Rachel Hoff has an excellent piece on how the GOP can better connect with young people. Martin, Ian, Blake and Aaron: listen up.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

Hetrodox conservative Bruce Bartlett has yet another column on the GOP fixation with tax cuts and our party’s abandonment of fiscal responsibility. If you haven’t read it, I would highly suggest it. Read more »

Email this post

Spread the Word:

Bad news will probably come again within the next week. We will hear of more job losses during September 2009, even as some economists tell us that we have turned a corner in the Great Recession.

The Recession is over when we have two consecutive quarters of economic growth. We have yet to achieve even one quarter of growth since the recession’s start in 2007.

No one likes bad news. But what if I were to tell you that they are sugarcoating the really bad news? What if I were to say that Americans should be rethinking the very meaning of employment and their job security for the next decade? Or longer?

In August 2009 we hit 9.7% “official” unemployment. That equates to just under 15,000,000 workers idled, many whose unemployment benefits are racing the clock. Read more »

Email this post

Spread the Word:

It is said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Republicans keep running pro-life candidates state wide in California, losing every time, and run them again expecting a different result. Right now, after the 2008 debacle, Republicans are doing all this analysis and soul searching to figure out how to start winning elections again. One solution is as plain as the nose on my face, and therefore, does not need any more analysis or debate. The solution is: don’t run pro-life candidates statewide in California.

However, one man clearly didn’t get the memo. Chuck Devore just announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate. Chuck Devore won’t win. He might win the primary but he will never be a U.S. Senator from California. I can say that with absolute certainty. Why? Chuck Devore is pro-life. That disqualifies him as a viable candidate in California. Now I don’t want anyone to misunderstand me here; being pro-choice does not guarantee you are going to win, but you have to be pro-choice to have a chance at winning. In addition, I am only talking about California. In other states, the exact opposite might even be true. But in California, a pro-life candidate cannot get elected statewide. You may ask how I could possibly make such a bold statement with such certainty. Especially when the political winds are always changing and anything can happen in politics. Look at President-elect Obama.

Who could have thought he could have become president just six years ago. So it is true – there are very few consistent rules in politics, but there is one rule in California politics that is consistent and unbending. The rule is that a pro-life Candidate can’t win statewide in California. It’s as certain as gravity.

The last U.S. Senator from California who was pro-life was George Murphy – and he was appointed in 1965 and lost his only election in 1970. That means a pro-life U.S. Senator from California has not been elected in my life time. I am forty two years old. Two generations of Californians have been born and reached adulthood without being represented by a pro-life U.S. Senator. The last time a pro-life candidate won state wide in California (besides U.S. Senator that includes the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, Insurance Commissioner, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction) was in 1994. That was Dan Lungren.

The only other Republican to win in 1994 was Chuck Quakenbush and he was pro-choice. And of course, Dan Lungren had the advantage of incumbency that year. When Mr. Lungren ran for Governor four years later he was trounced by Gray Davis. So the record for pro-life state wide candidates in the last fourteen years is one in twenty four. And the one pro-life candidate that did win in that fourteen year period, was an incumbent, and was trounced four years later by Gray Davis; who you have to admit, was not the most charismatic or formidable candidate. In the last ten years the pro-life candidates have had a zero rate of success. That means they are zero and sixteen.

If you need more convincing, a pro-life candidate for President has not captured California’s electoral votes since 1992, and that was George HW Bush who had earlier switched his views on abortion. The last pro-life governor in California was Ronald Reagan and he was elected the year I was born. On the subject of California Governors, pro-choice Arnold Schwarzenegger trounced Gray Davis just eight months after pro-life Bill Simon lost to him. When Bill Simon ran against Gray Davis, Gray Davis had the lowest approval ratings of any Governor in the history of California. He had the same chances at reelection as Herbert Hoover did in 1932. Yet somehow bill Simon found a way to lose to Gray Davis. Do you think his position on abortion had something to do with it? And like I said, just eight months later, pro-choice Arnold Schwarzenegger trounced Gray Davis. Seeing a trend here?

You may wonder how a political rule such as the one I am claiming could exist. You just need to look at the views of the average California voter. The most recent PPIC poll (January of 2007) showed that 71% of California voters support Roe v. Wade. In 2002, 71% of voters said they considered themselves pro-choice. That number represents almost ¾ of the California electorate. I can’t think of any other current hot political issue where ¾ of the California electorate supports one side. Can you?

