The purpose of this essay is to offer practical suggestions for prospective Conservative candidates, considering entering the lists for the coming 2006 Primaries. While this entire web site--with the partial exception of our Literary Corner--is intended to serve as a resource center for Conservative youth, willing to challenge the prevailing Socialist/Egalitarian dogma in the schools and on the campuses of America and other Western Nations, many of the pieces may be too keyed to that parochial purpose to be ideal for the sometimes even more emotionally driven battles on the political hustings. This article will be campaign specific in purpose, although that very "specific" may require it to be a bit more generalized in the focus on certain particular issues. It will also endeavor to be less strident in tone. In dealing with the public at large, it is always well to remember that the most successful American Conservative politician, in recent decades, was Ronald Reagan who disarmed many a would-be foe with an engaging smile.
A brief note, before discussing those particular issues: Regardless of one's orientation, there is a relative benefit--relative to not being consistent--for the candidate who takes stands on issues that are consistent with an underlying philosophy of the role and proper direction of Government. There is also just such a relative benefit to being seen as having the courage of one's convictions--personal ideological integrity. These considerations can not be too strongly urged, because many candidates, when actually finding themselves under fire, will appear to equivocate in ways that send a very negative message, as to their true character, to potential voters. Once a Conservative decides to run, he or she should recognize that there is no gain in trying to hide those beliefs, which may appear to be less popular. That merely gives one's foes more incentive to dig them out, while appearing to have discovered a character flaw in the process.
On the other hand, the art of politics is in large measure the art of controlling which issues people discuss. The candidate should not try to hide his beliefs, but he certainly should not emphasize those beliefs which will not resonate well with his constituency. Indeed, one of the strongest practical reasons for not trying to hide beliefs is that that is the surest way to emphasize them. And that brings up another point, which should be considered. It is sometimes possible to trap the "Liberal" media into providing a wealth of free publicity, by appearing to seek to avoid a particular issue where the candidate's position is one readily salable to the public, yet not so perceived by hostile reporters.
Another general comment, before we look at specific issues and consider specific groups of voters. Every person is a mixture of interests and proclivities. The fact that your opponent has an issue, apparently sufficient to guarantee a wide measure of support from a particular element of the constituent population, is never reason to "write off" that element in your campaign, or to compromise your own consistency by trying to match his appeal over that same issue. There are almost always other issues, where views more consistent with your beliefs and interests may appeal to many of the same people. Understanding and identifying such issues requires both an understanding of how various segments of the public are "wrapt" and on developing as comprehensive a perspective on the universe of possible issues as possible. This essay is intended to help in that regard.
A solid familiarity with the Constitution of the United States and with the Declaration of Independence, both read and understood in their full context rather than--as is all too usual--by accessing isolated passages taken out of context, should suggest many very useful arguments for the Conservative position, as well as many issues which might otherwise never even occur to one. In addition, we believe that many other articles at this web site may be helpful. While written more for the academic than political debate, and slightly different in tone, the underlying issues are really the same.
Finally, while the Reagan election ushered in a period where most prospective Conservative candidates considered the Republican Party to be their political home, the Rove driven policies of the Bush Administration have clearly ended such a near monopoly on Conservative recruits. While your host is, indeed, a registered Republican; at this web site, we put the interests of America first. We offer only a warm and friendly welcome, a "God Speed," to any Conservative Democrat--or prospective Third Party candidate--who finds our arguments helpful in promoting the American cause.
Immigration is clearly both the best Conservative issue for Federal Office seekers in 2006 and one of the most dangerous. It is best, indeed essential to most patriotic Americans, because the virtually unrestricted flow across our Southern border--and via other channels--is a threat to the continuity of traditional American culture and an immediate problem for local law enforcement and public education across the continental United States. That influx also poises serious security threats, both general and long-term--and particular as to the present context of the "War on Terror." Yet, handled clumsily, it can be a dangerous issue, because two generations of American students have been indoctrinated in the ideologically driven pseudo-science, which treats all branches of humanity as interchangeable. (Those, thus conditioned, may seriously consider the inevitable cries of "racism," "bigotry" and "xenophobia," from the organized Left.)
