This Republican is fighting mad

After the shellacking Republicans took from Democrats in 2008, many are asking themselves what happened and what do we do next. The “what happened” was eight years of a lackluster president who enacted the surge about two and half years too late, surrendered on the public relations front, and abandoned the conservative principle of small government while joining the Republican controlled Congress in a frenzy of (then) unprecedented deficit spending. As for what we do next, some are beginning to outline a strategy for the coming years. My friend and fellow blogger Dana at Common Sense Political Thought had this to say: Newt Gingrich-style guerrilla conservatism sounds about right to me! Our friends on the left gave President Bush no peace, no room, made no attempt to give the man a chance. They hated him for his win in 2000, and hated him even more in 2004. In the end, they got him in the 2006 elections, and finished the job tonight. While we ought to be politer than the left, we should still follow their lead, and give Mr Obama no peace, and no room to maneuver, as little freedom of action as possible.

We won’t win all of the battles, and probably will lose far more than we win. But when Bill Clinton, who ran as a moderate, took a hard left turn in 1993 and 1994, guerrilla conservatism spanked him hard in 1994; that’s what we need to try again.

When it comes to taxes, we must hound the next president on his promises, promises we already know he will break. When it comes to spending, we must hound him on busting the budget.

Lying down and playing dead is not an option. Conservatives will have to become the insurgents on this political battlefield for the next few years. The RINO’s have scattered, defected, or are actively compromising to save their own political skins, the Bushites have been routed, and the most vocal of the neocons have been discredited. Those members of the GOP who decided to act and spend like drunken Democrats deserve no place of leadership and probably don’t have the courage to stand up to Obama to begin with. The hard work of freedom therefore by default once again falls onto the shoulders of the true conservatives to stand up for what is right; to stand up for traditional morals and values and principle without apology and regardless of criticism, personal attacks and the ebbs and flows of the political landscape and “popular opinion”.

f the Big government, principle compromising, country club types are allowed to continue to run the Republican Party it will only suffer disaster after disaster until the United States is effectively a one party state with only a token opposition. That is the ultimate goal of Obama and the Left. Those who have declared a “paradigm shift” in American politics realize that the US is not far from that now and will stay that way unless and until conservatives move quickly and decisively to reclaim the Republican Party and the moral high ground.

The Democratic Party has successfully purged themselves of moderates and true centrists and perhaps the Republican Party should purge itself of the squishy, rudderless elements who have governed so poorly in the past. The Republican Party disintegrates and loses elections when it wanders from the straight and narrow path of free enterprise, traditional morals and values, small government, lower taxes, and personal restraint and responsibility. The temptations of power seems to have an amazingly corrosive effect on the political party in power, and during the first six years of the Bush administration the Republicans could not resist gorging themselves at the public trough and overplaying their hand both domestically and internationally.

The Republican party is far more successful as an opposition party as the most driven, the most committed and most conservative of their ranks rise to the occasion and rally to the defense of the Shining City on the Hill. The Left has now elected a President that has deep ties to cultural and ethnocentric radicalism and it would be irresponsible, and nothing but self-destructive appeasement, to not vigorously oppose any and every forthcoming policy that violates the fundamental principles of Conservatism, traditional values and common sense. The current occupant of the white house believes that he needs to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.” It would be irresponsible for the political opposition to appease that demand.

The choice and duty here is clear and the Republic needs its defenders now more than ever. Defeatism is already raising its ugly head among certain elements of the Right and the Republican party but such knee jerk, defeatist reactions accomplish nothing constructive and only serve to undermine the common sense conservative/ leave me alone movement. One can blindly acquiesce and surrender to the coming Liberal Nanny State or a campaign of sabotage can be launched before it gets off the ground.

The election of Barack Obama as President of the United States should not be seen as the end of the ideological and cultural wars for the heart and soul of America, but as the beginning. The 2008 election may have been a victory on one hand, but it should not be construed as surrender on the other. It is always darkest before the dawn, but if conservatives don’t fight now the conservative movement, and a meaningful Republican party, will indeed be condemned to the ashbin of history. The Left will not be content to relish their victory but will instead embark on a program of “perpetual revolution” socially, economically and ideologically. We are witnessing the fruition of the nearly complete Liberal domination of education and academia, the media, and Hollywood. It was inevitable that given enough time they would eventually completely conquer the state as well.

You can’t be a nice guy when your enemy has no scruples. The Founders explicitly warned against turning the Republic into a mob-ruled Democracy yet that is how the US is now being governed.