If you are still not convinced, look at propositions seventy three, eighty five, and most recently; proposition four. Three times the pro-life activists in this state have tried to pass a proposition that would just require a minor to notify their parents before they have an abortion. This proposition was rejected not once, but thrice by the voters of this state.

Think about what that means is going on in the California voters’ mind. They are fine with the fact that a doctor can’t even give a minor an aspirin without getting their parent’s consent and yet the California electorate insisted three times that a female minor be able to get an abortion not only without her parent’s consent, but she doesn’t even have to notify them. Californians are so pro-choice they have given the right of an abortion to a minor when they haven’t given them the right to vote, drive a car, have a beer or choose to buy a cigarette. And yet somehow, Chuck Devore, expects this same firmly pro-choice electorate to elect candidates that think abortion should be illegal in the first trimester.

You may think, well why can’t a pro-life candidate just focus on different issues? Unfortunately, a candidate’s opponents also has a say on which issues are discussed. And if the Republicans run a pro-life candidate statewide you can bet your bottom dollar their opponent will discuss abortion. It’s the Democrat’s trump card. When Matt Fong, who thought abortion should be legal in the first trimester, ran against Barbara Boxer in 1998, Boxer ran commercial after commercial showing that he was pro-life when it came to late term abortions and parental consent. She ran those commercials repeatedly against Matt Fong and beat him handily. When it looked as though Tom McClintock might beat Steve Westly for the position as state controller in 2002, at the end of the race, Steve Westly started running television ads pointing out that McClintock was pro-life. He pointed out the one weakness that he new would work, and of course, he beat McClintock. The irony here is that the State Controller has absolutely no influence over the abortion issue, but California voters didn’t seem to care.

On most issues you can’t get such consistency from the California electorate as you get from them on the abortion issue. Californians elect candidates all the time that disagree with them on some important issues. For example, Jerry Brown is against the death penalty, and sixty seven percent of Californians support the death penalty (that is over two thirds), and yet two years ago the California voters elected Jerry Brown to the office of Attorney General. You may ask how could a man that has a reputation as being so liberal, and disagrees with two thirds of the electorate on one of the most important issues for an attorney general: the death penalty; win the office of Attorney General? The answer is he ran against a pro-life Republican. It seems no matter how bad a candidate the Democrats put up, that candidate will win if he or she faces a pro-life Republican. This is how we get so many extreme liberals representing such a conservative state; these ultra liberal Democrats slip into an otherwise unobtainable office because we make the mistake of putting up unelectable candidates against them. The last time Jerry Brown ran state wide he lost, but of course when he lost, he ran against a pro-choice Republican; Pete Wilson.

Therefore, it seems Californians will elect candidates that differ with them on many issues, as long as the candidate is with them on most of the other issues and the opposing candidate does not appeal to them. However, the exception to this rule is the abortion issue. Californians will not elect a pro-life candidate state wide no matter how much they agree with that candidate on other issues, and who that candidate is running against.

The tragic comedy about running pro-life candidates statewide in California is that, if elected, they could do absolutely nothing about abortion in California. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that abortion is a right under the US Constitution. Even if the Supreme Court changed its mind, and overturned Roe v. Wade, that would leave the decision whether abortion was legal to the states. And the California Supreme Court has ruled not only that women in California, under the California Constitution, have a right to abortions, but they have a right to late term abortions and minors have a right to have an abortion without telling their parents. The only way these California Supreme Court decisions could be overturned would be by a proposition, and this proposition would have to be passed by the same electorate that has voted that minors have a right to an abortion without parental consent three times.

So if pro-life candidates can’t get elected statewide in California, and even if they could there is nothing they could do to affect the abortion issue in this state, why even run a pro-life candidate? To make a statement? Well while you are making your statement, you are insuring Democrat victories. Every time the Republicans run a pro-life candidate state wide, we are just handing that office to the Democrats. Democrats pray that their opponent will be pro-life. Gray Davis even went so far as to insure that his opponent in his reelection was pro-life (Simon) by running television ads against pro-choice Riordan in the Republican Party primary to help pro-life Simon win. And California Republicans, in our infinite wisdom, let Davis choose his opponent. And what happened – one of the most unpopular incumbents in California history won because we let Gray Davis choose a pro-life candidate as his opponent.

