Tag: parties

A False Dichotomy

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I have never been a fan of Rush Limbaugh or Governor Huntsman which makes the false dichotomy presented here all the more ironic for me.

Rush Limbaugh told a recent gathering of conservatives that the party needed to return to its conservative roots to start winning again.

But Huntsman has been attracting national attention as a moderate, thanks to his support of climate change and civil unions and condemnation of his party’s lack of alternatives to the Democrat’s federal stimulus package.

"The poll shows a majority of Americans are in line with the governor’s belief that we need solution-oriented leaders," Huntsman spokeswoman Lisa Roskelley said, . . . "the governor feels it’s important to look at the party in a more inclusive way."

The suggestion that the Republican party must be more conservative or more inclusive perpetuates the myth of the single axis political grid. The truth is that Rush represents a certain brand of conservatism and pushing that single brand to be more prominent in the party is what makes the party less inclusive. Whatever disagreements I may have with my governor, Huntsman is absolutely right that we need to focus on finding solution oriented leaders in the GOP. That does not mean that we have to abandon our principles.

To be fair, it is the article and not necessarily the governor that is suggesting that a solution oriented approach is incompatible with an adherance to conservative principles.

Tags Deseret News, Jon Huntsman, media, parties, political figures, Republican

National

Envision the GOP to Come

In the current discussions regarding the future direction of the GOP as the Republican party seeks to find ways back to leading the nation there are many ideas being suggested. Some of those ideas deserve no consideration, such as abdicating our conservative roots and embracing an expanding government. Other ideas merit serious consideration, such as how we talk about and react to evidence of climate change. Finally there are some ideas which I believe should be embraced by the party quickly to help us build a party culture that will attract the support of reasonable people from across the political landscape. Two such ideas come to mind instantly. One is the need for smaller government. With Democrats in power proposing expansive programs we have already seen out elected Republicans paying lip service to the ideas of smaller government. Some of them might even actually believe what they are saying right now. The second idea that we should embrace without delay is to promote a Humbler Foreign Policy.

This might seem to contradict the longstanding party talking point of having a strong military, but if we stop to look at foreign policy separate from military strength it is easy to see that there is a vast difference between having a big stick and using it excessively.

What, after all, was conservative about George W. Bush’s post-9/11 pledges to "rid the world of evil" and "end tyranny in our world?" Conservatives used to believe that there were limits to the federal government’s capabilities. And yet, today, many of the same people who ridicule "midnight basketball" programs at home support ambitious nation-building projects abroad.

Do we really need new aircraft carriers, fighter planes, and a bigger army to fight men who live in caves, and attack us with box cutters? Why, in an era of trillion-dollar deficits, do we spend more on "defense" than the next 12 nations combined, maintain an empire of over 700 bases in 144 countries, and provide defense welfare for South Korea, Western Europe, and Japan, who are perfectly capable of defending themselves?

Conservatives seem to have forgotten the wisdom of one of their intellectual founders, Russell Kirk, who resisted empire and militarism, and maintained that war had to be a last resort, because it might "make the American president a virtual dictator, diminish the constitutional powers of Congress, contract civil liberties, [and] distort the economy."

(emphasis added)

I would not be one to argue that our military should be reduced in strength or that we should not continually seek to improve our capabilities to match advances in military reality. I would argue that carrying the big stick has led to abuses of our military might and a presidency that has grown alarmingly close to dictatorial in its power. We need to learn the difference between carrying a big stick and owning a big stick. We may have to endure inaccurate accusations of being isolationist but it’s better to be an isolationist than a bully if you must err on one side or the other.

Tags connections, foreign policy, military, parties, Republican

National

Accountability Now

MoveOn.org has proven that they can be a political force, so has The Daily Kos, and long before either of them existed labor unions were already very influential in politics. That made me very interested to read that those three were teaming up to form a new political action committee called Accountability Now.

