Republican Strategy Session: how to win in November

Here is a possible strategy for the Republican Party going forward:

First, the GOP is still not popular and there is no getting around that. Despite the victories of Scott Brown, Chris Christie, and Bob McDonnell, it should not be assumed that America is ready to go Red and are touting the party. Those elections were unique. First, Christie and McDonnell campaigned on local issues, not national. Although many of their ideas and the problems facing their state are applicable to the nation as a whole, it cannot be concluded that the rest of the country, particularly independents, are going to turnout in those numbers and vote so heavily on the side of Republicans. Not all Republicans are Scott Brown.

Realizing that we must now ask: Okay, they won't vote for Republicans just because their Republicans, how can we get out the vote? If you run as the opposition party, yes you will gain ground against an unpopular President and an unpopular Congress but it may not be enough. Usually when the national government is unpopular, turnout is pushed way low. That favors Republicans, as said before but we need to gain 39 seats in the House and 10 seats in the Senate. Being the "other party" is no guarantee of retaking either chamber.

Candidates must run personalized campaigns, not really as a Republican candidate, but a reform candidate and in many cases the conservative candidate, tailored to their personality and the personality of their district. Talking up the party is not helpful. So what do candidates talk about? Candidates need to learn as much as they can about the Tea Party, its principles, and what those people want. They also need to talk to other conservatives that regard themselves as independents and may not have voted in recent elections. Republicans are feeling good but we need to make conseratives feel good. About 40% of this country is conservative while only 27% is liberal. By reaching out to conservatives, particularly those that are unaffiliated with the Republican Party, candidates can tap into a voting block that has for the most part sat out elections over the past four years.

Okay, from the candidate's perspective, it is focus on grassroots, run conservative and run reform. What about the Party? Does the Party just keep quiet? Yes. The current Republican Party, the incumbents in Congress, and the leadership needs to shut up and prepare to step aside if necessary. We cannot allow ego or turf wars to thwart the growth of the party.

People do not like them and do not trust them. In particular: Michael Steele, John McCain, and Mitt Romney are not favorites of conservatives at all. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell invoke a collective yawn. They may be conservative but they do not inspire much enthusiasm. The Party establishment must keep quiet and let this conservative movement manifest itself without intervention in order to see it reach its full potential.

In some cases, the party bosses will see newly elected Congressmen and Senators that will probably not be their ideal choice. But for the good of the country, they need to let conservatives decide through primaries who will be the new generation of Republicans that will retake this country from socialists and radicals that don't care about the prosperity of this country and only take care of parochial interests among their small but loyal base.

Conservatives are not loyal partisans. If they were, Republicans would dominate year in and year out (like I said, conservatives 40%, liberals 27%). Conservatives will stay home and not vote at all if they think both parties are garbage. On the other side, liberals got REALLY excited about Obama and nearly all of them turned out to vote in 2008. That will not happen in 2010.

Who is the future of the Republican party? Who will be the Republican Presidential nominee in 2012? The odds are, we don't know them yet. I am beginning to think it will not be a familiar name.

Healthcare Predictions

The new Healthcare plan will fail to pass the House as is. The Abortion language will be put back in but will still come up short with only 205-210 voting in favor. The Senate will use reconciliation to use a compromised version of their own that will hopefully be more acceptable. It will pass maybe with 56-57 votes. But no Healthcare Reform in 2010.

President Obama will lash out at Republicans as obstructionists, insurance companies for buying off Congressmen, Tea Partiers for misstating his plan and fearmongering, and will also quietly criticize Pelosi and Reid. He will no longer campaign for either of them and will try to get new leadership in Congress.

He will be forced to move on to illegal immigration, cap and trade, and financial reform. Out of those three only financial reform will go through. The Summer and Fall will come and Obama will campaign full-time for Democrats, doing speeches and using his appeal to help keep a majority in the House. He will fail.

Iraq will continue to improve, Afghanistan will start to turn around slightly, Iran will probably have nuclear weapons - whether they admit it or not, and European Union will be in full catastrophe mode when Italy and Greece collapse financially. So really Obama's positives will be in foreign policy but he cannot acknowledge that and will not. Because they are succeeding because he adopted Bush's strategies.

