In honor of a new book on one of my heroes, Teddy Roosevelt, I am reposting an article on wrote over the summer at The Moderate Republican. The book, Colonel Roosevelt, by Edmund Morris is the final installment of his three-volume biography. I highly recommend the set as a great Christmas gift for any moderate political junkies out there.

At a recent library sale my wife happened to pick up a book entitled, Pioneer Life in Western Pennsylvania. It was published in 1940 and was part of a series written in conjunction with the Western Pennsylvania Historic Survey. My wife knows me well as I have always had a thing for old books; the poetry of the prose; the simple style of illustration; the colorful political incorrectness, all make them a pleasure to read. I have only gotten about a third of the way through this book, but I am already seeing some interesting touch points between the lives of the pioneers and the idealized image of early America that many in the Tea Party movement hold dear.

What the Pioneers Believed in

Americans have inherited from these pioneer men and women, who had been trained in the hard school of experience to win the rights of”life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” an unusual sense of what is just in lawmaking. It was to establish these rights more firmly that pioneers struggled in the wilderness; they wanted personal liberty and economic freedom, the right to a full life. In pursuit of happiness these men and women sought the unsettled lands of the western country. And they defended their enterprise sturdily, whether they were threatened by poor living, Indians, illness and hunger, or by unjust officials and intruders.

Something to think about.

Crossposted at The Moderate Republican. You can also find us on Facebook.

I know the Tea Party was active in getting Scott Brown elected, but had they spent time looking at his record then, they wouldn’t be so surprised now. He is acting exactly like he said he would: as a center-right pragmatist, and The Moderate Republican couldn’t be happier to have him as its senator. The Worcester Telegram has a similar viewpoint.

His voting record indicates that Mr. Brown is exactly what he promised he would be: an independent senator not beholden to his party’s line, Congressional leadership, or special interests. To be sure, his embrace of free markets, a pro-business stance, deep concern over rising debts, and a belief that Americans at all levels have had plenty enough of taxes and regulations, do mark Mr. Brown as a fiscal conservative true to his Republican roots.

But Mr. Brown’s story to date is not primarily about party politics, and far from an ideological island isolated from the pressing concerns of real Americans. In alliance with moderates from both sides of the aisle, and with the sometimes grudging respect of heavyweights from both parties, this freshman senator is helping forge a new centrism that holds great promise for breaking the tired paradigms that have marked political life in Washington, D.C., for far too long.

Crossposted at The Moderate Republican, now on Facebook.

The unfortunate truth is that Chrysler stopped making automobiles the public wanted long ago. That, and not the current economic crisis is what put it in the position it is in today. A glance at the most recent Consumer Reports Auto Edition tells the tale. The following are the recommended buys for a variety of brands.
Ford: 14 models
Ford Edge
Ford Escape Hybrid
Ford Escape 4-cyl.
Ford Escape V6
Ford Expedition EL
Ford F-150
Ford Focus AT
Ford Focus MT
Ford Fusion 4-cyl.
Ford Fusion V6
Ford Mustang V6
Ford Mustang V8
Ford Taurus
Ford Taurus X

Honda: 15 models
Honda Accord V6
Honda Accord 4-cyl. AT
Honda Accord 4-cyl. MT
Honda CR-V
Honda Civic Si
Honda Civic EX AT
Honda Civic EX MT
Honda Civic GX CNG
Honda Civic Hybrid
Honda Fit Base AT
Honda Fit Sport MT
Honda Odyssey
Honda Pilot
Honda Ridgeline
Honda S2000

Chrysler: 0 models

That’s right, zero, none, nada. Is it really a win for capitalism when a company that makes cars that don’t sell well and are generally of lower quality than its competitors is propped up by an intrusive federal government for the sake of short term job savings?

Lets put the quality of the product aside for a moment and look at what the company itself is willing to sacrifice to enable survival. When a company fails this miserably one would expect drastic measures in terms of its corporate structures to try and keep it alive. First among those changes would be cost cutting tactics. So one would think the workers along with the CEO’s would be taking a long hard look at compensation as a temporary way to right the ship. However, among the cost-cutting measures being enacted are a suspension of cost-of-living-adjustments and new limits on overtime pay. Chrysler workers will also lose their Easter Monday holiday in 2010 and 2011, according to a union summary. No pay raises? Limits on over time? That’s it? Even the workers themselves are surprised, “the reaction here has been incredibly positive. With many workers saying the plan is not nearly as drastic as they expected.”