Already the Left is beginning to prepare for the conservative backlash. And I believe that conservatives must make every effort to not disappoint them. Norman Lear has warned about “an invigorated right-wing grassroots, media and organizational infrastructure”. It remains to be seen if he is right and if his fear will be viewed as a call to action by those who still believe in fighting for the Republic. The Left thinks it has managed to create a paradigm shift in American politics. Whether that is true remains to be seen.

As for the Republican Party, if it doesn’t end cross-over voting in the early primaries then it doesn’t matter what else happens. Having Democrats and liberals have a role in picking your presidential nominee is ridiculous and must never be allowed to happen again. Diluting Conservatism is a continued recipe for disaster.

Conservatives must seize control of the Republican Party, not just be one of the factions. The pundits call the Right “the base” of the Republican Party but “the base” doesn’t control the party. Conservatives are intent on rectifying that now. Those who have sold the party and its principles out have led that same party into the twilight land of the “loyal opposition” that controls little and exerts even less influence that it did during the dark days following the fall of Nixon. Those responsible for the political disaster of the last few years should be held accountable for their actions, or lack thereof, and themselves condemned to the ashbin of history.

Unless the Republican Party can rediscover its conservative soul, it may effectively be doomed to extinction. Tony Blankley sums it up well: “Conservatism always has been and always will be a force to reckon with because it most closely approximates the reality of the human condition, based, as it is, on the cumulative judgment and experience of a people. It is the heir, not the apostate, to the accumulated wisdom, morality and faith of the people. … Our challenge is not to retreat to the comfort of self-congratulatory exile but to sweat and bleed – and be victorious – in the arena of public opinion.” Fight David Huntwork is a conservative activist and freelance columnist in Northern Colorado, where he lives with his wife and three young daughters. He is currently working on his first book titled "No Apologies: In Defense of the Conservative Ideology." You may view his bio and past columns at http://DavidHuntwork.tripod.com.

No need to panic, Republicans

(Nantucket, Mar. 15) The wild wintry desolation of this small island is not everyone’s ideal for a seasonal getaway but nonetheless it is a supportive environment for thinking, reading and writing. Clutching a steaming mug of coffee at 5 AM and listening to the howling wind and the pounding surf one finds few excuses for failing to confront that old demon “Writers Block”.

For reading I chose as companions George Orwell and Harry Truman.

Reading Orwell’s Collected Essays from the Nineteen Thirties incisively indicting the Western Democracies for their confusion and moral cowardice in failing to stand up to Fascism, one is struck by the similarity to those same Democracies today in their flaccid equivocations and rationalizations in the face of Islamo-Fascism.

In his memorable account of his participation in the Spanish Civil War Homage to Catalonia Orwell penetratingly explored the reality of totalitarianism and also the peculiar inability of the left-wing mindset to see Stalin’s Russia as the nightmare state it was-- themes he brilliantly developed in his classic novels Animal Farm and 1984.

David McCullough’s Pulitzer Prize winning biography Truman superbly portrays an often misunderstood President.

Truman’s Presidency is a startling illustration of the stunning volatility of the American public’s political temper.

Suddenly thrust into the Oval Office by the death of Franklin Roosevelt, Truman’s approval ratings for the remainder of World War II were higher than any President before or since. Yet within a year after war’s end a rising sea of labor and political discord utterly collapsed those approval ratings and resulted in a Republican sweep of the 1946 elections. So dismal was Truman’s repute that both left and right of the Democratic Party exerted themselves mightily to deny him the nomination for 1948. He would be saved only by their inability to agree on a substitute.

Yet once nominated, Truman almost single-handedly waged perhaps the most remarkable of all Presidential campaigns leading to the greatest upset in American political history.

However despite this incredible achievement and heroic leadership at the outset of the Cold War, Truman’s approval ratings soon plummeted to depths lower even than those of George W. Bush. Largely because of a sour public mood over the inconclusive Korean War, Truman left office as one of our most reviled Presidents.

So what does all of this tell us about the plight of today’s Republican Party ?

First, the present ideological divide in our society is actually less polarized than in the 1930s when both Communists and Fascists often held giant rallies in Madison Square Garden and political vilification far surpassed anything we know today.

Second, as Truman’s fortunes illustrate the absolute roller-coaster like swings in public opinion is nothing new. After every decisive election the winners gleefully predict oblivion for the losers and unending political success for themselves.

Republicans, take heart! Had a mere four per cent of the electorate who actually chose Obama (53%) instead selected McCain (46%)- and absent the September economic meltdown at least that number would have- today President McCain would be ramming tax and spending cuts through a panicked Democratic Congress regularly derided as “clueless” and “leaderless”.

Far more than 4% of the electorate--Bush voters who jumped to Obama-- are awakening to the enormity of the radical social and economic transformation that is clearly the Democrats goal. Obama remains a skilled dissembler, but the cat was out of the bag when he weakly relinquished the main agenda to Nancy and Harry.

