To continue last month's discussion of tactical tips for prospective Conservative candidates for Federal Office in the coming 2006 Primaries, we will address potential issues for those considering Primary races for State and local office. While at "first blush," that might seem a more daunting task in view of the far greater variety of offices and local issues, the advice that follows will tend simply to expand, rather than alter, the approach recommended last month. This is so for a reason basic to an understanding of American Conservatism. Our political institutions, at every level, are rooted in individual responsibility; rooted, to an extent scarcely grasped in most other lands which have not, in so recent a history, experienced the creation of unique local political societies from the ground up.
To understand American Conservatism, one must both understand--and be able to clearly articulate--images of the dynamics of settlement in a veritable wilderness, as well as the inevitable perceptions that would have flowed from that process. With such background, it becomes possible to "plug" Conservative stands on a very wide spectrum of probable issues into a consistent, cohesive and cogently persuasive overview of Government, its proper functions and the relationship of the responsible citizen to such Government. As noted last month, an internal ideological consistency is both essential to personal credibility, and an invaluable aid to winning acceptance from those who may disagree with you on certain issues which particularly effect them, but yet put a still higher priority on integrity in public office. We would also urge again, the benefits of the Reagan technique, wherever possible. Present arguments on controversial positions with a disarming smile!
While Federal issues, in general, get more play in the news media, it is at the State and local levels of Government that the greatest day to day impact on the citizen is most likely to occur. Indeed, many of those more heavily reported Federal issues, which stir the most controversy, are those where the Federal Government is intruding on concerns more properly dealt with by the States, or even community by community. Thus, we would suggest that the first concept that any Conservative candidate, seeking local office, should embrace is that the responsible citizens of that community are the proper determinants of local priorities.
The basic ethos of the American tradition remains the starting point for local no less than Federal issues. Unfortunately, that increased Federal intrusion, referred to, has severely limited the ability of State and local political societies to actually apply their traditional values, as well as a traditional common sense, to many situations. Indeed, with respect to the latter quality, today, one often hears the term "uncommon sense." Yet such reference is to what always would have been considered "common sense" in other times; the altered terminology reflecting a speaker's sense of what few in the media are even willing to acknowledge to themselves, that the advocates of spurious and ineffective collective solutions to individual problems are intellectually naked. The effective Conservative candidate needs not only to understand this, but to understand precisely why the endless succession of proposals for collective solutions to individual problems are ineffective, and therefore wasteful of both money and human endeavor.
The Conservative candidate for local office must be prepared to address the resulting conditions, even though a solution at the purely local level may not be feasible. Understanding the failure and harmful effects both of and from the Welfare State mentality and from specific manifestations of that mentality, is essential to establish a means for mitigating the damage. It is also important, if a candidate is to reach the maximum possible Conservative vote. Again, as with the Federal issues discussed last month, the ideal--as well as the coldly pragmatic approach--is for the Conservative candidate to project a consistent, cohesive and compelling comprehension of the social dynamics involved.
Now, of course, it is not enough merely to understand that a maximization of individual responsibility is essential to a healthy society--or that America's fundamental institutions were all premised upon an individually responsible citizenry. The key is in an ability to make such understanding come alive to the prospective voter, by relating that comprehension to specific problems currently afflicting the constituency being contested. While, as indicated, there is only so much, which can be done at the local level to reverse the effects of intrusive Federal action, simply being able to clearly explain the dynamics of that interference--and its effect in undermining the social infrastructure can have a quite positive political effect.
Let us look, briefly, at Welfare programs in general. We deal with Welfare State fallacies and impact at many places on this web site. In Chapter One of the Debate Handbook, linked below, we also quote Thomas Jefferson's description of how Welfare was handled in 1782 in Virginia. The Conservative candidate is urged to read that description--not because it is practical at this time to revert to the old Church directed Virginia practice--but because the concepts behind that practice, which reflect an actual understanding of human nature, and the high order of success which Jefferson reports for that practice, provide a sharp contrast to the hopelessly flawed systems of the present era. Mindful of the obvious damage, being done today to social infrastructures and demographics, across America; "Welfare reform" is no less an advantageous issue for the Conservative candidate in 2006 than it was for those Conservative candidates in 1994, who signed on for the "Contract With America."
