"One From the Vault" Dept.

The following is a flashback to the archives of this website{1} from 2009. Without further ado...

Now certainly one problem the GOP has had in the past twenty years is the attempt to placate moderate voters at the expense of principles. It is one thing to reach out to others -indeed this is always well and good. However, one can also take any good thing too far and the GOP was showing an unwillingness oftentimes to take stands on principle against the Democrats. There was also a perverse sense of entitlement to the GOP elections at the presidential level since 1988 and even before that time. Part of the problem with that kind of political entitlement mentality was that people presumed in 1988 that George H. W. Bush would be a worthy successor to Ronald Reagan rather than Jack Kemp and Bush won the nomination that year (followed by a healthy election landslide) by giving indications that he would continue to follow in Reagan's footsteps. He then betrayed this trust and that was what started the ball rolling in the direction we saw in the past twenty years. Another problem in that interim was the message that the GOP received in the 1994 midterms after Bill Clinton's election triumph over President Bush and Ross Perot two years earlier.

I have heard some try to posit the excuse that the GOP "did not know how to govern while in the majority" and while this may have been true in 1994[...], it does not explain problems in subsequent years. It certainly does not explain what we saw when George H. W. Bush's son was elected and the GOP led congresses of the first six years of his presidency.[...] But there was also the sense of "entitlement" in the GOP where they viewed whoever came up short last time as "due" the next time. We saw this with Senator Bob Dole in 1996[...], we also saw this in 2008 with Senator John McCain.[...] However, there is also a problem of nostalgia that while I have seen it addressed recently has been the source of criticism by some from the more conservative persuasion.

If there is one thing that has become an annoyance as of late it is reading the words of those who present facile solutions to the GOP's problem. Yes there were problems with letting the so-called "RINOS" have too much control of the party apparatus. But there is also the problem of opposing extremes with extremes; namely, those who would respond to an overly wide tent mentality with one that is much too narrow... 

It is all find and well to raise the banner of Reagan as many do but you have to know what Reagan really stood for and how he operated politically or else you will not learn from the past so that it informs your future: learning from the past being a hallmark of proper conservative philosophy...

It is all find and well to raise the banner of Reagan as many do but you have to know what Reagan really stood for and how he operated politically or else you will not learn from the past so that it informs your future: learning from the past being a hallmark of proper conservative philosophy...[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 16, 2009)]

On the anniversary of President Reagan's birth, revisiting some material I wrote in years past about him seems apropo.

May he rest in peace.

Note:

{1} In posting this thread as I have, it necessitates creating a new primary posting tag so with this posting, consider the primary posting tag Vault Flashback to be added to this website for the current and future postings where applicable. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 20, 2017)]

Points to Ponder:

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

Let’s take a look at social security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, social security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.

Now in our country under our free enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.

But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.

This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your children won’t decide when they’re in school where they will go or what they will do for a living. They will wait for the government to tell them where they will go to work and what they will do.

What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.

Former Representative Halleck of Indiana has said, “When the American people want something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want.”

So write, and if your representative writes back to you and tells you that he or she too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let them get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell them that you believe in government economy and fiscal responsibility; that you know governments don’t tax to get the money the need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say “I have heard from my constituents and this is what they want.”

Write those letters now; call your friends and them to write them. If you don’t, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. [Ronald Reagan (circa 1961)]

Miscellaneous Musings on Divisions Political and Otherwise:

[Prefatory Note: This was originally put together and published in another medium on June 15, 2009. -ISM]

In recent months, my observations of many people who are opposed in various and sundry ways to the Democratic party found me reflecting on a quote that I want to share at this time. It pertains to the issue of religion in the public square and the approach taken by not a few people who though they mean well often do more harm than good. To wit:

"There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus, God, or Allah, or whatever one calls the supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A,B,C, and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism." [Senator Barry M. Goldwater: From the Congressional Record (circa September 16, 1981)]

I have found that this quote resonates with me a lot more now than it did when I was younger. It is not an issue of principles of course that I refer to of course but the manner in how they are gone about more than anything. Maybe part of it is the longer one is around, the more they realize that to a certain extent the more things change the more they stay the same. For one thing, no one ever claims that they are living in "particularly good times" -indeed most of those people who make statements about their times as being particularly dire do so without knowledge of history or how often this pattern repeats itself. The biblical phrase "nothing under the sun is new" is quite accurate indeed as this quote could have been written today as could this one which was directed by Senator Goldwater at Jerry Falwell circa 1982:

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

I am wondering if the opportunity of the next two election cycles to derail the Obama Express will not be squandered. For almost every issue you can find has a general consensus and also those whose approach to the matter is extremely narrow or otherwise extreme. And oftentimes you will find the latter people basically saying that only their interpretation of the issue is viable, correct, moral, etc. and this ushers in needless conflict which leads to divisions that results in political impotence.

We all have issues we are particularly passionate about but the differences of view on certain particulars of various issues are a reality and one that is not going to go away. If there is not a conscious recognition that politically one may not be able to get everything they want, then the Republicans will continue for sometime to get nowhere politically. I have noted before the irony of those who wave the banner of Reagan who really do not know what The Gipper stood for and did before and do not want to to into that again at the present time though those who buy into many of those myths would do well to consider what is written there because the underlying principle involved in that note remains; namely this:

Do we want to make effective and real progress politically or will continuing factionalism render us politically impotent???

Jesus once said that "a house divided against itself cannot stand" and Sun Tzu counseled his generals to divide enemy armies by sowing discord and creating various dissensions for a reason: it weakens the effectiveness of a cause. It matters not where or what the divisions are and the Democrats are seriously divided now. The haste with which they have sought to push issues that many of their voters do not want and the blatant hypocrisy and double standards they have manifested (not to mention being bitten by the "corruption bug") have got even many of their staunchest supporters confused or angry at them.

The political prospects for the next two election cycles are lining up to be favourable for an opposition movement but I will say right now it will fail as long as all of this factionalism garbage continues. The focus needs to be on broader issues where a consensus already exists and needs to be strengthened, not ancillary distraction issues which needlessly polarize and thus are fodder for political impotence.

Setting the Record Straight on the "Myth of Ronald Reagan" and More on the Problems of the GOP: 

(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum) 

[Prefatory Note: This was originally written and posted to another publishing medium on May 19, 2009 and slightly tweaked for use on this weblog at the present time. -ISM] 

The purpose of this posting is to build on one written earlier in the month and to deal to some extent with myths amongst many conservatives pertaining to the late great President Ronald Wilson Reagan. The note I want to build on in this posting is a shorter piece which can be read here: 

Briefly on the Real Problem With the GOP (circa June 2, 2009) 

Having clarified that, I want to start this thread by pointing out that I have posted bit and pieces at different times that involve the same basic theme: that of GOP party renewal. It may seem odd that a former Republican would concern themselves with what the GOP is doing right now but part of it perhaps is I see signs that the party is starting to get it again. I do not believe they have gotten it for twenty years -yes even in the era of the Republican controlled Congress in the pre-President Bush era they did not get it.{1} Or as I noted in a brief comment from May 4th of this year: 

[T]he GOP since Steele was elected RNC chairman looks like they finally are starting to get it for the first time in a long time...

Notice that I did not say they have gotten it but instead that they are starting to get it. And it seems to me that the last two election verdicts have stamped in the minds of many in the party that they need to do something different. For this reason, we may in the future view 2008 as 1964 redux but only if we do not allow ourselves to be deluded about the past. And because the possibility of the latter is more pervasive than many may realize; ergo the reason I have decided at this time to write on the "myth of Ronald Reagan." Now certainly one problem the GOP has had in the past twenty years is the attempt to placate moderate voters at the expense of principles. It is one thing to reach out to others -indeed this is always well and good. However, one can also take any good thing too far and the GOP was showing an unwillingness oftentimes to take stands on principle against the Democrats. There was also a perverse sense of entitlement to the GOP elections at the presidential level since 1988 and even before that time. Part of the problem with that kind of political entitlement mentality was that people presumed in 1988 that George H. W. Bush would be a worthy successor to Ronald Reagan rather than Jack Kemp and Bush won the nomination that year (followed by a healthy election landslide) by giving indications that he would continue to follow in Reagan's footsteps. He then betrayed this trust and that was what started the ball rolling in the direction we saw in the past twenty years. Another problem in that interim was the message that the GOP received in the 1994 midterms after Bill Clinton's election triumph over President Bush and Ross Perot two years earlier.