The Democrats will thus be dealt a fatal blow. Unable to govern, incompetent, and clearly unconcerned with the will of the people, they will lose control of the House of Representatives due to a couple more retirements between now and November. Republicans will likely hit 219-222 seats, a slim majority. The Republicans will not regain the Senate but will get within 2-3 seats.

President Obama will then be forced to work with a Congress that is far less friendly.

This reform will fail in the House. The Democrats will self-destruct and it will have nothing to do with Republican dissent. I am hopeful that March will be a good month for the Conservative Movement and Republicans.

Political Considerations: Are Obama's misplaced?

There are reports that Obama is willing to shift the 9/11 conspirators from civilian courts back to military tribunals. It is also becoming clear that Gitmo will not be closed anytime soon. In this particular area, Obama is showing some regard for political realities and practicality. Trying these terrorists in civilian courts was a horrible idea and the closing of Gitmo on a specified date was just a stunt. Its not as easy as closing down a prison, the prisoners need to go somewhere and no solution had been found.

And yet, Obama has shown no willingness to compromise on Healthcare other than to sprinkle a couple Republican ideas on the giant behemoth he is proposing, and drop the public option. Why? Why is it that a legislative issue that is not a priority of the country and not a priority of the national government in general warrants such stubborness and uncompromising tactics? Why? Why is it so important to liberal democrats to pass Healthcare Reform as is without any compromise and yet an important issue of the rule of law and individual rights is open to it? I thought Obama was a former law professor.

Democrats started with a public option, which most of the country did not want. They then moved to a $1 trillion plan that would make Medicare cuts, add all sorts of new mandates, create price controls, and require the insuring of millions of people. From this point they have only reduced the size of the plan by bits and pieces to get a couple more votes.

Its clear that this Healthcare plan, which gives the federal government all sorts of new authority and necessity for new bureaucracy, is important to liberal democrats because of control and because they believe it will be good for the country. The evidence of its projected damage to the economy, the budget, and that it won't reduce costs clearly shows that the effectiveness of the plan is not important to them. Control is important. It gives them more levers to pull, more strings, and more "favors" they can do. They simply do not trust anyone to do this right other than themselves, the elite liberal aristocracy.

It should give us real pause that the President is willing to shift his principles on legal rights and Gitmo, but not on Healthcare, an issue that is far less based on ideological principle.

Opponents of the bill must stand firm and those on the fence be fully aware that a vote in favor of this plan will end their political career in November. I hope Republicans keep the heat up on this issue as well as the economy and jobs. There is a good chance if this passes that the Democrats will lose control of the House and the Senate.

U.S. needs to start teaching men to fish

The Proverb: Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish. Feed him for a lifetime.

The U.S. does not seem to see the wisdom in this proverb. Today we hand out fish to people that need it because of a bank meltdown, layoffs, economic downturn or whatever. We extend unemployment benefits past six months, isn't that just handing out fish? We give tax credits to people who don't even pay federal taxes. We gave bailouts to automakers and banks. We gave bailouts to states so they could keep their public employee unions happy and keep those high quality pension systems intact.

And where are we now? Outta fish.

Here is the liberal democrat explanation: Some people have trouble fishing because of historical and cultural barriers, or that the Wall Street crisis is so severe that people are no longer be able to fish on their own and will starve without the government handing out fish for a couple years. Maybe some people just aren't good fishermen, and so we need to help them. Where does that lead us? According to studies there are more people dependent on the federal government than at any point in U.S. history. We are now supplying more fish to more people.

Why is it that as time passes and we have progressed in the modern era, we seem to have become steadily more incompetent as fishermen. Why is it that despite the breakthroughs in nutrition, exercise, vitamin supplements, and carcinogens that there are so many more of us with physical and psychological defects that make it difficult for us to fish. Has the modern era made us more incompetent?

The answer is no.

We have been slowly persuaded that this group needs extra help, that group needs help, that its only temporary and only a one time deal. But entitlement programs are never temporary and it seems that these bailouts are massive and come around every 6-10 years. Meanwhile the needy groups are weakened into a sense of utter dependency. They never learn to fish because they don't have to. But what happens when we run out of fish to handout?

