Imagine that you are a poor child living in some Third World hellhole. If you haven't been sold in to slavery, prostitution, or kidnapped and forced to serve as a child soldier, chances are that you make a living in the fields or digging through city dumps for bits of metal. You probably live on less than $2 a day. (See Chart) Your family is just barely able to eat, and starvation is never more than a few days away. Since you have to work to eat, you couldn't go to school even if there was one. Your best chance at a decent life is probably joining a gang or the army, if you can tell the difference between the two. Education is not even a possibility. Your future is pretty-much hopeless.
Suddenly, a company from the United States decides to open a factory in your city. What to do? True, the hours are long. True, the wages are not what an American union member would expect. However, the hours are shorter and the money better than scrounging for metal in the dump or breaking your back in the fields. If they weren't better jobs than the ones people already held, why would they switch? In fact, these jobs offer the opportunity of a substantially higher-than-average wages to the workers who get them. In other words, they offer security against starvation, they offer the possibility of a better life where no possibility previously existed.
Now, imagine that the company in the United States faces protests from well-meaning liberals who oppose "sweatshops," like these idiots. They rant and rave about "the children" and how the Western Imperialists are exploiting the poor brown-peoples of the Third World, and demand the companies either abandon their sweatshops or pay their workers what their Western counterparts would receive.
Why did the American company want to locate a factory in your area in the first place? Certainly not because of stability. Why risk bombed buildings, riots, inflation and government takeovers in the Third World if you have to pay the same wages as you do in America? The single most-popular reason for any company to relocate abroad is for reduced labor costs. If the people in the Third World cannot offer their labor services cheaply, then they have no way of attracting jobs to their countries.
In other words, the anti-"sweatshop" protesters are condemning the Third World to poverty and starvation in the name of saving it from poverty and starvation. What's worse, the anti-sweatshop campaign has expanded to become the idea of "fair-trade." Fair Trade is the idea that buyers in the West should not only purchase products from impoverished nations, but pay more than the market price for it, make sure the producers are unionized, pay for the producer's education and the development of their homelands. Not surprisingly, the main backers of "fair-trade" are unions in the West. After all, when the cost of manufacturing here at home is the same as manufacturing in Ecuador, nobody will manufacture products in Ecuador, and the unions gain massive numbers of new members.
This movement will fail, fundamentally because the products are far-too-expensive. Take the example of Just Garments, a Salvadoran company founded specifically to serve the "fair-trade" market in 2003, which closed it's doors in 2007 because of a lack of sales. Liberals love to protest "corporate greed" and "exploitation," because it gives them a warm, fuzzy feeling of moral superiority. Unfortunately for the residents of El Salvador, they don't seem very warm and fuzzy about the prices they have to pay to see their demands met.
Unions overwhelmingly give their money (97% for AFSCME and the AFL-CIO,) to Democrats. It shows in the current Democrat Presidential candidates' positions on trade, with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama opposed to NAFTA and CAFTA.
Libertarians and Republicans are both unquestionably on the side of free trade. The Democrats, on the other hand, demand "fair-trade" and protectionism. I've discussed the similarities between Libertarians and Republicans on economic issues before, but I want to emphasize it for a reason: Our ideological enemies are diametrically opposed to everything we believe about capitalism, property rights, free-markets and free-trade. Pick any economic (rather than social,) issue and there is absolutely no agreement between Libertarians and Democrats. Democrats don't share our belief in the value of trade, and the value of the free-market.
Economic freedom is more important, in my mind, than most of the areas where Republicans and Libertarians differ: Drugs, prostitution, abortion, etc. You will have to decide for yourself if you agree, but realize that if you vote for the Libertarian Party this November because of policy differences on crack or hookers you might be electing by default people who have no faith in free-markets, and an endless belief in the power of government.
UPDATE: Hot of the presses from the Drudge Report, Starbucks' stock price is tanking in the face of cheaper competitors. Hmmm... could it be because of multiple price increases in the wake of adopting
"fair-trade" coffee?
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
The Libertarian's Chance
The all-but-official nomination of Sen. John McCain as the Republican candidate for the presidency has created an unrivaled opportunity for the Libertarian Party, assuming that Libertarians are willing to nominate somebody who believes in a strong national defense.
Conservative Republicans are stuck with a nominee who might as well be a Democrat, as I wrote in my last post. McCain is so unpopular with conservatives that CPAC had to ask registrants not to boo the presumptive nominee. He is so unpopular with Rush Limbaugh that he has suggested that he might not be able to support him, and said specifically that he thinks that McCain's nomination would destroy the Republican party. Other talk-show hosts like Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin and Hugh Hewitt have said much the same thing. Ann Coulter has said that she would work to see Hillary Clinton elected rather than John McCain. Zogby polling data from Supper-di-duper Tuesday show that 8/10 conservative Republicans voted for somebody other than McCain.