I have heard some try to posit the excuse that the GOP "did not know how to govern while in the majority" and while this may have been true in 1994{2}, it does not explain problems in subsequent years. It certainly does not explain what we saw when George H. W. Bush's son was elected and the GOP led congresses of the first six years of his presidency.{3} But there was also the sense of "entitlement" in the GOP where they viewed whoever came up short last time as "due" the next time. We saw this with Senator Bob Dole in 1996{4}, we also saw this in 2008 with Senator John McCain.{5} However, there is also a problem of nostalgia that while I have seen it addressed recently has been the source of criticism by some from the more conservative persuasion. 

If there is one thing that has become an annoyance as of late it is reading the words of those who present facile solutions to the GOP's problem. Yes there were problems with letting the so-called "RINOS" have too much control of the party apparatus. But there is also the problem of opposing extremes with extremes; namely, those who would respond to an overly wide tent mentality with one that is much too narrow. I had/have in mind with this criticism those whom I call the "true believers." That was the reason I posted this comment in another medium a while back:

[T]he squabbles between factions of the GOP [are] regrettable but at the same time [I remind] "true believer" and the "political pragmatist" alike that Reagan incorporated both sides into his vision. A common ground needs to be struck or we will have four more years of [President Barack Hussein Obama]. There is nothing gained by flying your political plane into a mountain for "moral victories" if politically you achieve nothing. [Written on May 4, 2009] 

I stand by every syllable of that statement much as I do this one: 

[I understand] based on years of experience why [new GOP converts] are agitated by the attitudes of many who consider themselves "more conservative than thou" towards those trying to retool the GOP who do not share the views of the "more conservative than thou" crowd to seemingly a 100% degree. It is part of the reason why though sympathies are much closer to the GOP [this writer] is an Independent voter himself. [Written on May 4, 2009] 

There are people who strangely enough think that politics is the art of the perfect or what they think things should be like without any deviation whatsoever. These are those who without rhyme or reason jump to any sliver group that they think represents the "pure and perfect" view of things -most prominent among the groups of irrelevancy is the Libertarians{6} but there are others also. 

And I am sure there are plenty who would view what I am saying here as some kind of advocacy towards rubber-stamping anyone with an R by their name. That is not what I am saying. Personally, I have not rubber stamped anyone with an R by their name ever since I renounced the Republican party back in 1996 and I did not even do that in the years before that time. I am not saying that the GOP is without need of reform of course (heck, that is darn evident to anyone with a normal intact functioning brain at this point) but I am saying that there are a lot of areas where people with conservative outlooks are not going to agree on the precise prescription involved for fixing things.

Insisting on ideological purity as the price of political involvement inexorably results in political impotence -it always has and always will. What is needed is a convergence of points on which everyone whose views are for the most part "conservative" can all focus on. For under the umbrella of conservatism, there are certain principles that need to be advocated even if the precise approach advocated is not the same. This is what a lot of people who call themselves "conservatives" do not understand.{7} 

There is also the question of success politically which ties into what I just said. And I could go over numerous times where certain conservatives of the "true believer" variety have committed a form of political hari kiri and made matters worse rather than better simply because they were not getting everything they wanted. Politics again is the art of the possible not of the perfect. And those who presume that the path to the future is to spend time nostalgically dwelling in the past need to realize that they consign themselves to political obsolescence when they do that. 

It is all fine and well to raise the banner of Reagan as many do but you have to know what Reagan really stood for and how he operated politically or else you will not learn from the past so that it informs your future: learning from the past being a hallmark of proper conservative philosophy.{8} With that in mind, we have to ask ourselves honestly this kind of question: 

How many conservatives have been president in the past seventy-five years???

There was only one that I can think of and he won to no small part because of shrewd coalition building and connecting with the people. When Reagan did not have that coalition built (read: 1976) he did not get the nomination. Even Mr. Conservative himself{9} did not back Reagan in 1976 over Ford and it was not because Ford was more conservative. It was because Reagan did not have much of a chance of winning in the general election at that time. Reagan spent 1976-1980 canvassing the country and connecting with the people as he had in his GE days. As his GE activities represent a part of his biography that is not as well known, I want to dwell on it for a moment by referencing one of the biographies on the man that I have read in years past before picking up with the chronology of Reagan's political approach: 

Reagan's political education begin in 1954 when he gratefully accepted an offer by the General Electric Company to host the show General Electric Theatre and travel around the country as a motivational speaker and corporate ambassador for the company...

Reagan worked for General Electric for eight years from 1954 to 1962 and through his extensive travels, former GE executive Edward Langley says, Reagan discovered "the native conservatism of working America." Month after month Reagan would address workers on the factory floor, or stop in the cafeteria to chat with secretaries, or be forklifted into the air to converse with welders. By his own account, he sometimes gave as many as fourteen talks a day, visiting every GE plant and meeting all the company's 250,000 workers. 

His original speech to them focused on the virtues of the free market system and the benefits of GE's products. He attempted to establish a connection with people by telling them Hollywood stories. He was particularly eager to defend Hollywood against the charges of making debauchery seem glamorous. But he soon discovered that he was not addressing people's real concerns. 

It was not what he said to them but what they said to him that was important. They were the kind of people he grew up with, and he saw them as hard-working, decent Americas for whom life had not been easy. He became a convert to their way of thinking and, in time, a champion for their interests. Indeed, what Reagan heard in the course of countless conversations formed the basis of a philosophy that was in touch with the sentiments of mainstream America --and utterly opposed to the conventional wisdom of the elites at the time. [Dinesh D'Sousa: From Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader page 52 (c. 1997)] 

It was not long after he concluded his time with GE that Reagan made the speech that cemented his viability politically: a speech he authored called A Time of Choosing which was a last ditch effort to support the candidacy of the conservative Senator Barry Goldwater for president in 1964. Two years later, he won the governorship of California and held that position for two terms. 

I outline these things because with each move politically Reagan was building coalitions{10} which helped him succeed at different political levels and not only among those who shared all of his views. Yet this very sort of coalition-building is in the current climate being frowned upon by so many who consider themselves Republicans today. And among the biggest critics are those who wave most proudly the banner of Reagan today who do not appear to realize that they are condemning the very approach that Reagan himself took!!! 

Yes, I hate to say it but many of the very same people who are being critical of the Republicans currently claiming that party renewal is not to be made via "nostalgia" -and who are raising the banner of Reagan- often do not know very much about Reagan the man or his political approach. Reagan was in his time opposed in varying degrees by a variety of people only one of whom were the various liberal groups that everyone is familiar with. He was also opposed by people in his own party and not only those the "true believers" of today presume opposed him. It is true that the less philosophical and more pragmatic sorts (the extremes of which we would call RINOS today) opposed Reagan but he was also opposed by those who considered themselves the "philosophically pure" or "true believers." In the case of both the more moderate or pragmatic Republicans they admired Reagan as a man, his rapport with the American people, and they wanted to persuade Reagan to moderate a bit more. They also did not trust the "true believers" and wanted Reagan to not give them positions of influence. 

