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.

National Journal’s Ideological Rankings

See them here.

The 10 Most Liberal Senate Dems   Most Conservative Senate GOPers

1. Sherrod Brown (D-OH)           1. Jim Inhofe (R-OK)

1. Roland Burris (D-IL)           2. Jim DeMint (R-SC)

1. Ben Cardin (D-MD)              3. Jim Bunning (R-KY)

1. Jack Reed (D-RI)               4. Tom Coburn (R-OK)

1. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)      5. Jim Risch (R-ID)

6. John Kerry (D-MA)              6. John Thune (R-SD)

6. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)        7. John Ensign (R-NV)

8. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)        8. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

9. Chris Dodd (D-CT)              9. Richard Burr (R-NC)

9. Dick Durbin (D-IL)             10. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

The 10 Most Liberal House Dems    Most Conservative House GOPers

1. Rush Holt (D-NJ)               1. Trent Franks (R-AZ)

1. Gwen Moore (D-WI)              1. Doug Lamborn (R-CO)

1. John Olver (D-MA)              1. Randy Neugebaurer (R-TX)

1. Linda Sanchez (D-CA)           1. Pete Olson (R-TX)

1. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)          1. John Shadegg (R-AZ)

1. Louise Slaughter (D-NY)        1. Mac Thornberry (R-TX)

1. Mel Watt (D-NC)                7. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)

1. Henry Waxman (D-CA)            8. Mike Pence (R-IN)

9. Kathy Castor (D-FL)            9. Steve King (R-IA)

10. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL)      9. Tom McClintock (R-CA)

The 10 In The Middle              In The Middle Of The House

(Most liberal to Most conserv.)   (Most liberal to Most conserv.)

46. Claire McCaskill (D-MO)       213. Henry Cuellar (D-TX)

47. Robert Byrd (D-WV)            214. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL)

48. Bob Casey (D-PA)              215. John Adler (D-NJ)

49. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)          216. Bill Foster (D-IL)

50. Mark Pryor (D-AR)             217. Michael McMahon (D-NY)

51. Byron Dorgan (D-ND)           218. Michael Arcuri (D-NY)

52. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)        219. John Tanner (D-TN)

53. Joe Lieberman (I-CT)          220. Scott Murphy (D-NY)

54. Jim Webb (D-VA)               221. Tim Holden (D-PA)

55. Russ Feingold (D-WI)          222. Zack Space (D-OH)

Most Liberal House Delegations    Most Conservative Delegations

1. MA                             1. ID

2. HI                             2. KY

3. VT                             3. SC

4. CT                             4. TX

5. RI                             5. GA

For complete results, methodologies and more lists — including the 2 members of the Senate from different parties who have the exact same score — check out the vote rankings at NationalJournal.com.

Update II: Many comments wonder where Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is on our list of most conservative House members. Paul has conservative vote rankings in the economic category (85%) and the social category (73%), but his votes on foreign policy are much more centrist (53% conservative). That makes him the 140th-most conservative member in the House.

I’m surprised Coburn is so far back, and that Feingold is almost exactly in the middle, but other than that the rankings make sense.

I was told by a guy on the Hill that Feinstein is the only senator pulled to the left by his/her constituents- that she’s actually a moderate. I found that interesting, but it explains her support for the president’s decision to send troops to Afghanistan.

Channeling Reagan

Obama Seeks to Channel Reagan as Democrats Prepare for Election, reads a headline on this morning’s Bloomberg.com. Meanwhile, Governor Crist of Florida is quoted in Politico as saying “If I’m a RINO, then so is Ronald Reagan.” It appears that Channeling Reagan is, or is at least perceived to be, a good way to bait conservatives. The hope is that by associating oneself with the political ideologies of the 40th President, one may safely appeal to those pesky fundamentalists that still believe in things without coming across as too over-the top. This is unfortunate, because it distracts from the actual issues by allowing politicians to focus on abstract policies (I.E. ‘fiscal responsibility,’ ‘responsible spending,’ etc.), rather than articulate the means intended to accomplish such goals and enact such policies.

In short, association with public figures is nothing more than another cheap way to dodge substantive questions about what one truly believes and desires.