The crux of the case against programs to alleviate human need by Governmental action, is the crux of the case against intrusive and expensive Government, in general. Yet, more particularly, as a collective means for redistributing wealth, under the guise of a civil entitlement, "Welfare" undermines the incentives toward private effort and responsibility, which drive a free economy. In its proclivity to reward or subsidize socially destructive conduct, such as having children out-of-wedlock, it undermines the moral values of the people. In the fact that it encourages a higher birth rate among the least accomplished members of society--and correspondingly those least likely to produce offspring that will contribute useful traits to the socio/economic dynamic of American communities--it diminishes the quality of life in those communities, and makes America less competitive with respect to other nations. It also significantly aggravates other factors, which create a milieu in which criminal conduct tends to thrive.
While the present overbearing aspects of Federal involvement make it virtually impossible for any community to opt out of the "Welfare State," there is a lot that local authorities can do to make their communities less "Welfare" friendly. And here, the Conservative candidate should use his own imagination and knowledge of the various factions in his constituency, to craft his personal approach. At the least, he should be an outspoken advocate for a crackdown on "Welfare" fraud and abuse.
There is another facet to this, which should not be overlooked. The "Liberals" in the media are very predictable, when it comes to reporting on attempts to curtail "Welfare." While some Conservatives in Congress began to blink in the mid-1990s, when the media began the assault on the "Welfare Reforms," associated with the "Contract With America," that was precisely how not to use such predictable reaction. The candidate for State or local office needs to carefully think through the arguments; needs to really understand the social dynamics, and the fact that seemingly "generous Welfare programs" bring out the worst in those classes of society most likely to be the recipients; and then harvest maximum benefit from the wondrous windfall of free publicity, he or she can expect from that predictable response.
Remember, you are not being mean spirited to recognize what works and what does not work in the human experience.
Questions of public policy, with respect to publicly financed education, often raise "hot" issues for local communities. However, whether such education related issues are essential, advisable or diversionary, for any particular candidate, may depend upon the office being sought. Once a candidate decides that it is appropriate that he discuss such issues, it would be well if he at least considered our points in Chapter 28 of the Conservative Debate Handbook--not so much for a precise approach to a specific electorate, but as a means to focus on potential issues. Beyond that background, there are some things which obviously must be kept in mind.
The reluctance of voters to embrace high tax rates is discussed in the next section. But there are particular nuances pertaining to local school taxes and issues, which may vary greatly from community to community--yet need to be understood, as they can have a determinative effect on how many people vote. The candidate needs to be aware of the division between those who feel dependent upon public schools, whether for instruction or jobs (i.e. teachers and Administrators), and those whose children are in private or parochial schools, who may feel that they are being forced to support two school systems. The small, but growing, numbers of parents who now elect to educate their children at home, must also be considered.
The candidate should always build his argument on basic concepts--such as the primordial responsibility of parents to educate their children, whether they use an available public school or elect to privately educate those children as an essential part of that process--and be able to articulate the inappropriateness for any school to seek to interfere with family values (such as requiring children to attend programs that seek to make homosexual conduct appear socially or morally acceptable, for an extreme example). But the candidate for local office must also be willing to intelligently discuss alternative proposals to ease the financial burden on parents who elect not to use the public school system. And he needs to be aware of legitimate concerns of parents and others, who hold different views, regardless of what the local candidate may decide is the best approach for his or her constituency, overall. The question of financing education should not be reduced to pure dogma. While educational issues are very important, they must always be viewed in terms of a broader perspective on even more fundamental issues.
One issue in that broader perspective, of course, is the effect of intrusive Federal programs--and in some cases, State programs--on the local public school focus. Education is far from the only area of concern, where there is a net loss that arises from involvement by remote Governmental agencies. But the educational aspect is one of the clearest examples of what happens. When the Federal Government first began efforts to subsidize local education in the post World War II era, there was an immediate diversion of some of the better teachers in local systems into Administrative positions. It obviously required more Administrators to prepare the applications and handle the additional scrutiny, involved in obtaining Federal subsidies. There was a further diversion, in connection with Federal Court interference in questions of pupil assignment to particular schools. We believe that these unfortunate trends have continued in many districts.
