The Conservative Reader

Art Smith August 6th, 2008

I haven’t been keeping up with all of the big events lately as well as I’d like to… the energy thing has taken on a life of its own.

You probably already know that Robert Novak has announced his immediate retirement after diagnosis of a brain tumor.

This is not a death notice, but feels like one with the situation he is experiencing.  Novak has been another strong leader in moving conservative values forward.  It is sad to see his voice silenced on the political scene.

I hope and pray that the treatment is successful, and that he has continued opportunity to share his wisdom on matters of concern to our nation.

Tags: brain tumor, Retirement, Robert Novak

• Conservatism
• Comments(0)

DJ Durant July 11th, 2008

It seems strange to be writing in this space again after what seems like an lengthy hiatus.  Two weeks of vacation, followed by a week of catching up.  And, as a result, admittedly out of touch.

Barack’s puzzled?  Who knew?  He seems so confident, so, shall I dare say it, full of hope!  So vacuous!

McCain’s moderate positions compromise him.  While he claims to be an agent of compromise, the reality is he’s the one being compromised.  But at least I know that and in November, when I have to choose, I’ll choose what I know as opposed to what I don’t.  And Obama scares me.

The news lately is mostly bad.  The stock markets appear to be in freefall.  Oil and gasoline are setting records daily.  On Tuesday, the price of oil fell $5 and the Dow soared 150 points and I was foolish enough to think that maybe the economic malaise that is setting in upon our great country was over, that perhaps it was just an illusion.  But Wednesday and Thursday brought more negative news, and the conventional media are too happy to exploit it in an effort to support the Messiah (as Rush Limbaugh calls him).

Here’s why I’m glad to be a conservative.  In a time of so much uncertainty, I know where I stand.  I listen to liberal friends and, of course, the media, and they are just so confused.  But I know where I stand.  And I know, that deep down inside, this too shall pass.  That the price of oil and gasoline will eventually normalize, that the economy will again grow robustly, that true conservatism will once again shine forth as the light it is and give people real hope.  But as a Catholic priest once said at an Easter Sunday Service in suburban Buffalo years ago, “You can’t have Easter Sunday without experiencing Good Friday”.  And maybe this is America’s Good Friday.

This is still the greatest country in the world.  People still die trying to get in.  No one dies trying to get out.  The left bashes it, but where else can they bash their country and not be suppressed.  Our constitution guarantees the freedom to express their opinion, however misguided it may be.  And that’s what makes this country great…

Tags: Conservatism, McCain, Obama

• America is Great , Barack Obama , Conservatism , Economy
• Comments(0)

Art Smith July 10th, 2008

Steve Deace had probably the best group of people on his show today for talking about local Republican politics and why we are struggling as a party to make an impact in the Iowa Statehouse, and on the national scene. The group included outgoing Polk County (Iowa) Republican Party Chair and State Central Committee member Ted Sporer, National Committee Woman Candidate and Iowa Right To Life President Kim Lehman, Steve Scheffler President of Iowa Christian Alliance and National Committee Man Candidate, and Stew Iverson who is chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa.

Quite an interesting banter. I have not had time to listen to the entire broadcast (podcast page here) but am listening to it now.

The big item from all I’ve heard so far that I think is worth talking about is the work that is done to produce a party platform, and the fact that so many candidates seem to totally ignore key parts of the platform.

Certainly, it’s understandable that some candidates are not going to completely agree with the entire platform. While I certainly want representatives to provide adequate representation for their constituents, and that sometimes they need to vote their conscience.

However, it seems that representatives (and party leadership) should be very aware of the platform and really seek to understand where their constituents stand on the issues. Republican lawmakers should be seeking to support and promote the platform that the grassroots have developed. The composite planks, as they are worked through the precincts, counties, districts and finally the state conventions, reflect the convictions of the people that care passionately about society and the party. Ignoring the platform is dangerous, and those of us in the grassroots are watching much more closely.

Disappointing is the fact that Stew Iverson publicly admitted in this broadcast that he has not read the entire state platform that is up for discussion this weekend at that Iowa Republican Convention. I’m amazed. This is something I had done with a day of receiving it in June. His only comment was “I haven’t gotten to it yet”, as if it can wait until the last minute.

We all know it. The Republican Party Leadership in Iowa is out of touch. Ted (as mentioned after the District 3 Republican Convention) is a proponent of the need to get the leadership back in touch. The same problem exists on a national level, and somehow there is a need to shake it up. This weekend’s convention is going to be real interesting.

