About Me

Name: Baisden Heys
Email: baisdenheys@yahoo.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Blog Roll

 

Rescuing the Republican Party

Traditional conservative Republicans have been talking a great deal recently about leaving the GOP to form a third national political party. They are unhappy, not only with the liberal leanings of John McCain, but with the big spending, government growing ways of George W. Bush. And in general, they feel neo-conservatives have moved the party too far to the left. Some, in fact, already have left to join the Libertarian Party.

But neither is a good solution. First, even a cursory glance at the history of third parties shows they never gain enough support or political traction to truly affect local or state, much less federal policy. And it makes no sense for traditional conservatives (paleo-cons) to join the Libertarians when we disagree with so much of their policy.

The most obvious example is -- and this is an oversimplification -- the Libertarian belief that humans should be allowed to do whatever they want so long as it does not infringe on the freedoms of others. Traditional conservatives argue human freedom begins and ends with the freedom God as Creator has given us: the freedom to do what is right.

I agree with the sentiments of former President Ronald Reagan, in his now-famous 1975 speech to the Conservative Political Action Committee: “A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.”

So I would argue that if there are enough disaffected conservative Republicans to form a third national party, then there are enough to organize and wrest control of the GOP back from the neo-cons who now control it. I believe we can regain control of the party, hold onto our core beliefs and build membership.  Of course, to say it will take work is an understatement.

 First, it will take a return and strict adherence to the principles that have always helped conservatives win strong public support: low taxes, small government, individual responsibility. The best example of the success of that approach is the 1994 Contract with America that helped sweep conservative Republicans into power in Congress.  Subsequent years have shown clearly that when Republicans move to the left, they lose both credibility and elections.

It will take education. We must educate the public, not about the names, places and dates they learned in high school or college, but about the ideas that formed the United States. We must show them it is the conservative U.S. Constitution which gives “power to the people”, and that to keep that power for themselves, the Constitution must be preserved as the Founders wrote it and interpreted as they intended.

We also must counter the leftist trend that has dominated public education in the U.S. for decades. We must re-learn how critical it is to pass our values to our children, to show them both how and why conservative ideas have always created the most freedom, security and wealth for everyone, as well as how and why liberal-socialist ideas have created only slavery, danger and poverty throughout history. We must do that actively, and never assume our children will become conservative by osmosis.

It will take wresting control of the American legal system from the clutches of liberal law professors and jurists. Since the very founding of the Republic, nationalist (as opposed to federalist) judges have been responsible for subverting the intent of the Constitution. They, including the very first members of the Supreme Court, grabbed power for themselves, much more than the Constitution gives them, and have (unconstitutionally) imposed their personal beliefs on the country, masquerading those opinions as “constitutional law.”
 
(If you really wish to know how the Constitution was meant to be interpreted, ignore the Federalist Papers and read instead the Debates on the Constitution. That is where the final document was hammered out. They give a very clear idea of what the ratifiers of the document understood and intended it to mean.)

It will take outreach to minorities. We must show them how conservative values are what truly protect them from political and economic domination. We must show them they have a stake in this country and how they can take advantage of all it has to offer. The young of all races respond to truth and challenge. If we show them something is worth doing, they will join us.

It will take organization. Conservatives must learn how to effect and take advantage of grassroots organizing. Barak Obama is right about one thing: change does not happen from the top down, but from the bottom up. And if conservatives are going to save our nation, our culture and our party, we must do something now.

One problem is, and has always been, that conservatives are too busy being responsible, taking care of their jobs and careers, their families and themselves, to protest or march or organize. But they are going to have to make time, or surrender the fate of this nation to those who want to destroy it.

President Reagan’s 1975 remarks run parallel to those spoken by the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius several millenia ago: "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Elites

It is said that those who control the language of a nation control its culture.  And it is far past time for conservatives to take back the culture of the United States.  I propose we start with the language we use to describe liberals.  I know, I know, they consider themselves progressives.  What most modern liberals really are, are socialists.  Sadly, most are not even aware of that fact.
 
But back to my point:  we conservatives constantly refer to liberals as elites.  And that, quite simply, is both a misuse of the term and an insult to us.  The online American Heritage Dictionary defines elite as:  "a group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status."  Obviously, the writer of that definition had conservatives in mind, as least insofar as the intellectual and social references are concerned, and we certainly should claim the description for ourselves.
 