In my experience, many of those Republicans who support McCain use 'he can win' as the justification for their vote, rather than 'I support him because of _________." A victory is hollow if it means that the opposite of everything you believe in will be implemented by the winner. A base that is so alienated that it is either holding its nose or getting ready to defect will not turn out on election day. The Republicans should have learned this lesson in 2006, as a base battered by the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, a president that refuses to mount even an elementary defense of his own policies in Iraq and at home, and a congress that was only outspent by F.D.R. and L.B.J. decided to stay home.
These disaffected people are almost all big supporters of limited government, strict constructionist judges and a strong national defense. The Libertarian Party, as currently constituted, can provide two out of three of these. With the nomination of a candidate that supports the defense of the United States, rather than impractical isolationism, the Libertarian Party could get the disaffected conservative voter.
In previous posts, I have suggested that voting for a third party never works. I don't think it will work here, either. However, if the Libertarians ran a pro-war candidate, it would clear up one of the biggest questions that stands in the way of sending a message: What does a vote for the Libertarian Party mean? Voting Libertarian, particularly in a time of war, sends a mixed message. Are you voting Libertarian because you are an isolationist? Are you voting Libertarian because you want abortion legal? Are you voting Libertarian because you want a real reduction in the size of government? Running a pro-war Libertarian would clear up the confusion, and point clearly in the direction of limited government. Given McCain's questionable stances on abortion and judges, the abortion issue would be nullified. Voting Libertarian would send a clear and obvious message to the Republicans that you want to see government shrink, rather than regulate carbon emissions and free speech, while refusing to enforce immigration laws.
Finally, I would urge the Libertarian Party to consider what this influx of new voters would mean for their electoral future. The 2005 Pew Research Center Study, Beyond Red vs. Blue, indicates that conservative voters (called "Enterprisers,") make up 10% of regular voters. Libertarian voters accounted for 0.32% of the national vote count in 2004. If Libertarians could capture a little less than one Enterpriser in 30, they could DOUBLE their percentage of the vote.
DOUBLE. With 1/30th of the Enterpriser vote. The number of Republicans out there who are unwilling to support McCain is more like one-in-ten.
The Libertarians face a choice: Abandon isolationism, and become a real political force, or keep it and remain in the backwaters of American politics.
Carpe diem, Libertarians...
Conservative Republicans are stuck with a nominee who might as well be a Democrat, as I wrote in my last post. McCain is so unpopular with conservatives that CPAC had to ask registrants not to boo the presumptive nominee. He is so unpopular with Rush Limbaugh that he has suggested that he might not be able to support him, and said specifically that he thinks that McCain's nomination would destroy the Republican party. Other talk-show hosts like Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin and Hugh Hewitt have said much the same thing. Ann Coulter has said that she would work to see Hillary Clinton elected rather than John McCain. Zogby polling data from Supper-di-duper Tuesday show that 8/10 conservative Republicans voted for somebody other than McCain.
In my experience, many of those Republicans who support McCain use 'he can win' as the justification for their vote, rather than 'I support him because of _________." A victory is hollow if it means that the opposite of everything you believe in will be implemented by the winner. A base that is so alienated that it is either holding its nose or getting ready to defect will not turn out on election day. The Republicans should have learned this lesson in 2006, as a base battered by the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, a president that refuses to mount even an elementary defense of his own policies in Iraq and at home, and a congress that was only outspent by F.D.R. and L.B.J. decided to stay home.
These disaffected people are almost all big supporters of limited government, strict constructionist judges and a strong national defense. The Libertarian Party, as currently constituted, can provide two out of three of these. With the nomination of a candidate that supports the defense of the United States, rather than impractical isolationism, the Libertarian Party could get the disaffected conservative voter.
In previous posts, I have suggested that voting for a third party never works. I don't think it will work here, either. However, if the Libertarians ran a pro-war candidate, it would clear up one of the biggest questions that stands in the way of sending a message: What does a vote for the Libertarian Party mean? Voting Libertarian, particularly in a time of war, sends a mixed message. Are you voting Libertarian because you are an isolationist? Are you voting Libertarian because you want abortion legal? Are you voting Libertarian because you want a real reduction in the size of government? Running a pro-war Libertarian would clear up the confusion, and point clearly in the direction of limited government. Given McCain's questionable stances on abortion and judges, the abortion issue would be nullified. Voting Libertarian would send a clear and obvious message to the Republicans that you want to see government shrink, rather than regulate carbon emissions and free speech, while refusing to enforce immigration laws.
