Will The Sons Of Reagan Please Stand Up?

Jeffrey Lord should be on your list of "must read" authors.  He cogent and insightful, always thought provoking.  In today's essay, The Conservative Revolt: Principles And Leverage, he gives the method of operation that animated Reagan's presidency.  It's one that every conservative should adopt as his or her own.  And it's one that the successful new leaders of conservatism will consistently display.  The leader who gets this will be one whom grassroots conservatives line up behind and work for.

Some excerpts:

Ronald Reagan was always clear-eyed about the people he was negotiating with in these Cold War episodes. He knew what was driving them philosophically and intellectually -- and he believed passionately that what the Soviets had been doing since the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 was not only politically unsound but morally wrong. Evil.

Or are GOP leaders too worried they would offend the President and his media allies if they, again using Reagan's words, "struck at anything so basic." Well, so what? Who cares if they offend the President and his liberal media allies? Redistributionist thought -- socialist thought -- is every bit the empty cupboard today as it was when Reagan was president.

Let's see the House GOP start talking relentlessly, in Reagan-style, about the underpinnings of what Obama is demanding. Connect the dots just as Reagan connected the dots between a specific -- negotiations in Geneva, a summit in Reykjavik, the barring of the Soviet Ambassador's once privileged access to the State Department etc., etc., etc. -- and the bedrock reason they are being done. In the Cold War case, a quest for world domination; in the Fiscal Cliff case, the re-making of America into a socialist country.

Use principle. Use leverage.

Grover gets it. Brent Bozell gets it. The Heritage Foundation gets. Rush and Sean and Mark and their millions of listeners get it.

It's time for the House GOP leadership to get it.

Or there will be another use of conservative principle and leverage in 2014.

You could call it The Conservative Revolt.

Or cleaning the House.

Newt's Strategy For This Congress

Newt Gingrich is still the smartest man in almost every room he enters.  He value as a strategic thinker for the GOP cannot be overestimated.  It is too bad he brought as much baggage to the Presidential race as he did.

His strategy for the next two years is compelling:

"

The Smart Legislative Strategy for Obama’s Second Term

Human Events
December 5, 2012
Newt Gingrich

Instead of being focused on a phony fiscal cliff, Republicans might focus on how they will approach Obama’s second term.

What should House Republicans do? They are in a very different world than they expected just one month ago. Instead of cooperating with a new President-elect Romney, they find themselves baited, taunted, and attacked by a newly re-elected and re-energized President Obama.

What is the right strategy for this new situation?

The news media are, of course, in full collusion with the president in defining the current situation in pro-liberal, anti-Republican terms.

The House Republican situation is made even more complex by the strengthened position of Democrats in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has to feel emboldened by the strategic success of gaining seats in a year which began with every expectation of substantial Republican Senate gains.

The news media and Washington elite solution is simple: surrender, cave in, give up your principles, do what the President demands. Those are the daily suggestions and expectations of the elite media and much if the national establishment, which takes its talking points from the consensus media of the left.

It would be a triple disaster for House Republicans to follow this defeatist advice.

First, it would be a betrayal of the very principles for which they campaigned and the voters who elected them.

Second, it would deeply and bitterly split the House Republican Conference between hard core conservatives and “Obama cooperators.”

Third, it would embolden President Obama and the left to increase their demands and push for even more concessions.

House Republicans are guaranteed majority status through 2014. The odds are overwhelming that they will increase rather than decrease their numbers in the 2014.

Election

House Republicans do not have to worry about day-to-day headlines or day-to-day polls.

They have the opportunity to think and to develop a new strategy in response to their new circumstance.

It was this understanding of time and strategic patterns which enabled the first House Republican majority in 40 years to become, in 1996, the first re-elected House Republican majority in 68 years.

The Washington establishment mythology of the Clinton years almost completely falsifies what actually happened.

House Republicans closed the government twice in late 1995 in their determination to convince President Clinton and the national establishment that we were going to balance the federal budget for the first time in a generation.

The Washington media still believe this was a major mistake.

Yet closing the government convinced the Republican base and the conservative movement that we were serious and had the courage to stand and fight for our convictions.

One year later House Republicans were re-elected despite a resounding defeat for Republican presidential candidate Robert Dole. Almost no one in the national establishment has ever looked at the GOP’s House victory and why it occurred.