Sadly, this is not the first time Chrysler has relied on the largess of the federal government and the American taxpayer. An eerily similar situation occurred 25 years ago. Chrysler chairman, Lee Iacocca, came to Washington in 1980, hat in hand, begging for a government bail out which he got. However, while the public perception was that Iacocca was a corporate savior, the reaction from economists was somewhat different, and very illuminating for our current situation. Below is the reaction from 1983.

The problem with the Chrysler bail-out—in fact, the problem with all “industrial policy”—is that it is necessarily political in nature; the loudest interest groups get the greatest reward, while the scattered and fragmented “invisible constituency” is largely ignored. But a free market is a tangled web of infinite and subtle interaction, in which the full impact of intervention is not always recognized until too late. In the case of the Chrysler bail-out, a big chunk of taxpayer money was committed to a shaky and inappropriate venture. Every American became an involuntary and uncompensated partner in a company whose future is still in doubt. The precedent established is extremely dangerous. On top of this, the bail-out even failed in its purpose.

It is time to pick your favorite cliche. The past is prologue; those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it; here we go again. Any of these will apply. But is it a win for capitalism? Unfortunately not.

Abortion has forever been blown by electoral trade winds; when the right was in charge, people feared the return of coat hangers in back alleys. Now that the left leads, they fear abortion on demand. The very meaning of the labels adjusts; calling yourself pro-choice at a time when a liberal Democratic President and allies in Congress are lifting abortion restraints may imply no qualms at all, and that’s not where most people are.

But there could be more to the strangely shifting polls than politics. Perhaps in some very important way, the pro life movement is simply winning over the hearts and minds of America. The culture of violent protests at abortion clinics that once defined the movement is now thankfully over. Now the bulk of pro-life energy is being channeled into grassroots efforts, from crisis pregnancy centers to post-abortion counseling.  Many of the current crop of megachurches now focus their efforts on these and other like minded projects which serve the dual purpose of seeking to reduce the abortion rate one woman at a time, while also softening the image of the movement overall. Ross Douthat in an editorial piece this past December adds to the picture of a more positive pro life push,

Over the same period, pro-lifers — especially in the evangelical community — have broadened their movement’s ambit, emphasizing poverty, the environment and other non-abortion “life issues” more consistently than an earlier generation did. Leading pro-life figures like Rick Warren are more likely to be photographed touring poor nations alongside Bono than protesting outside abortion clinics.

What is most interesting is that these strong pro life numbers are coming at a time when the Democratic party ID numbers far outweigh the GOP’s. This means that many self described Democrats are admitting to not being pro choice. Is this because of technology- high resolution ultrasound pictures? Or is this because of the absence of the threat of back alley abortions- back-alley talk may be politically untenable, in a way that it wasn’t 35 years ago? Regardless, the young voters the pro-life movement has won over are likely to stay pro-life.

Maybe the abortion issue will change from being a starkly right vs left debate into a more rational human debate?

More center-right news and views at The Rockefeller Republican

Paying the political price for his support of President Barack Obama’s Stimulus Plan, Specter trailed former Congressman Pat Toomey 41 – 27 percent in a Republican primary for the 2010 Senate race, with 28 percent undecided, according to a Quinnipiac University poll at the end of March. In a move called a “decision [representing] the height of political self-preservation,” by Sen. John Cornyn. He went on to say, “[w]hile this presents a short-term disappointment, voters next year will have a clear choice to cast their ballots for a potentially unbridled Democrat super-majority versus the system of checks-and-balances that Americans deserve.” The question is will a Pennsylvania electorate vote for a hard-line conservative after turning more and more blue over the past few election cycle?

The site has argued in the past why the Republicans need to hold on to moderates, even extreme ones like Specter. If you look at congressional records objectively you can see why. Democratic Sens. Nelson, Bayh and Lieberman have been given a lot of praise for their somewhat conservative stands over the years; and I would venture to guess the Republicans would be glad to have any of them switch parties and join the Republican ranks. In fact in 2008 many did lobby Lieberman to cross over. Ironically, Specter himself was quoted as being all for the Lieberman switch.

“I would like to see him vote with Republicans in September,” Specter said. “He’s practically there. That would have the consequence of giving us a Republican Senate.”

Now, if Republicans are so eager to celebrate centrist Democrats who agree with them some of the time, why are they so unwilling to hold onto centrist Republicans who agree with them most of the time? According to The Political Guide, since 1990, Arlen Specter has voted with the majority of his party 72.9% of the time and missed only 2.8% of the votes. In all likelihood PA is going to elect a Democrat in 2010 and the Republican party will miss out on those potential votes.