Rahm Emanuel Follows In Obama’s Gaffes

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has followed in President Obama’s footsteps regarding sensitivity towards handicapped Americans. According to The Wall Street Journal:

“F—ing retarded,” Mr. Emanuel scolded the group [of liberal lawmakers], according to several participants. He warned them not to alienate lawmakers whose votes would be needed on health care and other top legislative items.

This happened back in August, but according to Politico Emanuel just apologized to handicapped activist Tim Shriver last week after the Journal reported the incident.

I’m not going to harp on about this- it’s the most minor of incidents. Nevertheless, our public officials and their subordinates should not be making insulting references to handicapped people. It’s not appropriate, no matter what the setting. Emanuel’s apology is exceedingly appropriate, if very belated.

Punishing the Guilty- Unless We Don’t

The Heritage Foundation nailed it in their Morning Bell yesterday:

The TARP program has so far distributed $247 billion to more than 700 banks. Of that, $162 billion in principal and $11 billion in interest and dividends have already been repaid. Except for AIG, almost all banks that received taxpayer money are expected to pay back the American taxpayers in full. As The New York Times reports: “The losses from the bailout fund are expected from money paid to rescue Chrysler and General Motors and the insurance giant American International Group, and from a program to help homeowners avert foreclosures.”

So the real deadbeats that are not giving us “our money back” are not the banks, but the union-backed car companies and failed government mortgage modification programs. But guess what? The White House has chosen not to include the car companies among the institutions that will pay this so called “Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee.” Also exempted are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored entities that helped create the crisis.

It’s time we told our elected officials to stop picking winners and losers, and voted in people who are in favor of term limits and in favor of a separation of business from government. Beyond liberal or conservative, these are the issues that are so important to America. After all, when Howard Dean, Markos Moulitas and Arianna Huffington agree with The Heritage Foundation…perhaps it’s time for- and I dislike using this word- change to how our system works. Of course, it’s up to us, the voters and citizens of America, to make said change.

Operation: Just Cause

In December of 1989, George H.W. Bush (or Bush Senior for the liberals who do not know the proper application of a generational?suffix) sent the XVII Airborne Corps, Joint Special Operations Command and numerous other Army, Marine, Navy and Air Force units into the country of Panama.? The operation was launched in an effort by then-President Bush to depose of Manuel Noriega (the de facto leader of the Panamanian government at the time) and rescue Americans who had been trapped in the country during those turbulent times.? The operation was named Operation Just Cause, leaving some critics of the engagement to quip that the operation’s name was the only argument H.W. Bush had to justify the action (I will leave the conspiracy theories about Skulls and Bones, Mena Airport, Bush, the CIA and aliens out for the sake of time, much to the chagrin of Alex Jones supporters).

What makes a war “just”?? Surely this is a topic that has been debated and mulled over for as long as men have been around on this earth (because women do not go to war, of course; war is a bi-product if irrational manliness).? Can anyone truly justify a war to every one’s liking?? Is the nature of the state to do what is right for the population of that state, no matter what that means for other states (as the term state is understood post-Machiavelli) as we see with the realists?? Or can a state only be justified in going to war if such an engagement is for the benefit of humanity as a whole (by asking “pretty please” from the UN)?? Then again, it was once said that “those who invoke humanity on their side mean to cheat” (Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political).?

Apparently, Americans are having a sort of crisis of conscience.? According to a recent Rasmussen Poll, only 50% percent of our fellow countrymen and women feel that the War in Afghanistan is a “Just” war.? This goes along with the Quinnipiac University poll that came out about a week and a half ago, which nearly reaches the exact same conclusion.? Support for the war in the first year preceding the September 11th attacks of 2001 was close to near unanimous approval, with Gallup showing 89-93% stating that Afghanistan was not a mistake in January of 2002.? So it appears that Americans (Democrats and Republicans mind you) are waning on their support for a war that they felt was necessary in 2001 and 2002.? What has changed?