But by contrast and not as well known is that there were "true believers" who shared much of Reagan's personal philosophy but they did not understand what Reagan knew about the importance of having political coalitions to actually get things done. These people who also had their positions of influence in Reagan's administration wanted Reagan to fire all the pragmatists to prevent his administration from being "less pure" as a result. They also fought him on his approach to the Soviet Union when Reagan modified it later in his term from what it was earlier on and in other areas as well. Yet Reagan did not listen to them and kept a mixture of people in his administration. This was done in no small part I am sure because Reagan knew that "true believers" more often than not fail to achieve things of note politically. The reason for this is because left to their own devices, they tend to let their ideology blind them to where they cannot see the political "land mines" in their path and avoid them.{11} This is what I meant when I said in one of the quoted bits above that "[t]here is nothing gained by flying your political plane into a mountain for 'moral victories' if politically you achieve nothing." And that is a principle that more and more people today seem to lose perspective on unfortunately. 

It is not often realized that there is a certain type of conservative today who while they most often call for another Reagan are of the mentality of some of the conservatives who opposed Reagan back in the day. One of the bones of contention among that group of Reagan's critics as I already noted was Reagan's refusal to cast out of his administration those the "true believers" did not believe were ideologically pure enough. I do not believe for a moment that these "true believers" of today would act differently today if they were back in Reagan's time and observed things as they happened rather than relying on their current nostalgia which omits to account for these things. 

To use a biblical analogy, they are like the Pharisees in Jesus' time who loved to build monuments to the prophets who lived in earlier times in the way they build monuments today to Reagan. Jesus noted that the Pharisees claimed that they would not have joined their ancestors and taken part in the stoning of the earlier prophets and bluntly stated that they would indeed have done so. In like manner, many of today's "true believers" who would build monuments to Reagan and who invoke his name would not have been his enthusiastic supporters but would have fought him the way those before them did. 

I have not a shred of doubt in my mind that today's "true believers" if left to their own devices and without some sort of check and balance would also oppose another Reagan if one were to appear on the political landscape. The reason is because ideological sorts have their benefits of course but they also have their liabilities -one of which is that they make far too many things a matter of unbending principle and will not support anything less than what they want. They look for the perfect in politics in other words not the possible. Ronald Wilson Reagan was not of that sort of temperament politically even if he shared many of the same philosophical positions of the "true believers." This is why he succeeded politically where so many conservatives before him (and since him) have failed. But having outlined Reagan's GE activities and the approaches he took to make himself politically aware and viable, we pick up the time line after his 1976 failure to get the Republican nomination for president. 

As I said, Reagan spent his time politically building coalitions at every step and when 1980 came around, he was finally ready to run. I should note that the coalitions that Reagan built were not just among people but also among ideas -to win elections you have to have broad support for certain ideas you choose to run on. By 1980, Reagan had built coalitions of people{12} and ideas that struck a chord with the public at large. And Reagan knew this because of his time traveling the country both in the late 1950's-early 1960's and also in the post-California governor years (1974-1980). If Reagan had taken the approach that many conservatives advocate now -namely kick out of his coalition those who did not agree with him on everything- he never would have won the governorship of California nor would he have won the presidency of the United States. 

I reprise what I asked earlier, namely: how many conservatives have been president in the past seventy-five years??? Other than Calvin Coolidge who became president when Harding died{12}, I ask you to name for me another conservative president of the twentieth century of the sort that some conservatives claim we "need to have to win" now. Hoover??? Nope, he was a major meddler in economic matters and made a recession worse. FDR??? Nope. Truman??? Compared to Democrats since 1972 he was quite conservative but he was no conservative. Eisenhower??? Goldwater called his administration a "dime store New Deal" and not without reason. Kennedy??? Nope.{14} Johnson??? Hell no!!! Nixon??? He implemented wage and price freezes and many other Great Society things. Ford??? He was perhaps more conservative than any president since Eisenhower in some respects but not in others. Bush Sr??? He ran as another Reagan but governed in another fashion altogether. Clinton??? Nope. Bush Jr??? Very little of what he implemented could be considered conservative by the general standards of conservative philosophy. 

So those who stake this claim, kindly tell me where it is proven that we either "need a conservative to win" or that an ideologically pure conservative without some kind of coalition support can win the general election. Goldwater failed in 1964 on the latter model and Reagan in 1976 could not get the nomination of the GOP with a similar approach. Only Reagan with a coalition of people -some of whom were not in agreement with one or more of his principled views- was able to do it. And for those who point to Reagan's landslide victories as "proof" of their assertions, Hoover won big in 1928, Eisenhower spanked Stevenson in 1952 and even worse in 1956, and Nixon after a healthy win in 1968 won by a landslide in 1972. Every one of these presidents had conservative support without which they would not have won either at all or in the fashion that they did. But conservatives trying to win without support from those who are not amongst those they would consider "ideologically pure"??? The last time that happened was 1964 and they won 52 electoral votes out of 538. 

I reiterate a third time: politics is the art of the possible not the art of the perfect. Furthermore, conservatism as a political philosophy admits of a variety of applications to political and social problems. Not all conservatives approach the Constitution the same way. Some follow the Jefferson theoretical approach{15} and say that unless it is explicitly outlined in the Constitution it is not permissible. Others follow the approach of the majority of the Founding Fathers who recognized that there had to logically be certain implied powers so that the Constitution could work as a governing document in reality and not just theory. I have gone over these divergent factors of Constitutional approach in a couple of other postings to this humble weblog before and do not want to do so at this time so I will note them in a footnote so I do not get offtrack in what I am writing now.{16} 

On matters where there is a divergence of opinions on how to apply conservative philosophy, there are some who view the idea of the federal government being limited in its power who are yet rather inconsistent in trying to force their religious beliefs onto others. There are conversely others who say the government has no business doing this. There are different approaches to trade{17}, different approaches to taxation and economic policy{18}, different approaches to national security and how that is best handled, etc. But I have found that most of whom I call "true believers" have no understanding or very little any of American and Constitutional history and the diversity of views under the conservative umbrella of philosophy. 

 To put it another way, conservatism is not merely what people like Rush Limbaugh say it is and while they are conservatives too and valuable allies, they do a disservice to conservatism when they try to present their views as the only ones permissible and sabotage politically anyone who does not agree with them in lockstep fashion. 

To conclude these musings I want to reference something I wrote in another publishing medium to someone on the occasion of the passing of Jack Kemp: 

[T]o listen to many conservatives going into town hall meetings and meeting people face to face is not the solution -just sitting there and taking a "if they want us they can find us" approach is. Jack Kemp spent time in the inner cities, he spoke with the people. Jack Kemp's model is the model of the future for the GOP and for those worried about "abandoning Reagan" Kemp showed how you could both keep the past from determining who you are and yet have it be a part of what you will become. Hopefully others who claim a loyalty to Reagan akin to what Kemp had will before the 2010 & 2012 elections also realize this. [Written on May 4, 2009] 

It is my genuine hope that the opportunity that the next few years will present itself with will not be wasted by those who either believe there is no principle that cannot be compromised (i.e. the RINOS) or by those who believe that there is only one way to do anything and who try to undermine those who do not think on matters exactly as they do (i.e. the "true believers" of whom I spoke of earlier). The path of the future is indeed to learn from and implement the wisdom of the past but it must be a past rightly understood and not based only on myths. And for those Republicans who look to use the name of Reagan to rip down those who do not agree with them on everything, I will finish this note by reminding you of more things about Reagan that you obviously do not understand: 

"Anyone who agrees with me 80% of the time is my friend and not my enemy." 

This statement was enunciated by Ronald Reagan and encapsulated his political philosophy when it comes to coalition-building yet to listen to many of the conservatives on talk radio and in other places today, that approach is considered selling out. You read that right: by their own stated standards the same Ronald Reagan they claim to revere was a RINO!!! This is why I said earlier that the "true believers" despite building monuments to Reagan today nonetheless by their actions and statements condemn his view ala what the Pharisees did in Jesus' time with the prophets they claimed to revere. 

"Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." 

I have not been a Republican for over twelve years but even I am more faithful to the second statement (aka "Reagan's Eleventh Commandment") than many who brandish the GOP label today. 