Since the same people and businesses, being taxed by State and local authorities for the public schools, are generally the ones being taxed to finance the Federal Government, the absurdity of this picture should be abundantly clear in most cases. The net gain from Federal financing is not to education, but to the growth of bureaucracy at both ends of the transaction. While some very poor school districts, where few pay Federal taxes, might come out ahead, such "gain" will still be offset, to a major extent, by the cost of increased bureaucracy; while any net gain, remaining, will hardly be worth the price of having Federal interference with the use of local schools to reinforce values specific to the community involved. Just having Leftist views on sex, ethnicity and the proper place for spiritual values in local schools, injected in place of the values of the particular community, is far too high a price to pay, even in those few districts, where the net gain in financing may be greater than the net increase in the cost of local bureaucracy.
The Conservative candidate, who wishes to discuss these issues, might do well to seek to obtain statistics to compare the ratio of administrative cost to total cost in 1950 and in the decades since. He might, depending on local idiosyncrasies, find some startling facts with potential to fuel some very persuasive arguments against the fallacy of "Federal Aid"--both to education and in general. There is, also, the ever pervasive issue as to the effect of diluting personal responsibility by bringing in extra "cooks" to "spoil the broth."
Attitudes towards taxation and governmental funding are hardly limited to questions of local school finances. Few people like to pay taxes, so the candidate for any office should expect to address questions of tax rates and the levels of expenditure, which drive tax rates. It is of the essence of Conservatism that you do not waste money, either your own or the public's. Nothing is more natural to most Conservatives than a forceful opposition to both waste and high taxes. Certainly, how to reduce expenditures and lighten tax burdens, at the State and local level, will depend on State and local budgets and priorities, but there is another aspect to this quest, which is as seldom addressed as some of the previously discussed facets of public education.
The natural antagonism of productive constituencies to high rates of taxation is one of the givens of political economies. What may be less obvious to some, is the fact that in most inner cities, at least, there is a large body of potential voters among little taxed, publicly subsidized residents, who have little or no interest or concern over tax rates. These--if they vote--are likely to support candidates, who promise them the most benefits, regardless of the effect on the tax burdens of other residents of the same cities. Merely mentioning this phenomenon is to elicit an, "of course." This reality has been overlooked--or certainly underestimated--only because the "politically correct" mindset of the media has had an effect on most politicians, which makes them little more comfortable discussing class tendencies than they are in discussing race--particularly where a disproportionate share of the urban poor are composed of non-white minorities.
For reasons similar to those which urge both care and candor over "Welfare Reform" and educational realism, the Conservative candidate for some local offices, who elects to address the voting proclivities of the "Welfare" class, may need to do so with an equivalent mixture of care and candor. We understand that there are even situations, where candidates may feel that "discretion is the better part of valor," and elect to limit their approach to tax burdens, by a more general advocacy of reduced spending. Nor will we disparage anyone who respects their own comfort levels in making their own assessment of their local situation. But again, care is one thing; compromising one's integrity by giving lip service to socialist shibboleths is quite another.
To accept, or even imply, the claim that the social environment, rather than the natural and unique attributes of the individual, determine success or failure, would not only be to embrace a lie--which can never be condoned. It would be to concede the basic underlying premise of all that is wrong with the "Welfare State" mentality. The implication, of course, is that those who succeed in America, really do not deserve their success; that it is all a matter of unfair advantage, which must be corrected by social engineers, redistributing the fruits of human achievement.
Yet for many, there may be an advantage in challenging the problem, head on. In so doing, one may find another opportunity to demonstrate a more comprehensive awareness of the essential, underlying, issues of our confrontational times. It is likely that those future Conservative leaders, who come to the fore, will be those who can best articulate the fullest context and relationship of issues, in a manner sufficient to rally the greatest level of new support. Eventually, the question of people able to vote themselves greater entitlements out of other people's money, has to be faced. And there are many constituencies where it can be faced, now, with profit to the articulate Conservative who really understands the parameters of the issues involved.
As a general rule--granted, with many exceptions--the strongest argument is the one which confronts the most significant aspects of a problem or controversy, frankly, but without rancor.