Welfare reform and the only four balanced budgets in the modern era were a direct result of that strategy. Furthermore, those balanced budgets were produced by economic growth brought about by tax cuts, not by a socialist austerity program based on tax increases.

House Republicans should take the next six weeks to meet in private and work through a grand strategy for the next four years.

They have to develop a strategic program that can stop and then reverse the efforts of President Obama and the left to fundamentally change America.

This is precisely the type of moment the Founding Fathers designed the constitutional balance for.

The Founding Fathers understood that the executive branch could potentially become dictatorial and too powerful. That is why they built in checks and balances.

The House has five great tools for offsetting a President. These tools are helped by a cooperative Senate but they are not eliminated by an uncooperative Senate.

The five tools are:

1. Appropriations

2. Oversight

3. Legislation

4. Communications

5. Negotiations

The House Republicans today are over-relying on negotiations, the fifth and least useful of the five tools. Our effective negotiations with President Clinton only came after the two government shutdowns. We had to earn his respect through direct, hard confrontation before we could get his attention for practical negotiations.

The negotiation tool is the weakest because it centralizes communications and decision making into a formula which maximizes the President’s dominance within the national news media.

Appropriations

The most powerful House tool is appropriations. This power goes all the way back to Runnymede and the signing of the Magna Carta. If the people’s representatives don’t appropriate the money, the President can’t spend it. House Republicans should be prepared to suspend all appropriations except national security and public safety. They should selectively zero out the least popular of the President’s initiatives and agencies. He can attack the House all he wants, but he can’t spend money without its approval. The conservative movement would be galvanized by such a display of firmness.

Oversight

There are well over a hundred subcommittees which can be holding oversight hearings. Like the Lilliputians tying down Gulliver, these subcommittees can gradually educate the country about the waste, the cronyism, the corruption, and the radicalism existing throughout the Obama executive branch. The daily reports of hearing after hearing and scandal after scandal become a Fabian strategy of wearing down the Obama juggernaut and exposing its downside.

There is also a positive side to the hearing and oversight process. The House Republicans should ally with the 30 Republican Governors. Many of them are doing very smart things which could be applied to Washington. All of them can highlight areas in which Washington is forcing waste and inefficiency on their state. They give the House Republicans 30 star witnesses to layoff hearings. Several former Governors (notably Indiana’s Mitch Daniels and Mississippi’s Haley Barbour) would also make outstanding witnesses.

The combination of positive reform ideas and negative coverage of waste and scandal could make every subcommittee a star in its own right and create more communications than the White House could cope with.

Legislation

Legislation is action. It is fact. It is reality.

House Republicans should start by scouring the bills introduced by House and Senate Democrats for every good idea. Every chance House Republicans have to pass a bill introduced by a House or Senate Democrat, they build an irrefutable record of bipartisanship. Let Harry Reid and President Obama explain why they oppose Democratic bills passed by the House Republicans.

In addition, House Republicans should look for specific, narrowly-drawn positive ideas and pass a vast series of small bills. Let the Democratic Senate either start behaving responsibly or let it become known as the graveyard of obstruction. Either a lot of bills will be sent to the President or the theme of Constructive Republican House versus an obstructionist Democrat Senate will become a major factor in the 2014 elections.

Communications

House Republicans should study the period 1824-1828. The Jacksonians were enraged by the outcome of the election of 1824 and they spent four years steadily undermining the administration of President John Quincy Adams. Their use of the frank and of Congressional communications is a masterpiece.

In 1996, a concerted, methodical House Republican effort enabled us to reform Medicare and win the communications argument. In 2012, the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee did a splendid job of defeating Mediscare.

The House Republican leaders cannot out-communicate the President. It is a structural impossibility because of the White House command of communications.

However, 200-plus House Republicans (some will never cooperate) can more than overmatch an Executive Branch.

Negotiations

Having used appropriations to prove seriousness, oversight to define the debate, legislation to build a coalition, and communications to define the contest, then House Republicans can then negotiate from strength.

This is a strategy which can set the star for a successful 2014 and 2016.

More importantly, this is the right strategy for our values and for America."

Be Smarter In Engaging Cultural Groups

A poll reported by the Daily Caller gives conservatives hopes in reaching Hispanics to join in the conservative cause.  Read Illinois poll of Hispanics finds agreement with GOP on guns, gays, abortion.

"As Republicans ponder how to win over Hispanics in future election cycles, there may be a light at the end of the tunnel.