Their stated goal is to help recruit and promote move liberal democratic candidates in areas where moderate democrats are currently in office. So how soon until they decide to target Jim Matheson? (And who would they get to challenge him in Utah?) One of their founders also raised the possibility of taking action in Republican primaries as well. (I can just imagine if they had been supporting Chris Cannon against Jason Chaffetz.)

So I’m curious about what other people think about this. It’s obviously a part of the internal debate that Reach talked about in comments earlier this week. Do we think that this approach to the internal debate is healthy, or destructive? Is it better news for Democrats or better news for Republicans – or is it simply bad news for proponents of a civil political process?

Tags civic participation, Democrat, New York Times, parties, politics

culture National State

Federalist No. 51

Of course the importance of checks and balances in our government is a well known concept as discussed in Federalist No. 51. What I had not previously realized was that splitting the Congress into two houses was a part of the effort on checks and balances. I had always understood that choice to simply be a compromise between the power of large state and small states.

In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency (sic) is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.

Today some may argue that the legislative authority does not predominate in our government. Closer inspection of our government shows that it does still dominate which is why the concentration of interest in the executive branch by individuals and news organizations is so effective at confusing the electorate and allowing a Congress with 10% approval rating to have a 90% success rate among incumbents. (At a state level the same results can come by focusing on the governor over the legislature.)

Those who would argue that Congress does not dominate the actions of our government can only have an argument if they claim that the parties have come to dominate the government rather than arguing that another branch of government has come to dominate.

Tags change congress, checks and balances, parties, separation of powers

General

Federalist No. 50

Federalist No. 50 brings forth the distinction between occasional appeals to the people and periodical appeals to the people. While I am not sure that this paper really satisfies the question it does force consideration of the question of what the difference is and how it plays out. The founders clearly settled on periodical appeals as proven by pre-set term lengths for various offices. They chose not to provide a limit to individual service, but they set the length of terms for the Representatives, Senators and the President. These set term length guarantee that we will go to the polls as a nation every two years, whether we like the way our government is functioning or not, and cast our votes to determine our representation for the next 2, 4 or 6 years (depending on the office in question).

If we want to consider the effect of occasional appeals we can look to other governments around the world such as Israel.

Another issue that was illustrated in this Federalist Paper is the effect parties can have of manipulating the thinking of otherwise intelligent people.

When men exercise their reason coolly and freely on a variety of distinct questions, they inevitably fall into different opinions on some of them.

It has always disturbed me to see those Republicans who will always praise the actions of Republican leaders and always denounce the actions of Democratic leaders. Likewise I am unimpressed by those Democrats who always praise Democrats and always oppose the actions of any Republican.

Of course the different parties have legitimate differences of opinion and the people who join the parties do so for a reason, but to refuse to see any good across the aisle is a recipe for poor policy. Real leaders know how to recognize the value being offered by the opposition and will not oppose the other party simply on the principle that it is the other party.

Tags documents, federalist, history, parties

life Local

Running for Treasurer

I have decided to run for the position of Treasurer for the Davis County Republican Party. Those those who are interested can visit my campaign website although any regular readers here will not find any surprises there.

The vote is 8 weeks away, but call this an early invitation. Anyone in Davis County who is a registered republican is encouraged to support me at the party organizing convention. I see this as an opportunity to put my beliefs and principles into action to help make the Republican party the best it can be here in Davis County.

Tags civic participation, Davis County, parties, Republican

General

Two Forms of Government

I really appreciated the video that Scott shared yesterday. (You can see the full video below.) It reminded me that there are only two distinct forms of government. One is transient as it depends on the life of the ruler(s) while the other is stable because it is based on a foundation of written law. Of course we can make changes to that foundation, but the core is rarely changed, if ever.