When we nominate pro-life candidates we allow extremely liberal Democrats to get elected. Boxer has reaped the benefit of our inability to run a pro-choice candidate against her multiple times. She is one of the most liberal Senators in the U.S. Senate, but she keeps returning because we run pro-life candidates against her. Think about what this means for the future. Gerry Brown is thinking about running for Governor in 2010. This is a goal he will achieve, if he wins the Democrat primary and we run a pro-life candidate against him. If he runs for Governor, San Francisco District Attorney Kamela D. Harris is thinking about running to replace him as Attorney General. She is very controversial because she refused to pursue the death penalty for a man that shot and killed a cop in San Francisco. Normally such a woman wouldn’t have a chance of winning the office of California Attorney General. However, if she wins the Democrat primary, and we run a pro-life candidate against her, like we did with Gerry Brown, she will win.

In politics you have to respect the wish of the voters or face oblivion. The electorate in California has made it very clear what their position on abortion is and will only vote for candidates that support their position. I don’t know how they could make their position on this issue any clearer.

Californians are fiscally conservative and generally support most Republican principles. When we put up pro-choice candidates for state wide office, they don’t always win but often our candidates win by a landslide. Wilson, Poizner, and Schwarzenegger won all of their state wide elections by huge margins. But when we put up pro-life candidates we always get beaten.

From the California Republican League:

Having discussions about how Republicans can win statewide in California, without addressing the abortion issue, is like discussing how you can get your car to win the Indy 500 when it doesn’t have wheels. You have to insure you have wheels on the car first, or all other considerations are moot. The same goes for California statewide candidates. Unless they are pro-choice, no matter whom you run, and what their positions are on other issues, how much money they have and how well they run their campaign, they are like that Indy car with no wheels; victory is impossible.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

Kay Bailey Hutchison calls for more ‘enlightened’ leadership in Texas

Kay Bailey Hutchison called Friday for more “enlightened” leadership in state government, arguing that statements from rival Rick Perry on subjects such as secession hurt both Texas and the Republican Party.

“While I do think I can do more in Texas to govern better, I also want to build a Republican majority,” she told a group of civic and business leaders in Dallas called the Friday Group. “It is in all of our best interest that we have a Republican Party that’s worthy of governing in Texas and also having the message go out to Americans that the biggest state that is still reliably Republican is a state that has enlightened Republicans in leadership.”

Here in Texas the battle for the soul and future of the Republican Party is being fought in the fierce contest between Kay Bailey Hutchison and incumbent Rick Perry. Being one of the busy foot-troops (taking away some time to write) for the Kay campaign, I think it would be good to put some things here into perspective about why she may hold the key to the future of the Republican Party and why I am supporting her. Obviously with Texas being the bastion of conservative republicanism, it’s a pretty tough place for a centrist republican like me. Compared to many republican peers of mine who make up the rank and file of the party, I am not a conservative, socially or economically. Now this is plain heresy here in Texas and even in the campus college GOP organization, there are those who view me with the same disdain as they have of anyone who does not agree with their ideas regardless of party identification or even arguments as to why my views are more in line with Real Republicanism. Read more »

Email this post

Spread the Word:

I’ve started to believe that there is a certain amount of laziness in the media when it comes to the Republican Party and American conservatism. The media is good when to comes to exposing how messed up the GOP is, but they fail to notice, the “green shoots” those people and groups that are trying to be a force for change within the party and within conservatism in general.

I need to stress, that I don’t think this is some kind of “liberal media bias.” But I do think that many in the media tend to have specific viewpoint about conservatives, in that they think they know everything they need to know about conservatism.

Take for example, Marc Ambinder’s posts about Conservatives that want to cap emissions. He focuses on the fact that the conservatives who do favor such an action are all in Europe.

While there are few elected officials that are interested, there are organizations that are keeping the flames alive. Republicans for Environmental Protection wrote in their Summer 2009 issue a conservative case for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES).

I know that REP is not that well known, but it would be nice to see journalists like Mark Ambinder to use their brain once in a while and really try to see those little rays of hope in American conservatism.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

GOP Congressman Targeted By ‘RINO’ Hunters

September 23, 2009By any measure, Republican Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina is a solid conservative. In the 1990s, he was a vehement opponent of President Clinton. Last year, he got an “A” from the National Rifle Association, and an 84 percent approval rating from the American Conservative Union. His votes to cut budgets, leave markets unregulated and restrict abortions put him among the most conservative of his party.