Yet most rooted Americans, today, are concerned over the unprotected border. In that sense--as well as in those mentioned above--immigration is a must issue. Still, one has to be prepared to encounter and counter that egalitarian indoctrination before one begins to discuss the issue. The correct approach, to formulating an immigration policy, is as a positive affirmation of the duty to preserve one's country for its own people; an unapologetic affirmation that an immigration policy must serve our interests, not those of any foreign people, however admirable. The wrong way is to preach hatred or disdain for the Mexican Mestizo, or any other particular group. It is not necessary to condemn the Mestizo, as a type, to suggest that an open border is a terrible mistake. By contrast, the following easily supportable arguments may each be employed successfully:
1. It makes absolutely no sense to allow illegal entrants to enter or remain. That can only undermine respect for law among Americans generally, and particularly among those of a similar background, who came here legally.
2. It makes no sense to bring, or allow, in large numbers of unskilled or only semi-skilled labor--legally or illegally--in an age when technology continues to reduce the need for almost all such job categories.
3. It makes no sense to bring in large numbers of immigrants, not easily assimilable into the ongoing societies of the American people. The problems in schools, alone, should make this obvious. Problems with internal security--not only the probability of would-be terrorists sneaking in amidst the flood of job seekers--should be even more obvious. People, who have no historic reason to give their loyalty to established communities of well rooted Americans, could be useful in a wide variety of ways to those who wish to disrupt those rooted communities. Even more important, yet, is the fact that most of us want to preserve our cultural heritage, not homogenize it into something very different.
4. The Constitution focuses the specific duties of an American Government towards clear and specific purposes: "In Order to . . . insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Yet, again, the first duty of any Government is to preserve the continuity of its own people. You do not insult other people by striving to preserve your own. There is nothing unfriendly or mean spirited in such pursuit. One may wish the peoples of Mexico and Guatemala, for example, well, and still recognize that theirs are quite different cultures; cultures reflecting the unique characteristics of their respective peoples--hopefully, for their sake, without the neurotic compulsions, which so afflict American "Liberals."
5. America is no longer the wide open land, which the Founding Fathers saw before them, when they embraced liberal immigration policies. Virtually every major urban area suffers from some form of traffic gridlock on a daily basis. The fact that we still have large open spaces, where people can still reflect and nourish their spirits, is no reason to further impact the already over-crowded conditions that most of us live and work in, day by day. And no rational person would want to see more of those open spaces overrun by expanding urban squalor. East Los Angeles is not the model for a future, anyone should pursue.
6. We are already depleting many of our most important natural resources. Sharing dwindling supplies with millions of new residents makes no sense--none at all.
7. One final note--a reality check, if you prefer--to the honorable White Conservative: America is still troubled by problems growing out of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century practice of bringing in peoples of another race, to "do jobs that we did not want to do ourselves." While guilt afflicted "Liberals" might argue that those troubles are deserved, that we should never have accepted or embraced slavery; that is hardly a basis for making sound policy for the future. The reality is that many of the descendants of those originally brought in, against their will, are unemployed, living dismal lives--all the more dismal by reason of dependence upon Government. Would it not be only fair to make certain that there are enough jobs available to get such folk off of Welfare, before we allow large numbers of new, non-White immigrants, to come here to compete with those descendants of that earlier experiment? Of course, it would only be in our interest to stop the present flow. But would it not, also, be only fair?
While the immediate impact of a budget deficit incurred by a central Government may not be perfectly analogous to that from the consumer debt incurred by an individual family, the basic reality is that neither Government nor family makes real progress by going more deeply into debt. No one spends themselves into prosperity. Of course, it is also important to consider on just what either spends. A sound investment should, in time, produce a return that justifies that investment, even where at least part of the funds invested were obtained from borrowing. But there are varied types and measures of "return." As it is with individuals, so, in a slightly different form, it is with Governments.
When a Conservative candidate, today, attacks the inordinate deficits, he is apt to be reminded that President Reagan also incurred large deficits. Such an argument is intended to mute, or at least take much of the momentum out of an attack on the present Administration's reckless spending. But a closer look at the dynamics involved in each case will quickly restore one's certitude, both as to the moral rectitude of the Reagan Administration, and as to an ongoing need to raise the issue of excessive Federal spending at every opportunity.