It would behoove those who take the approach of the media self-proclaimed "Reagan conservatives" towards the Republican party today -the party that after two consecutive election losses is giving every appearance of finally starting to get it and is returning to the basics including listening to the people- to learn a bit more about the man they claim to want to honour and whose electoral landslides they want to duplicate. Because there are a lot of details they are not familiar with obviously and the old proverb "God is in the details" applies here as much as it does anywhere else.

[Dedicated to the memories of Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp] 

Notes: 

{1} That is not to say they were all bad of course -heck they were the best congresses we have had in a long time. 

{2} I remember back in 1994-1996 being persuaded by this argument admittedly. 

{3} I blame the president more for this than the congresses because President George W. Bush was on almost all issues not a strong leader and as Alexander Hamilton noted back in the late eighteenth century, lack of strength in an executive does not make for good government. 

{4} Dole ran for unsuccessfully for the GOP nomination for president in 1980 and 1988.

{5} Who was the runner up in 2000 for the GOP party nomination. 

{6} And yes, any political group that in thirty-five years of existence has (i) never gotten more than 2% of the vote and (ii) has not come close to 2% in twenty-eight years is irrelevant. 

{7} I refer to the idea that there can be an agreement amongst people on conservative philosophical principles but less agreement perhaps on how those principles are best applied to society. 

{8} "Surely the first obligation of a political thinker is to understand the nature of man. The Conservative does not claim special powers of perception on this point, but he does claim a familiarity with the accumulated wisdom and experience of history, and he is not too proud to learn from the great minds of the past." [Senator Barry Goldwater: Excerpt from The Conscience of a Conservative as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa August 2, 2008)] 

{9} I refer here to Senator Barry Goldwater. 

{10} Among these was a group of self-made businessmen who after they watched Reagan's speech realized he would make a good political prospect for having a stance of non-compromise on the matters of freedom at home and abroad. They were the ones who offered to support a candidacy for governor of California if he promised to implement the principles of his speech while governor. (Reagan himself had not thought of running for political office but eventually he took them up on their offer.) 

{11} This kind of shortsightedness on their part is why Reagan did not have an administration of only "true believers" and furthermore why he did not listen to them and fire those in his administration who were of a more moderate outlook. 

{12} These consisted of conservatives and also some of who voted for him despite some misgivings or disagreements because of the alternative. 

{13} Coolidge later won in his own right in 1924. 

{14} Even those who would point to Kennedy's approach to taxes as being the same as Reagan's do not realize that conservatives of Kennedy's day did not support such approaches. 

{15} I say "theoretical approach" because for all of their talk about literal approaches, Jefferson and Madison acted this way when it was in their best interests to and opposed it when it was not. See the material in the next footnote (particularly the one from February 6th) for details on this. 

{16} Between Unconstitutionality and Unworkability (circa February 6, 2009) 

On the Constitutional Standing of Wars Fought Without a Formal Declaration (circa December 26, 2007) 

{17} Some support free trade either in theory or in practice while others support more protectionist approaches. {18} You would not know it by listening to many conservative pundits but "supply side economics" is not the only acceptable economic policy for conservatives to advocate.

On D-Day and Writing Photographs:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I intend in this posting to cover two subjects but in reverse order from how they read in the title. Without further ado...

Today on a much lesser scale than the grand anniversary of D-Day is the anniversary of my public writing debut in terms of formal web essay style writing. I had been involved in a variety of discussion forums on various and sundry subject matters for a few years prior to that point{1} but June 6, 2000 was the debut of a pretty sprawling and ambitious book length project dealing in systematical fashion with a subject to which I had not seen a similar web treatment of anywhere else prior to that time. Others were to follow including the material on this weblog but I mention the project that debuted on the web nine years ago today as a point of reference for reasons that the rest of this note will make hopefully crystal clear.

Cleaning out storage areas and boxes is a treasure hunt or at least it can be and also on the writing front, in cleaning out boxes and boxes of papers I came across not a few of the essays I wrote back in high school and college for various classes (intensive English, Shakespearean studies, philosophy, economics, international business etc). It was interesting to go over them one by one and see my writing to the extent I have a discernible style take shape so to speak. I had written prior to that point of course but it was not until high school that I started developing the outlines of the approach to writing that I take and it was not without some occasional glitches here and there.

For one thing, I can remember in perusing these papers which ones I took at least a bit of time on and which ones I basically pulled an all-nighter on. It was not reflected in the grades per se{2} but the manner in which I went about it. There are some papers where I smile reading them now because they resonate well still with these older eyes{3} and there are some I smile at reading because of the naive nature of the boy who wrote them. There are some where I evince a sense of humour of the sort I am still misunderstood about.{4} There are also more than a few hints to put it mildly of a kind of hyper-dogmatism{5} of the sort that I now loathe when I see it in the work of what should be mature adults.{6} But that is neither here nor there.

A common theme in the papers taken as a corpus of work criticism wise was that they could have used more content -this was the case even with the straight A papers of which there were many more of them than of other grades. I wonder therefore when after college my written product would contain insane amounts of documentation if this was not some kind of internal reaction to seeing the criticism over and over again that more content was needed.{7} Of course then I was receiving criticism for too much content from various and sundry parties so Chesterton's dictum about something being "too tall, too short, too skinny, too fat, etc"{8} comes to mind.

But taken with what I remember of the discussion board material, the formal web essays, and the contents of this weblog, these old writings really paint a vivid picture of my development as a writer. It makes one realize the paths one travels on things like this from a writing standpoint. Anyway, though I am recycling boxes of papers and shredding a lot of stuff too of a financial nature, the folder of these essays is among the small percentage of stuff that I am saving. My handwriting on the ones which were handwritten was as a rule so much neater then so I want to have a record of the fact that I once had penmanship bordering on the beautiful lest anyone who sees what passes for my handwriting these days as a rule think otherwise. But that is a minor matter really.

The saving of some landmarks of one's life at various stages serves as a kind of written photo album and much as some real life photos may be embarrassing to look at when older, without them you can easily forget where you have been and how you have gotten to the point in time that you are at now. Forgetting history is far too common even for those who actually know their history{9} and that brings me to the historical event of today: D-Day.

The anniversary of D-Day of course has a hell of a lot more to commemorate it than the anniversary of anything to do with me. It was a grand day in the history of the Second World War -the start of the liberation of Europe from the Nazi stranglehold. But not often looked at is the way the invasion appeared to those who were not fighting on either side of the conflict; namely, the average people. With that in mind I want to close this note of musings with an approach to D-Day that will diverge from the standard treatments to some extent and include links that honour not only those who were willing to fight and die for what I would view as a just cause.{10}

So again with those thoughts in mind, I want to close this posting with two links to the invasion of Normandy from two different sides and of course to hope that people in general remember history (both personal as well as general) so that by better knowing where they have been{11} they can better discern where they may well be going.

The Boys of Pointe du Hoc -June 6, 1984 on the Fiftieth Anniversary of D-Day

Invasion of Normandy June 6, 1944 -A French Woman Remembers


Notes:

{1} I had originally intended to try and restore the hard drive of my old crashed Mac G3 which contained at one point literally hundreds of dialogual threads from a variety of different discussion boards on variegated subject matter spanning from 1998-2002 (I lost everything on the hard drive in May of 2002). I ultimately decided though to recycle the computer since I abandoned my plan to upgrade it a few years back for reasons of practicality and also because I knew that I was not about to expend the time necessary to format those dialogues for proper posting as I once intended to do.

{2} Though I almost always got notably better grades and created a better product on those where I spent more time or at least some degree of thought planning out where they were going.