Give the podcast a listen… it’s worth it.

Tags: 2008 Congressional Election, 2008 Local Elections, 2008 Presidential Election, Iowa State Republican Convention, Kim Lehman, Republican Party of Iowa, Steve Scheffler, Stew Iverson, Ted Sporer

• 2008 Congressional Election , 2008 Iowa Republican Party Convention , 2008 Local Elections , 2008 Presidential Election , Conservatism , Iowa Caucus , Iowa General Assembly , Iowa Politics , Leadership , Political Philosophy , Republican Party , US Congress
• Comments(0)

Art Smith June 30th, 2008

This month’s Imprimis features a speech by John O’Sullivan, executive editor of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and one-time special advisor to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

O’Sullivan’s speech provides a valuable lesson in the history of Thatcher’s leadership and the power of privatized industry in building an entrepreneurial society, and how this can stimulate a stagnated socialist economy.

May we never reach the depth that Britain did.

O’Sullivan’s speech was given at the dedication of the first statue of Margaret Thatcher to be placed in the United States, which was at Hillsdale College (the home of Imprimis).

He covers a great deal regarding the Cold War, and Thatcher’s role working with Reagan, Helmut Schmidt, and others to build a stronger missile presence in Western Europe, and the repelling of the Argentinians from the Falkland Islands, both of which conveyed dramatically Britain’s willingness and ability to fight.

Most importantly, however, is his treatment of the impact of both Thatcher and Reagan’s social/economic policies that build not only a successful growth in both countries, but provided a model for others to follow:

All these changes were a revival of what Shirley Robin Letwin, the distinguished Anglo-American political theorist, called the “vigorous virtues” in her important study of Thatcherism. These are such qualities as self-reliance, diligence, thrift, trustworthiness, and initiative that enable someone who exhibits them to live and work independently in society. Though they are not the only virtues—compassion might be called one of the “softer virtues”—they are essential to the success of a free economy and a civil society, both of which rely on dispersed initiative and self-reliant citizens.

That transformation did not stop at the Atlantic’s edge. Thatcher (and Reagan) also changed the world economy by virtue of the demonstration effects of Reaganism and Thatcherism. They had provided the world with successful models of free and deregulated economies.

These demonstration effects were similar but not identical. Tax cuts were America’s principal intellectual export; privatization was Britain’s.

Of the two, privatization was the more important globally, since the Third World and post-communist economies were encumbered with a vast number of inefficient state industries. Privatization expertise became one of the City of London’s most profitable services over the next two decades. Even the Soviets and Western European communists were forced to change course by the widespread adoption of privatization internationally—and also by the equally widespread acceptance of the market logic behind it.

And later…

When Lady Thatcher revived the British economy, she was reviving profound social virtues that the British had once exemplified to the world—the Thatcherite “vigorous virtues” described above. In 1979, they seemed utterly destroyed by 50 years of statism and socialism. In fact, they had merely been driven underground by government over-regulation and intervention.

As James C. Bennett has observed, it took only a few years of Lady Thatcher’s application of free market solutions for these virtues to become vigorous again. Once that happened, it took only a few more years for those revived virtues to transform Britain from the sick man of Europe into the world’s fourth largest economy.

Deep social patterns can rarely be extirpated altogether. Cultural transformations of nations and societies imposed by governments nearly always fail in the long run. The old ways only look dead; in reality, they are merely dormant. They are the resources of our civilization and they can be revived to meet new challenges.

These words from O’Sullivan frame up for us a demonstrable history model that supports the value of a conservative mindset. Later in his speech he references the more obvious economic success of these policies in Estonia and Poland. Having visited Poland a few years ago, I can attest to the remarkable growth in retail and recreation industries. We stayed at a wonderful resort in the mountains of southwest Poland and while there visited a store comparable to large Target or Wal*Mart. While in a supermarket, I was struck by how similar the setting was to similar stores here in the US, but at the same time I was struck by the fact that the locals were obviously nervous around foreigners… smiling and attempts at friendly greetings were rebuffed, apparently out of distrust built up over the decades. Hopefully that will change soon as well.

I strong encourage a full read of the speech (pdf format) at the Hillsdale web site. One may also want to take a look at some of Thatcher’s writings, including “Statecraft“.

Excerpts of Sullivan’s speech are reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.

