to bring that proud heritage back.

The issue of conservatism in a future progressive oriented party is important, and it’s necessary to point out that center-right conservatives very much make up the growing Progressive Republican bloc. Progressive conservatives would seek an active government, but a smaller one at that in the belief that cumbersome bureaucracy would be detrimental to any progress. This along with a generally conservative idea of lower taxes and lower spending would place it obviously to the right of the moderates and liberal republicans, but the obvious difference from past conservatism is its rejection of anti-intellectualist populism, ideological rigidity and of the belief that they’re base of support lies with the Birchers, Birthers and any extreme anti-government minded group or individuals such as the libertarian conservatives or the Religious Right.

It would be a new conservatism that works in areas that would believe in the basic idea of keeping taxes low in order to keep more of the people’s money in their own pocket. In doing so, the people would have to know that societal advancement and investments that could happen when everyone’s taxes are higher would not happen, more of a “keep government from growing” idea. Anything that can’t be paid for, should not be done; a pay as you go philosophy that had once been shared and championed by liberal Republicans such as Dewey and by moderates and center-right conservatives alike long before president Obama started to throw around the term. If the people approve of this conservative idea and agree to the cuts in services or spending, then after and only after spending is cut could revenue being taxes, be cut. Pragmatic conservatism would reject the long held, but misguided notion of massive tax cuts for the upper class and industry that would bring the nation into debt and embrace the idea that if spending cuts in services would not be tolerated by the people then neither would tax breaks. Therefore the trajectory of any place would be very much determined if the people themselves are willing to make the necessary and sometimes hard choices to have a generally smaller government.

As a result of being progressive conservative and being center-right, the goals of making government as small as possible that is the hallmark of the staunch libertarian conservative would be rejected. They may want to make government smaller and have lower spending and as a result lower tax rates, but their progressive goals of an active government providing oversight of industry with needed and balanced regulations is still kept. As a result while smaller may be better for the progressive conservative, they won’t be trying to take it far as today’s staunch and irrational conservatives would go and would reject anti-government policies such as the massive across the board tax cuts of Reagan and George W. Bush which would drive a balanced budget into debt. So to best sum up the progressive conservative: “small, but smart pro-active government”. Their basic progressive ideals would allow them to work within that frame to bring about an honest and sound conservatism without the libertarians and theocrats that made up the extreme right.

While moderates and especially liberals may seem to be well positioned to be progressives it is not an automatic labeling of them as progressive. The liberal democratic stimulus plan is probably as far away from true progressivism as possible in that, as the argument was made before, it was focused more on getting their pet projects instead of creating as many jobs as possible and stabilizing the economy as much as possible. So being liberal or moderate/centrist is not enough to be a progressive republican. They must both seek to ensure that basic progressive ideals are kept, and ensuring that the stimulus would benefit the people of our country the best possible way is one way in which the democrats already failed to do, and that progressive republicans can do. And as the pragmatic center-right conservative must ensure that people are willing to take fewer government services if they want a smaller government, the liberal Republicans must be willing to pay higher taxes if an increase in services or any kind of investment such as construction of new edifices, museums and parks, etc, is to be done. As in the mold of Governor Dewey, a popular liberal Republican, if the people understand the tax increases to pay for the services and accept it, then can spending increase. Again, the pay-as-you-go liberalism as championed by progressive moderates and liberal republicans of the past makes a comeback.

A new competing view of progressivism and moderate to liberal views must be what the new GOP is about filled with ideas that can be put forth to the public, some that may be more center-right by maybe having a market based systems with necessary government oversight, or center-left government oriented systems, or center being a hybrid implementation of the two. Urban areas reject almost wholeheartedly any side that believes in getting government out of their society. They see government as a force of good, a necessary tool that is the only thing that can bring change and progress to their neighborhoods whether it is in government investing in renovating a local park, having a healthy and strong police force to patrol neighborhoods, or investing in new infrastructure and services of all kinds. While it is possible that some services can be put on the shoulders of the market, there still needs to be a healthy government oversight and regulation to make sure that they’re not merely benefiting from the profits and slacking on services, something private markets are prone to do without government serving as a watchdog. To win back the urban vote, the party must look back at who generally won in the urban areas in Republican history, and in looking back they will see that moderate and liberal republicans were key in getting the urban republicans, not the conservatives.

On the issue of the urban voters, we also talk about the African-American voter who once made up the base of the Republican Party. There was some debate not too long ago over a sign that sent the message that Martin L. King was a republican. The conservative republicans and generally liberal democrats came out to quarrel with each other on this subject with both pointing out some truths but not fully getting to the final answer. While Martin Luther King and the African-American urban voter may have been republican, they would have without a doubt been part of the seemingly long lost lineage of the liberal republican. If we are to try and bring back a long lost vote among minorities be it the black vote or Hispanic vote, it will not be with a misguided anti-government, libertarian, and staunchly conservative appeal but with a moderate and liberal appeal, just as this party so proudly once had. Thus the progressive moderate and liberal factions of the party have an important place especially with the suburban and urban areas.

To appeal to a wide audience, it is true that republicanism must adopt the “big tent” or “big umbrella” mindset. But what matters is where the base of this tent or the handle of the umbrella is at and how far out to the right or left should it go. So far the base has been on the conservative end, and over the years has kept going farther and farther to the extreme right. With the base being the extreme, any moderation would have to struggle to pull out towards the center but in doing so would always have to keep the base happy and as a result severely limit different ideas that could be not implemented unless they adhere to Limbaugh doctrine. Any centrism in this form would merely be a pandering moderation to the hard-line conservatives instead of an actual progressive centrism able to stand without those on the extreme.

These aforementioned parts of the progressive Republican movement that would make up the future base of the Republican Party would little resemble the extreme conservatism held by the Republican party of the late 20th and early 21st century. It would not be the “compassionate conservatism” of G.W Bush’s tenure, which propagated a wasteful spending coupled with the core libertarian/conservative belief in being anti-government in almost every aspect where government was needed. It is not based on the belief that “government is the problem” and subsequently should be made defunct and turned into a free all for corporate interests as is what the “very conservative” are about. It is a party that believes in pro-active government attitudes, with all factions be they the center-left, center or center-right agreeing with this idea in their pursuit of the best solutions to the nation’s problems. Only a Republican party with its base emanating from basic progressive principles that our party once had and stood for can truly be open and flexible to new ideas that are needed to uphold the basic principles of fairness, opportunity, and progress for all.

Email this post

Spread the Word: