The GOP Purity Test: An Intellectual Failure

Realizing their party is in disarray and searching desperately for a way to offer value to voters, some members of the GOP are attempting to institute what pundits are calling a “purity test”. Hopeful Republican candidates will have to pass this purity test in order to receive support from the GOP. Were I a Republican, I would support this type of measure. The DNC certainly has its principles defined and is fighting hard for them. Granted, those principles are abhorrent as they stem from a collectivist ideology, but they are defined principles nonetheless (though, like all collectivists, Democrats rarely expound on the specifics of those principles). Unfortunately for Republicans, the GOP has not defined any principles whatsoever. The purity test is barely more than a cheap PR stunt. In addition to falling short of an improvement in the GOP’s strength, the purity test actually represents a step backwards. Let’s examine it further.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

Supporting “smaller government” and “lower taxes” makes no principled statement. “Smaller” and “lower” are merely relative measurements. “Smaller government” compared to the Soviet Union? We already have that (though, quite possibly, not for long). “Lower taxes” compared to Europe? Hardly an accomplishment. A statement of principles would have been “We support the smallest government and lowest taxes possible to provide for the protection of individual rights.” To make matters worse, the GOP mentions a specific politician (President Obama) and specific legislation (the stimulus bill). If someone asked me my name, I would not answer with “I am not Fred”. What does it matter what I am not? A person or idea is never defined as a negative, as a negative cannot be proved. To base one’s identity on a negative is intellectual suicide.

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

This statement faces the same problems as the statement above. The GOP is defining itself through a negative and failing to define any core principles. “Market-based” is not enough. The market must be held completely sacrosanct and freedom must be the rule, not the exception.

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

Again, legislation is attacked rather than principles defended. This test will be outdated in a matter of months.

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

Much of the same, attacking specific issues rather than defining principles. This, however, falls far shorter of what is right than the second and third resolutions. The GOP should take a firm stance against unions and any other deadly obstacles to business. Why must corporations fear subjective anti-trust law while workers enjoy government-protected collusion in order to artificially raise labor prices, thereby destroying entire firms (GM and Chrysler being the primary examples)?

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

While I certainly support a liberal immigration policy and oppose amnesty for those who have broken our laws, Republicans frequently portray a high degree of ignorance in regards to this issue. Immigration policy should be liberalized, coupled with the dismantling of our welfare state. Furthermore, it should be recognized that immigration policy and border security are distinct issues.

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

As noted above, it is a mistake to focus on specific issues. A coherent policy on national defense should be defined. Preferably, this policy would be non-interventionist in nature, while obligating the U.S. government to counter any threat to American citizens with extreme prejudice. It should also be made clear that U.S. soldiers are also U.S. citizens and are to be valued over civilians of other countries.

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

Not only is this wildly inconsistent with the first resolution, it is so out of line with the our founding principles that I consider it criminal. There is absolutely nothing within the bounds of reason that provide for government authority to decide who a person can marry. That this is even an issue in the United States is something to be ashamed of.

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

Health care rationing would not be a problem in a completely private health care system. I would assume that “denial of health care” is referring to a host of “right to die” issues which are far too nuanced for this post. A private health care system would make the issue of government-funded abortions irrelevant.

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership;

This is fairly simple and I can’t find much fault with it. But I would note that no reason is given as to why the 2nd Amendment  is to be so fiercely protected. True, it’s part of the U.S. Constitution – but so was the 3/5ths Compromise, and I don’t see anyone fighting to bring that back. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural consequence of an individual’s right to his/her life. The right to your life naturally includes the right to defend your life. As governments have historically been the most serious threat to human life, and governments keep and bear arms, it follows that individuals should keep and bear arms as well

The absence of principles in this purity test is a symptom of the intellectual void in the GOP. Until Republican candidates can offer voters a value, instead of simply being non-Democrat or anti-Obama, they will continue their slow descent into nothingness. I only hope that a third party will gain enough support to challenge the rampant collectivist ideology in today’s politics.

Why ObamaCare May Die

It took centuries of intellectual, philosophical development to achieve political freedom. It was a long struggle, stretching from Aristotle to John Locke to the Founding Fathers. The system they established was not based on unlimited majority but on its opposite: on individual rights, which were not to be alienated by majority vote or minority plotting. The individual was not left at the mercy of his neighbors or his leaders: the Constitutional system of checks and balances was scientifically devised to protect him from both. This was the great American achievement…

- Ayn Rand

Sadly, our current executive and legislative leadership is not acting in the best interest of the individual, but in the interests of various groups. The silver lining is that their juggling act may be collapsing. Michael F. Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at The Cato Institute, has a blog post on how the Democrats’ various constituencies are becoming plainly at odds – and why this friction could ultimately be ObamaCare’s doom.