While Reagan advocated, and articulated, the reasons for reducing American dependence on big Government in our daily affairs; there remained too many "Liberals" in Congress to allow termination of the previously established Federal involvement in such basically local areas of concern as civilian education, housing and health care. But the continuing Federal intrusions into such domestic affairs were not the cause for the increased deficits. Nor was the Reagan tax cut, the major factor. No! The Reagan deficits were far more analogous to the private business that borrows money to invest in a source for future income. By rebuilding American Military capability, we not only protected our immediate future, we escalated the arms race, at the right moment, to a level to which the Socialist economic structure of our enemy could not rise. The result was the collapse of Communism in Europe! The future savings from that Cold War Victory, alone, were sufficient to allow the Clinton Administration to achieve huge surpluses, without any need to go back to the higher pre-Reagan tax rates.
But the point, now, is not that the second term Clinton surpluses were really attributable to the wise leadership of Ronald Reagan. We believe that they were. The relevant concern, however, is that the Conservative candidate understand that the Bush Administration's decision to commit exorbitant funds in order to increase an intrusive Federal role in the domestic affairs of the American people, is a 180 degree deviation from the Reagan policy. In place of the avowed Reagan effort to shrink dependence on Government, the present Administration has pushed programs in both education and health care, which will greatly expand a Federal role. In the aftermath of the New Orleans disaster, the President responded to Leftist propaganda (which accused him of not doing enough) with an incredible $200 Billion program to not only rebuild New Orleans at Federal expense, but to attempt to improve the job skills of the New Orleans poor with what sounded very much like an effort to revive Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society."
The potential candidate is referred to Chapter 28 of the online version of the Conservative Debate Handbook, linked below, for background considerations as to why Federal involvement in local public school education remains a very bad idea; and to Chapter 20 for background on Medicare questions, which should go into a realistic evaluation of the new prescription drug entitlement, about to come into play. In discussing these issues, the candidate needs to be sensitive to the emotional factors, which the proponents have played upon in promoting these concepts. That means, for one thing, avoiding strident tones and concentrating on thoughtful analysis. Prepare yourself to calmly point out the reasons why Federal involvement may be counter-productive--even to some of the stated objectives of the proponents. Getting people to actually think about the 'pros and cons' will neutralize much of the hysteria, and leave listeners more willing to consider a broader Conservative approach.
While you are not likely to convince a group of never married 75 year olds, that the new Federal subsidy of their prescription drugs is a bad thing, being able to discuss the issue--with compassionate tones, of course--even before such a group, may be the key to winning support among other segments of the population. While with those 75 year olds, who do have beloved grandchildren, you should have a legitimate shot at winning them over, by discussing some of the issues developed in the above cited Chapter 20. Of course, your real appeal to the elderly must be in an unapologetic defense of traditional American values. Very few, properly addressed, will reject you solely on the basis of a single issue.
In opposing Federal Aid to education, you have an issue more clearly advantageous with all age groups. The key factors, there?
a. The Constitution conveys no roll to the Federal Government over civilian education (nor, of course, over health care, housing or job training).
b. Federal mandates for local education, whether funded or unfunded, force a diversion of personnel--and local funds--to issues of compliance. In this, they are absolutely counter-productive. Layers of bureaucracy appeal only to potential bureaucrats.
c. Every child is different. Clearly, the educational needs of children are best met in local situations, where a teacher has maximum freedom to alter or adopt the curriculum to the particular idiosyncrasies of each child. There is no efficient way that such a concept can be Federally directed.
d. The idea of Federally mandated (as opposed to measured) standards, in subjects capable of ideological manipulation, is too close to the totalitarian concepts of the despotic Socialist regimes in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, to be seriously considered in the American Union of sovereign States. There are very sound reasons for variance in State standards. The States were settled by different folk, who had different priorities. Freedom loving Americans have always recognized those idiosyncrasies as legitimate expressions of the people involved.