Believe me, I am no big fan of Specter and others like him who often cross the aisle and vote for things like the recent stimulus bill. However, I’d rather have them then lose a seat to the other side.

Let me state this right off the top: I am part of the problem with today’s conservative movement. I drive a GM truck, shop at Big Box stores, own four computers; and I complain about the current state of our nation. When Senator Phil Gramm said we are a nation of whiners he was criticized for it- but in fact, he was right. We like to complain about big government & big business failures, but we seem to have little desire to actually make the changes in our own lives that would bring about some modest solutions. It is time to put our money where our mouth is.

• Conservatives across the country were quick to criticize the auto executives who came crawling to Washington to beg for funds, but how many of those same conservatives drive around in GM SUV’s or minivans? When gas was $4 a gallon you couldn’t find a Prius on the lot, now they are there in abundance.

• The media and the rest of us readily complain about the questionable methods of agribusiness every time a new salmonella scare comes up or mad cow disease rears it’s crazy head, but how many of us shop at the local farmer’s market where you can talk to the man who grows your food?

• Republican legislators have not been in short supply when it comes time to criticize the too-large-to-fail financial institutions that over-extended themselves to Olympian proportions. However, I am sure many of their constituents are the proud owners of McMansions, 2 new cars, plasma tvs, rider mowers and in ground pools purchased on the backs of easy credit and low equity.

There is a lot of talk, rightly so, about how the GOP and conservatives in general need to refine, remold and rebrand. A great place to start would be to align with the definition of the word conserve. Conserve: to keep in a safe or sound state; especially : to avoid wasteful or destructive use of.

Let’s start with the auto industry. Yes, they failed to make small economical cars like Honda and Toyota did; but this was because the American consumer demanded bigger and bigger SUV’s. This is the only country where a military assault vehicle could become every suburban dad’s dream car. However, not every American car company failed to plan for the future. Ford alone has resisted taking government bail out cash, and could be the last one standing when all is said and done. It will be interesting to see- will Americans reward Ford for solid business practices? Will Ford out-sell GM over the coming year? If we were true to our principles it would. Conservatives need to move their political activism into the marketplace. We need to make principled decisions with our money. Everyone knows an oil dependent auto industry means uncomfortable ties to the Middle East, not to mention the destructive environmental factors. We need to start supporting, with our wallets, the kind of cars that will rid us of this burden.

The same idea of principled spending can be applied to our grocery bills. In Walter Goldschmidt’s classic 1940s study of California’s San Joaquin Valley, As You Sow: Three Studies in the Social Consequences of Agribusiness, he compared areas dominated by large corporate farms with those still characterized by smaller, family farms.

In farming communities dominated by large corporate farms, nearby towns died off. Mechanization meant fewer local people were employed, and absentee ownership meant farm families themselves were no longer to be found. In these corporate-farm towns, the income earned in agriculture was drained off into larger cities to support distant enterprises, while in towns surrounded by family farms, the income circulated among local business establishments, generating jobs and community prosperity. Where family farms predominated, there were more local businesses, paved streets and sidewalks, schools, parks, churches, clubs, and newspapers, better services, higher employment, and more civic participation.

While the clock can not be turned back to some dream of an idyllic 1940′s farm town, recent studies confirm that Goldschmidt’s findings remain essentially valid. If conservatives made a concentrated effort to shop locally when it came to food we would be helping local economies, eating healthier, and taking away one of the left’s talking points to the young. The GOP was the original party of environmental conservation; supporting a modified slow food movement would be economically sound, and politically expedient.

Finally, we need to conserve that most important of resources, our own money. While it is right and proper to admonish Washington for their “economic-crisis” induced spree, our politicians are just a microcosm of our ethos as a nation. We are all big over-spenders. If we want a conservative government, and by conservative we mean small, thrifty and cautious, then we need to lead by example. This is the hardest point of all. After years of cultural movement towards a credit fueled society we need to think more strategically about our money- in some sense it may be too late for some of us, but the next generation can be taught the values of disciplined and principled spending.