Finally, I would urge the Libertarian Party to consider what this influx of new voters would mean for their electoral future. The 2005 Pew Research Center Study, Beyond Red vs. Blue, indicates that conservative voters (called "Enterprisers,") make up 10% of regular voters. Libertarian voters accounted for 0.32% of the national vote count in 2004. If Libertarians could capture a little less than one Enterpriser in 30, they could DOUBLE their percentage of the vote.
DOUBLE. With 1/30th of the Enterpriser vote. The number of Republicans out there who are unwilling to support McCain is more like one-in-ten.
The Libertarians face a choice: Abandon isolationism, and become a real political force, or keep it and remain in the backwaters of American politics.
Carpe diem, Libertarians...
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Two questions to ask yourself before voting
When libertarians cast their ballot this November, I would urge them to ask themselves two questions: Who shares my view of the world? Will voting for a third party candidate send a message, or risk electing somebody who is totally antithetical to my beliefs? This blog entry will deal with the first question. My next entry will deal with the second.
The Pew Research Center conducted a study of the electorate in 2005, and the results show real differences in the ways that Democrats and Republicans view the world. The study divided each group in to three separate subgroups (the actual descriptions from the study can be found here):
Democrats:
------------------------
1) Liberals (19% of Registered Voters): The hardcore lefties. Liberal on social issues, want to raise taxes and expand government until we can't poop without a permit.
2) Conservative Democrats (15% of Registered Voters): FDR Democrats. Conservative on social issues, generally favor welfare.
3) Disadvantaged Democrats (10% of Registered Voters): Poor Democrats. Very anti-business, very pro-welfare.
Republicans
------------------------
1) Enterprisers (10% of Registered Voters): Free trade, low taxes, small government, strong foreign policy.
2) Social Conservatives (13% of registered Voters): Conservative on social issues and welfare, otherwise moderate.
3) Pro-Government Conservatives (10% of Registered Voters): Poor republicans. Religious, tend to support more government help for the needy.
And now, a few comparisons:
A minimum of 65% of all Democrat groups wants government-run health care. A maximum of 65% of Pro-Government Republicans wants Hillarycare on the right. Only one-fifth of Enterprisers want to see government-run health care. (Here) Given that the health sector accounts for around 1/8 of our economy, the desire to nationalize it (de facto, if not de jure,) says a lot about what the Democrat Party thinks about the private sector.
This anti-private sector trend continues in the area of welfare. All Democrat groups favor a large expansion of the welfare state in several areas. Amongst Republicans, both Enterprisers and Social Conservatives are strongly opposed to more spending on the poor, and Pro-Government conservatives are in favor of more spending. (Here) These statistics support the findings of Arthur Brooks, in his book Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism that discovered that conservatives from every income class gave more money than liberals to charities, and worked more hours as a volunteer. Republicans clearly have more faith in the ability of private charity to solve problems than they do in government intervention.
Quite possibly the most important statistics come from the comparison of two very similar groups, the Disadvantaged Democrats and the Pro-Government Conservatives. Both are largely poor, Only 14% of Disadvantaged Democrats believe that people can get ahead in life through hard work, and only 44% believe that everyone has the power to succeed. 76% of Pro-Government Conservatives believe that hard work will let you get ahead, and 86% believe that everybody can succeed. Pro-Government Conservatives believe that they can get ahead in life through their own efforts. Disadvantaged Democrats do not.
The responses of the Democrats clearly demonstrate that they have little faith in the ability of the private sector to solve problems without government intervention, and that they do not believe that individuals can determine their own future. Republicans, across the board, not only believe in the individual and the private sector: They put their money where their mouths are.
For a moment, leave aside the questions of abortion, gay marriage and foreign affairs and ask yourself: Which party really believes in the individual and the private sector? Which side shares my most fundamental values?
The Pew Research Center conducted a study of the electorate in 2005, and the results show real differences in the ways that Democrats and Republicans view the world. The study divided each group in to three separate subgroups (the actual descriptions from the study can be found here):
Democrats:
------------------------
1) Liberals (19% of Registered Voters): The hardcore lefties. Liberal on social issues, want to raise taxes and expand government until we can't poop without a permit.
2) Conservative Democrats (15% of Registered Voters): FDR Democrats. Conservative on social issues, generally favor welfare.
3) Disadvantaged Democrats (10% of Registered Voters): Poor Democrats. Very anti-business, very pro-welfare.
Republicans
------------------------
1) Enterprisers (10% of Registered Voters): Free trade, low taxes, small government, strong foreign policy.
2) Social Conservatives (13% of registered Voters): Conservative on social issues and welfare, otherwise moderate.
3) Pro-Government Conservatives (10% of Registered Voters): Poor republicans. Religious, tend to support more government help for the needy.
And now, a few comparisons:
A minimum of 65% of all Democrat groups wants government-run health care. A maximum of 65% of Pro-Government Republicans wants Hillarycare on the right. Only one-fifth of Enterprisers want to see government-run health care. (Here) Given that the health sector accounts for around 1/8 of our economy, the desire to nationalize it (de facto, if not de jure,) says a lot about what the Democrat Party thinks about the private sector.
This anti-private sector trend continues in the area of welfare. All Democrat groups favor a large expansion of the welfare state in several areas. Amongst Republicans, both Enterprisers and Social Conservatives are strongly opposed to more spending on the poor, and Pro-Government conservatives are in favor of more spending. (Here) These statistics support the findings of Arthur Brooks, in his book Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism that discovered that conservatives from every income class gave more money than liberals to charities, and worked more hours as a volunteer. Republicans clearly have more faith in the ability of private charity to solve problems than they do in government intervention.
Quite possibly the most important statistics come from the comparison of two very similar groups, the Disadvantaged Democrats and the Pro-Government Conservatives. Both are largely poor, Only 14% of Disadvantaged Democrats believe that people can get ahead in life through hard work, and only 44% believe that everyone has the power to succeed. 76% of Pro-Government Conservatives believe that hard work will let you get ahead, and 86% believe that everybody can succeed. Pro-Government Conservatives believe that they can get ahead in life through their own efforts. Disadvantaged Democrats do not.
The responses of the Democrats clearly demonstrate that they have little faith in the ability of the private sector to solve problems without government intervention, and that they do not believe that individuals can determine their own future. Republicans, across the board, not only believe in the individual and the private sector: They put their money where their mouths are.
For a moment, leave aside the questions of abortion, gay marriage and foreign affairs and ask yourself: Which party really believes in the individual and the private sector? Which side shares my most fundamental values?
Monday, January 21, 2008
Who votes for the Democrats, and what impact does it have on Republican strategy?
The diagram that we all learn in Political Science 101 for the "political spectrum" in America goes something like this:
<================================+===============================>
Democrat...............................Centrist............................Republican
Pretty simple, right? It also makes election strategies simple: Move to the wings for primaries, move to the center for the general. Moreover, by moving your party as a whole to the center, you can get more votes!
However, when Republicans move to the center, it never works. Why not? The diagram suggests that moving the Republican Party to a centrist or center-left position on the spectrum ought to grab Republicans all sorts of extra votes. Yet, when Republicans have moved to the left (2006 rings a bell,) they lose, dramatically. When Republicans move to the right, as Ronald Reagan did, they win huge victories. Republicans that want to move the party to the left on questions like spending and social concerns are missing the point: Democrats will never vote for Diet Democrats, and Centrists will never vote for somebody who stands for nothing.
In order to help my fellow Republicans understand why Democrats vote the way they vote, and what can be done to steal some of these voters, I humbly offer this analysis of the four different groups of Democrats:
1) The Welfare Royalty: Welfare Kings and Queens vote for the candidate who will give them the most government money with the fewest strings attached. I include Social Security/Medicare voters, Trial Lawyers, union members and leaders, and anybody who gets an AFDC check in this category. Each one of these groups relies on Democrats for their meal ticket, at the moment, and will not abandon them until somebody offers them more money.
Why can't Republicans get the Welfare Royalty vote? If you don't have to worry about the calories (i.e. your taxes being raised,) then why drink Diet Generic Cola when they can have Generic Cola Classic? Unless Republicans abandon all spending restraint, and embark on a decades-long binge, they will never convince Welfare Royalty to vote for them. In the meantime, the base will grumble about the monetary wisdom of intoxicated sailors every time they see the budget figures, and justifiably stay home on election day.
2) The Special Privilege Separatists: The Special Privilege Separatists could be women, minorities, illegal immigrants, etc. They are members of groups that want special treatment from the government. Affirmative Action is probably the best example. It is a privileged status afforded to blacks because bad things were done to their ancestors. Illegal aliens suggest that our government is oppressive and racist because it occasionally deports people who are here illegally. Illegal aliens demand amnesty for coming here illegally, living here illegally, emptying the welfare purses nationwide, shutting down hospital emergency rooms with their demands for medical care, and for stealing Social Security Numbers and screwing up the credit of millions of people. Young women demand the right to kill unborn children so that they can avoid the inconvenience of adopting them out.
Republicans tend to believe in ideas like equality before the law, and the rule of law. Why would a working woman or a black man vote for a Party that has pledged to take away their special privileges? Why would an illegal alien vote for a Party that (might,) enforce the law and deport them? Republicans cannot get the votes from Special Privilege Separatists until there is a widespread recognition that these special privileges may not be deserved, may provoke resentment, and lead to these groups being perceived as "tokens" and unqualified for the positions they hold. We cannot grab this group immediately, but we can certainly oppose amnesty and avoid importing millions of new Democrats from Mexico.