But things are different these days. In the past three years, the Republican Party has lost control of the House, the Senate and the White House. The result is a shrunken, somewhat disoriented GOP, one that is on a search for its soul. And Inglis’ district in South Carolina is a kind of microcosm of this. It’s where the congressman is already facing stiff opposition in the 2010 Republican primary, from four challengers who say he isn’t conservative enough.

Here we go again, more news about RINO’s and how the far-right is trying to keep the party as small as possible in order to keep ideological purity. Except, this is weird, this person in South Carolina is not at all a RINO using the conventional view of the term in that it represents moderate and liberal republicans. This is someone who is in every way conservative, a record that would make a centrist like me view him as too conservative. So what makes him a supposed RINO? He voted in favor of repimanding Joe Wilson’s now infamous “You Lie!” outburst. Somehow his pursuit to keep a sense of civility within congress has landed him in the political hitlist of conservatives within our party. So the hunts in some parts of the nation continue, although politically some of these instances may be advantageous to our cause if in the next election cycle in 2010 those areas that have purged moderates and even respectable conservatives from their ranks in favor of “tea party” and religious right conservatives end up losing their battles in the general elections to Democrats while areas that have put forth centrists actually win against democratic opponents. Ideas on political strategy is something I will expound upon in another article.

But just think, what is generally considered a hardcore conservative is being pushed out just because he viewed civility within Congress as something he would stand for. Amazing and scary at the same time. We as a centrist organization are at risk of these people and organizations such as the Club for Growth, as well as candidates that start to even get near to our positions and hopes for the future of the GOP. What needs to happen are ideas and plans to counter these groups and push back. Here on this site, we must offer those ideas.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

You owe $38,523.22 as of this morning as part of America’s national debt.

Not happy? Write to the president, write to Congress and be sure to ask hard questions of candidates in upcoming elections.

Please DO NOT be partisan. There are no clean hands by either of the major parties. Write your letter as an American.

$38,523.22 is your share of the national debt. Your spouse owes that much. Your children owe that much.

Every American currently owes $38,523.22.

Taking non-working Americans out of the calculation (children, ill, retired, non-working spouses, etc.) and every working American owes $75,000.

Where did this debt come from? Years of buy now, pay later.

You and I will pay $425 billion just in interest on the debt this year.

Want or need social security? Cheap subsized pharma? Wars? Subsidized health insurance? Can you say corporate welfarism as well as welfare cadillac? We can have that if we buy now and pay later.

Our debt comes from a buy now and pay later mentality. An addiction.

So how much trouble are we really in? China wants to know if we can pay our loans back due to what it calls economic mismanagement. Tough words coming a Communist.

Sources:

– President Bush’s FY 2008 Budget, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/budget/outlook.pdf

– U.S. National Debt Clock, http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

– U.S. Public Debt, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

– MOUNTAIN OF DEBT: Rising Debt May Be Next Crisis, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=7995188

– Wen Voices Concern Over China’s U.S. Treasurys , http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123692233477317069.html

– Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ), http://www.ctj.org/

– DefeatTheDebt.com, http://defeatthedebt.com/understanding-the-national-debt/how-much-do-we-owe/

The chart is taken from President Bush’s FY2008 Budget and I added the names of the presidents according to their timeline oversight of the budget and national debt.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

Being a curmudgeon, I tend to be a bit grumpy about politics.

I’m not a good cheerleader. I believe that too much cheerleading leads to failure to look both ways when crossing the road … and when that happens: Splat!

It also bothers me greatly when there is no apparent sense of introspection as to how one got whereever they are.

Up in Maryland, the state Republican Party is running on fumes with $703 in their bank account per the last public accounting, and they have yet to publicly name a single figure as probably running for state office in 2010.

In the last two elections Maryland Republicans encountered a real smackdown by voters. Republicans now hold only 36 of 141 seats in the House of Delegates and 14 of 47 in the Senate. At national level, Maryland Republicans have just one house member.

State Republicans seem to be of two minds:Â one group believes that it can capitalize on President Obama’s falling poll numbers, and the turbulence caused by the health care debate. That’s it? No call to action? No state initiatives? No ‘Maryland of Tomorrow’ vision? Bang Obama and hope people think that is worthy of their vote?