“Criticism is necessary and useful; it is often indispensable; but it can never take the place of action, or be even a poor substitute for it. The function of the mere critic is of very subordinate usefulness. It is the doer of deeds who actually counts in the battle for life, and not the man who looks on and says how the fight ought to be fought, without himself sharing the stress and the danger.” – Teddy Roosevelt

For more center-right news and views see The Rockefeller Republican

There are two significant costs that are associated with large-scale casino gambling; one is a humanitarian cost, the other purely economic. Both are consequential deterrents and yet both seem to be little understood by the voting public. Gambling addiction is not a myth, and in fact it is a very serious problem wherever casinos have opened. Governor Patrick’s casino plan plainly admits that 1 out of every 20 people (5%) would become a problem gambler as a result of his initiative. That’s 250,000 people, not including the family members of these addicts who will also suffer. Unfortunately, while problem gamblers make a lot of money for the gambling industry, their addiction leads to child neglect, crime, distressed families and bankruptcy.

In humanitarian terms casinos lead to a very real drop in the quality of life for effected citizens. Gambling invariably brings with it a number of less attractive activities such as petty crime, theft, alcoholism, poverty and prostitution among them. What does it say when the national leader of the casino industry lobby, Frank Fahrenkopf, said he’d oppose a casino where he lived? If he doesn’t want one in his home town why should anyone else. These are large-scale public nuisances that create far more problems than any purported benefits they could bring to state coffers. In fact, the monetary benefits of casinos are also seriously suspect.

First and foremost, the evidence does not show that gambling solves any fiscal problems. To the contrary not one state in the country has ever solved its budget problems through the growth of casino gambling. Even New Jersey, with its 11 casinos, had to shut down its state government in 2006 due to a budget crisis, and this was well before the current recession. The Boston Business Journal- one of the states most pro-business publications- has repeated warned against the negative economic impact of resort casinos in New England. Mainly because casinos lower a region’s standard of living by attracting lots of low wage jobs. Additionally, the Patrick plan’s proposed numbers simply do not make sense. The revenue estimates do not account for the fact that New Hampshire would put two casinos right on the state border and Rhode Island would also expand its slot machine locations into full scale casinos in response to new large scale facilities in Massachusetts. One can almost envision an arms race for dollars going on. And while normally competition is good for business, in this case it would only escalate all the associated negatives.

However, it gets worse. Not only do casinos not bring in the promised funds to allow states to provide necessary services to citizens, they also act as a de facto tax on the lowest wage earners. Research has shown that the poorest households spent 11 percent of their income on gambling, compared with the highest earners who spent less than 1 percent. In Minnesota 52 percent of people who filed for bankruptcy mentioned gambling as a major reason to file. Does it make any sense to raise taxes on the most vulnerable in society? Even if the humanitarian costs doesn’t bother you, the economic one should. When the poorest among us fall, it is the rest of the tax paying public who must act as the security net. Casinos cost everyone more of their hard earned money.

Rather than states looking for new streams of revenue to make up for budget shortfalls perhaps they could take a page from the common American household and simply tighten their collective belts. In Massachusetts’ case, over $12 billion in waste was reported on as recently as last year. Clearly there are more humanitarian and more economically sound ways of going about dealing with the effects of this recession on states’ budgets. Let’s hope saner minds prevail when it comes to casinos.

For more center-right news & views see The Rockefeller Republican.

According to a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project 55% of adults used the Internet as their goto source for campaign & candidate information. Additionally the study found that by a 2-to-1 ratio, Obama’s online supporters were more engaged than those of the Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain. Are there understandable reasons for this? Is this something we, as conservatives, can change? the answer to both of these questions is yes.

First, let’s discuss the reasons. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, if you are not liberal when you are young you have no heart; if you are not conservative in middle age you have no head. The under 40 crowd was for Obama this past cycle and Internet use is much stronger among the younger population. Therefore it makes perfect sense that Obama would have a much stronger following online. Aside from the basic demographics, the McCain team simply did not run a strong Internet campagin- it was a 2004 interface trying to make it in 2008.

While there are understandable reasons why liberals owned the net in 2008, there is every reason to think conservatives can catch up. We have to keep in mind it was only as far back as 2004 when the Republicans were the party of the Internet. So, what should we do? First and foremost the conservative message needs to start targeting the younger crowd, and there are ways to do this without abandoning any core conservative principles. It is a simple matter of focus. Hard core social issues work to the traditional base of the party, but they often turn off younger voters who are more libertarian in their social views. However, the under 40 crowd cares a lot about the environment and their own futures in a rapidly evolving economy. These are both areas that are inherently in the conservatives’ ballpark. What is more conservative than environmental conservation and the growing of a strong domestic economy? Therefore a more vocal and public focus on these issues would attract younger adults who would vote for a strong pro-environment, pro-economy message, even if they might not agree with every social policy a traditional Republican would support.