Tags: Argentina, Cold War, Conservativism, economics, Falkland Islands, Great Britain, Hillsdale College, Imprimis, John O'Sullivan, Margaret Thatcher, Privatization, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, Ronald Reagan, Social Reform, Socialism, Statue, The Conservative Reader

• Conservatism , Great Britain , Margaret Thatcher , Privatization
• Comments(0)

Art Smith May 15th, 2008

Thursday morning’s Wall Street Journal featured an opinion piece from Karl Rove titled “The GOP Must Stand for Something“.  The piece is well focused on the most critical battleground we face this year: Congressional seats.

In the midst of watching the melee within the Democratic Party, the scant attacks by the MSM against McCain, and the vain attempts by Ron Paul and others to disrupt the Presidential Election process, largely unfocused are we yet on the 35 Senate seats (23 currently held by Republicans) and the length and width of the House of Representatives whom we will be voting for this November.

My angst over the lack of attention to the branch of government that actually makes law in this country grows each day.  We need to ensure this branch breathes truth, integrity (sadly lacking in both parties), and clearly understands the need for long-term thinking.  Those that try to create the quick fixes are not worth paying attention to.  Those that are thinking about how to build sustainable programs and infrastructure, how to provide for the needs of our citizens in a way that leads them to self-sufficiency, those who have learned to lead (doing what’s right) while listening to their constituents, to do what’s best for the country and not their re-electability, to help Americans be prosperous without burdening them with worthless taxes, they we need to promote to election.

But it’s not, as Rove says, going to be easy.  We cannot assume there are any GOP districts are “safe” seats, and we cannot use the worn political weapons to coerce the electorate into taking our side.  We need to stand for something, we need to provide a real vision for America that accurately reflects what we believe we can do together.  The problem is, we don’t have one, at least we don’t have one we call agree on.

I’d say we need McCain to provide leadership in this, but I don’t have confidence that he can build a coalition of vision.  I hope I’m wrong.  Someone like Karl could.

There is so much as Republicans that we are struggling with because we’ve been co-opted on some key issues (such as abortion, taxes, health care, education) and these have happened, I think, because we’ve failed to even educate our next generation of Republicans in basic conservative principles and how best to apply them.

We need desperately to be able to communicate what we believe in as conservatives, not what specific answers we have to any given problem, but what are the tenets that we base the kind of answers we derive.  Fred Thompson (I see he has a new gig) had what I thought was an extremely effective approach to this in his “First Principles”, which took an abstract (somewhat timeless) view of  the topics that should concern us all, expressed a position on those topics and a general thought process to how best to work on that topic.  Quite frankly, I think these should have been made the Mission Statement for the Republican Party.

Until we can take a unified approach, can make a coherent presentation of what we are about, what we stand for, we are lost.  And frankly, if we cannot make an intelligent case (without the 30-second sound-bites) for Republicans or Conservatism, we don’t deserve to lead.  Yes, I know we need to have some approaches to marketing, but we have to have solid core content that can be explained to voters without them wondering if we’ve put Alan Keyes back into play.

I strongly suspect there is a good chance John McCain will be our next President.  I’m more concerned about the kind of Congress he (that is, we) will be stuck with the next 2 years.

Hat Tip on Fred’s new gig: Bitsblog.

Tags: BitsBlog, Conservative, Conservativism, First Principles, Fred Thompson, Karl Rove, Principles, Republicans, The Conservative Reader, The GOP Must Stand for Something, US Congress, Wall Street Journal

• 2008 Congressional Election , Conservatism , Fred Thompson , John McCain , Karl Rove , Republican Party , US Congress
• Comments(0)

Art Smith March 22nd, 2008

My dad hates labels. We’ve had this conversation numerous times in the past regarding how bad it is to put a label on yourself or others as if that label defines who you are.

I understand where he’s coming from in many respects, and yet I also maintain a need to use short expressions clarify my position in areas that could take an hour to describe in depth, but can communicate much in two or three words, such as “constitutional constructionist”. Granted, expressions (or labels) like that can be broadly interpreted or useless to those without any context regarding what it means.

And so in this Presidential election year we struggle with what it means to be “conservative” or “Republican” or “liberal”, or “libertarian”, or whatever. We struggle with the definition, scope, breadth of what these terms mean to different people. Some say McCain is not a Conservative, or he’s a RINO (Republican In Name Only), and others that say he is more conservative than we know, and some who say Obama is really going to meet the needs of Conservatives. And the labels become ambiguous.

We have some number of “conservatives” who are unwilling to support McCain or the Republican Party because the Party (and/or McCain, or because of McCain’s nomination) is not conservative enough for them. The Party does not “meet their needs”. And some have suggested forming a new party to meet those needs.

That concerns me.