A poll of Illinois Hispanics conducted by pollster Mike McKeon found that a majority shared views generally considered to be sympathetic to the Republican party."

Welcome Back

After a three year hiatus, we're turning the lights back on here at the Patriot. While I've maintained a presence on the web through social media, the time is right for a renewed commitment to engaging in the national conversation.  The conservative movement has reached a low ebb.  And it's time for us to stop only complaining and being fearful.  It's time for honest discussion and real action.

To that end, we want the Patriot to be on your short list of daily stops on the web.  We look forward to seeing you and interacting with you in the metas.

Got this picture from Pat Buchanan's website:

Newt on Defense Threats

Huckabee on Israel

Huck on Health Care Reform

A Consequence of Health Care Reform

The Mainstream Media and squishy pseudo-Republicans like Joe Scarborough are all aghast that Sarah Palin used the term "death panels" to describe the new health care bureaucracy. While there is no entity given the title "Death Panel" in the bills before Congress nor is there a body whose exclusive function is determining who lives and dies, her charge is essentially correct. There will be a group of G-12s and consultants sitting in a government office somewhere deciding what type of patient is allowed to receive what kind of treatment based on a cost/benefit analysis. Your choices will be eliminated based on what the nameless, faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats decide is in the best interest of society. Eric Erickson writes this in his article in today's Macon Telegraph:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va., said in March that as part of responsible healthcare reform people must recognize they would not be able to get every treatment they wanted. The government would use a cost-benefit analysis to determine treatment options.

Noted liberal writer Ezra Klein wrote that health-care reform would save money by making tough decisions about a person’s life. “We’re profoundly uncomfortable saying that a person’s life, or health, is not worth the price of a particular procedure,” he wrote, alluding to the need for panels of experts to make those decisions.

Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm Emanuel’s brother and one of Obama’s health-care advisors, wrote in a January 2009 white paper that health care should be rationed in a way that “promot[es] and reward[s] social usefulness.” He said age could play a factor in determining who can and cannot access health-care resources.

Emanuel also wrote, “[S]ervices provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens [in the body politic] are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”

He provides this real life example of what is already happening on the state level:

We see where this road we are now traveling goes out in the real world. Reporter Dan Springer reported in 2008, “Since the spread of his prostate cancer, 53-year-old Randy Stroup of Dexter, Ore., has been in a fight for his life. Uninsured and unable to pay for expensive chemotherapy, he applied to Oregon’s state-run health plan for help.” Oregon denied Mr. Stroup’s request and referred him to an assisted suicide specialist.

Clearly, there needs to be health insurance reform. But our health care is just fine. Can anyone seriously make the case that heavy government involvement in health care or outright government control of health care will produce positive results? Medicare and the VA health care system are atrocious. Does any thinking American want to swap access to our current health care system for that?

If the Dems scale back their Big Brother overreach for a consumer protection model of health insurance reform, with a government assist for folks who cannot afford premiums, they will be heroes...and deserve their accolades. But they won't do it. They cannot resist the socialism and statism that are fundamental to their political DNA.

Neocon’s Nook #2 (Pt. 1 of 2): BMD: Glue for the Atlantic Alliance for the Next 60 Years

BMD: Glue for the Atlantic Alliance for the Next 60 Years

26 April 2009

“This strategy of deterrence has not changed. It still works. But what it takes to maintain deterrence has changed. It took one kind of military force to deter an attack when we had far more nuclear weapons than any other power; it takes another kind now that the Soviets, for example, have enough accurate and powerful nuclear weapons to destroy virtually all of our missiles on the ground. Now this is not to say that the Soviet Union is planning to make war on us. Nor do I believe a war is inevitable - quite the contrary. But what must be recognized is that our security is based on being prepared to meet all threats.” – President Ronald Reagan, 23 Mar 1983

Seeing as I view our missile defense efforts of the past decade or so, and our continuing efforts at least through to the end of President Bush’s presidency, as something that can be used as a bond that holds the U.S-European Alliance together, I should probably start by mentioning NATO. While not only America and countries of Europe, this alliance was what kept Europe and the U.S. on the same page throughout the Cold War, even when our different approaches to the world caused major disagreements in defense as well as in other areas. Even when France left the military structure in 1966, it never actually the Alliance itself, and a “secret accord between U.S. and French officials, the Lemnitzer-Aillert Agreements, laid out in great detail how French forces would dovetail back into NATO's command structure should East-West hostilities break out.”1 Basically, NATO was the glue that held the West together during these difficult decades.