The Left and the health care industry both want universal health insurance coverage.  The industry, because universal coverage means massive new government subsidies. The Left, because that’s their religion.

But universal coverage is so expensive that Congress can’t get there without taxing Democrats.

• Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is the biggest opponent of Sen. Max Baucus’ (D-MT) tax on expensive health plans because that tax would hit West Virginia coal miners.
• Unions vigorously oppose that tax because it would hit their members.
• Moderate Democrats in the House oppose Rep. Charlie Rangel’s (D-NY) supposed “millionaires surtax” because they know it would hit small businesses in their districts.

And on and on…

But if congressional leaders pare back those taxes, they lose the support of the health care industry, which wants its subsidies.

• That’s why the health insurance lobby funded this PriceWaterhouseCoopers study saying that premiums would rise under the Baucus bill: the $500 billion bailout they would receive isn’t enough.  They also want – they demand –  steep taxes on Americans who don’t buy their products.
• The drug companies, the hospitals, and the physician groups are likewise demanding big subsidies, and will run ads to kill the whole effort if those subsidies aren’t big enough.

As always, health economist Uwe Reinhardt put it colorfully:

“It’s no different from Iraq with all the different tribes…‘How does it affect the money flow to my interest group?’  They are all sitting in the woods with their machine guns, waiting to shoot.”

Once the shooting starts, industry opposition will sway even Democratic members, because there are physicians and hospitals and employers and insurance-industry employees in every state and congressional district.

Can President Obama and the congressional leadership satisfy both groups?  My guess is, probably not, and this misguided effort at “reform” will therefore die.  Again.

President Obama’s Keynesian economic policies and programs attempt to defy reality by evading the law of causality. As with all collectivist societies, however, we will be visited by reality’s judgment and learn the hard way that empty rhetoric and false promises will never replace innovation and production as tools of economic prosperity.

HT: Club for Growth

‘Let Them Eat Cake’ Democrats

Democrats across the nation seem to be flabbergasted by public opposition to so much of their collectivist agenda. This shouldn’t be that much of a surprise. President Obama won 52% of the popular vote. While decisive, this is by no means a landslide.  Now, this is not to discredit President Obama’s victory, I am merely pointing out that the President has less of a mandate than he believes. Unfortunately for the DNC as a whole, Congressional Democrats are following the President’s lead. Monica Crowley draws a comparison between the current political climate and the French Revolution:

Shortly before the French Revolution, Marie Antoinette was reportedly told that the peasants were growing increasingly restless, particularly because of widespread bread shortages. As the legend goes, she callously replied, “Let them eat cake.” The revolt exploded shortly thereafter.

And so it goes with the Democratic leadership today, with three major examples of breathtaking arrogance in just the last week:

– Democrats’ “Let Them Eat Cake” Moment No. 1: This week, Mrs. Pelosi and her deputy, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, wrote an op-ed in which they called everyone who opposes their plan for socialized medicine “un-American.” (This, of course, has it backward: Socialized health care itself is “un-American.”) They also called those average Americans who have the audacity to hold their elected leaders accountable part of “an ugly campaign.” Their op-ed came on the heels of the Obama White House denigrating Americans’ deep and genuine concern about the future of their health care as “manufactured anger.” Earlier, Mrs. Pelosi had dismissed Americans’ demand for answers at town hall meetings as phony “astro-turfing.”

Earth to Democrats: Displaying contempt for the American people when you are being paid by those people to serve their interests is generally not a good political move.

– Democrats’ “Let Them Eat Cake” Moment No. 2: This week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit grew by $181 billion in July alone, to $1.3 trillion. The massive spending, bailouts and collapsing tax receipts (individual tax receipts fell by 22 percent and corporate tax receipts fell by a staggering 57 percent) have led Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to ask Congress to raise the $12.1 trillion debt limit, so the government can spend and borrow even more.

If you were rational, you would see in these numbers an impetus to restrain spending. But among Democrats, such rationality doesn’t exist. They continue their hog-wild spending by pushing everything from $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers to trillions more for the health care overhaul. Concerned about deficits? Too bad.

– Democrats’ “Let Them Eat Cake” Moment No. 3: Mrs. Pelosi and her gang used the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill to sneak in funding for three luxury jets for their personal transport. Total projected cost to you: hundreds of millions. These are the same people who profess a love of the environment, a desire to minimize America’s carbon footprint, and concern about spending. If you believe that, I’ve got a plane to sell you. Public outrage grew so loud that they canceled the plane order this week. But if they hadn’t been caught red-handed, Democrats would’ve been flying in luxury while you boarded Jet Blue carrying a soggy tuna sandwich you had to buy yourself.