Examples: Look at the southside of Chicago and other parts of the country where liberal policies are enacted and government handouts are distributed at amazing rates. How are those communities doing now? How has the southside done thanks to all the community organizing that Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama have done over the past few decades? They are exactly where they were decades ago because the democrats have sold them false hope. The income disparity remains, the education disparity, the high crime, and other problems remain.

We need to stop handing out fish. It does not work, it makes people dependent and in this world you will eventually have to fish for yourself. The United States must find ways to teach its citizens how to fish, not just hand out fish. We don't do that through entitlements, high taxes, bloated public service programs, bailouts, or stimulus. The government must help citizens become independent, teach them how to fish.

It most cases it is merely getting the hell out of the way. Let the people learn on their own or let them return to fishing rather than just going to the big G store. In other cases it might be lessons on fishing, providing lures, line, and poles. But in the end, they have to catch the fish.

Isn't Democracy Grand?

The Healthcare Bill is going to the House and many Democrats are rethinking their vote. They are in districts that are potentially competitive and they are well aware that this bill is unpopular and might cost them their job. There are about 15-20 Democrats that are probably already toast as a result of voting for the first healthcare plan in the House. They represent centrist or conservative districts that do not like the radical Obama agenda.

And make no mistake, it is radical, in its financial scale and its deviance from the Constitution. So is this sort of political self-preservation instinct something that should be celebrated? Particularly if it leads to the defeat of Obama's destructive agenda? We reach the issue of whether we want representatives that vote their conscience and their principles or we want representatives that vote according to the will of their constituents.

It is easy to slam politicians for "saying and doing whatever it takes to get elected". They vote for questionable bills and make backroom deals with other politicians in order to ensure their seat is protected, whether through special interest support, campaign contributions, or gaining porkbarrel projects for the home district. Some of this is indeed undemocratic and probably illegal, but another part of it is very democratic. A politician is a politician because he got elected by voters. He got elected because he is doing and saying what he thinks the people want. Is he not carrying out the will of the people? Isn't that what a representative government is?

It is not that simple, but lets not completely throw the spineless politician under the bus. Because in the end, we the voters seem to elect these people quite often.

It is really the great thing about a Republic. House members want to keep their jobs. But now they are aware that they will lose their job if they defy the will of their constituents. But their party wants them to ignore their constituents and vote "what is best for the country, even if its not popular". Well, there are certainly times when political courage and sacrifice are laudable, but not here.

Only socialists and statists really believe the Obamacare plan is for the greater good.

And Pelosi is not the principled ideologue that some may make her out to be. Pelosi's district has been gerrymandered to the point where essentially she selected her own constituency, and it is the one that gives her the most power and control as a Congresswoman and the Speaker. When public officials are able to define "niche" constituencies that are unrepresentative of the country as a whole, you don't have anyone that has the greater good in mind, only the good for their customized constituency. Its like a criminal defendant picking his own jury.

Those on the fence, the moderates, are there because they are not making decisions on principle. They are making decisions for the sake of self-preservation and the perceived will of their constituents. This type of Congressman is always the last to decide.

In this case, it just might be those sleazy spineless politicians that stop this Healthcare Bill because it is the will of the people. And they believe it will help them keep their job.

Thank them for blocking the Healthcare Bill. Then vote them out in 2010. At that time voters need to find out which candidates are simply the same type of spineless politician and which are principled individuals. It is not easy to tell the difference but it is our responsibility to try. Otherwise, we are culpable in the blunders of our representative government.

Who should run for President?

It is pretty obvious Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, and Rick Santorum want to run for President. People like Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, and Bobby Jindal are probably strongly considering it as well. Some of these names I like more than others but I have a couple of suggestions.

What I look for in a Presidential Candidate
A record of reducing the size of government, cutting spending and other waste, leadership in times of crisis, political courage, and an ability to communicate clearly to not only conservatives but independents. A strong knowledge of foreign policy and economics is also preferable. I don't care about experience by itself, conservative credentials, endorsements, fundraising ability, geographical origin, gender, race, or hair color.