It is not new to hear in reference to NATO, “the alliance is wrestling with an identity crisis that has lingered since the Cold War ended” as written in the March 28, 2009 issue of The Economist. Such comments have been around since, well, since the end of the Cold War. Although personally I believe it now more than at any other point in time. The current economic “crisis” is being handled mainly by the G20, how to deal with unreliable energy supplier, Russia, is being handled mainly by the EU, Iran’s nuclear aspirations by the EU’s “Big Three” and with North Korea’s irresponsible nuclear behavior we have the six-party talks.2 The one area where NATO has really taken the lead today is in Afghanistan and that is proving extremely difficult to the point America has recently had to agree to pick up the slack yet again and send another 17,000 troops. Not exactly confidence-inspiring about NATO’s future as a forum for strategic dialogue.

I get the strong impression that NATO hasn’t really decided as a whole exactly what its top priority is. No doubt this isn’t an easy answer to get to as all 26 nations have their own national interests and particular reasons for being in NATO in the first place. However, it would most definitely be worth it in my opinion to ask, discuss and answer what is the top priority of NATO.

So now let’s focus on missile defense. The very first thing we must realize is that aside from bringing us closer to allies, which interceptors, radar stations, etc. deployed on their territories would certainly do, it is in our national interest to be able to defend ourselves against long-range ballistic missile strikes. Nearly all Americans believe this yet a large portion mistakenly think we already have such a system in place. We don’t. This fact is very dangerous because it skews opinions when talking about deploying parts of the system today in Poland and the Czech Republic, especially amidst the global economic “crisis.” But the post-Cold War threats realized under the Clinton Administration didn’t magically disappear. If anything, it’s become more dangerous and not due to U.S. policy.

Iran is not more dangerous because we are in Iraq, they are more dangerous because their leaders believe they don’t get the respect they deserve as descendants of the Persian Empire and they believe nuclear weapons are the only way to get that respect. Plus, they’ve seen China and Russia protect them within the U.N. time and time again.

Does anyone believe we pushed China into increased military spending? Many on the Left in America believe we are the cause of all bad and arrogantly believe any action from any other country must be in response to something we’ve done. However, it was noted only three days ago following a maritime parade in the port city of Qingdao commemorating the 60th anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) that China has major sea disputes with numerous countries, most notably Vietnam, Japan and the Phillipines.3

We tried a softer line with Russia and supported their entry into various international organizations. There could be some argument they may be more dangerous because they lost respect for our strength but as a person living close to six years in a former Warsaw Pact country, I can say with no shadow of a doubt, it has nothing to do with us talking with Poland and the Czech Republic about the Missile Defense Shield. Russian leaders like Prime Minister Putin long for the influence they had in the Soviet Union and are embarrassed by the 90s. There was no policy, hard or soft, we could have had to prevent them from becoming more belligerent and resurgent when they were capable. They still act like former satellites are theirs by constantly trying to use strong arm tactics and flat out threats to influence their policies rather than treating them as free and independent nations.

A soft line was taken with North Korea and they thumb their nose at the international community over and over again and had a more successful test than ever before only a few short weeks ago. Would harder lines with all the countries I’ve mentioned helped? I believe so but looking back on President Bush’s treatment by the media made that almost impossible as they sucked every ounce of political capital he had, often with little to no evidence of any wrongdoing. And regardless, I am under no delusion that it is our fault. Americans must stop blaming our leaders for all the ills of the world and the actions of others around the world. We have much influence but we do not make their decisions for them. I want to reiterate we have no system in place to protect us from long-range ballistic missiles.

I mentioned it earlier but allow me to elaborate. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, missile defense came to light once more during the Clinton Administration not only because rogue states at the time who did in fact have missile programs: Iran, Iraq and North Korea. There was also a serious concern that Russia’s crumbling infrastructure could lead to an accidental launch. Congress mandated R&D on a national missile defense system. President Clinton gave approval and his Vice President, Al Gore, continued to support a missile defense system while campaigning for president. There have been numerous foreign policy experts, James Lindsay of the liberal-leaning think tanks Brookings Institute and Council on Foreign Relations to name but one, who have strongly supported a missile defense system.4 Fast forward to today and while the details on the type and deployment of the system can still be controversial, there is large support on both sides of the aisle for the idea of missile defense. Again, we have no system in place to protect us from long-range ballistic missiles.