The second mindset is represented by Vincent Pacelli, running for county commissioner in Carroll, “I think success should be defined not necessarily by who’s in Annapolis but by what happens at the local level.” Carroll County is one of the very few Republican counties in the state (51% of registered voters).

How refreshing. I could like Vincent Pacelli. Compete on ideas and show that Republicans understand what the voters want by dealing with realworld local issues.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

Conor Friedersdorf and Freddie deBoer have had a tit-for-tat over the whole controversy about someone from the National Endowment for the Arts “inappropriate” actions during a conference call last month. The conservative new site Big Government broke the story. Yosi Sargeant, the communications director for the National Endownment for the Arts was part of this conference call and made statements that flirted with the kind of political nonsense that left a nasty taste during the Bush years.

It would be easy to dismiss this story as I believe Freddie did. After all, the allegations came from a partisan website which has an axe to grind. deBoer thinks it’s quite rich that conservatives are shocked since they did the same thing very recently:

It does indeed bother me that the ideology responsible for having people sign written pledges declaring their support for President Bush before they see our elected officials speak now complains about this. It does indeed piss me off that a few short years ago, Republicans were routinely doing things like calling for Howard Dean’s hanging for criticizing the war in Iraq, and yet now they stand enraged over this meaningless conference call. It does indeed make me angry that the president himself declared that anti-Iraq war argument “gives comfort to our enemies,” and yet now I read Conor Friedersdorf calling for national prominence on this nothing of a story. Yes, indeed, it makes me angry that a party and ideology that represented nothing more forcefully or loudly than the notion that dissent was unpatriotic and treasonous, and that supporting the president and his aims were our solemn duties, now turn around and complain about something like this. Yes, that makes me angry.

Of course. all of this did happen. I remember it all and as a Republican, I found it reprehensible. That said, it seems that Freddie is painting to big a brush here, trying to tar and feather anyone that dares to call themselves a conservative. deBoer only has to read some of Conor’s past blog posts to know that he is as upset at the current state of conservatism as anyone else. Freddie’s condemnation of not just those in the Bush administration or a number of Republicans, but an entire ideology ,is not only simple-minded, it’s mean. There are many good conservatives that wanted nothing to do with this behavior. His rant basically condemned us all.

I believe the whole story matters. I don’t have anything against the NEA and I’m not looking to bring down the Obama Administration. But it matters because we have an employee of a government agency working in a capacity that was dancing dangerously close to propaganda.

We also have someone who represents an agency that is in the business of giving out money. While there might have not been any intent to influence people, the fact that the communications director of the NEA was on a call with artists where the intent political looks really bad. Seargant should have known better.

If the Obama Administration wants to get artists involved to push their agenda, fine. They can do that through groups like Organizing for America. But leave the NEA out of this. This is a government agency that is supposed to support all Americans, not just the ones that support whoever is in office.

In a response to Freddie, Conor lifts this quote from a commenter:

The NEA is not a tool of (administration) policy, and that’s the scandal here. I realize that this issue isn’t as crucial to some of you young’uns; I remember when the NEA was criticized heavily for funding to Mapplethorpe and “Piss Christ” and the like. Well, for one thing I think most Americans thought that that was “good” censorship. But for another liberals at that time stood for the idea that the NEA is not a policy tool. We fought the idea that conservatives should be interested in gutting it because of the messages of the art it funded, with the belief that the NEA didn’t exist to “message.” The NEA director isn’t supposed to be interested in the messaging of the art: he’s supposed to want to know to whom it’s accessible, if it’s introducing more and more diverse art into a community, if it’s something that can promote arts education, if it’s keeping a classic American form vibrant…

You would tear that up. Conservatives would then be well advised to kill the NEA and NEH and Smithsonian and intellectuals would be deprived of a good argument as to why that’s a bad idea. Now, some of us don’t share the TAS enthusiasm for crapola hipster bands, and the jazz I live on is pretty dependent on organiztions like the NEA, and not really very good for messaging. So I want this bullshit killed, and somebody from the Obama administration fired.