3) The Compassion Fascists: Compassion Fascists are people who vote Democrat because of the warm, fuzzy feeling they get for doing so. Another important reason for their vote is the warm, fuzzy feeling they get from others. They perceive the Democrat Party as the Party of compassion, the Party that cares about the poor, minorities, and the environment. They parrot what they read in the New York Times and what they hear from Chris Matthews to win approval as an enlightened cosmopolitan from their fellow cocktail party attendees. Their affiliation with the Democrat Party has nothing to do with rational thought or evaluation of their positions, it is an emotional reaction to the way Democrats are perceived, and a burning desire to find acceptance.
So why do I call them Compassion Fascists? They know their beliefs are illogical and contradictory. They know that they don't live their own lives by the principles and values that the Democrats express, but they have to be able to ignore this fact to continue getting those looks of approval at the cocktail parties! Therefore, they crush whoever spouts reality at them. They club them down with implications of racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, dishonesty, murderousness, lack of moral right, etc. They use spokespeople that cannot be criticized, so that they will not be called stupid for making stupid suggestions (like the 9-11 widows, or Michael J. Fox.) They dance around questions like Madonna with a pole. They hurl food, or yell their opponents down. They shoot up the local Republican headquarters, slash tires, and hurl bricks. I have not even begun to discuss Liberal peace activists or environmentalists. (I debated with myself for a full two hours: What do I link to for these lunatics? There are so many options, I was paralyzed. I decided to continue ahead with this one, because it so effectively displays the total lack of thought on the part of these particular mental patients, and because I had other things to do.)
The only practical difference between the Nazi Brownshirts and these Democrat thugs is that these thugs are not official.
Can Republicans get these votes? It will require a public relations campaign on a scale that dwarfs the movement I suggested against the Special Privilege Separatists, and it will not be quick. These people need the approval of others, so they will need a conservative intelligentsia to join for this strategy to work. This strategy also requires massive PR campaigns to highlight facets of Islamofascism like the Saudi woman who was gang-raped and sentenced to 90 lashes for being with a man who was not her husband, the stoning to death of gays and adulterous women in Iran, or the recent "honor killings" in Texas. It can be done, but it has to be done via emotional appeals, not via logical argument.
4) FDR Democrats: FDR Democrats vote for Democrats because their parents voted for Democrats, and so did their grandparents, and so on. These people tend to believe that the Democrat Party is the Party of FDR, and not of George Soros, the DailyKos and MoveOn.Org. Their association with the Democrat Party is based on a picture of that Party as it once existed, not as it currently exists.
Any of these voters who pay even scant attention to the news have already noted the loony tilt their Party has acquired. They are ready to head for the hills, but they do not currently have anywhere to go. Republicans consistently fail to make the case for their policies, and to live up to their promises. These people do occasionally vote Republican for President, but only when their candidate is so obviously insane that they need to find refuge, or when there is a Republican out there making the case for conservatism. We can win these folks if we can convince them that the Democrat Party has changed from what they believe it to be. If this is combined with somebody who is not afraid to make the case for what the Republican Party is supposed to stand for, we can sweep these people in to the Party.
***********************
Finally, there are the Centrists. Centrists are generally driven by gut feelings. Note that this is not the warm, fuzzy feeling of the Compassion Fascists. It is an instinctive impression of the people involved. When somebody displays clear leadership abilities, and can make a case for what they believe, the Centrists tend to pile in to voting booths to cast a ballot for them. All that is required to get the Centrist vote is to nominate somebody who doesn't retreat every time they are attacked, and can lay out a consistent philosophy that they will follow in office.
When Republican move to the left to gather votes from the middle, they will fail. They will alienate their own base, while managing to confuse Centrists and present a less-than-convincing pitch to the FDR Democrats. What Republicans need to do to win is to present a clear, consistent case for their ideas. We learned in 2006 what happens when our Party ignores the base and goes after moderates, we should not repeat this lesson in 2008 if we want to see a non-socialist elected.
<================================+===============================>
Democrat...............................Centrist............................Republican
Pretty simple, right? It also makes election strategies simple: Move to the wings for primaries, move to the center for the general. Moreover, by moving your party as a whole to the center, you can get more votes!
However, when Republicans move to the center, it never works. Why not? The diagram suggests that moving the Republican Party to a centrist or center-left position on the spectrum ought to grab Republicans all sorts of extra votes. Yet, when Republicans have moved to the left (2006 rings a bell,) they lose, dramatically. When Republicans move to the right, as Ronald Reagan did, they win huge victories. Republicans that want to move the party to the left on questions like spending and social concerns are missing the point: Democrats will never vote for Diet Democrats, and Centrists will never vote for somebody who stands for nothing.