If conservatives could push a truly revolutionary energy policy, one that was market driven, but also forward looking, they could speak directly to this demographic. We don’t have to look far for a blueprint, the Pickens Plan or some variant of it would work well.

There are several pillars to the Pickens Plan:

• Create millions of new jobs by building out the capacity to generate up to 22 percent of our electricity from wind. And adding to that with additional solar capacity;
• Building a 21st century backbone electrical grid;
• Providing incentives for homeowners and the owners of commercial buildings to upgrade their insulation and other energy saving options; and
• Using America’s natural gas to replace imported oil as a transportation fuel.

Aside from creating policy initiatives that would appeal to younger voters the Republican Party also needs to make a more concerted effort to seek out and recruit those on the Internet frontier. By the time 2012 rolls around Twitter will be today’s MySpace- we need people who recognize that and are on the lookout for the newest tools available.

In the next election cycle we can assume an even greater percentage of voters will rely on the web for their news and political engagement. If conservative in general, and the Republican Party in particular, want to see a large portion of that traffic directed towards their message, they need two things: a stronger appeal to youth voters who drive the Internet, and a more dynamic and forward-thinking team devoted to developing a real online presence to rival what we know will be a large Obama rollout.

Cross posted at the Rockefeller Republican

There could be a little noticed sea-change coming in the world of politics and Generation-Y, which is expected to be as large as the Baby Boom Generation, could be the canary in the coal mine. Some recent headlines start to tell the tale.

Taxes Not a Big Issue on Tax Day–A new Gallup Poll finds 48% of Americans saying the amount of federal income taxes they pay is “about right,” with 46% saying “too high” — one of the most positive assessments Gallup has measured since 1956. Typically, a majority of Americans say their taxes are too high, and relatively few say their taxes are too low. Without taxes as a rallying cry, traditional conservatives would lose one of their most potent arguments against liberals.

Iowa Court Ruling Legalizes Gay Marriage–A February 2008 poll found that six in ten Iowans supported civil unions for gay couples, and just last week in Iowa, hundreds cheered, waved rainbow flags and shed tears of joy at rallies in seven cities to celebrate the legalization of same-sex marriage. “Corn-fed and Ready to Wed!” read one man’s sign at a gathering at the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls. What has been a “left coast” issue has moved into the heartland.

Most religious groups in USA have lost ground, survey finds–America is now a land of freelancers when it come to matters spiritual. The percentage of people calling themselves Christian has dropped more than 11% in a generation, scattering out of their traditional bases. The Bible Belt is less Baptist. The Northeast is less Catholic. And everywhere, people are exploring spiritual frontiers — or leaving organized religion altogether.

What does all this mean? It means the ground on which politicians, and especially conservative ones, stand is shifting beneath their feet. If issues like taxes, social issues and religion no longer motivate a majority of voters then what will the next generation of conservatives focus their agendas on? Generation-Y, those born approximately between 1980 and 2000 could be the leading indicator of what is to come.

So what exactly do the voters of tomorrow believe in? Gen-Yers are less nationalistic as they have grown up on the Internet where borders obviously do not exist. They support liberalization of drug laws and wouldn’t mind seeing marijuana legalized. And they are more tolerant of immigration than older voters. On these issues, they seem to lean left of the traditional center.

On the other hand they are free-traders, being more supportive of globalization than their elders. They truly believe a less intrusive government is better. And recent surveys seem to suggest that they support proposals to privatize Social Security, which they assume won’t be there for them anyway. Here, they seem to lean right of center.

The message? If current trends persist, the majority of America, or at least those under 40, will become increasingly more libertarian. Liberal on social issues, and fearful of government intervention in their lives. They will be less trustful of liberal leaning agencies and ideas like Social Security and the IRS, as well as conservative ones such as the military and intelligence agencies. They don’t want their internet purchases taxed but neither do they want the government telling them which doctor they can see. One could see evidence of this in the past election cycle; Ron Paul lived off of this type of support.

The definition of conservative and liberal is changing right before our eyes, and there is every reason to be hopeful if you are conservative. The current popularity and power of the Obama-Reid-Pelosi-triumvirate is steering the country further and further left with huge budgets and hints of invasive big government programs to come. This type of policy will certainly turn off the libertarian youth, and while they may not warm to the current image of the Republican party- they are more intellectually compatible than they may realize. What Republicans need to do is to refocus on what has always been central to their message, conservation.

They need to stand for conservation of the environment, of our resources, of our money, and of our freedom. This is a message that will resonate. America is changing and conservatives need to change with it. This does not mean an abandonment of principles, but it does mean a broader perspective.