It’s tough building “bipartisan” consensus between Democrats and Republicans. Often, it requires either an issue that truly transcends what each party stands for to reach that kind of consensus, or an issue so critical to the country that one or both parties simply have to compromise to accomplish what is needed. But typically the two parties, or two ideologies (at least the core of them) are so divergent that there are strong philosophical and emotional conflicts that keep the two parties from working to reach a solution together.

It’s not quite as difficult (usually) to build consensus within a party because the positions within a party are usually not as divergent as they are between the parties. Within the Republican Party this year we seem to be entertaining much more divergence (some would say because the more moderate part of the party is swinging too far to the left). Now it’s unclear to some what the “Republican” label means.

I happen to think that bipartisanship is overrated. We will always have shouts of “bipartisan” when the party “in power” is not in power enough to truly control the government (like now). We could be at a standstill in this situation. Maybe that’s just too bad. Maybe the electorate need to do something about it.

If we expect voters to get serious, then the Republican Party needs to as well. And by serious, I mean we need to be the advocates for a better informed electorate. We need to make an intelligent case for what we stand for instead of using 15-second sound bites to coerce the public into believing Democrats are evil. People generally like to feel well-informed, and we should do what we can to ensure they really are.

But the Party also needs to be running on all cylinders, meaning the entire party needs to stand together, even when we have differences and a variety of opinions. We do not serve our country by simply giving up and letting it go to the Left, although we may serve ourselves (or so we think). As Patriots, as citizens, as Americans, as people that want to see our rights and our children’s freedoms maintained, I believe we must always push on and work together for what we believe in, even if we work together with others who don’t line up exactly with our beliefs.

And splitting into separate parties will be a painful solution. To do so at the level of difference I hear many espousing (and frankly, there is already one major party that could be included with Republicans… they are called Libertarians), we could end up with at least 5 different parties on the right: Republican, Libertarian, Conservative, Neo-Conservative, and White Nationalist (and, I’m fine with the White Nationalists staying out of the Republican Party, thank you very much). I’m sure there would be others. And if Republicans did this to themselves, eventually the Democrats would too, and you could have a huge mess.

Why would this be bad, you may ask? Because if you think it’s hard to get anything done in Congress today, wait until you have to build coalitions between several different parties to pass any legislation. Just ask Belgium if they like the current situation there, where the new Prime Minister (Yves Leterme) has spent months building a coalition amongst 5 parties to ensure there was a majority to get someone (okay, him, but…) into the role of Prime Minister. His party is the “Flemish Christian Democratic Party”. We might have trouble with a name like that in US politics.

We’ve watched France, Germany, Isreal, Belgium, Pakistan, and nation upon nation struggle with building cross-party coalitions just to build a majority to get work done. Granted, our Congress sometimes looks as bad or worse in comparison, but the financial burden, the loss in time, and additional work associated with having more than 2 significantly influential parties is just an undesireable way for us to operate.

But even as I write this, I have to wonder, could it be good? Could a multi-party system serve our country? It seems disingenuous to postulate just the negatives, and in preparing these thoughts I’ve hit a statement (in Wikipedia, of all places) that causes me to pause. “A multi-party system is essential for representative democracies, because it prevents the leadership of a single party from setting policy without challenge.” That’s something to think about. And now I wonder, would a multi-party system lead to improvements in areas that both the Left and the Right agree on (or, at least, agree on by the public that is supposed to be represented) such as earmarks, term limits, true balanced budgets, enforceable laws, fair taxation? Could a multi-party system provide a better forum for each party to present its perspective and perhaps better inform and influence the electorate? I actually think this is worth further debate and pursuit.

But I am convinced that building and running a real multi-party system requires an overhaul of our system of government and politics, including restructuring the legislative body, and perhaps considering the election of the President by the legislature instead of the people (maybe give the office a different name as well… I think you get my drift). Honestly, I think for the multi-party concept to be successful here, we need a system that is ready to engage it, and our current system does not play well with the idea, unfortunately. But the more I think about it, the more I think it could help ensure people are better informed and are better at reaching well-reasoned opinions about government policy. And maybe the labels won’t be as important as what we discuss together.

But in the meantime, we need to make sure the two-party system can continue to be as effective as possible… there is too much at stake to treat it with contempt and walk away without using it to its full extent. We need to continue to petition the Party with our opinions, concerns, questions, and provide as much input and feedback as possible. We need to continue to dialog with our representatives and ensure our voices are heard, or we do a disservice to our country, imperfect as she may be.