The President's promise to fully restore New Orleans at Federal expense, raises a whole host of issues, which can hardly be ignored by a Conservative candidate for Federal office. Merely reflecting on the unexpected rash of additional hurricanes since Katrina can only put emphasis--and then some--on the folly of this commitment. If the Federal Government can spend $200,000,000,000 on restoring New Orleans and for special training for its slum dwellers--a patently Socialistic idea--how can it ignore the claims of the next city to be devastated by a natural disaster? The issue must be faced. Allowed to drift out of the news, it may not seem a necessary or obvious one. But if Medicare Prescription Drug coverage is not the final straw that 'breaks the Camel's back,' the New Orleans precedent well could be. Remember, Government does not create wealth, it can only tax or borrow the wealth that others create--and that wealth is not without limits.
Moreover, while not itself necessarily a desirable campaign issue, the Conservative candidate needs to at least privately recognize that the excessive Federal spending of today does not reflect real leadership on the part of this Administration, but rather the lack of it. In each of the most egregious examples, the Administration has reacted to a storm of propaganda from the Left. The pattern may not have been clear initially, but after almost five years, it is impossible to overlook. The Administration's embrace of the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit was not mere misguided altruism. The Democrats had long assailed Republicans as a threat to existing Medicare benefits. Conservative Republicans had fought the original program under Lyndon Johnson. The issue was a phoney one in 1996, yet it was considered on the basis of very superficial analysis to have played a role in the Dole defeat. The Rove advised Bush promotion of a gigantic extension of Medicare was intended to take a long standing issue away from the Democrats--an intellectually shallow, disaster begging, putting politics before principle.
Of course, the response should have been to hit back on other issues, where the former Democratic Administration was in a very awkward position with respect to what was important to older voters. But Karl Rove reacts. He has a defective understanding of the concept of leadership. A similar example of reacting to an attack, without showing any understanding of the real issues involved--or how to change the focus of an adverse attack--was in the way President Bush distanced himself from Trent Lott, when the Democratic Left assailed Lott for praising the late Strom Thurmond at the latter's 100th Birthday party. (We discussed that whole situation, at the time, in an essay at this web site, easily accessed off the menu at the Conservative Intelligence Center, below.) However, that reaction to enemy political fire, while unfortunate, was not a budget buster.
The clearest example of the Administration's tendency to react rather than to lead, came in New Orleans, as we have already mentioned, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. We have dealt with that situation in far more detail in our feature for this past October--below. The incredible proposed expenditures are the point here. And the Conservative devoted to fiscal responsibility needs to understand, and where appropriate to articulate, the danger in allowing opposing propaganda to coerce reckless, budget busting, appropriations. In articulating that point, the Republican candidate need not go into our analysis of the Administration's propensity to react, rather than to lead, in a Republican Primary. Sound policy is the issue, not the personal defects of other Republicans.
The Conservative candidate for Federal office in a Republican Primary, in the coming year, may have a Primary opponent who seeks to prove his enthusiastic support for the President's agenda. The Conservative candidate in any other venue will far more likely have an opponent who seeks to find fault with the Administration in every way that he can. Neither "knee jerk" support, nor "knee jerk" opposition can possibly be in the interests of a Conservative candidate, in any venue. Intellectual integrity coupled with demonstrated analytic ability, directed at real issues, should always be the Conservative candidate's approach.
Honesty truly is the best policy; and truth is always the Conservative's strongest weapon. To take a stand purely to oppose or support someone else is to compromise that integrity, which is far more than an abstract virtue. It is essential to one's own morale. If you always do what is right, you will feel a confidence that no other "approach" can ever approach. And the issue over the Bush tax cuts is not an issue over one's impression of the President. The issue goes to what is a fair level of taxation. And to the Conservative, any change which reduces the burden on the productive citizen, both in terms of reducing the total tax take, and in reducing the higher marginal rates, which penalize success, is a step towards a fairer level of taxation.
But, while we believe that the President should be applauded for his tax cuts, this can not possibly excuse the previously discussed fiscal irresponsibility, which jeopardizes the value of our money, the security of our savings, and reverses the whole concept of trying to pass on something better to the next generation. The sad truth is that the reduced burden from lower tax rates has been more than replaced with a taking by deception! There really is no "free lunch" here, and what is not paid for by current revenues is paid for by borrowing against the future. It is important that the Conservative candidate, in a coming primary, understand just what that means in economic terms, and the social consequences of the economic factors involved.
