Isolationism is the doctrine that if we leave our enemies alone, they will have no reason to interfere with us, and will leave us alone. Isolationism can work. However, it can only work under very specific circumstances. First, we have to have sufficient firepower to beat any potential enemy. Second, we have to display sufficient willpower to use it. Third, our enemies have to have a rational fear of the consequences of our weapons being used against them and their countries.
The first point is not in doubt when we discuss the United States. We could nuke any country on Earth in to oblivion dozens of times over. We have the most powerful military in the world by far, and could invade and conquer almost any nation we chose if we were so inclined. Thankfully, we are not. I'll steal a line from Colin Powell: "We have sent men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States throughout the world in the past century to put down oppression... And did we ask for any land? No. The only land we asked for was enough land to bury our dead.."
Firepower is useless for the purposes of deterrence if your enemies believe that you lack the will to use it. Osama bin Laden himself came to believe this after the Black Hawk Down episode in Somalia, and said as much on Frontline: "[O]our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press... After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them." In other words, running away has consequences on the way people perceive us. Somalia was a minor intervention, where we had little to no interest in interfering, and invested very little pride and prestige. Iraq, on the other hand, is a big deal. If we run away, after all of these years, what will the OBL's of the world think? Just keep fighting for a few years, my fellow mujahadeen, and the infidels will run! They do not have the stamina for casualties...
This cannot be allowed to happen if the American military is going to maintain any sort of credibility as a threat in the eyes of our enemies. If isolationist sentiments win, and we run from Iraq, neither enemies nor allies will fear or respect us for decades. We will be the new French.
The third, and perhaps most important factor, is that the enemy has to have a rational fear of the consequences if we unleash our firepower on their country/group. In other words: Our enemies have to want to live. The Soviet Union never attacked us with atom bombs primarily because it's leaders wanted to live, and because they knew that they would be the leaders of a pile of slag at the end of a nuclear exchange. Al Qaeda suicide bombers are motivated by something different: They want to die as martyrs, and believe that they are fulfilling a religious duty by blowing up innocent civilians. Moreover, they tend not to worry if their fellow Muslims are killed in response because they too will go on to be honored in Heaven as martyrs.
How do you deter somebody who does not fear their death or the death of others? You don't. You stop them beforehand, by pursuing the people who fund, train and equip them.
Of course, isolationists regularly suggest that the reason Islamofascists are mad at the United States is because we are over in their part of the world interfering with their countries. This is total nonsense. As Daniel Pipes noted in this post, the terrorists from bin Laden to the man who slaughtered Theo van Gogh have made their goals and motivations clear: They want to restore the caliphate, and submit the world to the rule of Islam. Those who do not submit will be killed.
There is no negotiation with people who follow this sort of ideology. What do we offer? We let them kill half of us and leave the rest of us alone? Islamofascism is driven by a religious obligation to convert the world, and kill those who refuse. Furthermore, they don't care if they or anybody else die in the process. They will not leave us alone until we are either dead or praying to Allah.
Knowing that they will continue to pursue us, we have to recognize a few realities if we decide to retreat inside the walls of Fortress America. If we retreat, we cede the initiative to the terrorists. We let them train and plot in private, and decide when and how to strike. We will have to prepare everywhere to stop them, and add layer upon layer of security to our daily lives. Expect regular pat-downs, metal detectors and bag searches at every bus and train station. Expect a rectal probe before you get on a plane. Expect more confiscations of eyeglass screwdrivers and fuzzy handcuffs.
If you are a Libertarian because you want to see liberty expand, ask yourself: How can liberty expand in an environment like that? How can a nation that is no-longer feared across the globe, and still pursued by its enemies here at home ever hope to increase freedom in the face of constant danger from an enemy that will not let us run away? In my mind, it can't. The only logical answer is to pursue the terrorists abroad, destroy their safe-havens, freeze their bank accounts, listen to their phone calls, assassinate their leaders and bomb their training camps to dust.
Friday, February 22, 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...
Monday, February 4, 2008
Vote Hillary '08: If McCain Wins
John McCain believes in amnesty, and will not rule out amnesty in the event that he is elected. He claims that he will build "the goddamn fence" at the border, but is heading an effort to avoid funding it. He believes that government should regulate every corner of our economy by capping carbon emissions. He joined liberals in giving the government the authority to regulate political speech. He led the Gang of Fourteen, demanding that Republicans nominate judges that do not wear their conservatism on their sleeves. He opposes organizations run to produce a profit rather than for the purpose of patriotism. He opposes tax cuts that target those that actually pay taxes. He considers evangelical leaders to be "agents of intolerance," and accuses them of turning religion in to business. Finally, McCain opposes and supports oil independence and ANWR in apparently equal measure.