Obama’s approval ratings are about the same as those of George W. Bush at the same point in his Presidency and much lower then those of Jimmy Carter. This “honeymoon” is waning rapidly-- no surprise given the massive assault on the economic fundamentals of our still “center-right” nation. Tax breaks for those who don’t even pay taxes, rewarding bad behavior in the mortgage market, and looting the Treasury on behalf of every left-wing special interest ultimately will not “play well in Peoria”. Even those lacking health insurance are just 15% of the population. While the other 85% are already suspecting Obama will make their care worse.

Given the stark threat the Democratic program poses to current and future generations Americans hoping for Obama to fail are merely hoping our country will succeed.

In a dark hour for him Harry Truman said:” Forget the news liars, the pols, and the pundits. In the end the people see through them all”.

Our history and some hopeful current signs suggest this may still be true.

------------------------ William Moloney’s columns have appeared in the Wall St. Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News.

Principle, expediency & the Republicans

A handful of GOP governors, including Jindal of Louisiana and Sanford of South Carolina, are taking a courageous stand against the stimulus. Pressed with the threat of amending welfare laws in their states for years to come and violating the principles of good governance made this nation great, these governors are refusing to accept funding for new unemployment benefits, much to the chagrin of their Democratic counterparts. "This to me is not about philosophical theory, [but] about real people who through no fault of their own, are laid off because of a recession," argued Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm on "FOX News Sunday" this past weekend.

Apparently Republican stances, based largely on core beliefs but even transcending them into the realm of good governance, particularly the issue of the dangers it sets for future welfare programs in their states, are inappropriate in a time of “crisis.”

This, Governor Granholm, isn’t just about philosophical theory, though that is certainly important. It is also about the people—“real people.” Consider: Three years from now, when federal funding dries up and the states are stuck with these laws, how are higher taxes to make up the difference going to help the people? When Dick and Jane decide to stay on welfare for five years instead of two, how is that helping to get them moving and making better lives for themselves, their family and their community?

The answer is, it’s not. Principles may be driving these stands, but underlying each principled governor is justified concern for the future of their state. They’re doing what leaders should be doing: looking toward the impact of their present decisions on the future, not just the effect of those decisions on the now.

Of course, while America’s greatest national interest has been at stake—its security—the Democrats had no problem crying “principle” and putting “philosophical theory” over effective interrogation procedures. But when their own political interests in appearing to be strong, firm leaders are being threatened, and their own agendas to expand government in unprecedented ways are on the line, they have no problem throwing principle out the window.

Terrorism is a different issue; most of the actions that were taken on the part of U.S. interrogators were not, in actuality, torture. Contrary to popular misconception, waterboarding has only been used three times—and in each of those three times it worked, and innumerable lives were saved. Early on some cases were questionable, such as Abu Graihb and early Guantanamo Bay practices, but by and large principle did guide the nation’s interrogation policy.

On the issue of warrantless wiretapping, the government was not wiretapping every phone in America without a warrant, converse to ACLU misinformation. Rather, if Abdul’s conversations are being monitored in Pakistan and he calls Ahmed in the United States, is the government supposed to put down the phone and say, “Oops, American citizen?” Of course not, and that’s what the policy ensured. Yet the Democrats made a big fuss about how this violated the “rights of the citizen.” They cried “principle,” yet none were actually violated.

But now the tide has turned and the Democrats are the one whose policies are being challenged. Their reckless willingness to throw up their hands and truly abandon our ideals is troublesome at best. If we can just casually say, whenever a new crisis arises, that principle is irrelevant, what will we have left? Can we pick and choose when to let core beliefs be our guide and when to ignore them?

Far too many leaders have given the same argument—we’re in a crisis, so let’s set aside our core beliefs. Such is the true test of leadership. Will our leaders stand by those convictions in troubled times, or will they set them aside because of the perceived ease in doing so?

If we refuse to allow our conscience of principle to be our guide in crisis, instead only permitting its surface in pleasant times, our ideals are rendered meaningless.

Thomas Jefferson’s statement that his “reading of history convinces [him] that most bad government results from too much government” no longer holds any meaning for the Democrats, as well as Republicans like Governors Charlie Crist and Arnold Schwarzenegger. That is, if it ever has.

“The spirit of resistance to government,” Jefferson once said, “is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.”

One can only hope that more governors will have the courage to stand up and resist the temptation to cede more power and authority to government. The future of this country may depend on it.

Time for Republicans to be ‘reactionary’

"Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." - Samuel Johnson, English writer Now that the misnamed "stimulus" package has passed that President Obama requested and the Congressional Democrats crafted, we have clarity about our nation’s choices and thereby its future. The poorly kept secret is out: this is not a bailout law, this $780 billion monstrosity. It includes everything Democrats have wanted for decades, from subsidies to handouts to income transfers.