Deficit financing of unproductive spending--that is spending which does not contribute to the citizens' accumulation of capital resources--has much the same harmful effect as excessive taxation on an economy. Those who consider Keynesian economics to be a cure for actual economic problems, simply do not understand what Keynesian economics were intended to accomplish. (We will not go into that here, as it is probably not a good subject for any side on the political hustings. It is discussed in Chapters 14 and 16, of our Debate Handbook.) Yet the point, here, is not to rebuke past error. The Conservative candidate needs to understand some of the ways that deficit financing for such controversial programs as Federally funded drug usage, Federal meddling in local education, fighting AIDS in Africa, promoting Democracy in the Third World (including rebuilding Iraq with our funds, rather than borrowing against their future oil revenues), rebuilding New Orleans slum areas, etc., are as much a taking of the real assets of productive Americans, as are Federal income and inheritance taxes. To the extent that this is not readily perceived by the public, they involve a taking by deception. There are many aspects to this:
1. If, and when, the debt incurred is paid, there must either be a tax increase or a limitation on what the Government has available for other, Constitutionally authorized purposes. The length of time between incurrence and payment will determine who, effectively, pays what part of the cost; but whether paid ever or never, there is a cost that will be paid in one form or another.
2. Apart from the question of eventual payment, there is always an inflationary effect from major deficit financing. It may sometimes be masked by other factors that effect prices, but the dynamic of borrowing money by the sale of bonds and bills through the banking system, coupled with the ability of banks to increase their own lending based upon their holding of Government issued collateral, enables an inflation of the total supply of money and money substitutes, without any corresponding increase in the total of goods and services for which that money may be spent. This inevitable upward pressure on the price structure will amount, among other more subtle effects, to a taking of a part of the buying power of individual savings, and a reduction of the buying power of those on fixed incomes.
3. While there may be a corresponding deflationary effect, if the debt is paid off; that can also have a negative impact on other individuals, depending on their circumstances--still no "free lunch," just interference with the optimum flows of productive effort and commitment.
4. Quite apart from the effect of deficit financing in taking from the productive, in the ways accomplished by increasing or decreasing the supply of money, at various phases in the cycle of borrowing, payment or repudiation (which has happened, not only in other lands, but in America in 1934, with respect to the Gold Bonds); there are other forms of "taking" inherent in programs such as Medicare Drug coverage and the proposed rebuilding of the New Orleans slums. In Chapter 20 of the Debate Handbook, we discuss the enormous increase in the percentage of the total Gross Domestic Product of the United States, which now goes for Health Services, as compared to what obtained before the inauguration of the original program in 1965--as well as the severe distortions in the type of services available, when the Government subsidizes the care of a particular segment of the population. In Chapter 28, we discuss a parallel diversion of resources in connection with any Federal involvement in local education.
Manifestly, any Federally inspired diversion of resources will cost those whose medical costs are not subsidized, by bidding up the cost of certain services (an inevitable effect of increased demand), while causing a corresponding rise in the cost of other services (an inevitable effect of reduced supply), which are simply less available by reason of the fact that those who would ordinarily supply same, are drawn to the Federal subsidy spigot (as providers to a subsidized clientele). This will be no less obvious, in other aspects of the economy, from the projected expenditures over New Orleans. The brutal reality is this, that whether the Federal Government plays Santa Claus to those who have produced no wealth to obtain the benefits, provided, from tax revenues or from borrowed funds, there is an additional hidden cost in the dislocation and distortion of the supply and demand (and thus cost) factors effecting all other participants in the economy.
Now consider the effect of the precedents being established; that we have an aging population; that Hurricane Katrina is hardly likely to be the last great natural disaster of the present era; that we are encouraging a sense of entitlement, already out of control, among the least productive; that we allow universal suffrage, even among those on a public dole, seeking to vote themselves greater benefits, and the picture should certainly be a wake up call for every productive citizen, who cares about his future--and the future of coming generations. The tax cuts were a welcome, if temporary, "bone" to an overtaxed work force. They did not deal with the real problem, which is a Government trying to be all things to all people.