You want to keep kids in school and encourage service and so on with clever art? Use the fucking Ad council. Immediate thought: Jesus, you really do need to read Europe Central or some of Belinsky’s misguided takedowns of non-programmatic art from the late Romantics/early Realists. Those guys thought like you are. Thinking this isn’t a pretty serious deal is failing to realize how much art actually means — which is why we have an NEA.

I was in college when conservatives attacked the NEA in the early 90s for its funding of art that some deemed offensive. It was wrong then for conservatives to try to politicize the NEA then and it’s wrong for liberals to try to attempt to do the same thing now.

Let the NEA do what it is good at doing: supporting the arts in America.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

From Log Cabin Republicans:

A poll release by the Des Moines Register shows a unique insight into support for marriage equality in the Hawkeye State. In that 92 percent of Iowans argue that the state’s recognition of same sex marriage has not had an adverse impact on their lives, though support for marriage equality remains split, with 41 percent whom say they would support a constitutional amendment to overturn marriage equality and 40 percent who would oppose a ban.

The Register also highlights consern the focus on wedge issues might hurt the GOP at the ballot box:

“It’s really none of my business what other people do in their lives,” said Curt Goodell, 38, a Johnston resident.

He identifies himself as a Republican but said he worries his party will try to make marriage a key issue in coming elections. “I don’t have any judgment toward people who want to get married: gays, straight or whatever,” Goodell said.

Few poll respondents who described themselves as Republicans say the court decision is the single most important issue in the 2010 elections. But more than a third of Republicans say it is among several important issues, while only about a quarter of Democrats put it in that category.

Former state Republican Chairman Mike Mahaffey said the poll shows that, as the party searches for a winning message, the economy trumps marriage among voters.

Read more about marriage equality in Iowa in the Des Moines Register.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

The following is from David Jenkins, the Vice President of Republicans for Environmental Protection. This article appeared in the Fall 2009 edition of InFocus.

This year’s debate over climate change legislation has provided a vivid illustration of how today’s conservative political and media leaders approach environmental issues. The opposition to environmental protection efforts is almost reflexive in nature. Indeed, even before Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) rolled out a draft of their cap-and-trade climate bill in March, Republican leaders and conservative talk radio hosts were attacking the anticipated effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

By the time Congress brought the climate bill to a vote June, these critics-warning of impending doom-had demonized the concept of cap and trade, renaming it “cap- and-tax.” A small but vocal segment of the public, seeking to voice their adamant opposition, jammed up the phone lines and inboxes of congressional offices.

A Conservative Pedigree

Opponents of Waxman-Markey (The 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act) are often shocked to learn that cap-and-trade has a conservative pedigree that can be traced back to the Ronald Reagan White House. While serving as counsel for Vice President George H.W. Bush, C. Boyden Gray became enamored with the idea of emissions trading as a market-friendly alternative to the “command and control” pollution reduction approach typically favored by bureaucrats.

The Bush Administration then pushed cap-and-trade in 1990 as a novel and market-friendly way to reduce the sulfur dioxide emissions responsible for acid rain. The plan was part of the Clean Air Act amendments that Congress passed that year, subsequently signed into law by President Bush. Cap-and-trade was a great success, encouraging companies to reduce emissions faster and at a much lower cost than had been anticipated.

Partisan Shift

How, then, did cap and trade go from being a more conservative, market-friendly method of addressing pollution, to a “liberal scheme” that will wreck our economy?

Partisan politics certainly plays a role. This time, Democrats are pushing cap-and-trade, so Republicans are more likely to oppose it, particularly as they seek opportunities to criticize the Democrats’ agenda.

More importantly, conservative opposition to cap-and-trade-as well as other suggested environmental solutions-reflects a fundamental change in the American conservative movement over the past 20 years. This change underscores a troubling shift away from many longstanding conservative principles.

Conservatism in America has historically been a blend of traditionalist conservatism-which is primarily concerned with the health of our society, emphasizing responsibility as the corollary of freedom-and free market Libertarianism, which stresses individual liberty above all else.

These two schools of thought, when properly balanced, can help keep each other in check. But over the past two decades, free-market libertarianism has dominated the ideas of the conservative movement. In the process, it has nudged out many of the traditionalist influences that promote environmental stewardship.

Reagan Environmentalism

The timing of this shift appears to track closely with the end of the Ronald Reagan administration. In the decade that followed, libertarian-minded and property rights-focused lawmakers who generally held a dim view of environmental laws and federal public land ownership gained greater influence. This resulted in a strong push to weaken the landmark environmental laws that were enacted in the 1970s with strong bi-partisan support.