In order to help my fellow Republicans understand why Democrats vote the way they vote, and what can be done to steal some of these voters, I humbly offer this analysis of the four different groups of Democrats:
1) The Welfare Royalty: Welfare Kings and Queens vote for the candidate who will give them the most government money with the fewest strings attached. I include Social Security/Medicare voters, Trial Lawyers, union members and leaders, and anybody who gets an AFDC check in this category. Each one of these groups relies on Democrats for their meal ticket, at the moment, and will not abandon them until somebody offers them more money.
Why can't Republicans get the Welfare Royalty vote? If you don't have to worry about the calories (i.e. your taxes being raised,) then why drink Diet Generic Cola when they can have Generic Cola Classic? Unless Republicans abandon all spending restraint, and embark on a decades-long binge, they will never convince Welfare Royalty to vote for them. In the meantime, the base will grumble about the monetary wisdom of intoxicated sailors every time they see the budget figures, and justifiably stay home on election day.
2) The Special Privilege Separatists: The Special Privilege Separatists could be women, minorities, illegal immigrants, etc. They are members of groups that want special treatment from the government. Affirmative Action is probably the best example. It is a privileged status afforded to blacks because bad things were done to their ancestors. Illegal aliens suggest that our government is oppressive and racist because it occasionally deports people who are here illegally. Illegal aliens demand amnesty for coming here illegally, living here illegally, emptying the welfare purses nationwide, shutting down hospital emergency rooms with their demands for medical care, and for stealing Social Security Numbers and screwing up the credit of millions of people. Young women demand the right to kill unborn children so that they can avoid the inconvenience of adopting them out.
Republicans tend to believe in ideas like equality before the law, and the rule of law. Why would a working woman or a black man vote for a Party that has pledged to take away their special privileges? Why would an illegal alien vote for a Party that (might,) enforce the law and deport them? Republicans cannot get the votes from Special Privilege Separatists until there is a widespread recognition that these special privileges may not be deserved, may provoke resentment, and lead to these groups being perceived as "tokens" and unqualified for the positions they hold. We cannot grab this group immediately, but we can certainly oppose amnesty and avoid importing millions of new Democrats from Mexico.
3) The Compassion Fascists: Compassion Fascists are people who vote Democrat because of the warm, fuzzy feeling they get for doing so. Another important reason for their vote is the warm, fuzzy feeling they get from others. They perceive the Democrat Party as the Party of compassion, the Party that cares about the poor, minorities, and the environment. They parrot what they read in the New York Times and what they hear from Chris Matthews to win approval as an enlightened cosmopolitan from their fellow cocktail party attendees. Their affiliation with the Democrat Party has nothing to do with rational thought or evaluation of their positions, it is an emotional reaction to the way Democrats are perceived, and a burning desire to find acceptance.
So why do I call them Compassion Fascists? They know their beliefs are illogical and contradictory. They know that they don't live their own lives by the principles and values that the Democrats express, but they have to be able to ignore this fact to continue getting those looks of approval at the cocktail parties! Therefore, they crush whoever spouts reality at them. They club them down with implications of racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, dishonesty, murderousness, lack of moral right, etc. They use spokespeople that cannot be criticized, so that they will not be called stupid for making stupid suggestions (like the 9-11 widows, or Michael J. Fox.) They dance around questions like Madonna with a pole. They hurl food, or yell their opponents down. They shoot up the local Republican headquarters, slash tires, and hurl bricks. I have not even begun to discuss Liberal peace activists or environmentalists. (I debated with myself for a full two hours: What do I link to for these lunatics? There are so many options, I was paralyzed. I decided to continue ahead with this one, because it so effectively displays the total lack of thought on the part of these particular mental patients, and because I had other things to do.)
The only practical difference between the Nazi Brownshirts and these Democrat thugs is that these thugs are not official.
Can Republicans get these votes? It will require a public relations campaign on a scale that dwarfs the movement I suggested against the Special Privilege Separatists, and it will not be quick. These people need the approval of others, so they will need a conservative intelligentsia to join for this strategy to work. This strategy also requires massive PR campaigns to highlight facets of Islamofascism like the Saudi woman who was gang-raped and sentenced to 90 lashes for being with a man who was not her husband, the stoning to death of gays and adulterous women in Iran, or the recent "honor killings" in Texas. It can be done, but it has to be done via emotional appeals, not via logical argument.
4) FDR Democrats: FDR Democrats vote for Democrats because their parents voted for Democrats, and so did their grandparents, and so on. These people tend to believe that the Democrat Party is the Party of FDR, and not of George Soros, the DailyKos and MoveOn.Org. Their association with the Democrat Party is based on a picture of that Party as it once existed, not as it currently exists.