God Bless America!!!
Christopher P. Hutchinson


Sources

1) Cody, Edward. "After 43 Years, France to Rejoin NATO as Full Member." Washington Post, 12 Mar 2009: A08
2) "Have combat experience, will travel." The Economist, 28 Mar-3 Apr 2009
3) "Distant horizons." The Economist, 25 Apr-1 May 2009: 57.
4) Rust, Michael. "Think Tanks Look at Missile Defense." United Press International, 4 Mar 2001

Neocon’s Nook #1: The Stable State: a case for the two-party system

The Stable State: a case for the two-party system

9 October 2005

“‘…though neo-conservatives are political intellectuals, their persuasion is a philosophical one that happens to have a political relevance.’ Despite the fact that neo-conservatives have different backgrounds and experiences, ‘they [all] believe in the fragility of social institutions, that all human enterprises will have monumental unintended consequences, that man has a moral responsibility to forcibly confront evil, and most of all, that the world is governed, in the end, by ideas.’” – Mark Gerson, The Essential Neo-Conservative Reader, 1996

Our world IS governed by ideas. Ideas which DO have consequences, sometimes intended and often unintended. I’ll argue fiercely to the grave (with plenty of supporting evidence) that the best ideas come from the United States of America. The quality and quantity of intellectual life in America is still the highest in the world. A quarter of American adults have a university education. The country produces one-third of the world's scientific papers, employs two-thirds of the world's Nobel-prize winners, has 17 of the top 20 universities (as ranked by Shanghai's Jiao Tong University) and has more ideas-based workers than anyone else.1-4

I’m going to talk about one of the ideas we are governed by that a great majority of the world and even a great majority of Americans have a hard time grasping and even understanding, much less accepting. Although, I’ve found that giving the alternative serious consideration has proven to reduce my hasty opinions. I’m not so concerned with if we intentionally created this or if it resulted from a complex set of voting patterns. I’m more concerned with defending this pillar of stability, hence production, which has helped place the United States of America as the only true superpower in today’s world, the two-party system.

First, before getting into any real serious discussion on this, I’d like to dispel one of the common mantras of critics of the two-party system. I’m sure you’ve heard it. The “two-party monopoly” remark. How ridiculous! By definition, this doesn’t even make sense. Usually expressed by those who are out of touch with reality and the rest of society, and often have neither the ability to compromise nor function in a diplomatic way. These are the ones who will throw a temper tantrum when they don’t get their way and run off and create their own party over one issue and risk cutting off their nose to spite their face because their overall belief system can never be realized with such little support. I often wonder how much they truly know about living in a one-party dictatorship to throw out terms so casually.

It’s very reminiscent of the days of Liberum Veto. The disruptive parliamentary device used prior to 1764 in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where anyone could completely end a session when they heard something they didn’t like. Needless to say there was very little reform or progression during this period. This track of thought aided tremendously in completely wiping Poland off the map for over 120 years. It effectively placed the once European power in a state of anarchy and in a position too weak to fight off the partitioning by Prussia, Russia and Austria.

Another misconception is that a two-party system only gives you two options to choose from. The absentee ballot I filled out last year had no less than 13 third-party candidates, and that’s not including independents and write-ins. Pretty wide range of choices in my opinion, even for the people who feel disenfranchised and whose beliefs fall outside the norms of society. What a two-party system does do though, is allow us choices while at the same time, not forcing a large percentage of the population to be burdened by listening to radical ideas during debates and campaigning that don’t reflect the principles our country was built on, and distracts us (usually already with a tight time-schedule) from real issues that do affect our lives.

I’m a Republican and an average human being, and therefore I hate taxes as much as anyone. Although, it’s extremely difficult to have a reasonable discussion with someone about federal tax laws, for example, when that person just can’t get past the fact that taxing is not against the law. Or with someone who believes requiring a permit to protest is done to censor or make money, and has nothing to do with coordinating logistics effectively so the rights of others aren’t infringed upon. Let’s take a rather well-known American third-party, the Libertarian Party. As a Republican, I can agree with Libertarians on a great number of issues, but if you’ve ever talked with one for longer than five minutes, I’m sure you’ve walked away from the conversation feeling like you didn’t believe in the Constitution because you don’t want Mr. John Doe down the street to own weapons of mass destruction to protect his home, or because you don’t long to live in the 18th Century.