There is a common perception that the Reagan Administration marked a conservative shift away from environmental protection. While it is true that some officials within the Reagan Administration were vocal critics of environmental regulation, Reagan himself was very much influenced by traditionalist conservatism and was more stewardship-minded than those on either the right or the left give him credit for.

One example of this is directly applicable to the current climate debate. In 1984, researchers confirmed the hypothesis that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used in aerosol sprays and refrigeration equipment were depleting the earth’s protective ozone layer. They concluded that without a dramatic shift away from CFCs, life on earth would be exposed to ever-increasing levels of dangerous ultraviolet radiation emitted by the sun.

Those findings met with much the same kind of skepticism and resistance that scientific conclusions about climate change face today. Reagan, however, listened carefully to the experts, weighed the facts, ignored the scoffing of skeptics (including those from within his administration), and took prudent action to safeguard our atmosphere. Indeed, it was Reagan who pushed through the 1987 treaty to begin phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals.

That treaty, the Montreal Protocol, is widely regarded as the most successful environmental treaty of all time. Richard Benedick, the United States’ chief negotiator for the treaty, points out that Reagan was the world’s first head of state to personally approve a national negotiating policy on ozone protection, and that the “president completely endorsed, point-by-point, the strong position of the State Department and EPA,” demanding significant near-term reductions.

Today our ozone layer is healing, not because of Al Gore’s hype, but because of Ronald Reagan’s leadership.

Reagan had other environmental accomplishments, which included signing nearly 40 bills into law that added 10.6 million acres to the National Wilderness Preservation System.

In his 1984 remarks at the dedication of the new National Geographic Society headquarters building, Reagan summed up the traditionalist view regarding environmental stewardship:

“What is a conservative after all but one who conserves, one who is committed to protecting and holding close the things by which we live… And we want to protect and conserve the land on which we live-our countryside, our rivers and mountains, our plains and meadows and forests. This is our patrimony. This is what we leave to our children. And our great moral responsibility is to leave it to them either as we found it or better than we found it.”

A History of Stewardship

Apart from Reagan, conservatism has a very green history. President Gerald Ford signed our nation’s first automobile fuel economy standards into law. Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency and signed into law such landmark measures as the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act.

Congressman John Saylor, a staunch conservative from western Pennsylvania who served in Congress for a quarter century until he died in office in the early 1970s, was a dedicated wilderness and river advocate. He co-sponsored and was instrumental in the passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act and the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Dwight Eisenhower set aside the 8.9 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Range for protection. Herbert Hoover increased our national park system by 40 percent. And Theodore Roosevelt doubled the number of national parks, established 130 million acres of national forests, 18 national monuments, and 55 bird and game reservations.

A Founding Principle

The notion of stewardship is central to conservatism. Without a strong stewardship ethic-and the forward-thinking outlook it requires-the logic behind many conservative ideas falls short.

Edmund Burke, the 18th century British statesman who is widely regarded as the father of modern conservatism, viewed society and man’s responsibility to it as intergenerational. Indeed, Burke considered society to be a partnership among past, present, and future generations. In “Reflections on the French Revolution,” he wrote that society’s current “temporary possessors” have no right to “commit waste” on the inheritance of those who come after them.

Russell Kirk, a devotee of Burke and noted conservative author whom Reagan called “the prophet of American conservatism,” welcomed the environmental movement in post-World War II America. In a 1970 Baltimore Sun article, he wrote “nothing is more conservative than conservation.” He recognized the inherent connection between freedom and responsibility, writing “Every right is married to a duty; every freedom owes a corresponding responsibility.”

In The Conservative Mind, Kirk further noted that responsible stewardship is a predictable casualty of unrestrained material appetites. He writes that absent restraint, men will “…destroy in their lust for enjoyment the property of future generations, of their own contemporaries, and indeed their very own capital.”

In case there is any doubt that he was referring to environmental stewardship, he added: “The modern spectacle of vanished forests and eroded lands, wasted petroleum and ruthless mining… is evidence of what an age without veneration does to itself and its successors.”