{3} Of particular note I must say was a philosophical analysis I did on a C P Cavafy poem titled Ithaca which I remember writing literally in one take --I doubt I spent more than ten minutes on it if that-- and getting a perfect grade and significantly positive feedback from the teacher. Another was a paper I wrote on romantic love at around the same time before later life experiences obliterated nearly all the sunny-eyed optimism in that area I once had. Though a bit of the latter has been returning as of late, I see in the paper an kind of abstract innocence untainted by practical experience of the sort that makes my eyes roll when I see people enunciate it in various areas from politics to social issues to theology or whatever.

That is not to say the paper is bad mind you -I am actually surprised at some of the insights I had in it in retrospect. But it also has within it a bit of expecting more from people than is realistic even in the best of situations: something that part of acquiring wisdom means disabusing oneself of as I have come to see it.

{4} Probably about as often too because my approach to humour is significantly more implied or otherwise tongue-in-cheek now than it was at that time. (And I was actually writing comedy bits and stuff back then also so my focus at that time in that area was not lacking.)

{5} My philosophical paper on a dialogue with Christ and a Grand Inquisitor is a mixed bag in this area -got a good grade on the paper (A-) but the teacher's criticism of my Christ dialogue was spot on now that I think of it though at the time I sure did not think so. (My picture of Jesus at the time was practically a Jansenistic one warped by some of the ecclesial affiliations I had at that time.)

{6} This is one area where I have been particularly critical of those of an apologetics style mindset. Admittedly I had one of those myself at one point before transcending it -ironically perhaps it was when I knew least that I was the most dogmatic but then again, I have learned over the years that such is par for the course for humanity in general.

{7} I rarely if ever got criticism on the structure of papers -almost all points lost if any were was because of perceived lack of content to substantiate points made.

{8} This is a really crude paraphrase of the exact statement which I cannot readily recall offhand.

{9} Which sadly enough is not nearly enough people -including not a few who would claim to yet manifest in what they write that their knowledge of it is superficial at best.

{10} I am aware of some even amongst friends who may dispute this view and while that may be a subject for discussion at a future date, I do not intend to entertain such a matter now.

{11} I later on expanded on this theme a bit in a posting which can be read here for those who are interested.

Briefly On The Real Problem With The GOP:

I have been toying for some time with writing an expository musing on the subject of conservatism and what it entails because all too often we have people with no sense of history who confuse conservative philosophy with the views of a given person or group. This note is not intended to achieve that in general but instead will be much briefer and is intended to set down some shorthand notes which will go into the longer treatment I have planned. Hopefully it can provide some food for musing for those who read it though.

To start with, there is a general philosophy which can rightfully be called "conservative" and it revolves around the concept of freedom. However, conservatism to be realistic must be functional and not merely theoretical, practical and not merely abstract, realistic and not some myth based on what would be "ideal." We are faced with a situation in the coming years where huge grabs of power and diminishment of legitimate freedoms are likely to happen. This needs to be opposed but there needs to be a unified opposition. As I wrote in part in a previous posting{1} when talking about the tea party movement in general and the tea parties in particular:

There is...the downright annoying attitude of some of those whose methodologies approach what I call the "true believer" mentality. These are the people to whom politics is not the art of the possible but instead the art of demanding the perfect lest they refuse to participate at all. This could be in general but also on particular matters -be it their lack of participation a given agenda item, a given political movement, or whatever. I am one who believes that politically anything that can be reasonably foreseen to have potential positive effects and which has a reasonably feasible chance of working should be undertaken. However, it never fails to surprise me how many will attempt to excommunicate from political communion those who do not share their views on issues to a near 100% degree if not darn close to it. And ironically enough, self-identified "conservatives" who do this often laud President Ronald Reagan as their model ignoring how often (i) Reagan balanced political philosophy with political pragmatism and (ii) how often Reagan said essentially that those who agree with him 80% of the time were not his political foe.

The truth is, you need both philosophy and pragmatism if you can expect to be successful in any endeavour in life. Too often however, you have those more inclined towards pure political philosophy trying to narrow the tent too much while on the other side of the equation you have those who are far more politically pragmatic trying to widen the tent too much. What is needed between these two extreme tendencies is a more balanced approach -the political philosophers who have a map far too often do not know how to get anywhere on it. Conversely, the political pragmatists often excel in getting things done but lack a map to know where they are even going. It is my hope that these tea parties will in how they are organized and in those who participate in them can strive to find that balance required to make this movement a genuine success instead of a populist flame out of the sort that litters the political landscape spanning the centuries of America's existence. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 30, 2009)]

To summarize the problem in short form, that will suffice for now but more needs to be said because it is not as simple as just that unfortunately. I will endeavour as I have time and when I am in the mood to do so write further on this subject including covering the subject of conservatism in general, certain foundational principles that embody a conservative view of the world ethically, economically, etc., as well as certain diversities of thought that pertain to the application of the aforementioned principles.

I will also attempt to explain how those who place a value on reason and logic need to incorporate conservative philosophy for the greatest possible political success in the coming years. But first and foremost it will help to remember the old maxim that "a house divided against itself cannot stand" because that is the first principle that those of us who value freedom of speech, economic freedom, religious freedom, and any other freedom you can name over and against the ever-increasing totalitarian mentality of those who control the federal leviathan need to remember at all times. We need to in the timeless words of Benjamin Franklin "hang together or most assuredly we will hang separately." And that is the bottom line.

Note:

{1} Musings on the Tea Parties in Particular and the Tea Party Movement in General (circa May 30, 2009)

Wanted: A Fighting Party

Pat Buchanan as I have often said is a streaky shooter -when he is off he misses by a lot but when he is on, it is usually from downtown and nothing but net. This article belongs to the latter classification.

On Political "Front Runners" Historically, Sarah Palin's Prospects in 2012, Etc.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

To start with, talking heads in the msm are already (so soon after the last presidential election) opining about various political persons and their perceived viability or lack thereof in the 2012 contest. I however do not play the game of political prognosticating this far out for the simple fact that a year is an ice age in politics and four years might as well be like the Jurassic period metaphorically speaking. A lot can happen between now and then and I have traditionally been very accurate in my political prognosticating{1} to a good extent because I do not play this game that far out. However, there are certain trends politically that one can use to forecast with a greater degree of accuracy what will likely happen and I will at this time do that without currently making any definite predictions one way or the other.

To start with, politics as a vocation tends to be dynastic to a certain extent even though there have only been two presidential "dynasties" properly speaking thus far.{2} But to a certain extent, there are patterns one can refer to from the past to better help them forecast future probabilities. For one thing, though it is not by any means a universal, it is nonetheless true that presidents who are successful more often than not had previous experience as an executive in some capacity. This experience could come in a variety of ways from business owner to field commander in the military to mayor of a town or governor of a state but as a rule the best presidents have had this kind of experience and those who were not as good did not.

By contrast to those with executive experience, senators and representatives in Congress who later on become president are traditionally not as good though again this is not an absolute principle but instead more of a general rule. And having noted those things, we get to the issue of dynastic political elements which I will now touch on so the reader knows what I am talking about if they do not already.

Since the presidency of the businessman and general George Washington, those who were subsequently elected president have always had experience in government in some form or another. In Washington's cabinet was John Adams the vice president and Thomas Jefferson the secretary of state -both of whom had high profile government positions before serving in Washington's cabinet. Adams would succeed Washington as our second president and Jefferson was our second vice president and third president. Jefferson's secretary of state was James Madison who would succeed him as president and Madison's secretary of state was James Monroe who succeeded him. James Monroe's secretary of state was the heavily credentialed John Quincy Adams who had served in various government posts{3} prior to being Monroe's secretary of state.{4} Quincy Adams won the controversial 1824 election after not getting the popular vote against General Andrew Jackson who despite his popular image as the first "commoner" to be president{5} as well as the first of the Democratic party presidents{6} had previous experience as a senator from Tennessee, house member from Tennessee, judge on the Tennessee supreme court, general of the military, and military governor of Florida.