The right of the American citizen to keep and use firearms has always been considered one of the most basic--if not the foundational right, which protects all other rights--throughout our history. Clearly a staunch defense of the American's right to keep and bear arms is important to any Conservative candidate, not only because it is so important to the survival of a free, individualistic, society in every State, but also because it is truly a defining issue to a large segment of the Conservative base. What is more, once one really understands why the issue is so important to so many, one will have achieved a far better insight into fundamental concepts that relate directly to many other issues and the enduring values of American society.
Recognition of the natural right of a citizen to arm himself is basic to the concept of a people free to enjoy the Blessings of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing can be more fundamental to life than the right of self-defense, and no rationalization can make it acceptable that a criminal should have the choice of weapon in a confrontation with a citizen. Nor is it ever acceptable, that a citizen should have to wait for the Police to arrive, before he may defend his family and his property. And let there never be an apology for the use of force in defense of the latter. One's property reflects the fruits of individual labor, whether that property was accumulated in one or over many generations. To postulate that people may pursue happiness and material benefit, but suggest that they may not use sufficient force to defend what they have legally obtained, is to invert one's values and put the imaginary rights of the criminal above those of the law abiding.
When confronted by a whining "Liberal," accusing one of putting "property rights" ahead of "human rights," the Conservative candidate should laugh in his face. Humans hold property, not property humans. The issue is between the rights of those who obey the law and strive by honorable means to get ahead, and the scum who seek to steal the fruits of other men and women's labor. And we need candidates who will make it clear that they stand with the honest and honorable in defense of what is theirs.
In a society based upon individual responsibility, the individual citizen also has a duty to help defend that society. Private arms, and the training to use them, have always been an important line of defense. Never was that more clear than in the present exigency, where foreign fanatics, who wish us ill, have already infiltrated our lands--have already inflicted horrendous injury. Again, a well armed citizenry provides a significant added layer of defense--and one better spread out over the length and breadth of the targeted lands than the regular armed forces--to our overall safety as Americans.
We discuss these concepts in greater length in Chapter 2 of the Debate Handbook, where one can also find comments on the subject from some of the Founding Fathers, including the specific recommendation by George Washington that we adopt the Swiss system for arming and training the male youth in the effective use of military grade firearms. But let us look more closely at the many faceted, yet strongest, reason for the Conservative candidate in a coming primary to focus on the need for more, rather than less, private firearms in American homes.
Our economic system works better than any other, when it maximizes the importance and freedom of the individual; when it comes closest to a true market system, dependent upon individual effort, individual decision making and planning; when it makes the success or failure of the individual clearly dependent upon what he or she can find within themselves to bring to the process. While more and more of the world is gradually coming to see this (albeit still through very foggy glasses), very few nations really grasp the demonstrated principle involved. The strength of the market economy is in that individual responsibility! It is no accident. There is no mystique. It is simple mathematics. The more force you bring to bear, the greater the object you can move--the more significant the result. The same principle applies equally in virtually every other area of human concern. It certainly is applicable to public safety. If every honorable man is involved in securing the public safety, the ratio between those armed in defense of the social order and those seeking to prey upon others shifts dramatically in favor of law and order.
The Police cannot possibly be everywhere at once. If they are patrolling in one area, another may be unprotected. The thug, whether armed with a gun, knife, or simply bigger fists than the home owner or shop keeper, may be emboldened. Yet, let it once be really understood that the typical home or shop owner has firearms ready at hand--and is well prepared to use them--and it is perfectly obvious that there will be much less crime. Indeed, the above mentioned Swiss experience has demonstrated this point over many centuries. So have studies in America, over the last few years.
But note well the added benefit for the Conservative candidate in "hanging tough" against Federal "gun control" measures. Merely by discussing this issue, in the manner in which we have set it forth here, one can buttress the rest of the Conservative argument for economic freedom, for local control of education, for traditional American social values, which were always based upon a responsible and accountable citizenry. It is an argument that offers confirmation--seemingly independent confirmation--of other arguments, on other issues. And it may convince the wise among a candidate's constituency, that he really does understand both what is important, and why it is important.
