Ron Paul Winning CPAC: Real vs. Ideal

Almost everyone who follows politics knows that at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference libertarian-republican (if you can put those two words together) Representative from Texas, Ron Paul, won the straw poll. CNN has it here:

“The results of the Washington Times CPAC straw poll of presidential candidates are in, and the winner is Texas Rep. Ron Paul, with 30 percent of the vote. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was the runner-up with 23 percent.

There were 3,742 ballots cast in the annual survey, which is a chance for devotees to name their pick for president in 2012. Fifty-six percent of those surveyed said they were generally satisfied with the field of potential candidates and 43 percent said they wished the GOP had a better field of potential candidates. For those surveyed, the size of the federal government was the most important issue to them.”

In a lot of ways the above straw poll shows the state of the Republican party. The debate between the ideal and the real.

The Mitt Romney’s of the Republican party are going to argue that the Ron Paul’s of the party even with their good ideas are not electable, we should settle on someone like Mitt Romney, which they consider the real. The Ron Paul’s of the party will say that we should not settle for the ideal. So who wins?

Neither of them will ever win. This is what “Republicans” have such a hard time accepting. The system, which is our laws and policies, will never elect anyone who is for limited government. It just simply can’t happen. The current system rewards those that dole out to special interests and punishes those that stand for ideals. It doesn’t matter whether your limited government candidate is a Ken doll from a liberal state or a squirrelly off the cuff texan, he who will be elected will have to have friends in high places to do so.

Why is it the Republican party cannot accept this? Think about the majority of Republican party members. They usually hold one, if not all of these characteristics:

  • Loves the Constitution
  • Loves the American Flag
  • Loves the Founding Fathers

Now, there is nothing wrong with loving these three things. But like a good love, they will break your heart. And the Republican party refuses to get over it. The founding fathers were great visionaries and they created a government that they would hope would stay limited. They did the best they could do and they should be honored for that. But that does not help us sustain a limited government.

Next is the Constitution and this is the real big one for conservatives. How many times have we heard “only if they followed the Constitution”? I know I have heard it a million times myself. But for some reason conservatives and the Republican party are okay with saying that. It’s as meaningless as a police chief throwing up his hands and saying “only if they followed the law.”

What we need to look at is why is it that the Constitution is not followed? And under what system would we have a more effective society? Is there an alternative?

Should the GOP Run Toward the “Middle”? By Jack Hunter

Today’s article of the day comes from Campaign for Liberty:

When Republican Sen. Arlen Specter defected to the Democratic Party recently, politicians and pundits everywhere heralded the move as another sign that the GOP was “too conservative.” Said liberal Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe, “If the Republican Party fully intends to become a majority party in the future, it must move from the far right back toward the middle.”

Presumably “the middle,” a pasture that so many Democrats, liberal Republicans, and others believe the GOP should now graze, is a place free of “reckless” government-slashing rhetoric. These critics believe Obama is president, the Democrats are in power, and Republicans who refuse to “change” with the rest of the country will face inevitable defeat for the foreseeable future. The Republican Party is simply “too conservative,” they say. Nothing could be more untrue.

What exactly did voters reject in 2008 that makes for such a dark future for conservatives? A government-slashing Congress? A president that cracked down on illegal immigration? A Christian right, gun zealot? No, they rejected George W. Bush, a big government, amnesty-proposing president, who was occasionally socially conservative in his rhetoric, but rarely in practice. Between the war and spending, America soured on Bush for reasons that had nothing to do with conservatism.

Does anyone really believe voters are now enamored with Barack Obama because they despise conservatism and love liberalism? Americans aren’t that ideological. After 100 days in office, Obama’s popularity remains high, with a significant majority in a recent Gallup poll saying he is doing a good job. But when the same poll asks “what is the worst thing Barack Obama has done since he became president?,” the number one answer is “stimulus spending,” the president’s most ambitious and most defining piece of legislation to date.

If the GOP must move to the middle to win elections, exactly what do Republicans gain by backing massive spending increases which even those who support Obama are uncomfortable with? Why is becoming more like the Democrats considered the path to GOP success? What’s the point of even having a Republican Party?