Richard Weaver, another revered 20th century conservative and champion of the property rights movement, emphasized restraint in our dealings with nature. In 1948, he wrote a book titled Ideas Have Consequences, in which he asserted:

“Somehow the notion has been loosed that nature is hostile to man or that her ways are offensive or slovenly, so that every step of progress is measured by how far we have altered these. Nothing short of a recovery of the ancient virtue of pietas can absolve man from this sin.”

Weaver also advised that “man has a duty of veneration toward nature and the natural,” adding that “man is not the lord of creation, with an omnipotent will, but a part of creation, with limitations, who ought to observe a decent humility in the face of the inscrutable.”

Today’s Conservatives

The problem now is that many of today’s conservatives can’t see the forest for the trees. They have forgotten this great legacy and the essential role that stewardship plays in conservative thought. Instead of learning from the intellectual founders of the movement, the pundits of today are content to cherry-pick a few conservative ideas, toss in a hodge-podge of policy positions, and label it conservatism. In doing so, they have muddled the very essence of conservatism, stripped out its forward-thinking elements, and made it less effective and coherent as a philosophy of governance.

Were Burke, Kirk, and Weaver alive today, they would likely be appalled by the policies advanced under the conservative banner. Indeed, many of today’s policies take free market libertarian thinking to the extreme, subordinating virtually all other values to profit and personal gratification.

Ironically, the extreme of today’s conservative environmental doctrine bears a resemblance to the 1960s left-wing counterculture’s “if-it-feels-good-do-it” attitude. Only the vices are different.

The Path Forward

A majority of voters describe themselves as conservative or moderately conservative-and do not identify with the liberal label. Yet, conservative candidates have fared poorly in the last two election cycles.

Americans young and old want those they elect to be, above everything else, good and thoughtful stewards with a long-term vision that protects the interests of future generations. The conservative outlook they seek embraces resource conservation and protective environmental policies, but is understandably wary of Al Gore-style alarmism and the costly, overly bureaucratic solutions that liberals are prone to proffer.

The climate debate again provides a case in point. If liberals are the only ones presenting solutions, then liberal solutions are what we’re likely to get. By following Reagan’s lead and being constructively engaged in the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, conservatives can not only begin to reclaim their stewardship heritage, they can better check liberal tendencies and help produce a more balanced, revenue-neutral climate bill that does not needlessly expand government.

Rediscovering conservatism’s green side is the path to reviving the popularity of conservative thought in America. This should not be hard to do. After all, this is a path that only requires embracing American conservatism’s traditionalist roots and the stewardship ethic that lies at its core.

David Jenkins is Vice President for Government and Political Affairs at Republicans for Environmental Protection (www.rep.org)

Email this post

Spread the Word:

A few of you out there have said that it has been difficult to be able to respond to posts since you had to register beforehand. Well, since we do want to have an open debate, we have dropped the registration requirement and now people can comment a lot easier than before.

So, let the comments begin!

Email this post

Spread the Word:

One of the snide phrases often heard in political talk circles is “how is that hopey, changey thing coming?”

Hopefully (for the ranting talking heads) it will remain miserable long enough that folks forget that the Obama Administration inherited most of its problems. Except for health care, there are very few issues existing which have originated under Obama. Read more »

Email this post

Spread the Word:

From Minnesota Public Radio:

Former Republican Congressman Jim Ramstad is leaving open the possibility of running for governor in 2010 — even though he slammed the door on that option a few months ago.

Ramstad said on MPR’s Midday program today that there’s still a chance he may run for governor.

“Quite frankly, it has been very humbling. I have just been inundated with letters, e-mails, calls to reconsider,” said Ramstad. “So I told some good friends and supporters the other day that maybe the door is open just a crack.”

Ramstad, who’s a political moderate, said one reason he’s reconsidering a run for governor is because there aren’t any moderates in the race. He added that he’ll take his time before making a decision.

“This dog-and-pony show that they have going right now, with all nine Republicans and 10 Democrats going around the state — people are sick and tired of politics. They don’t want year-round campaigning. I’m just going to keep my dander dry and see what happens,” he said.

He says he’ll continue to listen to supporters before making a decision, but added that there’s still a 99 percent chance he won’t run.

But he also said it’s possible he could run as an independent or in a Republican primary. Ramstad served in Congress for 18 years, and did not seek re-election last November.

Nearly two dozen DFLers and Republicans are either already running, or are considering a run for governor. Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty is not seeking a third term.

Email this post

Spread the Word: