The Cure for The Common Republican-A Pedagogical Argument Against Healthcare Reform

Republican resistance to healthcare reform (or, more appropriately, a federal takeover of the healthcare industry) has been, and continues to be strategically ambiguous, if not just plain quirky.  Their latest tactic, as reported by Bloomberg, is “telling House Democrats they can’t rely on the Senate to approve the [desired] changes [in the healthcare bill], which congressional leaders are trying to navigate through a process called budget reconciliation.”  By painting their constituents in the senate as untrustworthy, Republicans hope to … convince house democrats to give up healthcare reform altogether?  Maybe?  The problem with such political tactics is a lack of vision; Republican leadership has failed to effectively communicate what should be its central message–that any healthcare reform legislation that expands federal control of the healthcare industry, be it through regulations, subsidies, or social programs, is bad policy and will, inevitably, increase costs and stifle innovation.  It’s a simple, empirically backed argument that speaks truth to the common sense of even the most uneducated american.  Of course, taking such a position to its logical extreme would require opposition to not only healthcare reform, but Medicare as it now stands.  And, like Social Security, many Republicans see Medicare as politically untouchable.  Why?  Who knows.  The last true dismantling of a federal social program, in the form of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, worked wonders.  The same could, and should be done for Medicare.  De-regulation–now that’s a strategy.

The Principled Pragmatist-Palin’s Advice to The Tea Party

In an interview with Fox News, Sarah Palin suggested that the Tea Party “take over the Republican Party … Get them to see the light.”  While such a statement carries a certain air of hypocrisy considering Palin’s endorsement of Senator John Mc’Cain over his far more conservative rivals, its inherent wisdom should not be overlooked.

The two-party division that dominates our political world was born only years after the ratification of The Constitution.  The Federalist Party, led by Alexander Hamilton, propounded a larger Federal Government that took a more expansive role in the lives of its citizens.  Ironically, it was the Democratic Party, led by Thomas Jefferson, that opposed the expansion of the Federal Government, and insisted, rather, that social programs and regulations be left to the control of state governments.  While the modern political parties have swapped ideologies, the classical alignment still exists, though, perhaps, somewhat muddled in the minds of individual americans.  It is that confusion–the ignorance of fundamental principles–that is to blame for today’s bloated expansion of the Federal Government.  Unable to articulate what they believe, modern conservatives, or those who would have allied themselves with the Democrats (or classical liberals) of Jefferson’s day, have, for over eighty years, found themselves voting into office leaders who have actually succeeded in increasing, rather than decreasing the size of the Federal Government.  The claim that there exists little difference between Democrats and Republicans is far more axiomatic than many realize.  The ideology of Jefferson’s Democratic party–the belief that the Federal Government should be limited to the express powers dictated by the Constitution and that social programs and regulations should be left to state governments–has all but disappeared from the political arena.  However, in an age were information is readily accessible, where the average american, by and through the aid of libraries and the internet, can obtain an education far superior to that offered by the university, Jefferson’s voice is heard once more in the mouth of the Tea Party.

As the Tea Party seeks to restore the principles of limited government, it has found its closest allies within the Republican Party.  And while many Republicans still believe in the expansion of the Federal Government, the movement would be wise to stay the course, and focus on reforming the party from within, rather than rejecting it from without.  Of course, when forced to decide between loyalty to party or loyalty to principle, the movement must remain true, even if it requires voting Democrat or Independent over Republican.

Standing For Something-Why Bipartisan Politics Are Bad For America

Bloomberg reports that “President Barack Obama began yesterday’s health-care summit saying he wanted to find bipartisan ways to fix the health-care system.”  But, “By the end, he said he might be left with a partisan path forward.”  In other words, President Obama and the Democratic Party may be ready to concede bipartisan defeat, as increasing pressure from Conservatives forces Republican leaders to, once and for all, declare their ideological allegiance.  It seems that it is no longer enough to simply smile and kiss babies.  The modern politician must believe in something, and vote accordingly.  As Glenn Greenwald, a columnist for Salon explains, “[o]ne of the strangest prongs of conventional Beltway wisdom is the lament that there is not enough bipartisanship.  The opposite is true:  many of the most damaging acts inflicted on the country by Washington are enacted on a fully bipartisan basis.”  Politicians must accept that they will disagree with their colleagues.  Oftentimes, such disagreements will be irreconcilable, as differences in principle are bound to produce differences in opinion.  However, disagreement is not destructive.  Rather, it encourages intellectual discussion and debate, and, by forcing politicians to stand firm in their convictions, provides an opportunity for true leaders to prove themselves worthy of their elected office.

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) Holds The Line

The guy just won’t let up. According to The Wall Street Journal, Dr. Coburn has identified at least 640 programs that can be consolidated in order to allow Congress to stay its hand on lifting the debt ceiling. As WSJ puts it:

One message Massachusetts voters sent last week is concern over runaway federal spending. Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is offering Democrats a chance to show they heard that message.

Coburn is doing exactly what every Republican and Democrat should- making sure Congress does not spend beyond its means. That is one of the messages sent by Massachusetts residents last week, and I am grateful to Coburn for holding true to his responsibilities as a United States senator.

“Question Authority”

“Question Authority” is a popular slogan often pasted on bumper stickers that came out of the late 1970′s famous protests around the United States. The phrase is a statement refuting the logical fallacy of “because I said so.” In other words, statements made by “authority figures” are not necessarily factual just because the individual making the statements have rank over others.

“You will always find that those are most apt to boast of national merit, who have little or not merit of their own to depend on…” -Oliver Goldsmith

From Vietnam to George W. Bush, questioning authority has been the policy of the left, especially when Republicans have been in office. And to be fair, there has always been an assumption that it is the duty of citizenry not to blindly accept what they are being told by a government. Especially when that government was appointment by the very people it assumes it has authority over.

“It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.” -Benjamin Franklin

But for the Left, this mantra of sorts has quickly come to a close with the election of a Progressive administration. Questioning authority is unacceptable. And it is confusing to the Left why conservatives would ever question the policies of the administration. Furthermore, the generation that invented the “Question Authority” movement, now the authorities themselves, have entered into numerous double standards.

Mark Lloyd was brought into the administration as the Chief Diversity Officer. A position that is designed to verify that a strategy of diversity and inclusion policy is taking place across the nation. Yet the administration has attempted to shut down and shut out Fox News as of late. A very diverse move.

I for one was never taught in school that asking questions was a thing of ignorance.

-nick

The Personal Democracy Forum Doesn’t Help Conservatives

Monday was a very long day here in New York City.? The Personal Democracy Forum Conference busted out of the gate bright and early and never seemed to slow.? The conference and its attendees are a cornucopia of ideas and innovation.? It certainly feels as if the applications built for and during the Obama campaign have spurred an entire new focus in the political realm.? I feel like I’m a fly on the wall of the office that invented grassroots mailers.? It certainly seems that we are witnessing the initial stages of a new era in politics.

Six month from now things will be very interesting.? The first campaigns since the 2008 presidential race will begin cranking their engines.? It will be the first big test as well.? Letting all of us evaluate who “got it” after the last go round.

One has to understand that when they attend these sorts of events that there is certainly a goal of objectivity.? The reason for attending is to discover the areas in which politics and technology are intersecting.? How is technology, or possibly more specifically, the Internet changing politics?? Are these changes creating the evaporation of results from the previous models?? If so, how do we incorporate these new tools into our area of politics to create new successful models?? That’s what we are hear to discover.

The reality though is that people that are passionate about anything can’t keep it from seeping out even when they are trying to hold back.? There is nothing wrong with this.? I take zero issue with individuals who wear their heart on their sleeve.? At least it’s out there.

But at some point a balance issue develops.? If panels are mostly chaired by a certain orientation of political enthusiast, the point of view is always the same.? If the audience to which they are speaking is of the same enthusiasm, then they are preaching to the choir.? The cheers and hardly applause comes because of political orientation and alignment and not because all political technology enthusiast share the same goals.

We don’t.

Case in point was the fine display of two sheep being led on stage for the final panel of the day.? The sheep, in the form of two teleco representatives, had their achille’s slit so that they couldn’t escape and then were promptly ritually massacred by the Picadores Josh Silver.? Silver, well known in tech policy circles for avoiding any concerns or facts outside of his own talking points was suburb in his beat down.? I honestly couldn’t tell if the teleco reps were ill prepared or just trying to play the saint for the audience, the obvious antagonist.

But why was this happening?? Silver has a particular motivation and a goal, and not one with which all parties in the tech policy community would agree.? Why was no one with a differing point of view sitting on this panal?? Not to defend the telecos, but to ask questions from a differing foundation, or to call Silver’s bluff.? Where was Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, or Adam Thierer who started Technology Liberation Front?? Where was Timothy B. Lee, CATO fellow and Ars Technica contributor? (Who in my humble opinion has hands down written the best scholarly explanation of network neutrality available.? Which is mighty humble of me, if I do say so, considering I’ve written on it myself.)

I did appreciate hearing the audience gleefully suck up every drop the FCC commissioner Blair Levin had to say; especially the part where he told us that they were creating a plan.? Really? The plan he is referring to of course is the National Broadband Strategy which comes due in February of 2010.? What hardly anyone knows though is that the US Department of Agriculture who has used the Rural Utilities Services (RUS) division to improve broadband distribution in the past has been awarded funds for distribution from the stimulus.? RUS plans to distribute its roughly $2.5 billion by September 30th, 2009.? The National Telecommunications and Information Administration?who received the bulk of the broadband stimulus funds?will hand out their dollars in three phases occurring Spring of 2009, Fall of 2009, and Spring of 2010.

Spend first, formulate your plan later, Mr. Levin?? Sort of seems counterproductive to planning at all.

Conservatives are boned at PDF 2009.? There is certainly not enough representation amongst panel members.? Some of this is absolutely not the fault of Personal Democracy Forum.? We are under a liberal Administration, and that administration appoints liberal bureaucrats.? An invite to Robert McDowell or Meredith Attwell Baker would have been nice.? Maybe they were invited, and turned it down.? This too is a possibility.? At least Cas Sunstein with his Fairness Doctrine-esque “electronic sidewalks” for the Internet isn’t present.

I’m not laying the wood to PDF.? Yes, from initial indications it doesn’t appear that the ideological sides are well balanced, and possibly they don’t know where to look.? The real trouble however is the attendees.

The Personal Democracy Forum doesn’t help conservatives.? Because conservatives aren’t there to be helped.

The numbers are simply overwhelming.? I’d guestimate that the attendance is somwhere close to one thousand.? I’d also venture to say that there are roughly five conservatives there.? And I’m incorporating the one libertarian I saw with a Ron Paul button.

I’m dismayed.

I know these folks are out there.? I’ve written about them.? So where are they?? After this past Fall why aren’t ogles of people from the right side of the aisle on Capitol Hill all over this event?? Did the speakers shy them away?? I don’t really think so.? I’m a strong conservative-libertarian, and have been for years.? And while there are a few people in the speaker list that irk me on the average day, I wouldn’t let them keep me from attending when the majority of lectures and panels are simply focused on an examination of content in some form, a discussion of getting content to an audience, or about tools to help you be more efficient and productive.

This is subject matter that conservatives need to hear.? Maybe PDF needs to market themselves more to conservative circles on the web?? Possibly all conservatives on the web are poor and couldn’t afford to attend?? It could be that conservatives don’t fit in with all the Apple fan boys present at the conference.? If there were more Dell owners then it might have been more balanced.

All thought provoking questions.

These are just initial reactions.? I’m sure I will be thinking more about it into the second day of the event as I look for reasons for the paltry representation.

Secretly though, I think the liberals in the crowd are ecstatic.? Why wouldn’t they be?? It’s like someone serving up a box of free gold to anyone who shows up at the box and takes the gold.? And only liberals are showing up, so they get to take home all the gold.

You can’t teach a dead dog new tricks.? And you certainly can’t expect to win a fight you don’t show up to.

Very much looking forward to Tuesday.

-nick