Our nation was founded upon the rule of law. That was the whole purpose of most of our founding documents (Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact, Articles of Confederation, Constitution, Bill of Rights). The scariest thing in our modern political system is not the goals and ideals of any of the political parties, it is the almost universal attitude within every party that their ideals supercede the law of the land. A perfect example of that attitude was posted as a comment last month stating:

principles . . . must transcend and over-ride individual provisions of the Constitution

Good government depends on that statement being universally rejected. As I responded then:

principles . . . must not transcend or over-ride individual provisions of the Constitution . . . instead those bedrock principles must be used to guide the amendment of the Constitution

Tags connections, Constitution, government, laws, parties, principles

General

Where Constitutional Rubber Meets the Republican Road

Post author By David
Post date January 9, 2009
2 Comments on Where Constitutional Rubber Meets the Republican Road

Peter Berkowitz makes it sound so easy to come to a consensus on the way forward for the GOP by adhereing to the Constitution. In theory it sounds simple enough to apply the test of whether an idea fits within the framework of the Constitution before deciding whether to adopt the idea. Scott gives a nice analysis of the full article but I think that by looking at the nine ideas that he says should lead the agenda we can get a sense for how hard that concept is to apply in practice – and hence why the GOP lost its way so completely .

An economic program, health-care reform, energy policy and protection for the environment grounded in market-based solutions.

I’m not convinced that anyone in politics today even knows what a free market is so it’s hard to imagine that the idea of “market-based solutions” would have any consistent meaning from one person to another.

A foreign policy that recognizes America’s vital national security interest in advancing liberty abroad but realistically calibrates undertakings to the nation’s limited knowledge and restricted resources.

Follow the first vague idea with another. What does it mean to “advance liberty abroad?” If it includes any amount of playing earth-policeman then I don’t think it can fit within the framework of the Constitution. We should stand as a supreme example of a nation protecting the liberty of her citizens but regardless of our knowledge or resources we should not step in with force anywhere that we do not have legal jurisdiction to enforce liberty unless we have been attacked or publicly invited.

A commitment to homeland security that is as passionate about security as it is about law, and which is prepared to responsibly fashion the inevitable, painful trade-offs.

I’m not even sure that sentence said anything actionable.

A focus on reducing the number of abortions and increasing the number of adoptions.

I’m not sure how this could be construed from the Constitution but it is the right approach to the issue of abortion. Any discussion about the public teaching of any moral issue by the state should be entirely focused on the actual effects it would have on those measurable and commonly held goals. Even the Democrats would generally like to see lower numbers of abortions and higher adoption rates. The question is, do the policies we promote actually achieve those ends – if not they have no business being promoted by the state.

Efforts to keep the question of same-sex marriage out of the federal courts and subject to consideration by each state’s democratic process.

Like abortion, this idea is not about settling the moral question – it is about making sure that the question is settled according to the prescribed process.

Measures to combat illegal immigration that are emphatically pro-border security and pro-immigrant.

I like this idea, but I wonder how to formulate and articulate positions that are both pro-immigrant and pro-security.

A case for school choice as an option that enhances individual freedom while giving low-income, inner-city parents opportunities to place their children in classrooms where they can obtain a decent education.

This should be one of the easiest ideas on this list to pursue among the various conservative groups.

A demand that public universities abolish speech codes and vigorously protect liberty of thought and discussion on campus.

This should also be an easy sell among self-identified conservatives.

The appointment of judges who understand that their function is to interpret the Constitution and not make policy, and, therefore, where the Constitution is most vague, recognize the strongest obligation to defer to the results of the democratic process.

It is not only judges that need to understand this. The citizens as a whole need to recognize the difference between Constitutional interpretation and the making of policy

The fact that I am addressing these nine ideas does not mean that I have concluded that Berkowitz was right about which ideas are most important – I only used those to show the complexity that we must still navigate even after committing to that one core principle. The thing that Berkowitz is absolutely right about is that we can and should commit to put the Constitution at the center of our decision making process if the GOP is to have anything to offer to the American public.