The GOP would do well to flee from the consensus middle and take a hard right on the top issues that continue to concern Americans across the political spectrum — out-of-control spending, outrageous debt, and our ever-expanding federal government. In other words, the Republican Party should actually become the party of small government it has always pretended to be.

But not everyone agrees, most notably Sen. Lindsey Graham. According to The New York Times, “Graham scoffed at the notion that the party was suffering because it was not conservative enough. ‘Do you really believe that we lost 18-to-34-year-olds by 19 percent, or we lost Hispanic voters, because we are not conservative enough? This is a ridiculous line of thought. The truth is we lost young people because our Republican brand is tainted.”

Graham is right. The Republican brand is tainted — by Bush Republicans like Graham.

While the 18-to-34-year-olds came out in force for Obama, the most conservative Republican presidential candidate in the last election ran a campaign defined in large part by its youth support. As usual, the old, white, Christian Republican base dutifully gravitated to conventional, Bush Republicans like McCain, but the government-slashing radical Ron Paul drew support from young and old; Republicans, Democrats, and independents; whites, blacks and Hispanics; Christians and non-believers. The much discussed, increasingly shrinking GOP is the party of lukewarm, establishment men like Graham, McCain, and Bush — not fiery conservatives like Ron Paul.

But those who believe the GOP must move to the middle are right about one thing: Thundering on and on about abortion, gay marriage, and family values at the national level is political suicide, precisely because too many Americans who might be attracted to a limited government message would be repulsed by any politician they perceive as wanting to dictate their personal lives.

Once again, Paul’s example is the best solution. This pro-life, conservative Christian believes states should decide social issues free of federal interference. Gay newlyweds in Vermont would have nothing to fear from a staunchly libertarian GOP. And neither would conservative Christians in South Carolina, who would gain more from a smaller, less intrusive government than the type of pro-Christian, big government the religious right typically supports. In any move to the middle, Republicans are more likely to find a graveyard instead of salvation. The GOP will never out-Obama, Obama.

However, it is not clear that voters are prepared to accept big government as the long-term American way. If a majority ever decides to reject it, they will require a GOP far removed from the current, middle-of-the-road consensus of both parties. And only a Republican Party that eventually opposes big government — and is not a part of it — will stand fit to put it out of its misery.

Published in: on May 18, 2009 at 6:51 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , ,

Why are you a small government Conservative?

Why all this?

Why all this?

Many people claim to be Republicans and champions of limited government but in fact they embrace large government tendencies. The idea that you could control someone’s bedroom is in the same line of thinking that you can control someone’s wallet. This line of reasoning does not make sense. So the question is, if you call yourself a small government Conservative, then why are you? Even more, if you are a SGC do you also call yourself Republican?

Bill Kristol who usually spouts off Neo-Conservative ideas that are horrible makes an important point in his  latest article. He believes that we need to look at why we are small government and he goes on to say that Republicans are not, not matter how much they say it. I am not sure if Kristol would agree with this part but I honestly believe you must be able to understand economics. That is the main purpose of this site. It is to shape your mind into thinking about everyday things in a different way. Not just saying the bailouts are bad but actually explaining how they are bad. Here is more from his article in The International Herald Tribune:

“But conservatives should think twice before charging into battle against Obama under the banner of “small-government conservatism.” It’s a banner many Republicans and conservatives have rediscovered since the election and have been waving around energetically. Jeb Bush, now considering a Senate run in 2010, even went so far as to tell Politico last month, “There should not be such a thing as a big-government Republican.”

Really? Jeb Bush was a successful and popular conservative governor of Florida, with tax cuts, policy reforms and privatizations of government services to show for his time in office. Still, in his two terms state spending increased more than 50 percent – a rate faster than inflation plus population growth. It turns out, in the real world of Republican governance, that there aren’t a whole lot of small-government Republicans.

Five Republicans have won the presidency since 1932: Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and the two George Bushes. Only Reagan was even close to being a small-government conservative. And he campaigned in 1980 more as a tax-cutter and national-defense-builder-upper, and less as a small-government enthusiast in the mold of the man he had supported – and who had lost – in 1964, Barry Goldwater. And Reagan’s record as governor and president wasn’t a particularly government-slashing one.”

So why are you a small government conservative?

The rest is here.

~PCCapitalist

Huckabee on Bailout: Disappointed and Disgusted

When Mike Huckabee first started his campaign, he seemed like the Conservative that could unite all wings of the party. Especially, the Economic conservatives with the Social conservatives. As the campaign went on, his rhetoric changed and didn’t seem as economically sound. This is what I think is his downfall. Now he has a PAC and he sent this out with his criticisms and his own plans:

“Frankly, I’m disappointed and disgusted with my own Republican party as I watch them attempt to strong-arm a bailout of some of America’s biggest corporations by asking the taxpayers to suck up the staggering results of the hubris, greed, and arrogance of those who sought to make a quick buck by throwing the dice. They lost, but want the rest of us to cover their bets so they won’t be effected in their lavish lifestyles as they figure out how to spend their tens of millions and in some cases, hundreds of millions in bonuses and compensation which was their reward for not only sinking their companies, but basically doing the same to the entire American economy.

It’s especially disconcerting to see the very people who pilloried me during the Presidential campaign for being a “populist” and not “understanding Wall Street” to now line up like thirsty dogs at the Washington, D. C. water dish, otherwise known as Congress, and plead for help. I thought these guys were the smartest people in America! I thought that taxpayers like you and I were similar to the people at the U. N. who have no translator speaking into their headset – that we just needed to trust those that I called the power bunch in the “Wall Street to Washington axis of power.”

The idea of a government bailout in which we’d entrust $700 billion to one man without Congressional oversight or accountability is absurd. My party or not, that is insanity and I believe unconstitutional.

Will there be far-reaching consequences without some intervention? Probably, but we honestly don’t know since we’ve really never seen this level of greed and stupidity all rolled into one massive move. But may I suggest that letting “Uncle Sugar” step in and bail out the billionaires who made the mess will be far worse and will start a long line of companies and individuals who will demand the same of the government—which last time I checked means that they will be demanding it out of YOU and ME. This is not money that Congress is risking from THEIR pockets or future, but ours. Many if not most of us have already experienced lost value on our homes, retirement accounts, and pensions. Now they’d like for us to assume some further risks so they won’t have to.

What happened to the “free market” idea? Is that only our view when we WIN and when we LOSE, we ask the government to come in and take away the pain?

If you are a small business owner, is this the way it works at your place? When you have a bad month, a bad year, or face having to close, can you go up to Congress and get them to write YOU a fat check to take away your risk?

Some of what contributed to this disaster is too much government in the form of Sarbanes/Oxley. Some is due to the tax structure that created the hunger for companies to “game” the system. Some is the common sense that was ignored like loaning money to people who can’t pay it back.

Wall Street has become Las Vegas east, but at least in Vegas, people KNOW they are gambling and they don’t expect the government to cover their losses at the tables. In Wall Street, they do. And the American taxpayer burdens the responsibility.

If Congress wants to do something, here are some suggestions:

1. Eliminate ALL capital gains taxes and taxes on savings and dividends right now. Free up the capital and encourage investment. This is the kind of economic stimulus the Fair Tax would bring and if Congress is going to lose money, let them lose it with lower taxes, not with public dollar bailouts of private market mistakes.

2. Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley. It has failed. It was supposed  to prevent this. It didn’t. Kill it.

3.  Demand that the executives who steered their ships      into the ground be forced to pay back the losses of their companies. Of course, they can’t, so let them work and give back to the government and they can live like the people they put on the streets or kept there. It makes no sense to put them in jail—that’s just more they will cost you and me. I’d rather them go out and earn money—just not get to keep so much of it this time. I’m not talking about limiting CEO salaries—just those of the people who now are up in Washington begging for help because they ruined their companies.”

I have to say, I am utterly impressed. His analysis is good and so is his plan for the most part. He would increase investment, which is actually the Austrian solution to the business cycle.

~PCCapitalist

Published in: on September 24, 2008 at 5:56 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,