When an idea gains political influence and represents a large portion of the citizens, a third-party can, in fact, develop. Which can be seen with the rise of the U.K.’s Labour Party at the expense of the Liberals in the 20th Century as well as the rise of the U.S.’s Republican Party at the expense of the Whigs in the 19th Century. Basically, it’s very ignorant to believe that a two-party system occurs chiefly due to political engineering, “The Man” holding the little guy down, campaign finance laws, unfair media outlets or any of the other claims from extremists.

I touched on pre-election distractions; now let’s talk about post-election in a multi-party system. It’s one thing for a future leader to not receive over the majority of support from the entire public due to low voter turnout, it’s quite another to not receive the majority of support from the citizens who did take the time to vote. It is not uncommon for the leaders of nations with a multi-party system to win with an embarrassing level of support and faith of only near 20-25%. Allow me to give another more telling example. The United Kingdom has long been considered a two-party system, though the Liberal Democrats have emerged the past 20 years or so as an effective alternative to the Labour Party and the Tories. Keep in mind; this is three parties, not the myriad seen in true multi-party systems. Not the 18 parties I witnessed two weeks ago while my Polish fiancée was voting in her country’s parliamentary elections. And yet, the Labour Party, while gaining a majority of seats, 66 more than the others combined, could muster only 35.3% of the national votes.5 Could be worse, but there will always be watering down of effective reforms due to the necessity of making concessions. Public apathy will always be higher than necessary. The combination leaves the door wide open for easily corruptible parties and a lack of motivation for intellectual growth. This does not set the stage for effective development, leadership and governing.

The past few weeks have given us such comments about Germany, the long-time champion of the proponents of multi-party systems, like “Instead, a divided electorate has given a majority to nobody. All the political parties, and their leaders, are now engaged in tortuous manoeuvring over possible coalitions that smacks more of Weimar than of the Federal Republic. The outcome of these negotiations remains uncertain but, on almost any betting, it will produce a weak, short-lived government that has little capacity for further reform. Not surprisingly, business leaders and financial markets are upset: both the euro and the stockmarket have fallen sharply,” and, “Yet whatever coalition, if any, emerges from the mess, it is not likely to prove either strong or stable. Germans are thus likely to find themselves returning to the polls soon, certainly long before the election due in four years' time. But however many times they are asked to vote, if their economy is to thrive, their country has no alternative to further reform.”6 Comments like these are nothing extraordinary for a multi-party system.

Neither are comments like these, concerning Poland, rare in multi-party systems, presently going through their own coalition negotiations, “That will mean little chance of the new government attacking Poland's problems head-on with a radical, comprehensive programme of reform. Red tape will be snipped, rather than slashed. Reform will be piecemeal. Change will depend on which minister gets which portfolio, rather than being pushed hard on every front by a government with big ideas,” and “The most important task for Poland's new rulers will be to make sure that they govern for a full term, without splits or scandals. An interesting feature of the election result is that the populist parties, the right-wing League of Polish Families and the left-wing Self-defence, were not wiped out. Together with the ex-communists, they will form a disparate but probably effective opposition. With almost all the sensible politicians in the government, any alternative administration is bound to look alarming. In short: if this government fails, watch out for what comes next.”7

In addition to Germany and Poland, an analysis of Israel, Turkey, Belgium, Italy, whose parliament has never completed a five year term, is a short list of only a few of the examples to reinforce my claims. A comparison of their economic indicators and America’s, like unemployment or production rates, give ample evidence that a stable government gives more opportunities. After years of a chaotic political situation in Italy, it seems that public opinion is starting to see the advantages of stability, “Most Italians would prefer to have a two-party democracy. What they have instead are loose alliances of left and right, made up of nine and six parties respectively. Few people in Italy keep their opinions to themselves, so the authority of the alliance leaders is always undermined by sniping from fellow party bosses.”8 The irony of multi-party systems is that they do not result in any greater policy cohesion or transparency, as many naïve advocates think. They mean more backroom deals and accommodation, which is often very temporal and transient. Short-lived governments and short-term fixes are the norm rather than the exception. Doesn’t make for a strong foundation if you ask me.

So, whether the U.S. coming to a two-party system stems from consequences that were unintended, coming from voting system discriminations against third-parties or whether they come from the intended consequences of our brilliant and farsighted Founding Fathers is of little importance to me now. I’m happy with the two-party system and fear what the consequences would be for America if we were to ever lose that status.

Our stability and greatness would surely be lost.