1. Mitch Daniels, Governor Indiana
Daniels cut spending during a period when almost every state was increasing its spending. He introduced a health savings account plan that has been shown to lower premiums, he cut property taxes as well as simplifying them. Finally, he brought a period of economic growth to Indiana just before the recession. He is conservative on economic and fiscal issues, a federalist, but also proven to be able to "get things done" rather than just spout out rhetoric. He is smart and well-spoken. The only negative is that he is on record of saying he doesn't want to run for President. He is also on record being a bit critical of the national Republican Party (a positive for me but not for the Republican Party that would nominate him).

2. Bobby Jindal, Governor Louisiana
Jindal doesn't quite have the list of fiscal accomplishments but has been a popular leader and more than capable of dealing with a rough situation down there. Replacing a fairly incompetent governor, Jindal has kept the state relatively stable. He is a true conservative as well, intelligent charismatic. On the negatives, his accomplishments are not long. He is young, perhaps too young. Finally, it is important he is able to stand up to the Party, which he has shown a reluctance to do at times. He needs to be tested a bit more perhaps. It could be that by 2011-2012 he will have completed a distinguished term as governor.

3. General David Petraeus, Commander of Central Command
The hero of Iraq and probably the best general we have, Petraeus also has a strong background in regular foreign policy and public policy. He has a masters from Princeton and can speak knowledgably on almost any subject. His ability to handle Congress in hearings shows his ability to communicate and to withstand criticism is very strong. He is adored by his men and his leadership is beyond question. However, Petraeus's real value would not be in the fiscal area, in my opinion. He is also an unknown, who knows how he would handle the political world. It is not like commanding troops in battle. He is still high on my list.

4. Mike Pence, Congressman Indiana
Another Hoosier, but this one has experience, votes conservatively year in and year out, and has been a more vocal member of the House Caucus. He is smart and charismatic as well. However, he has no record of leadership or accomplishment outside of the Congress and in fact even that record is a bit short. I am also pretty averse to legislators in general. He would be a fine choice but he has a bit of baggage more than likely since he served in Congress during the Bush years where there was more spending.

I am a huge fan of Paul Ryan (Rep. from Wisconsin), John Thune (Senator from South Dakota), and the new governor of Virginia Bob McDonnell. However, I would rather have those three where they are. The House Republicans need to start reforming themselves and putting in younger leadership. In my opinion Paul Ryan should become the new leader of the Republicans and hopefully the Speaker if they retake the House. The same for Thune in the Senate. We need great people in both chambers as well as a new President.

Romney, Huckabee, and Pawlenty are good men but they are fairly moderate. They speak too much to moderates and want to be loved by all. I don't think they have the political courage and leadership necessary. They also lack good track records of reducing spending or reducing the size of government. Unfortunately for the Republican Party, there is a shortage of female leaders. Michelle Bachmann, Marsha Blackburn, and Kay Bailey Hutchison are excellent but none are really there yet in terms of accomplishment and leadership. They also have shown no ability to appeal to anyone other than their base.

Noticably missing from the list is Sarah Palin. Palin is VERY charismatic and adored by many, her policy expertise is steadily growing as well. However, she clearly has gaping holes in her knowledge and is inexperienced. 2-3 years as governor of the smallest state of the union is insufficient in my opinion. She clearly has political courage and leadership qualities but needs to build up the rest of the resume. She is young and will be a voice for conservatives for years to come. If she runs in 2016 or 2020 that would be excellent, but I think 2012 might not be the right election for her.

Others:
Newt Gingrich is too old and clearly wants to be on television more than anything else. Rick Santorum has no record of accomplishments and too overly focused on social issues, which are not relevant in 2010 and won't be in 2012. Scott Brown is a moderate so people need to stop pointing to his victory as a sign of things to come. Mike Huckabee is not qualified to be President.

Any thoughts? Additions?

Government of the Sages: An Intro to Taoist political philosophy

Not exalting cleverness causes the people not to contend,
Not putting prices on hard-to-get goods causes the people not to steal.
Not seeing anything to want causes the mind not to be confused.
Therefore, The government of the sages empties the mind and fills the middle, weakens ambition and strengthens the bones, always keeping the people innocent and passionless.
It makes the sophisticated not dare to contrive;
action being without contrivance, nothing is disordered.