Aside from these minor disagreements, he considers himself a Reagan Republican. This, after a paragraph greener than Al Gore. (Kudos, to my Dad for that line...)
In my previous posts, I have strongly urged libertarians and Libertarians alike not to vote for a third party and to examine the values of both parties, and ask which party values individual responsibility and freedom. Both of these posts assume that the candidate for the Republican Party actually represents a Republican.
John McCain does not. He is a Democrat who somehow ended up with an 'R' after his name. He is diametrically opposed to everything that a classic liberal values and believes. In the event that today's election produces a McCain nomination, I would strongly urge all libertarian Republicans and Libertarians in general to either vote Libertarian or for the Democrats.
Why? If McCain is nominated, there is no Republican nominee. However, Republicans will inevitably get the blame for whatever nonsense McCain pulls. If Hillary is elected, the Democrats get the blame, and there is still the possibility of a Reagan in 2012.
The Republican Party is, for the foreseeable future, the only viable political coalition that can get our ideas implemented. By the time McCain is done wreaking his havoc, that Party will revert to the permanent underdog status it enjoyed from 1938-1980. America cannot afford another 42 years of socialism. Vote Hillary, or vote Libertarian. Either option is better than letting this madman get anywhere near the White House.
Aside from these minor disagreements, he considers himself a Reagan Republican. This, after a paragraph greener than Al Gore. (Kudos, to my Dad for that line...)
In my previous posts, I have strongly urged libertarians and Libertarians alike not to vote for a third party and to examine the values of both parties, and ask which party values individual responsibility and freedom. Both of these posts assume that the candidate for the Republican Party actually represents a Republican.
John McCain does not. He is a Democrat who somehow ended up with an 'R' after his name. He is diametrically opposed to everything that a classic liberal values and believes. In the event that today's election produces a McCain nomination, I would strongly urge all libertarian Republicans and Libertarians in general to either vote Libertarian or for the Democrats.
Why? If McCain is nominated, there is no Republican nominee. However, Republicans will inevitably get the blame for whatever nonsense McCain pulls. If Hillary is elected, the Democrats get the blame, and there is still the possibility of a Reagan in 2012.
The Republican Party is, for the foreseeable future, the only viable political coalition that can get our ideas implemented. By the time McCain is done wreaking his havoc, that Party will revert to the permanent underdog status it enjoyed from 1938-1980. America cannot afford another 42 years of socialism. Vote Hillary, or vote Libertarian. Either option is better than letting this madman get anywhere near the White House.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
What will voting for a third party accomplish?
When voters feel disenfranchised by the Big Two, they tend to either stay home or vote for a third party. A lot of libertarians became Libertarians because they got tired of Republican moralizing and Democrat socialism. However, this behavior is counterproductive. Voting Libertarian almost never results in electing a candidate, or a workable majority in any legislative body. Voting Libertarian does not send a message. Perhaps most damagingly, voting Libertarian generally benefits the left. If libertarians and Libertarians want their voices heard, they need to pick a party, and vote en masse.
How have the Libertarians fared in elections? Libertarians have had some success in the past at the level of state legislatures, getting 12 of their members elected, but there are not currently any Libertarian state legislators serving. Most of the Libertarian candidates in office were either appointed to their positions, or were elected to nonpartisan offices. The largest number of Libertarians that have even held public office was 311, after the 2002 elections. However, these numbers obscure some important facts: Libertarians have never elected a Congressperson, Senator or President. More important, perhaps, is the fact that outside of a few small towns, Libertarians do not hold electoral majorities anywhere in the country.
Libertarians who run as Republicans have been elected, but none who run as candidates for the Libertarian Party. In fact, the Republicans have an official Republican Liberty Caucus (or get the condensed version here.) The big names in the RLC include Ron Paul, John Shadegg, Jeff Flake and, prior to his resignation, Mark Foley. These guys get elected because they are running within an established party that agrees with them on almost everything.
How about sending a message with your vote for the Libertarians that you are tired of the same old left-right tug of war and want something different? It's a nice theory, but it doesn't work. As I mentioned in an earlier post, both political parties view the political "middle" as the ground where votes can be found. Consider these numbers, and you will see why:
Now, think about where the three third party candidates fit on the political spectrum that frames the thinking of party leadership. Badnarik would probably be placed on the right side of the spectrum, whereas Nader and Cobb would go on the left. In order to capture the votes of Libertarians, Republicans would have to make a real lunge to the right, and actually stick to their belief in limited government. In order to capture Greens and Nader voters, Democrats would have to lunge left. In the process, both parties would have to abandon the political "middle," which makes up approximately 30% of voters. Why would any Republican in his right mind lurch to the right to capture a portion of .38% of the voting public when they can shift left, and vie for a large portion of that 30%?