In essence, the Republican and Democratic parties are both coalitions, and each will suffer if there is too much in-fighting. I strongly suggest we all do what we can to maintain these coalitions for the sake of our country.

Update: Fixing a link.

Tags: Coalition, Congress, Democrat, Labels, Leaders, Multi-party, Republican, Two-Party System

• 2008 Congressional Election , 2008 Presidential Election , Bipartisanship , Conservatism , Democratic Party , John McCain , Multi-Party System , Political Philosophy , Republican Party , Two-Party System , US Congress , US Politics
• Comments(0)

Art Smith February 18th, 2008

I make no bones about it: I’m a Conservative and a Republican.  If I ever think think the Party is a lost cause, I could abandon it, but current circumstances don’t put me there.  Not even close.

I read with some appreciation Cal Thomas’ column on this subject last week.  His comments regarding the romanticism of Reagan Conservatism is right on.  More importantly, he hit the key thought that I’d like to shout from the housetops:

Contemporary conservatism has mostly been about saying “no” to the liberal agenda. Suppose conservatives instead begin to circumvent liberals by applying better ideas to achieve ends liberals and conservatives claim to seek?

Don’t get me wrong… there have been some ideas floated around, but the fact is that there really isn’t a consensus among those of us that proclaim to be “conservatives” on the important issues of our day.  The problems we see with the direction that the Left is taking seems to make it difficult to get around a solid message that could sound like anything other than “not what we’re hearing from Clinton/McCain/Obama”.  I did appreciate the fact that Fred Thompson promoted a vision based on a principle based view of issues.  This seems to be consistent with the book that Cal is promoting by David Frum titled “Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again”.

Frum promotes a set of solutions to the current issues we discuss, with a practical view of what Government, Politicians and the President can and cannot really do.

The range of ideas that Cal references from the book include creative approaches to taxation, immigration, terrorism and the Armed Forces, and my personal favorite: China.

Cal adds his 2 cents in an area that we’ve been promoting here at The Conservative Reader: micro-lending.  He does not address an interesting point, however, that I will.

Republicans have a keen opportunity on the topic of poverty, and micro-lending has the potential to be a huge win-win if done right.

In his book, “Banker To The Poor”, Mohammad Yunus not only tells the story of how he and his Grameen Bank helped pull thousands out of abject poverty in Bangladesh and other third-world countries over the past few decades, but also addresses the opportunity to leverage this concept in developed countries like the US.  He even made a pitch to Bill Clinton while he was governor of Arkansas.  A pilot project was started there and he was supposedly going to bring it with him to the White House, but never did anything with it.  Yunus tries to explain this away in his book, but I’m convinced that the plan interfered with Bill’s long-term relationships and opportunities too much to make it palatable for him or his “friends”.  Frankly, micro-lending likely does not have real friends in the Liberal scene in Washington because the concept behind it is to help foster self-sufficiency.  The Washington Left cannot tolerate losing control of the poor that way.  As long as the poor are individually dependent on the government, they will be a solid base of support for Democrats.

This is such a great example of where we as Conservatives can find our wheelhouse.  Conservatives are always talking about how the poor need to become self-sufficient.  We occasionally come up with ideas to help with that, but nothing as solid as micro-lending.  Micro-lending can bring a key financial tool (credit) to those that can benefit most and are most likely to repay (because they know this is their only chance).  The models for micro-lending that Yunus has promoted includes consumer training and peer-based accountability.  Some of these ideas (as he has asserted himself) will need to be refined for our culture, but I think we can succeed with this as a national program.

The major point here is that we need to get some clear ideas on how to help our country, as Cal Thomas says “new ideas based on old principles”, and work through the best processes to see those ideas come to fruition.  The only practical forum I see for doing this is the Republican Party.  Even if the party overall is leaning left, we can help to right it.  This includes getting our ideas out to the blog-o-sphere, get them to our party officials on a local level and national level, get them to our representatives at every level of government.  Do what we can to participate in every step of the process.  If we commit to working the whole process, we may may make a bigger impact than we can imagine.

Frum’s book goes on my reading list.  Soon as I’m done, you’ll hear from me.

H/T Des Moines Register.

Tags: Banker To The Poor, Bill Clinton, Conservative, Des Moines Register, Ideas, Left, Liberal, Micro-Lending, Mohammad Yunus, Poverty, Right, The Conservative Reader, White House

• Bill Clinton , Conservatism , Democratic Party , Des Moines Register , Fred Thompson , Mohammad Yunus , Poverty , Republican Party
• Comments(0)