Tags connections, Constitution, ideal, parties, Republican

culture State

Get Your Hands Dirty

As I have been making contacts and working to get more actively involved in party politics I have started to gain a new appreciation for what government by the people really is. When I learned about our government in school I was left with the understanding that government by the people meant that we have the opportunity to elect representatives as well as the opportunity to replace them in subsequent elections. All of that is technically true but I am concluding that government py the people is really government by those who choose to involve themselves in the process. Being an informed voter is important, as I have stressed for a long time, but your vote at the ballot box is too crude a tool to expect to fix problems if you see things in the political system that you would change.

Our freedom of speech is also important, but exposing problems and speeking up is not enough. If you really care about this country and you see things that need to be fixed there is only one way to go about it. You have to roll up your shirtsleeves and dig in to the political dirt if you want to clean something up.

I have been verbose about my desire to see a good mix of the two parties here in Utah and yet when I chose what party to participate in I chose the dominant party. The reason for that choice is that I realized that more important than balance is accountability. I can’t make the Republican party accountable to the people if I am working in the Democratic party. Since all the attractive ideals of the Democratic party (meaning those that are attractive to me) are compatible with the positions of the Republican party I chose to work within the Republican party to ensure (as much as I am able) that the Republican party is being held accountable for the ideals that they espouse.

if there are things you want to see change – get your hands dirty, that’s the real meaning of government by the people.

Tags civic participation, Davis County, parties, Utah

life National State

Loyalty . . . Right or Wrong

Post author By David
Post date November 24, 2008
4 Comments on Loyalty . . . Right or Wrong

I have been thinking about the sentiment “my country, right or wrong” as well as many potential variations (e.g. “my party, right or wrong,” “my parents, right or wrong,” or “my company, right or wrong”). What I have been thinking is that such a statement of unquestioning loyalty is ripe for abuse and manipulation.

I took the time to look up the origin of that statement and found that the actual toast by Stephen Decatur that it is supposed to be quoting was “Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!” This statement is still loaded with loyalty or patriotism, but it contains an important sentiment that is left out of the popular remnant “may she always be in the right.” I think that phrase is overshadowed by the statement of ownership that follows – “right or wrong, our country.”

As right as that true statement of loyalty is, a more dependable variation was uttered by Carl Schurz which he calls “the watchword of true patriotism”- “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” This is truly my brand of loyalty, whether to my country or to any other organization.

It is the sentiment of the original statement of unconditional ownership that convinced me to avoid party affiliation. I did not wish to allow any perception that I was dedicated to anything that was changeable. At least with my country it is arguable that my citizenship, and living here make it mine even when I disagree whereas with a party my disagreement while maintaining membership might seem incongruous.

As I came to realize that my strident independence was hobbling my ability to contribute to the actual work of government I had to reconcile myself to the idea of participating with one party or another. I have already expressed the fact that I was seeking to decide what party to work with. Now, having come to the conclusions of Schurz’ true patriotism (even before I found his statement of it) I am able to join a party without reservation.

I have chosen the Republican party as my political vehicle not because it is without fault, but where there are faults I will strive to set it right. Likewise my choice not to join the Democratic party – despite my ardent desire for a healthy balance of parties in this state – is not because that party lacks virtues in its members or its stated goals. My conclusion is that the stated positions of the Republican party more closely align with my own internal values overall than the stated positions of the Democratic party. I have also come to the conclusion that the Democratic party, locally and nationally, has stayed closer to their core values in recent years than the Republican party has to their core values (especially nationally).

I will be working to help the Republican party live up to its ideals and I will hope to see others working to build up a strong and vibrant Democratic party in our state – especially in areas like Davis and Utah counties – which will challenge the Republican party and push us to stay true to our principles because I honestly believe that regardless of the policy differences between the parties each party is built up mainly of people who love their country and want what is best for their fellow citizens.

Tags civic participation, Democrat, Elevated, parties, patriotism, Republican, Utah