Conservatives must learn from the shutdown

Speaker Boehner: ‘’We just didn’t win’’

16 days overdue, thus ends an American take on Monty Python. Without the satire.

The White House has preserved ObamaCare, Democrats have won clean resolutions and the GOP has been humbled into a very public and very bloody retreat.

For Republicans, there are only two positives.

First, with this deal, the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, has probably saved the GOP from being vanquished in next year’s Mid-Terms. Second, McConnell has challenged the President to live up to his word and engage in serious negotiations (my take on 'serious') before next January. In short, McConnell has given CPR to a party drowning in emotion.

For leading the GOP off its Maginot Line, McConnell deserves the gratitude of all conservatives.

Unfortunately, he won’t get it. 

Instead, the very opposite is likely to occur. Conservative firebrands will rage against his ‘betrayal of conservative values’. McConnell’s primary challenger, Matt Bevin, can expect his campaign coffers to brim. After all, for a loud but vocal conservative minority, compromise is treason. A capital crime. 

This insipid absolutism can’t continue. It’s time for us, the majority of conservatives; the ‘quiet conservatives’, to bring reason back to Republican politics.

For a start, we need to recognize what we’re up against - that there are those in our movement who see ‘purity’ as their defining cause. That for these conservatives, politics isn’t about asserting an agenda, it’s about purging the ‘ideologically impure’. We need to recognize that these partisans see themselves as the modern incarnations of John Stark’s heroic toast, - ‘’Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils.’’ That for these men and women, political death is preferable to compromise.

Next, we need to point out the fallacy of their argument.

Let’s cut the faux patriotism, ObamaCare is not the British Army and this isn’t the Revolutionary War. In their struggle, Stark and his comrades were fighting for an ideal that was both pure and possible – freedom and independence.

Neither was true with regards to the GOP strategy on ObamaCare. As I argued earlier this week, demanding that Obama sacrifice his landmark law was always implausible. Democrats control the Senate and the Executive. The Judiciary has rendered its decision- the law conforms with the Constitution. The polls were also clear- Americans might dislike ObamaCare, but they disliked the GOP’s brinkmanship even more. On top of it all, Obama had a post-Syria necessity to project clear leadership.

Unsurprisingly, the news coverage has reflected this understanding. Instead of focusing on the absurd incompetence of the ObamaCare rollout, the media set up camp on a different story – one centered in a Republican celebration of rudderless obstructionism. A political opposition marching in perfect step with Democratic propaganda. A modern tea party… without the tea.

For conservatives, this strategic delusion speaks to our burgeoning fetish - self-immolation at the shrine of partisan resistance.

Over the last two weeks, the House GOP has rendered itself the governing equivalent of a skydiving team without parachutes- for two minutes, soaring ecstasy as the jumpers sail through the clouds. Until terminal velocity meets certain gravity. Then truth renders its judgment – the illusion of omnipotence at an awful price. Self-destruction is the nemesis of political reason.

If we’re serious about preventing an American welfare state, we conservatives need to get serious.

We need to grasp the virtuous truth- that Political leadership demands both courage and rationality. That in a democracy, believing alone isn’t enough. In the end as with all arguments, political success requires presenting a case, persuading voters and pursuing change.

The alternative is what we’ve seen today. A gleeful Democratic party, a preaching President and a Republican brand that’s bobbing in the sewer.

Please watch video below for my thoughts on broader issues involved.

Post VP Debate analysis

Last night's debate went broadly as I had expected. The Vice President was far more aggressive than Ryan, frequently launching emotionally laden attacks on the Romney-Ryan platform. Biden also sought to clearly assert himself as the spokesman for Mr. 'Average Joe'. In contrast, Ryan tried to keep  his statements to policy details while attacking the Obama-Biden record.

A few things stood out for me.

1) Biden's innate grinning was relentless and made him look ridiculous while Ryan was speaking. Biden came across rude and arrogant - just look at the focus group data.

2) Biden was unable to articulate an Obama-Biden plan for deficit/debt reduction. There's a simple reason why, their plan doesn't exist. This failure formed part of a trend in which Biden sought to demagogue against Ryan instead of articulating counter proposals. The absurdity of Obama's 'change' narrative was on full display last night. In four short years, we have traveled from the pursuit of 'a new tone in Washington', to a celebration of unrepentant partisanship.