Any of these voters who pay even scant attention to the news have already noted the loony tilt their Party has acquired. They are ready to head for the hills, but they do not currently have anywhere to go. Republicans consistently fail to make the case for their policies, and to live up to their promises. These people do occasionally vote Republican for President, but only when their candidate is so obviously insane that they need to find refuge, or when there is a Republican out there making the case for conservatism. We can win these folks if we can convince them that the Democrat Party has changed from what they believe it to be. If this is combined with somebody who is not afraid to make the case for what the Republican Party is supposed to stand for, we can sweep these people in to the Party.
***********************
Finally, there are the Centrists. Centrists are generally driven by gut feelings. Note that this is not the warm, fuzzy feeling of the Compassion Fascists. It is an instinctive impression of the people involved. When somebody displays clear leadership abilities, and can make a case for what they believe, the Centrists tend to pile in to voting booths to cast a ballot for them. All that is required to get the Centrist vote is to nominate somebody who doesn't retreat every time they are attacked, and can lay out a consistent philosophy that they will follow in office.
When Republican move to the left to gather votes from the middle, they will fail. They will alienate their own base, while managing to confuse Centrists and present a less-than-convincing pitch to the FDR Democrats. What Republicans need to do to win is to present a clear, consistent case for their ideas. We learned in 2006 what happens when our Party ignores the base and goes after moderates, we should not repeat this lesson in 2008 if we want to see a non-socialist elected.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Why Libertarian?
I have been a Republican since I turned fourteen. What convinced me? A trip to the DMV for my Learner's Permit, followed by a trip to the insurance office to add my name to the policy. Every time I step in to that dark and depressing DMV office, I am more convinced that it was designed by the Marquis de Sade as a test of stamina. How soul-sucking can you get? Row after row of identical chairs, ponderous manuals filled with the legal minutiae of driving, half of the office's union employees sitting around and eating their lunches as the lines back out of the office and around the block. Your only hope to avoid a slow-descent in to feeble-mindedness and drooling is to manage to nap in line without falling over. When you do get up to the front of the line, your hopes build: Am I done? Could it be?!
No, you are not. You now get to chat with Surly Employee #1. SE1 is a union worker, who knows that she is paid by the hour, not by the speed and efficiency with which she does her work. She knows that you have no other option if you want to renew your license, so she does not care if you are enjoying your visit. When she finally stops chatting with her co-worker, she will bestow upon you the same look that Kings used to bestow upon people asking them for a loan from the Royal Bank. You are a nuisance, a pebble in her shoe. Her only concern is sending you where you need to go so that you will leave her presence, and she can get back to her chat. After forking over to Caesar what is Caesars (the license fee,) you will be given a gift: paperwork.
Those who manage to haul the stack of papers from the counter to their seat in one of those endless rows of identical chairs without a hernia are strong, indeed. They may be strong enough to make it through answering three, even four duplicative sets of questions that they already answered for SE1. If you finish the paperwork, you now face the wait. Re-check your paperwork all you want - you will run through it all in a minute, maybe two. You need to wait for the one person capable of operating the camera to get back from lunch. This person, having just eaten, will probably need a half-hour siesta to decompress and ready themselves for their grueling day of pressing a button. If they have not yet gone to lunch, the wait might be longer - after all, they are weak from the hunger that builds up after a full two or three hours of pressing a button. It make take them twenty, thirty minutes just to review your paperwork and tell you to stand in front of a screen.
Once before the screen, the photographer will wait for the worst possible moment to take your picture. For some people, they have their face scrunched-up as they prepare to sneeze. For me, it is the "shiny moment," where my face is at just the right angle so that the light is glinting off of my nose, and I look as oily as an Alaskan beach after the Exxon Valdeez has passed. Either that, or the "guaranteed felon" picture. This is the sort of picture that makes any police officer who sees it certain that the subject is a homicidal maniac who should be shot on sight (probably with an extra Y chromosome, too...)
After all of this, you are given a piece of plastic with your name on it, that is so easy to fake that any illegal immigrant can obtain one in fifteen minutes at a Home Depot.
This is government at work - employees guaranteed union wages who have no motivation to make your life any easier, and cannot be fired for incompetence or a refusal to actually do their jobs without months of hearings and depositions.
Insurance companies, on the other hand, know that they need to hustle to keep customers. There is rarely, if ever a line when you walk in to the well-lit, comfortable atmosphere in an insurance office. Chances are, there is water or even coffee available. Surly Employee #1 would be fired in a few hours at this office, because she might hurt business. The people who are left recognize that pleasing customers is what keeps their office open and operating, so they go the extra mile to make sure you are happy with your experience. Everything will be made as easy and pleasant as possible for you, because you have the option of going elsewhere.
Hyperbole aside, whom would you rather deal with for renewing your driver's license? The insurance company, or the DMV? Who would you trust to ensure safer roads? The people paid by the hour who cannot be fired for anything short of shooting-up the office, or the people who lose money when you have an accident?