Just as Switzerland has proven a long-standing example of the importance of a well armed citizenry, well trained in the use of firearms; so, too, it has been a model of what works well to protect freedom in the political process. While the whole Federation is smaller than many American States, the Swiss have preserved the autonomy of the twenty-two constituent Cantons, in their local affairs, through the centuries. In so doing, they have avoided the misuse of consolidated power, which has afflicted each of their far larger neighbors. France, Germany and Italy have each had protracted bouts with despotic Totalitarian power, since Washington urged the Swiss as his example (noted above). Little Austria, not much larger than Switzerland, in its present form, was absorbed into a Totalitarian Germany in 1938, so it has hardly fared as well. Yet this is only one of the reasons why it is important that Conservatives identify with the preservation of State Rights to local self-Government in America.
Americans have a National identity as Americans. We also have identity as Ohioans, Virginians, etc.. But that National identity is based upon those values and identifications, which we have in common. One of those common values, throughout most of our history, has been a mutual respect for the ways that we differ--a reciprocal respect for the different values, lines of descent and varied histories, even sometimes bitter feelings, which have arisen when some of us have forgotten that reciprocal respect was both the price and benefit of Federal Union. There would have been no Federal Union, had it ever been imagined that the Federal Government might someday devolve into a monolithic force, even capable of sustaining Totalitarian Power. It is fundamentally against the American grain, for the Federal Government to seek to dictate the values of one region or group of States to the others. We realize that we have drifted in that direction, and that is precisely why issues which go to the nature of Federalism are always an important consideration to the American Conservative.
One way that some who claim to be "Conservative" lose credibility with young voters, seriously considering what sort of Government would be best for the United States, is in failing to make distinctions between the values that they want for themselves and their own States, with what are proper Federal initiatives or regulations. The Federal Government was given certain powers--the interstate commerce power being the most frequently misused by those who would impose their social values on others--for purposes fully consistent with the intended nature of that Federal Union. The Founding Fathers never intended to put Washington in control of medical decisions in Florida, California or Oregon; never intended to tell farmers what they could grow for their own table. Nor was anything else in the Constitution intended to empower Congress to impose its will on the educational decisions of local school boards.
The issue is not an abstract one; nor is the Conservative argument countered by the idiotic slogan that "human rights are more important than States' Rights." The States, under our systems of Republican Government, are the people that comprise each State. What we are discussing is the right of Americans to govern themselves in their own local and community affairs--and that goes to the very core of "human rights," Federalism and Constitutional Government.
There is a somewhat different issue raised by the bizarre actions of State Courts in Massachusetts, and some other States, with respect to the concept of homosexual "marriage." While it is certainly an oxymoron to suggest that it is possible to "marry" two individuals who are physiologically unable to consummate a marriage--as that concept has always been understood--the problem, here, is that such couples may move into another State, and demand that their pseudo "union" be recognized under the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of Article IV of the United States Constitution. How to deal with any such efforts that would undermine basic values across State lines, should and does come within the Constitutional sphere of the U. S. Congress.
Nothing in this means that a Conservative candidate in one State may not express his personal disagreement with social policies in a sister State. A candidate has every right to express such personal viewpoints. But whatever one may think of assisted suicide in Oregon, or medical Marijuana in California, or a particular Probate Court decision in Florida, these are not proper Federal issues. Whether one has the personal intellectual discipline to acknowledge the right of others to manage their own affairs, according to their own lights, will tell potential Conservative voters a great deal about whether they can trust that particular candidate to resist the enormous pressures, which can be exerted in Washington, to force monolithic conformity on issues not yet even defined.
There are probably as sound reasons to avoid this issue as there are to embrace it. But it is an unavoidable issue in the coming primaries. So the candidate needs to be at least able to discuss it intelligently, and to try to offer a constructive approach.
The reasons to avoid the issue are the usual dangers in trying to alter a market driven phenomenon--however noble the intentions. Most educated people, today, understand that the market economy is superior to any other. While few really take the time to understand why--the strength, again, is in the dynamic unleashed by making the level of success of every participating individual dependent upon his or her bringing their best qualities to their own pursuits--anyone attacking the decision by businessmen to seek the apparently lower costs possible from outsourcing certain aspects of their operations, may expect to come under fire, even from some Conservatives.
And yet to fail to discuss the issue is to ignore the very serious effect, not only from the loss of local jobs, but on communities whose socio-economic infra-structure may be terribly undermined by an outsourcing of various services and factors of production, formerly provided by the rooted citizens of such communities.