The best news is that no Republicans in the House of Representatives and only three (northeastern) Republican Senators voted for the omnibus legislation, meaning that our so-called "reactionary" political party is doing the right thing and laying the basis for a comeback in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Much has been written and said in recent years about how much better it is to be "proactive" than reactive, as if there’s something unintelligent and ill-advised about responding promptly to challenges that arise. I see a good sign in the initial GOP reaction to the opening salvo in the Democrats’ campaign to make Big Government permanent and impregnable, for precisely the reason that Dr. Johnson gives.

Reactionary has been a bad word and unwelcome label at least since self-styled "progressives"such as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson came upon our political scene a century ago. They favored equality of condition over equality of rights and therefore saw nothing sacred about freedom of commerce or the Constitution that provided security for it.

Not surprisingly, then, Republicans in opposition were castigated as hopelessly reactionary in the 1930s when Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal dramatically increased the role–and the cost–of the federal government’s regulation of commerce. When FDR took office in 1933, the annual federal budget was $3 billion. Now it is $3 TRILLION dollars.

Republicans survived the New Deal by conceding the good intentions of the Democrats, promising the same advantages for less cost. They were tax collectors for the welfare state until Ronald Reagan showed that high tax rates are counterproductive and instead stimulated our "Carterized" commerce with a cut in the rates and the number of brackets in 1981.

Reagan’s "reaction" to the stagflation (high inflation, unemployment and interest rates) of the 1970s was exactly right. But he was not the first Republican president to "react" to bad Democrat policy.

Our first GOP chief executive, Abraham Lincoln, reacted to the Democrats’ policy of extending slavery into western territories and even Latin America by calling for the repeal of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and overturning of Dred Scott v. Sanford that made this possible.

When there is a fire, we expect the fire department to react. When a crime is committed, we expect the same from the police. When we were attacked by our Islamist enemies on September 11, 2001, President Bush reacted by taking the war to the enemy. In all these cases, we are better for our duly constituted authorities reacting promptly to threats to public safety.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with being "proactive" in the sense that the fire and police departments encourage prevention among the citizenry, and the U.S. government seeks peace with friendly nations and is on guard against unfriendly ones.

But when the threat to our safety, and most assuredly to our liberties, is clear and palpable, the political party that should be preferred is the one that reacts in the right way. Just as the first Republicans did not relent until they had won control of the government and reversed bad policy, so today’s party should work in earnest to sound the alarm at the Democrat majority’s assault on our freedom.

Already President Obama has rescinded the ban on government funding of abortions overseas. Next will be all abortions in this country through the utterly dishonest "Freedom of Choice" Act that will remove all legislative, judicial and funding limits on abortions for all nine months of pregnancy.

Equally menacing are the deceptive (again) Freedom of Choice Act which would permit unionization without a secret ballot; and the misnamed "Fairness Doctrine," which would force all radio stations to provide equal time to popular conservative talk shows, effectively driving them off the air.

In a year or two, socialized medicine will be proposed, probably in stages, which will drive up the cost of health care and lead to rationing as government bureaucrats decide who deserves to live or to die.

There’s plenty here for freedom-loving Americans to react to. The sooner we toss out the avatars of Big Government, the better.

Hillman: No 2010 candidacy

Republican National Committeeman Mark Hillman will not seek any elected office next year, he announced in a mass email to friends on Sunday afternoon. The former Senate Majority Leader and acting State Treasurer had been mentioned as a possible candidate for the GOP nomination as US Senator, Governor, or 4th District Congressman. He lost narrowly to Democrat Cary Kennedy for State Treasurer in 2006.

Mark is a close personal friend, a regular contributor to this blog and our radio show, and an outstanding conservative leader. We can hope to see him back in political combat, and ultimately in public office, one day soon. Here is the text of his announcement:

I have decided not to seek elected office in 2010. Much has changed since I last ran in 2006 - my wife and I have "settled down" in my hometown of Burlington and a six-month-old boy has drastically changed our priorities. Campaigning for statewide or federal office is very demanding and our party deserves candidates who are willing to make that campaign a top priority. At this time, that simply isn't a commitment I am willing to make.

I am truly grateful for your support over the years and if, in a few years, it turns out that another campaign is right for me, for my family, and for Colorado, I would be honored to again have your support.

In the meantime, I intend to work hard as your friend, as a conservative committed to limited government and constitutional freedom, and as your Republican National Committeeman to do all I can to help our candidates and our party succeed by returning to our roots and unifying around our core conservative principles.

Yours for freedom, Mark Hillman