Strategies for Republicans

When “Republican” is a dirty word consciously used as a pejorative in major newspapers and broadcast media across the country it’s pretty easy to see that something’s wrong.

The root of what’s wrong is that the United States is a nation of law, but a small number of people who for various reasons hold themselves above the law have become a coalition of haters united only through their control of the Democratic party and the mass media it depends on – and now have no regard for consequence or law as they try to justify themselves by serially satisficing the entourage of nuts, hangers-on, careerists, and idealogues they picked up on their way to power.

Look at this politically, and what we have is the hyperpartisan Pelosi presidency in which the acting president continues to campaign because that’s what he knows how to do; Holder, Rahm, and other deeply corrupted partisans run the executive branch; and, the big media players who see their democratic prophecies failing double down on hatred for Republicans as the messengers of a rejected reality.

Worse, look at things from outside the political trenches and what you see is the weathermen in charge in Washington: people whose lifelong contempt for American values leads them to disregard the law in making and enforcing decisions aimed squarely at destroying the American Republic -and if you think that’s overblown: name one thing done by Messrs Obama, Reid, and Pelosi that Wright, Ayers, and Dohrn wouldn’t have done in their places.

So what to do? I see three interlocking strategies for Republicans: for the short term, the medium term, and the long term.

Short term

The strategy for 2010 is to focus campaigning and publicity heavily on law, the limitations of law, and the abuse of law by democrats.

In particular the tea party movement could be directed toward support for law and the widespread recognition of democrat contempt for it – simply by pointing out that realities like the political exemption from prosecution accorded ACORN and the illegal seizure of Chrysler and GM shareholder assets for transfer to the Unions, are part and parcel of the same political agenda leading the Democrats to significant new taxes and enormous deficits.

One of the subtler consequences of doing this would be longer term: almost every state Republican organization has a significant number of “states rights” members – people who hold that the United States is a union of states, not a kingdom assembled from collected fiefs. With minor exceptions, almost every unconstitutional action undertaken by the Pelosi democrats is also a contractual violation of the terms under which the states undertook the union -and Republican leadership putting a real focus on law would almost certainly attract strong states rights support within the party.

In the short term, however, the highest profile example of democrat lawlessness, Mr. Obama’s legal ineligibility for the office he pretends to, also offers Republicans a direct path to an electoral sweep in 2010.

The facts on this are clear: every senator, and every representative, has taken the same oath to defend the constitution. That oath is enforcible both in federal court and at the polls – with removal from office as the least of the available penalties.

The current administration commits arguable constitutional violations on a daily basis: every congressman and every senator accepting actions ranging from giving ACORN de facto control of the census to the Chrysler fiasco, is in violation of the oath of office.

More directly, Mr. Obama claims to be the son of a Kenyan holding British citizenship; therefore cannot meet the constitutional requirement that the president be a natural born citizen; and was accordingly ineligible to run for that office.

In addition, Mr. Obama is known to be the son of a woman who married an Indonesian Muslim and sent her son to a local Muslim school when doing so would not have been possible without first renouncing American citizenship for herself and her dependent son. Since he could have reclaimed his birthright on or after his return to Hawaii but apparently choose to express his mother’s contempt for American values by not doing so, Mr. Obama is most probably not legally a citizen of the United States – and was therefore ineligible to run for the presidency.

Notice that his place of birth has nothing to do with either issue, and that production of a real Hawaiian birth certificate naming an American father would mark him as a natural born citizen, but not address his failure to reclaim his American birthright and thus still leave him ineligible for office.

Notice too that there are people who believe that somehow, somewhere, there’s a loophole making him eligible, but because no sane person can deny that the question has been raised any congressman or senator who does not personally act to verify Mr. Obama’s eligibility is in violation of the oath of office – a failure to investigate which, independently of the likely outcome of that investigation, should technically be sufficient to get a federal court to order that person’s removal from office.

The strategy, therefore, is to repeatedly and forcefully raise this issue in the press as well as the house and the senate – and thus force every representative, and at least one third of the senators, to consider what’s at stake for them between now and November 2010.

Notice that this strategy works for Republicans whether or not congressional action invokes the silver bullet – frog marching Mr. Obama out of the Whitehouse, re-establishing a Presidential check on Pelosi and Reid by giving the presidency to McCain/Palin, and trading inner city riots now for re-establishing constitutional government and wiping out every order, every appointment, and every act of Congress Obama has signed since taking the office.

The mid range strategy

The mid range strategy is to bring honest reporting back to American news coverage.

To see how critical this is try to imagine what the outcome of the 2008 elections would have been had the media treated Sarah Palin, or Joe the plumber, fairly – or if the New York Times, which not only regularly attacked John McCain in articles presented as news but repeatedly raised the issue of his eligibility for office, had treated Mr. Obama the same way.

Most importantly, ask why if only 11.2% of Obama voters knew of his commitment to bankrupting the coal industry, the other 87.8% did not.

Tactically, the easiest and most effective way to do this is to put together a consortium to buy and run a company like Gannet Communications – owners of USAtoday, 21 television stations, 88 smaller newspapers, and eight properties, like The Army Times, serving DOD markets.

That consortium would not front for the Republican party; instead it would focus the business on making money through the practice of traditional, independent, journalism.

The financial opportunity here is enormous: the print media across the United States appear to be in deep trouble, but the actual losers are those which, like USAtoday and the New York Times Company (also owners of the Boston Globe and the IHT) act as proud sponsors and spokesmen for the far left wing of the Democratic party. In contrast, media players like Fox and the Wall Street Journal which have tried to maintain reasonable editorial balance have come under continuous attack from Democrats who see them as parts of some vast far right conspiracy, but generally held their own, both financially and in terms of audience share, during a period of radically increased web competition and reduced advertiser spending.

There are a lot of good people coming out of failing media companies – and a lot of assets coming for sale at pennies on the dollar. A player big enough to pay for solid editorial content and directed by people whose first focus is honesty in reporting, should experience significant, low cost, growth in American media markets.

And honest reporting is, of course, all Republicans need to win.

The long term strategy

The long term strategy is to position Republicans as the people who view education and science as the enablers of both liberty and economic productivity.

To rephrase Karl Popper in context, actions based on hypotheses that have been proven false through experience or experiment are contra-indicated – in other words rational people do not shut down free markets, double debt and taxes, release terrorists among their own people, increase abortion funding, or destroy national energy production on the basis of long discredited economic or social theories -unless their goals are to destroy whatever social structures exist.

Lining up Republicanism with the forces that improve life for mankind puts the democrat’s assumption of support from the lazy and illiterates in a context everyone can understand: teach a man to fish and you feed him for life, give him a fish and you create an entitlement program forcing you to take from those who know how to fish.

There is a long term tactical corollary to this strategy: the extreme green movement can legitimately be portrayed as a religion because its views run counter to observed reality and thus require faith the believe.

The polar bear, for example, didn’t just evolve in the last few hundred years – meaning that the genuine global warming experienced during the medieval warming period (800 – 1300) didn’t kill them off. The evidence on CO2 as a greenhouse gas doesn’t exist (the phrase comes from a paper on the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere on Venus) – and neither does evidence of anthropogenic warming, while the ability to use nuclear energy to reconstitute hydrocarbons from atmospheric gases and water makes today’s petrochemical based energy distribution system the most renewable and efficient one we know.

And here’s the zinger: if the short term strategy brings back the rule of law, and the mid range strategy provides an audience for reasoned debate, then it will become possible for the courts to see Gaiaism as a religion, and thus to enforce the constitutional separation of church and state by imposing some standard of rationality for environmental regulation and obstructionism.