The central "issue," raised by the attack on the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms, is basically the same whether one runs for State, local or Federal office. To the Conservative candidate, it is essential that he defend the fundamental right of the citizen to self-protection, and self-protection with adequate means; fundamental that the candidate both understand the issue in terms of individual responsibility and that he be able to articulate that understanding in addition to and in the context of that perhaps still more obvious right to self-defense of person, family, home and property. It is in bringing together as full an ideological context to any issue as possible, that the Conservative demonstrates the greater clarity of his reason; the natural advantage in defending past achievement over advocating the unproven course. Few issues are so ideal for that demonstration as are the questions involved in the contrived "issue," created by the Left, over private firearms.
Although many excellent pieces have been written on the subject, we would recommend Chapter 2 of our own Debate Handbook--below, two clicks away--as a convenient source to help put the issue in proper context, and to provide useful citations to what the Founding Fathers actually had to say with respect to the essence of the Right & Duty To Keep & Bear Arms. Yet the real point here, is that the issue is not only important for the defense of the citizen's person and property, not only for the defense of liberty, itself, but also for considerations that go to the cost of local government and the social health of local communities. Moreover, of all other issues, this, in our opinion, is the one best and most easily linked, analytically, to the argument for a market economy with minimum restrictions on the freedom of the individual, and maximum responsibility on the part of the individual, to exercise his own best judgment.
Both last month, in the piece directed at candidates for Federal office, and in other essays at this web site, such as the above referenced Chapter 2, we have recommended the wise counsel of George Washington. Washington strongly advised the adoption of the Swiss system for arming and training the male youth in every home in the effective use of firearms. He, also, specifically noted the clear psychological benefit to that same youth in the responsibility thus conferred. The genius of the market is in the responsibility & involvement it effectively imposes. It is no less the case in the responsibility & involvement, which that Swiss/Washingtonian system would effectively instill. Premised on a clearer recognition of where the responsibilities for the functionality of a society actually reside, it would tend, by providing a compounding effect to other beneficial dynamics, to improve the quality of civil society in general, while encouraging a free people to think more actively in terms of preserving their freedom, personal safety and property.
In lessening dependence upon the Police for law enforcement in the protection of home and person, such a system would save public funds. By increasing the ratio of armed property owners to armed criminals, it would makes all citizens a great deal safer. In teaching youth responsible conduct, it would convey character development to last a lifetime, and a demonstrated understanding of purposeful conduct with enormous social value to future generations.
The net benefit to the candidate who can clearly articulate these relationships, and thus demonstrate a true grasp on the social dynamics involved, can be immense. Few issues more clearly illustrate the contrast between the social infrastructure of a free people and the pathetic dependence upon Government and collective authority, which characterizes the Socialist nations and the collectivist utilitarian delusions so prevalent in the modern era.
We lump these issues, clearly among the most important in any election, not to trivialize--not in any sense--but because their immediate impact on any constituency will depend upon a combination of custom and dynamic phenomena peculiar to that constituency. Therefore, we can only address them here in general terms, which go towards the development of the methodology for an effective Conservative counter-attack against what has become a persistent onslaught from the Left.
"States' Rights" in a Republic, are simply the rights of a people to self-government. Those who would take away such rights, or seek to disparage their exercise in any situation, are those who do not like a particular way the people, involved, seek to govern themselves. Naturally, such reformers are loath to state their objective as one of taking away the right to local self-Government. Rather, they elect to distort the actual issue by claiming that "human rights" are more important than "States' Rights."
Yet the State, as a political society, is the people of that State. Obviously, so long as the Conservative candidate, in that State, clearly understands that concept, he should have the advantage in opposing dictation from Washington on any issue. He most certainly should never apologize for urging that Federal power be confined to those areas of Government actually delegated to the Federal Government in the Constitution. He should also be quick to remind an adversary, who seeks to use Federal power to change local custom or institution, of another obvious point: Since local Government is both closer and more readily accessible, a meritorious proposal can be pursued more easily and economically, close at hand. If offensive to the constituency, the proposed change ought not to be pursued at all.