We could similarly trace this pattern throughout all of American political history but pointing to the patterns that we have seen since 1952 suffices to make this point. Let us begin the more modern era therefore starting with Richard M. Nixon who was the vice president for two terms under former army general and president Dwight D. Eisenhower. Nixon was the nominee for president in 1960 and we need not go over how the Democratic party machine in Chicago and other places cheated him out of victory in that election.{7} He later on was defeated in the California gubernatorial election of 1962. After losing that election (and claiming he was finished), Nixon came back in 1968 to capture the nomination and win the presidency and won re-election in 1972. Senator John F. Kennedy who narrowly failed to secure the vice presidential position at the 1956 Democratic party convention of course was the party nominee and "victor" in 1960.{8} His vice president Lyndon B. Johnson (Senate majority leader, former House member, and a candidate in the 1960 election) became president in 1963 when Kennedy was assassinated and won in his own right the following year.

Having already covered the Nixon election wins, it bears pointing out that when his successor Gerald Ford{9} ran unsuccessfully for president in 1976, he was very nearly upset by former California governor Ronald Reagan -winning the nomination by a mere hundred odd delegates out of a couple of thousand cast. Reagan of course went on to win the next two presidential elections by monumental victory margins. One of his adversaries in the 1980 election was George H. W. Bush who was then added as his vice presidential candidate when Reagan locked up the 1980 the nomination for president. (He was to succeed Reagan by winning in his own right in 1988.) One of the Democratic party failed presidential candidates of 1988 was Albert Gore Jr. who was added as Bill Clinton's vice presidential candidate in 1992. After eight years of serving as vice president, Gore was nominated as his party's candidate and ultimately lost the 2000 election by failing to win the electoral college. Gore was opposed by former President Bush's son George W. Bush who won the general election after fending off a tough challenge from Sen. John McCain in the Republican primaries. McCain as we all know was the Republican party nominee in the 2008 election.

I have traced this historical sketch out to provide a glimpse of sorts into how history has gone to better enable readers to better gauge how future election history will go. For one thing, those touting a possible future candidacy for Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal are already behind the curve in that my good friend Kevin M. Tierney in one of the frequent political conversations we have had was calling Jindal a possible "dark horse candidate" back in 2008 and already predicted he would run in 2012 and be the favourite for the nomination that year. I am not sure if he has changed his prediction or not in the aftermath of the political ascent of Alaska governor Sarah Palin but I have him on record picking Jindal as far back as at least eight months ago if not more.{10} In the meantime, I know of some people who are currently picking Palin as the front runner in 2012.

Speaking of Governor Sarah Palin, insofar as she goes as a front runner in the 2012 presidential election for the Republicans, a bit of history of former vice presidential candidates who later ran as presidential candidates seems in order. (I should note that when I say "ran" I mean was actually successfully nominated to run as representative of their respective political parties.) The first of the major parties to cover is the Federalist party and the only vice presidential candidate they had who later ran for president was President Washington's vice president John Adams but this example as well as the one from the elections of 1796 and 1800 cannot be used.{11} The opposition Democratic-Republican party{12} never had a vice presidential candidate who became president so we can rule them out as well. In the divisions of 1824 from which today's Democratic party takes its true origin to the present day, there have been several vice presidential candidates who have become president but in all but one case they succeeded to the presidency upon the death of the president.{13} The exception to the rule was the only vice presidential candidate who ever ran successfully as president later on and that was President Franklin D. Roosevelt.{14} There have been a number of former vice presidents from the Democratic party side who subsequently secured their parties nomination for president{15} but only FDR successfully won in his bid after securing the vice presidential nomination in a losing party effort.

On the side of the Whigs -a party that became the main opposition to the Democratic party in 1833 and eventually was replaced by the Republicans in 1854, two of their vice presidential candidates on winning presidential tickets became president but in both cases (Tyler in 1841 and Fillmore in 1850) it was because the president they ran under died in office.{16} On the Republican party side of things, seven successfully nominated vice presidential candidates ran for president later on. Of the seven, three succeeded to the presidency upon the death of the president before they made their runs{17} and two of them won election as president in their own right.{18} Of the others{19}, none of them successfully was elected president in their own right after failing to win the vice presidency earlier.

The history of political dynastic voting patterns points to Governor Sarah Palin being the logical front runner in 2012. However, only once in US history has a candidate from any major party successfully been elected president in their own right after failing to win the vice presidency on someone else's ticket. Does this mean that Governor Palin is certain to fail in this endeavour? Not necessarily. Senator Bob Dole after being nominated as President Ford's running mate failed to be elected vice president in 1976 and later on failed to win the presidency in 1996. There is no record of this sort to go on from the Democratic side of things other than the example of FDR. But before people read too heavily into these things as spelling certain death for Governor Palin's chances, they need to consider the circumstances behind the failed vp and successful bid of FDR and the failed bids both times of Senator Dole.

To start with, FDR did not have any executive experience when he ran in 1920 as James Cox's vice president and they ran on the tail end of President Woodrow Wilson from their own party who for a variety of reasons{20} was unpopular. No Democratic candidate was going to win that year basically under the climate of the times. Subsequent to that point, Roosevelt was successfully elected governor of New York in 1928 and thus by 1932 he had executive experience to make his presidential bid more credible than it otherwise would have been. He also in his presidential run had the benefit of opposing the boneheaded governance of the incumbent President Herbert Hoover who was no laissez-faire president by any means.{21} Senator Bob Dole ran as vice president on the ticket of a non-elected president who had previously been appointed as vice president himself two years after the previous vice president of his party (and later the president he replaced) resigned in disgrace.

The Ford/Dole ticket faced a particularly stiff challenge from former California governor Ronald Reagan which while it galvanized the party contributed in the short term to narrow presidential defeat.{22} Twenty years later, Senator Bob Dole ran for president and in a situation where his party had moved to prevent the possibility of potential upsets akin to what Reagan nearly pulled off in 1976, the deck was stacked in the primaries to favour party insiders and make a repeat of the 1976 nomination scenario next to impossible.{23} As a result, the candidate who was the strongest party nominee by force of party connections (Dole) was probably not their best candidate for winning the general election against an incumbent president like William J. Clinton who had recently achieved some significant real and perceived victories against the opposition Republican congress.{24} Plus, Senator Dole though he ran for president in 1988 and also 1996 had not bothered in the time since he was Ford's vp candidate to acquire any executive experience.

So of the two examples we have of successfully nominated vice presidential candidates, we have one that succeeded (FDR) and one that failed (Dole). We can also point to circumstances of the times of the various elections that contributed in no small way to the success of FDR and the failure of Dole in their presidential aspirations. What this tells us ultimately is the general rule I spelled out at the beginning of this posting applied here and the successful example (FDR) had executive experience that the unsuccessful example (Dole) did not.

So readers need to take that into account ultimately when they attempt to write off the chances of Governor Sarah Palin to successfully get her party's nomination in 2012 and potentially win the general election. Like FDR and unlike Dole, she has executive experience having been both a mayor as well as a state governor. As for predicting a front runner for 2012, all I will say is if Palin and Jindal do not win their re-elections in 2010, they will not be the party nominee in 2012 and while I believe they will both be re-elected (particularly Jindal), I will not dare to make a political prediction of the overall viability for presidential candidacy of either of them until they do.

As far as Senator Hillary Clinton goes, her chances of running again depend on how she sees herself in 2012. If President Obama has a successful or average presidency, he will not have any opposition in his party to re-election. If however he is a trainwreck, then he may well receive the sort of stiff party challenge that Ted Kennedy gave President Carter in 1980. Senator Clinton came closer to a come-from-behind victory for the nomination than any presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1976. If Obama really messes things up, she may well run again in 2012 for far from being "too old" she would know that she would be no older then (65) than Reagan was in 1976 when he challenged Ford (he was 65) and four years younger than Reagan was when he won the presidency in 1980 at 69 years of age.