God Bless America!!!
Christopher P. Hutchinson


Sources

1) Parker, John. "Centrifugal forces." The Economist 14 Jul 2005
2) Frey, William. "Brain Gains, Brain Drains." American Demographics Jun 2005
3) "Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, 2003." Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education
4) "Academic Ranking of World's Universities 2004." .
5) "UK Election 2005." BBC News .
6) "Germany's nightmare." The Economist 24-30 Sep 2005: 11.
7) "Can the eagle soar?" The Economist 1-7 Oct 2005: 21-23.8) "Ways to stop squabbling." The Economist 1-7 Oct 2005: 29.

8) "Ways to stop squabbling." The Economist 1-7 Oct 2005: 29.

Introduction to Neocon's Nook

After getting the green light from Ed, and mentally committing myself to try very hard to post relatively regularly, I've decided to start a column written from the point of view of a Neoconservative. I was asked to write a column from this perspective around three and a half years ago for a political website but unfortunately it never got off the ground.

Neocon has become an ugly word the past 5-6 years with criticism from all over the place, Right and Left. Very sad in my opinion because not many people I've spoken with actually know what one is other than connecting a few names to it. Very sad because it is exactly the plan created and endorsed by Neoconservatives from day one in Iraq that helped us turn the corner after a disasterous 2006 (somehow the media convinced the public that Messrs Rumsfeld and Bremer are Neoconservatives and hence we ruined everything). Very sad because the 70s, which most American Conservatives can agree was a disgusting decade, was dominated by the Democrats because while Conservatives and Neoconservatives were natural allies on almost every single issue, they weren't ready to work together and often Neoconservatives undermined Presidents Nixon and Ford. We came together under the great President Reagan and remain to this day on the same side usually. But things haven't been perfect since Iraq started.

I don't even like putting American Conservatives and Neoconservatives in different categories as if we aren't both Republicans and as if there aren't plenty of other differences within the Republican Party besides between these ideologies but there are some small ones worth pointing out. I often go back and forth when I give my own self a label. I am a little different than the tradtional Neoconservative though. Unlike most, I didn't move from the Democrats after being fed up with liberalism gone wild, I was already an American Conservative who had experiences in my life that made me very interventionist in foreign policy. The pro-military stance of American Conservatives have often hid the fact that many are not nearly as interventionist outside our borders. Despite not being nearly as much in favor of Big Government as Democrats, most Neoconservatives are more tolerable than the traditional American Conservative. I am not.

I had many articles prepared when I was first asked to write a regular column but most that I do now will be new. The first one won't though. It will be one from Oct 2005 dealing with the two-party system. I don’t think anyone, any party or any ideology has ever made a stand on it one way or the other. However, I think most Americans from both sides of the fence would say they are against the two-party system but since supporting it would be supporting the status quo, and since not supporting it, in my opinion, shows a desire to change without considering the consequences (change just to change), I find it to be a Conservative position. I thought that when I wrote it and since a main tenet of Neoconservatism is a strong belief in unintended consequences, I found it a Neoconservative position as well. I would love to see the Republican platform defend the two-party system.

I will attempt to contribute as regularly as humanly possible... at least a few articles a month... but I will forewarn I have a very very limited schedule.

Hope Y'all enjoy what I can make time for.

Happy Easter!!!

God Bless America!!!
Christopher P. Hutchinson
(Hutch)

Note: If anyone would like to contact me privately, the best email address to use is: c.hutchinson@curb-tec.pl

Michael Steele: A Disappointment

The reservations of conservatives about the election of Michael Steele as RNC Chair appear to have been well-founded. It seems that he is more of the same that we've seen from the GOP over the last several years: tell conservatives what they want to hear, but secretly lust for a centrist GOP. It defies imagination that Steele and the other Beltway Republicans haven't figured out that they lost the election because they couldn't inspire the base and they failed to articulate a clear, conservative message. The result was not only the loss of the presidency to a Euro-leftist, but the disastrous losses down the ticket.

Enter radio king Rush Limbaugh. He absolutely killed at CPAC this weekend. He spoke clearly and concisely with no apologies for or muting of the conservative message. He delivered the full-throated rallying cry for the downtrodden rank and file. And what is Steele's first instinct? He attacks Limbaugh on the CNN talkshow hosted by D.L. Hughley. (Btw, Eric Cantor played the spineless wienie in his appearance on the shows this weekend, too.)

Watch their comparative performances.