This brings us to the whole question of local custom and tradition, under intense attack from such organizations as the ACLU, NAACP and other more specially focused groups on the Left, since the early years of the last Century. Recently, the major thrust of such attacks have fallen on local public religious observances and the honoring of ancient principles (such as the Ten Commandments), or on public celebrations of particular historic values--such as those of the Old South--not shared by Leftist academics or organizations. But any effort on the part of a local community to limit, or at least control, the effects of imposed "diversity" on its local societies and basic institutions, can expect to come under attack.
In this latter regard, there is an intense effort going forward to alter those traditional perceptions of marriage and human sexuality, which are still accepted as valid in most American communities. To the Left, this is but a natural extension of the earlier attacks on racial and sexual values and religious symbols. Although some Conservatives--conditioned by those earlier agitations--may seek to define a distinction; that is self-defeating. (The issue over the intended separation of powers has never depended on any individual's personal opinion of the social theories of either the encroaching agency or the resisting society. And see "A Compulsion For Uniformity," below.)
The basic American principle is this--and it flows from the true diversity of the original States: Where our interests are truly common, we can trust a carefully crafted Federal Constitution, and the Agency it created, to serve those common interests. We are one people only to the extent of that common focus, the common functions largely set forth in Article I, Section 8, with Article I, Section 10 and Article IV of that Constitution, setting forth an intended common focus on how to handle some of the problems, which may arise from that original diversity. On all other matters, we are a Federation of each very unique States--each entitled to the respect of its peers as to all matters of purely local import: These certainly include the right of each community to take pride in its cultural heritage and achievements; to honor religious and historic symbols, particular to its people; and, in the face of the present challenge, to defend the institution of marriage and local moral values, as local sentiment and tradition, rather than any Judicial decree or contrived "consensus," dictates.
The Conservative candidate needs to be equally forthright with respect to the defense of private property rights. Here, as with States' Rights, the Leftists are fond of talking about "human rights"--declaring that "human rights are more important than property rights"-- as though property owns people, rather than people, property. But in this very trivialization, there is great opportunity for the articulate Conservative candidate to again demonstrate his comprehension of the underlying social dynamics of a healthy human society. For, in fact, property rights go to the core of what is involved in a market economy, what is involved in the right to keep and bear arms, in the satisfaction of the very needs, which the Creator has implanted in most sentient life. They figure very significantly in what is involved in meaningful education, in why we oppose high taxes, in why we desire efficiency in local public services. And in most human societies, which rise above the subsistence level of existence, property--whether for good or ill--is a major determinant of social status.
Magna Carta, the great Charter of English liberty, is largely about property rights. (We intend, at some point, to post a translated copy at this web site. The problem is to decide on a good translation--and one which has the full original text.) Liberty and the right to acquire, hold and pass on property, have always been inseparable. It is all very well to talk about the importance of free speech or a free press or freedom of religion. But to be enjoyed meaningfully, one needs to be able to obtain a spot where one can have the privacy to enjoy personal freedom, and that too involves the right to acquire property. Yet property rights are also significant for all of the reasons that life itself is significant.
Property is what is retained from the fruits of a life's labor. To make light of one's rights to and in one's property, is to make light of the life that produced that property. To challenge the right to pass on property to one's heirs, is to challenge the motivations for moral conduct, the essence of the progression of generations, the continuity of family life and purpose, the core concept inherent in the Fifth Commandment: Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long in the land. . . . The concept there is misunderstood, if it is interpreted to refer only to the single preceding generation. The continuity of a people is in the progression of their generations, the passing on of their attainments, both spiritual and material. Deprive a family of the ability to retain and pass on the fruits of a lifetime of effort and you diminish their lives, traduce their liberty, and deny them the pursuit of happiness, which has always been of the very essence of the American birthright.
For the Conservative candidate, an enthusiastic identification with private property rights is one of the absolute essentials to projecting that consistent, coherent and compelling image that can lead to success.
As with our previous discussion of Federal issues, we specifically urge any Conservative candidate who intends to attack legalized abortion, at any level of Government, to read Chapter 17 in our Debate Handbook. The approach recommended may not appeal to those with "one issue" fervor. But it offers a constructive approach to the problem, in an easily sustainable argument. The candidate, who employs our approach, can make his points more easily, and do so without needlessly antagonizing those who have simply not thought the issue through. Persuasion to what is right, rather than merely denouncing what is wrong, is always the wiser course.