If the Afghan War was justified then, what makes it less so now?? Surely we are there for the same reason, since we did not go over and overthrow the Taliban and then leave only to return as “occupiers”.? What is it that makes this war “unjust” then?? What is “justice” to these people who?have decided that it is no more than a mere term to be thrown around in the height of passion following an attack on 3,000 innocent people?? Was it only then just because we went in and overthrew a tyrannical regime that was directly tied to forces responsible for bloodshed on our own soil?? Now is it “unjust” solely for the reason that we are being told by the news and liberal (and libertarian and some conservative) influences that we have overstayed our welcome?? Which is the more justified action: going in and sacking the regime of a country to leave it in anarchy and decay; or staying and building it up to the point that their government can run effectively and more justly than before?? Who are the 21% of voters that have obtained this retroactive prescience? and decided they are against it after they were for it?? I can understand those people who were against it from the beginning, and that is because they feel that no war is ever justified.? They should be acknowledged and applauded for their principled stand, but let us not forget the ignorance that must be evident in such a dogmatic stance.?

I must admit that it is polls like these that create a feeling of futility in the pit of my stomach.? Perhaps a majority of Americans should not be asked a question about wars and their relation to justice until they better understand what justice is.? The slow decay of support for this necessary war is a sad barometer of the fortitude possessed by the American people to support the men and women overseas, their families at home, and the mission we sent them to do eight years ago.? In the end, those 50% of Americans who now question the mission and its necessity, are not doing those soldiers or their families justice.?

-rj

Democrat Wants Abortion In Health Care Bill

“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 Lion Rests His Head (1932-2009)

My mornings generally begin with rolling out of bed to Willie Geist (of Morning Joe fame) and his new show Way Too Early.? He was being assisted by the regulars of Morning Joe in breaking the news of the passing of Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy; a burden that no one man could carry on his own.? Even as staunch a Conservative as I am, I cannot help be feel the full weight of this somber moment.? Ted Kennedy was an icon; the personification of liberalism as understood today.? To myself, and many other younger Conservatives, he was the opponent.? We would argue in class, not against teachers and later professors and their beliefs; but against Ted Kennedy and the movement of which he was the avant-garde as if we were engaged in some form of transcontinental dialogue.? No matter how much one disagreed with the man?s views, politics, or personal life, you cannot take away his importance from the left and ultimately from America.

I was reminded of a story I heard while on Capitol Hill.? An older gentleman reminisced about a time when he was a mere intern working for then-Senator Paul Sarbanes of Maryland.? Underneath the House offices and Senate offices are a number of tunnels and a little train system that ferries people between their respective office buildings and the Capitol.? When you are travelling these halls you always run the chance of brushing elbows or exchanging glances with statesmen you see all-too-often on the news.? The makers of history.? This gentleman sat down in one of the carts for the train to head toward the Capitol, and as many people do, stared straight forward in an effort to maintain his invisibility amongst other passerbyers.? His cart quickly filled up with the larger than life Ted Kennedy and his Chief of Staff, which caused the young intern?s heart to jump into his throat.? Senator Kennedy looked at him, smiled and asked who the young intern was, who he was working for, whether he was enjoying DC, et cetera.? The short train ride concluded and both man and young man exchanged farewells, I imagine the Senator?s was more boisterous than the intern being left frozen like a deer in headlights.

Around a month later, the intern was back on the underground train again.? This time only Senator Kennedy sat with him in the cart which rendered the young intern silent again (this gentleman did not go into politics, understandably so).? Senator Kennedy smiled at him, and said, ?I hope you?ll forgive me but I can?t remember your name.? But I would like to know how your internship with Paul [Sarbanes] is going; are you still enjoying it??? You thought the intern was blown away before, now he had a whole new level of admiration for the Massachusetts Senator.

Senator Kennedy was best at that sort of interaction, from what I hear.? He may have met and dined with and drank with over a thousand people between his and the young intern?s two meetings, but he remembered people and their stories.? He was a statesman.? That is all that I have the authority to judge him on.? There will be reminders of his vitriol on the judiciary committee towards Republican Court appointees, his politics and practices, and most of all reminders of that July night in 1969.? I will refrain from speaking ill of the dead for this particular piece, but my hopes are that the man?s death does not become politicized. Ted Kennedy was a symbol after all, so his name and memory will be invoked for years to come.? In the end, he was a statesman and will live in politics long after he lived in our world.

-rj

Next Page »