Tao Te Ching, Chapter 3

The Tao Te Ching is the famous book of poems and sayings that represent the essential philosophical foundation of Taoism. This chapter in particular demonstrates one of the key principles of Taoist political theory. Some of the following is the interpretation of prominent Taoist experts, but some of it is also my own interpretation.

The prominent phrase is that the government of the sages "weakens ambition and strengthens the bones". One of the essential objectives of government is to weaken the ambition of its people, particularly the sophisticated (the clever, intelligent, etc.). Ideally, a state is governed so that the sophisticated have no means of feeding their ambition or satisfying their desire for power and influence. The phrase "strengthens the bones" balances the idea by showing that this is not to be done by disabling the people physically. Taoism does not promote the systematic repression of people for the sake of order and equality.

This principle was widely accepted by the Founding Fathers, although they probably were not aware of the Tao Te Ching and certainly did not express it in such poetic terms. The Founders wanted a system of government where it was made nearly impossible for aspiring tyrants to seize control and satisfy their ambitions. At the same time they devised a Bill of Rights protecting the people from the government's attempts to usurp power or crush the ambitions of the people through use of force. The U.S. Constitution is a grand attempt at weakening ambition while strengthening the bones.

Exalting cleverness is something that unfortunately American society is known for. In Greek times, public figures were often judged on their oratory skills or mastery of rhetoric. This type of cleverness or trickery was often rewarded with elected office. In modern times, we place such an emphasis on not just the oratory skills of public figures, but also physical appearance, voice, and symbolic gesture. The Presidential debates, public speeches, ribbon-cutting events, and other such practices are done because we value figures with such abilities of showmanship. It is something that Taoism abhors and for good reason.

President Obama was highly regarded early in the campaign for his rhetorical skills, good looks, great speeches, and beautiful family. The American people did not seem to place emphasis on his lack of legislative record, or lack of achievement in public service in general. In fact his small record of extreme leftist policy was intentionally ignored because he sounded like a reasonable man who would reach out to moderates and even conservatives. We simply did not want to believe that such an elegant and good looking guy could have the same beliefs as Rev. Wright, Mr. Ayers, or Karl Marx.

The "pricing of hard-to-get goods" is very relevant today. Government is not to control the market through creating demand, as well as controlling or pricing goods. The government is attempting to create value in certain the areas of healthcare, insurance, carbon allowances, and other areas essentially "creating value" and setting prices. The State should not have a role in the economy. In this case, Taoism is clearly in favor of a free market and the Founders were as well.

"Not seeing anything to want" refers to the actual ambition of the State itself and not necessarily one individual or a group of ministers. Today we see the federal government "wanting" more control. In areas of healthcare and cap and trade, the legislation does not actually achieve the state objective (the health plan has been shown to not lower cost or provide better care, cap and trade has been shown that it will not significantly affect carbon emissions). It is not about climate change or lowering the cost of healthcare, it is about control. With more control, and more levers to pull, the government has greater authority and thus public office provides for the ambitious. It is done without the usual visual indicators of ambition like a secret police, a big powerful paramilitary force, or a suspension of individual rights. It is more clever and very well-contrived.

In an ideal system, the State is organized and governed by the rule of law. The rule of law imposes restrictions such as separation of powers, federalism, and Constitutional prohibition on certain acts by the state. A sophisticated aspiring tyrant "dare not contrive" in most cases but not all. We must all be careful and vigilant when the ambitious are allowed to contrive and the sophisticated propose grand designs and promote them through cleverness and showmanship. Some may even try to confuse the meaning of the Constitution in order to move past its potent restrictions. In a State where the Constitution becomes relative, all things are possible for the clever and ambitious.

Sadly, I think we failed in 2008. I think the sophisticated have rallied behind a clever and highly exalted leader with grand ambitions. We must reverse course in 2010 and 2012 and began restoring the legal limitations on the State to "weaken ambition" and while also protect the prosperity and strength of the people "strengthen the bones".