When government steps in, you get all of the problems Liberals love to discuss with monopolies, and one additional problem: The government doesn't ever have to worry about competition, because they have guns that they can legally use against you if you try to compete. Would you want the idiots who designed the DMV to put the same union-mandated breaks and incentive structures in place for health care? If your child had leukemia, would you rather trust them to a private clinic, or to the Surly Employees of the DMV?
Many of the people in the Republican Party seem to have abandoned the idea of personal responsibility in favor of the idea of an "efficient" welfare state. They have forgotten that government can only move at the speed of legislation, that it is only as flexible as the union rules that bind the hands of managers will allow, and that no degree of regulatory oversight can produce the efficiency or the motivation to satisfy customers produced by a person risking their money for a profit.
Government should be the agent of last resort, for any purpose but administering the law, and trouncing our enemies abroad, because it will inevitably lag-behind the private sector, no matter what we ask it to do.
Everybody who has to visit the DMV knows this - why did the Republicans forget? More on this tomorrow.
No, you are not. You now get to chat with Surly Employee #1. SE1 is a union worker, who knows that she is paid by the hour, not by the speed and efficiency with which she does her work. She knows that you have no other option if you want to renew your license, so she does not care if you are enjoying your visit. When she finally stops chatting with her co-worker, she will bestow upon you the same look that Kings used to bestow upon people asking them for a loan from the Royal Bank. You are a nuisance, a pebble in her shoe. Her only concern is sending you where you need to go so that you will leave her presence, and she can get back to her chat. After forking over to Caesar what is Caesars (the license fee,) you will be given a gift: paperwork.
Those who manage to haul the stack of papers from the counter to their seat in one of those endless rows of identical chairs without a hernia are strong, indeed. They may be strong enough to make it through answering three, even four duplicative sets of questions that they already answered for SE1. If you finish the paperwork, you now face the wait. Re-check your paperwork all you want - you will run through it all in a minute, maybe two. You need to wait for the one person capable of operating the camera to get back from lunch. This person, having just eaten, will probably need a half-hour siesta to decompress and ready themselves for their grueling day of pressing a button. If they have not yet gone to lunch, the wait might be longer - after all, they are weak from the hunger that builds up after a full two or three hours of pressing a button. It make take them twenty, thirty minutes just to review your paperwork and tell you to stand in front of a screen.
Once before the screen, the photographer will wait for the worst possible moment to take your picture. For some people, they have their face scrunched-up as they prepare to sneeze. For me, it is the "shiny moment," where my face is at just the right angle so that the light is glinting off of my nose, and I look as oily as an Alaskan beach after the Exxon Valdeez has passed. Either that, or the "guaranteed felon" picture. This is the sort of picture that makes any police officer who sees it certain that the subject is a homicidal maniac who should be shot on sight (probably with an extra Y chromosome, too...)
After all of this, you are given a piece of plastic with your name on it, that is so easy to fake that any illegal immigrant can obtain one in fifteen minutes at a Home Depot.
This is government at work - employees guaranteed union wages who have no motivation to make your life any easier, and cannot be fired for incompetence or a refusal to actually do their jobs without months of hearings and depositions.
Insurance companies, on the other hand, know that they need to hustle to keep customers. There is rarely, if ever a line when you walk in to the well-lit, comfortable atmosphere in an insurance office. Chances are, there is water or even coffee available. Surly Employee #1 would be fired in a few hours at this office, because she might hurt business. The people who are left recognize that pleasing customers is what keeps their office open and operating, so they go the extra mile to make sure you are happy with your experience. Everything will be made as easy and pleasant as possible for you, because you have the option of going elsewhere.
Hyperbole aside, whom would you rather deal with for renewing your driver's license? The insurance company, or the DMV? Who would you trust to ensure safer roads? The people paid by the hour who cannot be fired for anything short of shooting-up the office, or the people who lose money when you have an accident?
When government steps in, you get all of the problems Liberals love to discuss with monopolies, and one additional problem: The government doesn't ever have to worry about competition, because they have guns that they can legally use against you if you try to compete. Would you want the idiots who designed the DMV to put the same union-mandated breaks and incentive structures in place for health care? If your child had leukemia, would you rather trust them to a private clinic, or to the Surly Employees of the DMV?
Many of the people in the Republican Party seem to have abandoned the idea of personal responsibility in favor of the idea of an "efficient" welfare state. They have forgotten that government can only move at the speed of legislation, that it is only as flexible as the union rules that bind the hands of managers will allow, and that no degree of regulatory oversight can produce the efficiency or the motivation to satisfy customers produced by a person risking their money for a profit.
Government should be the agent of last resort, for any purpose but administering the law, and trouncing our enemies abroad, because it will inevitably lag-behind the private sector, no matter what we ask it to do.
Everybody who has to visit the DMV knows this - why did the Republicans forget? More on this tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)