3) Obama-Biden's policy on Afghanistan is nuts. Biden aka 'the GRINch' resorted to constant repetitions of the Obama Administration's fundamental withdrawal timeline. Where Ryan talked about paying attention to ground conditions and military advice, for Biden it was clear that domestic politics came first. For me, Afghanistan represents the most stunning example of this President's hypocrisy. 2008 Obama claimed that 'he would win the right war, the war that 'Bush neglected', instead, success in Afghanistan has been subordinated to pleasing the Democratic base. There can be few strategic errors as profound as that of announcing a timeline for withdrawal to your enemy.

4) Ryan's answer to the abortion question gave a clear indication of the difficulty that Republicans have on this issue. On the one hand, Romney-Ryan understand that they must attract more female voters to the party. On the other, the candidates also understand that social conservatives are a highly reliable voting block that are concerned about a few key issues - abortion being one such issue. Ultimately, I do not believe that Romney-Ryan would have any interest in overturning Roe v Wade. They understand that most Americans (especially women) do not want the government engaged on such a controversial issue. I also think that many people misinterpret where the Supreme Court stands on abortion (Biden played to this misunderstanding). Yes, Justices like Scalia might oppose Roe v Wade, but they oppose it because they do not believe that there is a constitutional right to abortion. Scalia has stated explicitly that he believes abortion law is an issue for legislatures rather than for the courts. If Congress wants to legalize abortion - fine. If they want to restrict abortion - fine. Personally, I tend to take a more UK style approach to abortion - that the law should be rooted in science and the capacity for functioning life, rather than in culture battles over Privacy vs God. We should be focused on the economy and foreign policy.

5) From my perspective, Ryan was very strong on the economy. He quoted facts and suggested reforms. Biden applied scare tactics. I also find it interesting that Obama-Biden attack Romney-Ryan for not giving itemized details on their tax plan. Obama-Biden's tax plan is a complete joke. Obama-Biden's sums don't add up and their tax proposals would reinforce the worst elements of our complex, loophole laden tax code.

Romney's opportunity

The Democrats are presenting Romney-Ryan with a huge electoral opportunity. With even greater glee than normal, the Democratic Party is currently engaged in a full scale effort to protect the avarice of big unions. In Chicago, after a week of ignoring the children of that city, the teachers strike continues. Continuing, even though Mayor 'Rahmbo' aka Mayor Dumbo is offering to shower the union with more money. In Wisconsin, after previously attempting to sabotage democracy in order to stop Gov. Walker's union law from taking effect, then trying to end Walker's term early, the Democrats are now relying on absurd petitions to the courts. In New York, the Democrat-Union alliance has proudly prevented poor New Yorkers from taking advantage of cheaper food and household goods (the store, its jobs and cheap prices will now go to Christie's New Jersey). As if these actions weren't enough, the Democratic campaign platform goes even further - declaring total, unrepentant support for the big union agenda. An agenda that rests on intimidation, theft and the restriction of free speech. 

GOP candidates across America should take notice. Alongside their support for the job killing union agenda, the Democrats broader economic position is equally vulnerable. The economy remains weak and Obama's economic record (and economic strategy) are  devoid of value. Americans do not like the kind of left-wing special interests fetishism currently being practised by the Democrats. They understand that these policies destroy jobs, weaken the economy and add seemingly endless amounts of debt to the federal accounts. There is now a clear path for Romney to take the electoral fight to the President. Romney must wage a campaign with absolute focus on the economy (and Obama's foreign policy weakness).

Obama's Speech and the final stretch

In his speech last night, the President said that his re-election 'leads [America] to a better place'. My response is pretty simple - the first four years have certainly not lead to a better place. The great challenges that we face - uncontrolled deficits, soaring debt, uncontrolled health care inflation, 8%+ unemployment are all sustained. President Obama simply has not addressed these issues.

And the President still has no compunction about misrepresenting un-truths as truths. Here is the Washington Post's fact checker on the $4 trillion deficit reduction claim - he basically says that it is complete bs. As did Paul Ryan in a memorable encounter with Obama's budget chief. (I can't wait for the VP debate).

I agree with the President in one regard. Like him, I believe that this election is offering Americans a clear choice. However, I believe that the President offers a future of uncontrolled debt, ever expanding spending (and deficits) and higher taxes. I believe his policies serve the short term interests of Unions rather than the long term economic interests of our country. Today's figures show that unemployment in America remains terribly high and that many Americans have effectively given up looking for work. Less jobs are now being added than in 2011. The President's policies have failed. I will be voting for Mitt Romney. This earlier post of mine basically sums up why.

Soaring rhetoric of hope and promise might sound good, but it doesn't create jobs or pay the bills.