If President Obama is a disaster as president, can anyone think of other Democratic party candidates besides former Senator and now Secretary of State Clinton to give him a political fight? Only two come to my mind offhand that could be similarly viable. One is former Indiana governor and current Indiana senator Evan Bayh and the other is Virginia governor Tim Kaine. Bayh is from a politically dynastic family and Kaine as of January 21, 2009 holds not only his position as Virginia governor (he is up for re-election in 2010) but also is chairman of the Democratic National Committee. It would seem far more probable to me that Kaine would be more the king (or queen) maker than the king himself in light of his new position as DNC chair so that would leave Bayh as the only candidate I can think of who could rival Secretary of State Clinton as a party challenger to President Obama if his presidency is floundering when 2012 approaches.

Furthermore, Secretary of State Clinton's current cabinet position as a political precursor to the presidency was touched on earlier in this note. While it is true that her cabinet position has not been as influential in the past hundred and fifty years as it was previously, it still bears noting that four of the first seven and six of the first fifteen presidents were secretaries of state for a previous president{25} before becoming president in their own right.

Notes:

{1} Though in 2008 I was less accurate than the norm because a lot of things went against type in that election year -the msm shedding the last vestiges of their pretenses of "objectivity" to whore for Barack Obama in a way that was both shocking as well as frightening.

{2} The first of these was John Adams and John Quincy Adams while the second was George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush.

{3} Including Ambassador to the Netherlands under President Washington, Ambassador to Prussia under his father President Adams, Member of the Massachussets state Senate from 1802-1803, Senator of Massachussets from 1803-1809, Ambassador to Russia under President Madison until 1814, negotiator at Ghent for an end to the War of 1812 (and subsequently Ambassador to England) under President Madison. He also served in the Massachussets House of Representatives after losing his bid for re-election in 1828 until his death twenty years later: the only former president to serve in "the people's chamber" after serving as president.

{4} See footnote three. Quincy Adams was also the mind behind the famous Monroe Doctrine as promulgated in 1823 by President James Monroe and one the more fervent early slavery abolitionists. To say that he got by far more on his own natural talents than riding his famous father's coattails than President George W. Bush did is well established and beyond any debate by rational people.

{5} Which to a certain extent is accurate in that he was the first president who was not from the aristocratic class of American society.

{6} The Democratic party does not date from the time of Thomas Jefferson however much modern Democrats may wish it did.

{7} Nixon wisely chose not to go the "Al Gore route" and accepted the election results.

{8} See footnote seven. I would like to add here that I do not think Kennedy personally had a hand in any of this though that his influential father did is pretty close to being beyond debate really.

{9} Who became president after he was appointed to succeed Spiro Agnew in 1973 as vice president and then sworn in when President Nixon resigned the presidency in August of 1974.

{10} I would have to check my archives to know for sure but I have to give Kevin his due for being ahead of the popular curve on Jindal.

{11} The reason is the current law of parties running specifically as designated presidential and vice president was not put into effect by constitutional amendment until after the election of 1800 when Jefferson and Burr tied in electoral votes despite Burr being intended initially to be the vice presidential not presidential candidate. Starting with the election of 1804, the practice as we know it today has been in force.

{12} Originally called the "Republican" party by its advocates who wanted to claim that they favoured republicanism and the opposing federalists were closet monarchists. The Federalists countered by calling them "Democrats" to associate them with the French Jacoban democrats who were the architects of the French Revolution and its anarchial aftermath. Today, they are referred to as the "Democratic-Republican" party to separate them from the later Democratic party formed by the Jacksonians and the later Republican party which originated from 1854 as a coalition of old Federalists and a good section of the then-dying Whig political party.

{13} These include Harry Truman in 1944 and Lyndon Johnson in 1963 -both of whom subsequently won elections to retain their hold on the presidency in the following presidential elections.

{14} Who was the vice presidential candidate on the losing ticket of 1920 to Ohio governor James Cox.

{15} These include John C. Breckenridge who was nominated vice president on the winning ticket in 1856 who ran in a split party election in 1860 (representing the south) and Hubert H. Humphrey who was nominated vice president on the winning 1964 ticket who ran as the party's nominee in 1968. There was also Walter F. Mondale who was nominated vice president on the winning ticket in 1976 and was the incumbent vice president on the losing 1980 ticket, and Al Gore who failed to be nominated in his own right in 1988 and was President Clinton's vice president for eight years. (And as we know, he failed to win in 2000.)

{16} Neither Tyler nor Fillmore despite running as incumbents were able to win the presidency in their own right later on.

{17} Chester A. Arthur (succeeded the assassinated President James Garfield in 1881), Theodore Roosevelt (succeeded the assassinated President William McKinley in 1901), and Calvin Coolidge (succeeded President Warren Harding who died in office in 1923).

{18} Roosevelt in 1904 and Coolidge in 1924.

{19} See footnote fifteen.

{20} Too numerous to go into here.

{21} Contrary to the revisionist historical nonsense paraded about today as "history" supposedly "teaches."

{22} President Ford made some pretty bad gaffes in debate against Georgia governor Jimmy Carter which also did not help him.

{23} This ultimately is why I told the Republicans to go to hell after the 1996 general election and have been an unaffiliated Independent voter ever since.

{24} See footnote twenty.

{25} Jefferson for Washington, Madison for Jefferson, Monroe for Madison, Quincy Adams for Monroe, Van Buren under Jackson, and Buchanan under Polk.

Another Idea For Federal (or State) Legislative Reform:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

At sundry times and in divers manner your host has written on the issue of legislative reform in the context of major movements underlying the foundational presuppositions of this endeavour. My approach though differs from many in that it encapsulates a process which intends to be diametrically opposed to the ordinary way these matters are addressed. The reason is that I view there to be far too much focus on one or another particular program or one amount of money or another "wasted", etc. I am not one to advocate approaches that deal superficially or insubstantially with these matters because treating symptoms while leaving the basis from which any infection can perpetuate is ultimately not going to work. Furthermore, the federal leviathan is in not a few ways akin to the hydra monster of Greek mythology and its perpetuation is based on some problematical presuppositions which (taken together) complicates matters further. I will have to briefly explain the hydra analogy so that I do not lose any readers in making that analogy -for those who already know this can serve as a refresher of sorts.

For those unfamiliar with the mythical hydra, it had many heads and every time one was cut off, two or three would grow back in its place. This is why any attempt to kill the monster could not be by lopping heads off but instead you had to aim at the heart of the beast to kill it. How this relates to the federal leviathan is that cutting one small program here and there or a stray billion or tens of billions in three plus trillion dollar budgets is like cutting off a "head" and you know darn well that others will grow back in its place -usually through that nasty rider approach which I have proposed a solution to before.{1} But that solution has one element that needs to be tended to at the federal level first and at the state level at least in Washington State I was advised that my solution for the most part is already in place.{2} And however laudable that idea is, we are past the point where the time to implement a policy like that can be casually entertained. For as is evident to anyone not hiding under a rock, we have a reckless fiscally irresponsible congress paired with a reckless fiscally irresponsible president.{3}

In dealing with the debt issue, I have an idea for not only balancing the budget but also to pay down the debt over a ten year period.{4} However, now is not the time to go over that proposal -I mention it here only in passing. For as offense wins games, it is defense that wins championships as the sports dictum goes. So before we get to a proactive approach to paying off the debt we have to get the issue of balancing the budget under control. And one way we can obviously not do this is with hoping to elect leaders who will be responsible in this area.

I have long been critical of the fact that the Republicans not only in their leadership have made a mockery of the notion of limited government.{5} However, it goes beyond that and even gets to the point that the seeming "nostalgia" many have for the Gingrich led Congresses also does not deal with the problem we are facing really is. Instead, the Gingrich congresses at best dealt with symptoms instead of causes. But I am about to go over a proposal to deal with causes. There are three things we need to do on this matter and two of them would not be difficult at all. The third is the hard one and that is going to take the greatest courage. But lest I get ahead of myself here, let us touch on the first two briefly before getting to the purpose of this posting.