As I stated in the previous post, I think the idea that Republicans can gather more votes by going mushy and moving left is absurd, but it really is how party leaders think. So far as the RNC is concerned, a Libertarian voter is simply not worth pursuing because it will lose them far more voters in the middle.
Moreover, voting Libertarian sends an ambiguous message, especially in a time of war. Are you voting Libertarian because you are opposed to Iraq, because you want drugs legalized, or because you want to vote for somebody who really believes in limited government? If you want to send a message, write a letter. Voting Libertarian does not send a message that can be interpreted with any certainty, so it might as well be encrypted.
Finally, ask yourself what will happen if you vote Libertarian in a close race? Consider these results from Florida in 2000:
According to the FEC's Official Election Results.
537 votes decided the 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush. That number amounts to 0.009% of the total votes cast in Florida. Had the weather been slightly different, had phone banks gone down in a precinct or two, had a few more polling places had difficulties with ballots or machines, the entire election could have gone a different way. Now take a look at the various third party candidates, and you will see why the Dems were so furious with Nader after the 2000 election. Had those 97,421 votes gone to Gore, he would have been elected overwhelmingly. The votes cast by Libertarians for Harry Browne could have given George W. Bush a similar, if smaller, lead.
The Libertarian candidate for President will not be elected any time soon. Knowing this, are you still content to cast your ballot for a person you know will lose, and do so overwhelmingly? Would it be better to cast a vote on a sure loser, or to vote for the party that agrees with you more often than not?
I will only ask the questions, the answers are for you to provide. However, I would urge you to review this post before you do so.
UPDATE: Apparently, the Libertarians held 600 appointed and elected positions in government as of 2003. I think this is new material for their 'History' page, but I may have simply missed it when I wrote the post. Either way, I got it wrong, and I apologize to both of my readers.
How have the Libertarians fared in elections? Libertarians have had some success in the past at the level of state legislatures, getting 12 of their members elected, but there are not currently any Libertarian state legislators serving. Most of the Libertarian candidates in office were either appointed to their positions, or were elected to nonpartisan offices. The largest number of Libertarians that have even held public office was 311, after the 2002 elections. However, these numbers obscure some important facts: Libertarians have never elected a Congressperson, Senator or President. More important, perhaps, is the fact that outside of a few small towns, Libertarians do not hold electoral majorities anywhere in the country.
Libertarians who run as Republicans have been elected, but none who run as candidates for the Libertarian Party. In fact, the Republicans have an official Republican Liberty Caucus (or get the condensed version here.) The big names in the RLC include Ron Paul, John Shadegg, Jeff Flake and, prior to his resignation, Mark Foley. These guys get elected because they are running within an established party that agrees with them on almost everything.
How about sending a message with your vote for the Libertarians that you are tired of the same old left-right tug of war and want something different? It's a nice theory, but it doesn't work. As I mentioned in an earlier post, both political parties view the political "middle" as the ground where votes can be found. Consider these numbers, and you will see why:
| Candidate | Party | Votes | % of Total |
| George W. Bush | Republican | 62,040,610 | 50.73 |
| John F. Kerry | Democrat | 59,028,444 | 40.27 |
| Ralph Nader | Independent | 465,650 | 0.38 |
| Michael Badnarik | Libertarian | 397,265 | 0.32 |
| David Cobb | Green | 119,859 | 0.096 |
Now, think about where the three third party candidates fit on the political spectrum that frames the thinking of party leadership. Badnarik would probably be placed on the right side of the spectrum, whereas Nader and Cobb would go on the left. In order to capture the votes of Libertarians, Republicans would have to make a real lunge to the right, and actually stick to their belief in limited government. In order to capture Greens and Nader voters, Democrats would have to lunge left. In the process, both parties would have to abandon the political "middle," which makes up approximately 30% of voters. Why would any Republican in his right mind lurch to the right to capture a portion of .38% of the voting public when they can shift left, and vie for a large portion of that 30%?
As I stated in the previous post, I think the idea that Republicans can gather more votes by going mushy and moving left is absurd, but it really is how party leaders think. So far as the RNC is concerned, a Libertarian voter is simply not worth pursuing because it will lose them far more voters in the middle.
Moreover, voting Libertarian sends an ambiguous message, especially in a time of war. Are you voting Libertarian because you are opposed to Iraq, because you want drugs legalized, or because you want to vote for somebody who really believes in limited government? If you want to send a message, write a letter. Voting Libertarian does not send a message that can be interpreted with any certainty, so it might as well be encrypted.
Finally, ask yourself what will happen if you vote Libertarian in a close race? Consider these results from Florida in 2000:
| Candidate | Party | Votes | % of Total |
| George W. Bush | Republican | 2,912,790 | 48.847 |
| Algore | Democrat | 2,912,253 | 48.838 |
| Ralph Nader | Green | 97,421 | 1.634 |
| Pat Buchannan | Reform | 17,484 | 0.293 |
| Harry Browne | Libertarian | 16,415 | 0.275 |
537 votes decided the 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush. That number amounts to 0.009% of the total votes cast in Florida. Had the weather been slightly different, had phone banks gone down in a precinct or two, had a few more polling places had difficulties with ballots or machines, the entire election could have gone a different way. Now take a look at the various third party candidates, and you will see why the Dems were so furious with Nader after the 2000 election. Had those 97,421 votes gone to Gore, he would have been elected overwhelmingly. The votes cast by Libertarians for Harry Browne could have given George W. Bush a similar, if smaller, lead.
The Libertarian candidate for President will not be elected any time soon. Knowing this, are you still content to cast your ballot for a person you know will lose, and do so overwhelmingly? Would it be better to cast a vote on a sure loser, or to vote for the party that agrees with you more often than not?
I will only ask the questions, the answers are for you to provide. However, I would urge you to review this post before you do so.
UPDATE: Apparently, the Libertarians held 600 appointed and elected positions in government as of 2003. I think this is new material for their 'History' page, but I may have simply missed it when I wrote the post. Either way, I got it wrong, and I apologize to both of my readers.
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?
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Fred Thompson: We barely knew ye.
When I heard Fred Thompson might get in to the race, I almost had to change my shorts.
Fred Thompson was a man who had a uniformly conservative voting record that spanned his whole time in office. With the sole exception of his vote for McCain-Feingold, Thompson was essentially the perfect candidate. He had experience speaking in the Senate, as well as his acting experience, and I was sure that if anybody could make the case for conservative policies, it was Fred.
Unfortunately, Fred Thompson ran a lackluster campaign, and put all of his eggs in one basket: South Carolina. His speeches were uninspiring, and his campaign ads were full of empty rhetoric. His debate performances improved towards the end, but most were so halfhearted that he probably turned more people off with them than he won.
I have seen Fred Thompson give a good speech. I know he can do it. Why he did not do so during the campaign, I cannot say.
Were I conspiracy-minded, I would suggest that he was a spoiler for McCain, intended to draw support from Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee in the key early contests. However, I honestly can't bring myself to accuse Sen. Thompson of doing this. He's a good man, and given that his record is almost diametrically opposed to McCain's, I can't imagine that Fred would want to see him elected.
Que sera sera. Good luck, Senator, in whatever you pursue next.
Looking to the future, good luck Governor Romney! You are now the last conservative standing. I suppose I would turn out to vote if Rudy gets the nomination, but McCain or Huckabee? Not a chance. In the event that either one of those two R.I.N.O.'s gets the nod, I will be interested to see how many conservatives feel the same way...
Fred Thompson was a man who had a uniformly conservative voting record that spanned his whole time in office. With the sole exception of his vote for McCain-Feingold, Thompson was essentially the perfect candidate. He had experience speaking in the Senate, as well as his acting experience, and I was sure that if anybody could make the case for conservative policies, it was Fred.
Unfortunately, Fred Thompson ran a lackluster campaign, and put all of his eggs in one basket: South Carolina. His speeches were uninspiring, and his campaign ads were full of empty rhetoric. His debate performances improved towards the end, but most were so halfhearted that he probably turned more people off with them than he won.
I have seen Fred Thompson give a good speech. I know he can do it. Why he did not do so during the campaign, I cannot say.
Were I conspiracy-minded, I would suggest that he was a spoiler for McCain, intended to draw support from Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee in the key early contests. However, I honestly can't bring myself to accuse Sen. Thompson of doing this. He's a good man, and given that his record is almost diametrically opposed to McCain's, I can't imagine that Fred would want to see him elected.
Que sera sera. Good luck, Senator, in whatever you pursue next.
Looking to the future, good luck Governor Romney! You are now the last conservative standing. I suppose I would turn out to vote if Rudy gets the nomination, but McCain or Huckabee? Not a chance. In the event that either one of those two R.I.N.O.'s gets the nod, I will be interested to see how many conservatives feel the same way...
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)