History tends to treat such arrogance unkindly. The people, pushed to their limits of patience and understanding, reach a breaking point. Meanwhile, the soulless leaders carry on self-indulgently until they are finally swept away.

I’ve expressed this opinion before, but I’ll express it again now: Democrats are in for a tough fight in 2010, and possibly 2012. I’m typically not excessively partisan, but the agenda of the current powers-that-be is aggressively collectivist. Republicans have plenty of failings, but President Obama and his Congressional allies make even George W. Bush appear fiscally responsible.

HT: Toomey for U.S. Senate

From Democracy to Aristocracy

Normally, I only link to articles that I (for the most part) agree with. But Peggy Noonan published an WSJ op-ed which gives a great view of the facts of the health care nationalization debate – though I very much disagree with the assessment of those facts.

What has been most unsettling is not the congressmen’s surprise but a hard new tone that emerged this week. The leftosphere and the liberal commentariat charged that the town hall meetings weren’t authentic, the crowds were ginned up by insurance companies, lobbyists and the Republican National Committee. But you can’t get people to leave their homes and go to a meeting with a congressman (of all people) unless they are engaged to the point of passion. And what tends to agitate people most is the idea of loss—loss of money hard earned, loss of autonomy, loss of the few things that work in a great sweeping away of those that don’t.

People are not automatons. They show up only if they care.

What the town-hall meetings represent is a feeling of rebellion, an uprising against change they do not believe in. And the Democratic response has been stunningly crude and aggressive. It has been to attack. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the United States House of Representatives, accused the people at the meetings of “carrying swastikas and symbols like that.” (Apparently one protester held a hand-lettered sign with a “no” slash over a swastika.) But they are not Nazis, they’re Americans. Some of them looked like they’d actually spent some time fighting Nazis.

All of this is unnecessarily and unhelpfully divisive and provocative. They are mocking and menacing concerned citizens. This only makes a hot situation hotter. Is this what the president wants? It couldn’t be. But then in an odd way he sometimes seems not to have fully absorbed the awesome stature of his office. You really, if you’re president, can’t call an individual American stupid, if for no other reason than that you’re too big. You cannot allow your allies to call people protesting a health-care plan “extremists” and “right wing,” or bought, or Nazi-like, either. They’re citizens. They’re concerned. They deserve respect.

…the health-care protesters have to make sure they don’t get too hot, or get out of hand. They haven’t so far, they’ve been burly and full of debate, with plenty of booing. This is democracy’s great barbaric yawp. But every day the meetings seem just a little angrier, and people who are afraid—who have been made afraid, and left to be afraid—can get swept up. As this column is written, there comes word that John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO has announced he’ll be sending in union members to the meetings to counter health care’s critics.Somehow that doesn’t sound like a peace initiative.

It’s going to be a long August, isn’t it? Let’s hope the uncharted territory we’re in doesn’t turn dark.

To me, this seems like the wrong time to be admonishing opponents of health care nationalization to show restraint. So far, there have been no reports of violence, yet we have union members being sent in to “counter” the critics? Sounds like an intimidation tactic to me. To be clear, I’m not advocating violence or obscenity or anything of the like. But let’s not all rush to the sinking side of the boat. The group that needs to be restrained is our socialist Congress and (what appear to be) their thugs. At this point, raising our voices and standing firm against socialized medicine is not just overdue, it’s a moral imperative.

The United States of America is transitioning from a republic to an aristocracy. In a letter to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson once said:

I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents.

The modern aristrocracy that is forming is not based on virtue or talent. It is an aristocracy of political pull, clout, power – in short, it is an aristocracy of force. The U.S. fought a civil war to purge from itself the last vestiges of fuedalism and aristocracy. It would be a disgrace to return to rule by the few, with a gun as their final argument.

Meet the Mob

Some humor regarding the DNC’s attacks on citizens who disagree with President Obama:

Make sure to check out the rest of the horrific examples of the angry mobs faced by members of Congress.

Said the Pot to the Kettle

The DNC has launched a new TV ad chastising Republicans for their “mob” behavior at town hall meetings. The irony is overwhelming. Liberals are the champions of the “common good”, the “collective”, “democracy” – in other words, the left champions rule by the majority, rule by the mob, rule by force. For collectivists to disparagingly label any group a “mob” is laughable. Gateway Pundit has the ad here, along with some very ironic words from (then) Senator Obama.