To start with, the first of the aforementioned proposals is the reinstatement by the congress of presidential impoundment authority: something which no president since Nixon has been able to do.{6} The second of the proposals would be abolishing the notion of what is called "base line budgeting" a subject I do not have time to go over now but one which starts with the presumption that there will be budgetary increases.{7} Readers are aware that I have noted over the years{8} that to control the terms is to control the debate and the moment we let the debate be based on how much or how little a program or the budget is increased is the moment that we have surrendered the principle we are trying to espouse whether we realize this or not. And that brings us to the third proposal; namely the idea I want to set forth in this posting however incompletely: the idea of indefinite budgetary items.

This is an area which I believe the Republicans now that they appear to have found their spine again can make as a point of emphasis. For besides pushing for executive authority to impound funds{9} and going after the notion of "based line budgeting", it is important to deal efficaciously with the noxious idea that federal programs once they are formed are immortal. And the latter is this third area I want to go over in the material before you -a proposal to get at the root and matrix of the federal leviathan program.

I am not sure how exactly it would be implemented for best possible effect mind you but I first mentioned the idea around the same time as my rider reform initiative for the federal government{10} though it first came to my mind even prior to that point. Its origin was in the debates early in President George W. Bush's first term. I remember hearing all this talk about the tax cuts he and the congress implemented not being "permanent" and the legislation called "the Patriot Act"{11} having to be "renewed" before it "sunsetted." When pondering that and also recalling President Ronald Reagan's comment about eternity on earth is most closely realized in a federal program,{12} I found myself thinking "why can we not have sunset provisions in every piece of legislation"??? And why can this principle not be applies to every piece of legislation not only future and present but also from the past??? And that is the idea basically. How it would be implemented is another matter altogether but this would effectively put the entire federal leviathan on watch program by program and make it a requirement for periodical voting by the legislative bodies to retain certain programs or they automatically expire within say ninety days of a failure to extend them.

In such a proposition the bill extension periods could vary but basically something significant needs to be on the docket for potential expiration in every election cycle and if many of the more important programs were due to expire in off term election years this alone would make midterm elections more interesting as a rule. And it would put a stop to the "inevitability" of the federal leviathan growing larger but indeed would put it constantly in a state of potentially getting smaller and it would take the proactive aspect of cutting the size of government out of the equation to a good degree.{13}

Anyway, that is what I am looking at idea-wise though I do not have an idea as to how it would be fashioned in terms of precise legislation but I suppose if I put the idea out there in some form or another that others can propose a variety of ways of going about this. Furthermore, the terms of the debate or "language control" if you will{14} can be re framed in the context of genuine budgetary reductions and not the political shell game we have seen both parties play for far too long now which coupled with a functional template for constitutional interpretation{15} might see us actually make some real progress in arresting this government behemoth which up to now we have not succeeded in doing for want of a proper strategery of doing do in my mind. Once that is tended to, then we can go on offense and talk about paying down the debt but defense first, offense second. The question is, can we find any representatives or senators who would take this as their rallying cry or not??? Inquiring minds wanna know and perhaps we can if they will not put an amendment into the Constitution to do this.

Notes:

{1} The original idea was first set out in some detail in a posting of January 20, 2004 not long after listening to President Bush's State of the Union that year. I then subsequently went about reiterating on more than a few times in subsequent years some of which are linked to this sentence and the most recent of which can be viewed here:

"Rider Reform Revisited" Dept. (circa December 16, 2008)

{2} The original idea was in a federal context but then I remembered we do not have a line item veto for the executive which the absence of that would basically make the idea inoperative. So before that can be approached, a constitutional amendment or some legislative provision to pass Supreme Court muster granting that power would be required. I then turned to the state level knowing that Washington State is one of over 40 states that have the line item veto for their governors. But Bob Williams (one time gubernatorial candidate for Washington State and head of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation) informed me that most of my ideas in that note were already part of Washington state law.

{3} And this was not exactly a problem we were without during the presidency of George W. Bush either of course.

{4} I have gone over it before but do not want to get sidetracked here by reiterating it anew.

{5} [P]erhaps the best way to understand why modern Republicans are not Republicans in the true sense of that term -and further, why I am not and for some time have not been a supporter of the Republican Party in any capacity- is to consider how their leaders view their own party today.

The following discussion between Rush Limbaugh and Ed Gillespie is instructive for one key reason: the Chairman of the Republican National Committee is absolutely clueless about the principles of limited government!!! Limbaugh granted could be more consistent on this subject than he is, but when the head of the RNC quite clearly has no idea what "limited government" is, that is not a minor bagatelle folks. Let me clarify if for you.

Limited government is not [reducing] the size of the increase, as Gillespie claims. How can one claim to be for "limited government" by arguing that [w]hen Bill Clinton left office, he proposed his last budget was an increase of 15% in non-defense discretionary spending. President Bush came in, he brought it down to 6% in his first budget, down to 5% in his second. It is at 2% today, non-defense discretionary spending??? This is a mockery of the entire notion of limited government.

First of all, who cares what the President proposes. The role of setting a budget is that of the Congress. The problem is that the role of impounding funds -shared by every president from Nixon back to Washington- was abolished by President Nixon when he signed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Since then, deficits have skyrocketed and an important check on Congressional excesses was cast aside.

This Act needs to be rescinded. The following article covers the subject in some detail -certainly better than the laughable Congressional article which tried to make the impounding sound like a novel notion of Nixon's...But it was not. And while there were still deficits prior to 1974, the national deficits starting in 1975 increased at an exponential rate...[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa October 31, 2003]

{6} I do not make distinctions between one part of Reagan's philosophy and another XXXXXXX. Instead, I take into account the entire picture and just as the Democratic Party left Reagan in the 1950's and early 1960's, the Republican Party has left behind the principles of Ronald Reagan the man and the president since 1988. The so-called 1994 revolution was a joke because they did almost nothing they promised to do: unlike Reagan who kept most of his promises.

They could not even close down a single federal department!!! That is ridiculous since so much of the federal leviathan as Reagan recognized was patently unconstitutional. They had the control of the congress and thus the legislative ability to make changes including (if necessary) changing the rules of procedure to make it harder for the Democrats to resist. But they did not. Care to go over the "Contract With America" with me point by point and see how much they actually enacted??? That alone makes my case since if anything the contract was a drop in the bucket of what needed (and needs) to be done to combat the unconstitutional federal behemoth. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa November 11, 2004]

{7} I do not have time to go over this right now but Citizens Against Government Waste has a really good explanation which I refer the reader to at this time.

{8} Most recently in this posting:

Revisiting the Subject of the Underlying Weltanschauung of "Language Control" (circa November 25, 2008)

{9} If anything this proposal with a Democrat in the White House as we have now might have a better chance of being advanced by the Republicans because the potential of it being chalked up to "self-interest" is refuted by the circumstances of a Democrat being in the White House.

{10} Namely in this part:

Enact a law that inserts into every budget proposal and program a sunset provision. The points of sunset can be staggered to some extent so the entire wheel is not reinvented at once. However, in every presidential cycle all budget items or federal programs should have to come up for renewal at least once. My proposed point for this is of course the midterm elections. (That way, turnout will be higher and of course it will keep our officials honest.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 20, 2004)]

Since then it has probably been mentioned on my weblog at least a dozen odd times when times or circumstances warranted.

{11} The "Patriot Act" is something which I have some reservations to parts of but that is a subject for another time perhaps.

{12} I paraphrase The Gipper here.

{13} And while I am not opposed to a national bank in either principle or on constitutional grounds, it bears noting that the first two national banks of the United States both had sunset clauses in them much as most of the Alien and Sedition legislation of 1798 did; ergo the idea of sunset clauses in government legislation is hardly untraditional from a constitutional standpoint even for seemingly "untouchable" programs.

{14} See footnote eight.

{15} Between Unconstitutionality and Unworkability (circa February 6, 2009)