There is no easy answer. One can start by showing an appreciation of the importance of preserving established communities of rooted citizens--the progression of generations in a stable society. The tax code should be studied for opportunities to create incentives (whether in the form of tax breaks, or disincentives to use outsourced factors of production), but with great care so as not to create new problems. The Conservative candidate should also promise to put pressure on the Administration in Washington; demanding that it use the old Teddy Roosevelt "Bully Pulpit," to bring social pressure to bear on Corporate America to understand the enormous hidden costs in outsourcing; costs, which may soon come to haunt those merely focused on tomorrow's "bottom line." Finally, the Congressional or Senatorial candidate can exert some influence, himself, by applauding local businesses, which pledge to favor and protect the communities in which they do business.
The War in Iraq has become a sufficiently emotional issue, that it should be handled with great care in any future political race. The candidate of any persuasion will be under enormous pressure to take a strong stand--which stand, obviously, depending upon what group is applying the pressure at any given time. Yet many of the issues involved do not fit neatly into a particular philosophy. Whatever stand the Conservative candidate believes is right, needs to be discussed in measured tones, showing a clear and tolerant understanding of other viewpoints. We will try to demonstrate why it is simply not the sort of issue, where the Conservative approach is so clear, that one should risk everything by taking a too truculent position.
The original justification for the invasion of Iraq was the "War On Terror." Obviously, America must respond to being a target for terrorists. On that there can be neither doubt nor hesitation. But the protracted involvement of our Armed Forces, in occupying and rebuilding a conquered land, coupled with the President's unfortunate rhetoric, suggesting an American role in changing the political culture of other peoples, has compounded the issues far beyond the basic one as to whether our presence in Iraq is helping or hurting that original war effort. Under these circumstances, it is important that the Conservative candidate--whatever his personal feelings as to the developing situation--display a clear recognition of the issues. Because of the rising emotions over our position and involvement in Iraq, there is a great danger that more and more of the public may see a stated position as to the ongoing conflict as the "one issue," which will determine how they vote. Since there is no uniformity among Conservatives on the subject, that makes the issue one fraught with danger.
Under the totality of the circumstances, our best suggestion is to take a stand based upon one's own conscience, but one which clearly recognizes the considerations that will be important to other Conservatives, both those who agree with one's particular stand, and those who do not. Harsh comments on the patriotism of those with whom one disagrees will only tend to offend the uncommitted, as well as to fragment the healthy cohesion of rooted American societies. Remember that revolutionaries and other malevolent mischief makers have historically found discontent over the effects of war, a fertile field from which to undermine established government. Stick to an intelligent discussion of all related questions, and acknowledge that honorable men and women may see the issues somewhat differently; and that all patriots do not have the same priorities.
An important subset of the present situation in Iraq raises the question of whether the United States should act as some sort of World policemen. The concept of minding other peoples' business is fundamentally contrary to the American tradition. So, regardless of one's personal stand on how long we need to remain in Iraq, if one feels that we must indeed remain there for a considerable time yet; the Conservative candidate needs to make his sense of the limitations on our foreign role very clear. It is one thing to go to war where America's interests are at stake. But one in a position to make a difference has to be able to intelligently discuss where those interests end and folly begins. The Constitutional role of the Federal Government is very clear, it is to provide for the "Common Defense" of the United States. There is no separate, legitimate, role intended to benefit or injure any foreign State or interest.
We have always wished others well; indeed, have always hoped to set an honorable example that others might follow to their benefit. We have always made it our goal to deal fairly and honorably with all peoples. But those are very different concepts from expending the lives of our youth and the assets of our productive citizens in efforts, whether utopian or malevolent, to remake others. We strongly urge all prospective Conservative candidates to read George Washington's Farewell Address--available from the main menu at our Conservative Intelligence Center--for a detailed discussion of the considerations that go into the formulation of an American Foreign Policy. It has lost none of its apt relevance, even after 209 years!
While the Abortion question is always a "hot" issue, we believe that the handling suggested in Chapter 17 of our Debate Handbook is sufficiently focused to offer the best approach for the Conservative candidate, no less than for the undergraduate debater.
Next month--if nothing major intervenes--we will continue this discussion by offering suggestions for the prospective Conservative candidate for local office.