Democratic Platform and Unions

The release of the Democratic platform has largely been met with positive media reporting. Unfortunately, this reporting ignores how extreme the Democratic Party remains when it comes to the issues of Unions. In their new platform, Democrats unapologetically reject any restrictions on Union power. They "vigorously oppose" the "Right to Work", "Paycheck Protection" and "Save our Secret Ballot" measures. To me, it is stunning that alongside these measures the Democratic party tries to claim the mantle of middle class empowerment. Requiring Union membership to work a job, requiring un-consented paycheck deductions and denying private voting choice are illiberal and un-American policies. These steps deny low-middle income workers their constitutional rights to free speech and effectively steal money from their pockets. The Democratic rejection of secret balloting is an especially unpleasant example of the Democratic Party's apparent comfort with Union intimidation. I am proud that the Republican Party has leaders like Chris Christie, John Kasich and Paul Walker who are willing to stand up against these measures. As I have previously noted, Unions drive up living costs, reduce employment opportunities and destroy state budgets (just look at California and Illinois).

Far from being the ally of low-middle income Americans, Unions are our worst economic enemy. Sadly, the Democratic Party is owned by them.

Election Observations in Florida

I am currently in South West Florida. I will be returning to the UK this weekend. While in the sunshine state I have been attempting to get a feel for ground level voter leanings concerning this year's Presidential election. There is clearly a close split between likely voters. However, I have been able to make a number of conclusions. 

1) Republicans are far more energized than Democrats. The Republicans that I have met are almost unanimous in their profound dislike for the President's policies. Contrary to press spin, the majority of this opposition is focussed on a fundamental distaste for the President's economic approach and not on his personality (although he is not popular in this regard). The energy that this opposition holds in terms of prospective support for Republican candidates (at the national and state levels) is considerable. In contrast to Republican leaning voters, many Democrats are less energetic in their contrasting support for the President. They feel that his economic record is weak and they regard him as having failed to live up to expectations. Not surprising when the President promised biblical level change.

2) Romney-Ryan need to do a better job of explaining their Medicare reforms. A good deal of older voters are concerned that these reforms will deny them medical care. This is largely the result of Democratic ad campaigns that unapologetically lie about the Romney/Ryan position on this issue (The Democratic Party has no plan so just relies on lies). To counter Democratic attacks, the Republican ticket simply needs to repeatedly say this. 

3) Far too few voters are attentive to Afghanistan as an issue. Iran has come up in a few of my conversations, but it disappoints me that most Americans seem to have forgotten about the fight our military (along with our coalition allies) are currently involved in. Supporting our troops means more than waving a flag and a yellow ribbon, it requires an attention to our military operations.

4) By Democrats and Republicans alike, the President is seen as offering few new proposals. In this sense, support for the President by moderate Democrats and independents is largely rooted in their discomfort with the more extreme portions of Republican Party policy. I firmly believe that Romney-Ryan have little interest in issues like gay marriage, abortion and pornography (and will largely ignore GOP religious fundamentalists). However, negative perceptions of the GOP on these issues are undoubtedly damaging the party's ability to reach out to new voters. I always come back to this polling data. Around 40% of Americans are conservative, 35% moderate and only 21% liberal. On these results, the GOP should be landsliding every election. Unfortunately, candidates like Santorum drive many voters away. I am confident that over time as the next generation of Republican leaders begin to run for office, we will be able to attract more of these voters. My generation cares very little for intervention in the private lives of our fellow citizens.

Todd Akin and the GOP

Todd Akin needs to quit the Missouri Senate race. He is distracting attention away from Obama's failed economic record while also helping Democrats to frame the GOP as a party of extremists. I don't believe that Akin was malicious in what he said, just stupid. The deeper concern that I have about this issue is in the way that extreme views like those of Akin help negatively paint perceptions of the Republican Party. The fact that next week's GOP convention platform will call for a constitutional amendment to prohibit abortion (without clarifying rights in cases of rape or incest), is an example of this fundamentalist encroachment on GOP policy. While Romney rightly opposes this position (as Bush opposed the 2004 call for banning civil unions for homosexuals), Republicans must be willing to speak up louder in opposition to religious extremism- a constituency that makes up a far smaller part of the GOP than most people understand. People like Tony Perkins are entitled to their views, but their views are clearly on the fringe of American social discourse and they should not be allowed to punch above their weight in GOP policy formulation. My fear is that if the GOP fails to adopt a more moderate tone on social issues, we will isolate a large swathe of the next generation of potential Republican voters. And of course, there is also the broader, more important issue of what our party stands for.