I would argue there are many other words which better describe the true nature of our liberal-progressive-socialist opponents.  One I would propose using is "effete."  The same online American Heritage Dictionary defines the word this way:  "marked by self-indulgence, triviality, or decadence; as in an effete group of self-professed intellectuals."   I am sure you see the relevance.  Another definition from the same online source is:  "unable to produce; sterile."  Liberals surely do not produce original ideas.  As for sterility, we can but hope.
 
Thus it is obvious effete is a much more accurate term than elite to describe those on the opposite end of the political spectrum from ourselves.  I especially like the reference to "self-indulgence, triviality or decadence," and find it ironic that it parallels the original definition of the term "democrat."  According to historian Joseph J. Ellis in his book "Founding Brothers," the word originated as an epithet, referring to "one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses."
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Insanity

Insanity has been described as doing something over and over and over again, hoping for a different result, when experience has taught the outcome will be exactly the same each time.  The Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba and lately Venezuela are examples of economic and political insanity.  The founders of socialist regimes, first in one country, then in another and another, have promised social and economic justice.  They have never delivered either.  By now, history should have taught they never will.
 
But there is also the old cliche that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.  And many Americans seem hell-bent on doing precisely that.  They may remember names, places and dates from high school history, but they are ignorant of the ideas which created this country.  Nor do they understand how our economic system works, or business, and fear, indeed appear to hate what they do not understand.
 
Capitalism is not a perfect system.  Nothing constructed by man ever is.  But it is the only economic system ever devised which democratizes wealth.  Anyone with a bit of drive and gumption can, at the least, become comfortable and relatively secure.  No, it is not easy.  It takes effort, and always more than forty hours per week.  But it also has been proven over and over again that grit often accomplishes more than intellect:  you can be average and successful.
 
And Capitalism is the only economic system which satisfies what conservative political writer and commentator Dinesh D'Souza has described as the "demand for an institution that channels selfish human desire toward the betterment of society."  It creates self-sustaining jobs, those which generate enough wealth to pay for themselves, and helps those who perform those jobs to rise.  Of course, government can create jobs.  But it cannot, under any economic system, create the wealth to pay for them.  Wealth is created, and can only be created, by individuals.
 
Yet many Americans denounce the very system which creates so many jobs and so much wealth for so many, and demand that government fulfill their needs and cater to their whims.  Rather than be viewed as good examples, rather than be emulated, those who achieve become objects of derision.  Much of this attitude comes from politicians who are more than willing to advance the lie, deny the fundamental truth, that it was and is the efforts of individuals which created the greatness of this nation.  They insist that credit go to government:  the state is everything; the individual nothing.
 
Of course, government must justify itself.  But that takes wealth.  The government has no wealth, so it takes yours:  taxes.  Government burns wealth as fuel.  Thus you pay for the very programs politicians use to buy your votes.  Insanity?
 
Yes, and Socialism.  It promises wealth for all.  All it ever delivers is poverty.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

For What I Am Thinking

Some years ago, I met a young Pakistani.  Anwar was night watchman at the building in which I worked.  I would arrive in the mornings just as his shift was ending.  Over a period of months and through a series of conversations, I learned he had been a pharmacist at home.  And while he loved his country, he felt limited there, did not like what he considered political and economic oppression.  So, borrowing money from family and friends, he left his wife (also a pharmacist) behind and immigrated to the U.S.
 
Here, however, he did not have the proper schooling.  So in addition to his full time job, Anwar was also taking a full load of college courses to earn an American pharmacy degree.  Once that was accomplished, he planned to get a job in his profession, save enough to repay the loans, then bring his wife to the U.S. where she would also study for her degree.
 
I wondered then at Anwar's determination:  the physical, mental and emotional strength it must take to carry the weight of the responsibility he had taken on himself.  I also wondered if many born in the U.S. appreciated the freedoms and opportunities it gives as much as Anwar, who was willing to sacrifice so much to become a citizen of this country.
 
Anwar spoke often of missing his family, home and country, but mostly of missing his wife.  In summer, following his shift, he often would walk several blocks from our building to catch a bus along the route of a well- known marathon.  His usual bus stopped at our corner.  I teased him, saying "I know what you're up to.  You just want to watch the girls training for the race in their skimpy running clothes."  He blushed:  "Oh," he said, "in my country you can be executed for what I am thinking."
 
And therein lies a vital difference between ours and so many countries.  Here, you cannot be executed for what you are thinking.  Yet.  But we have taken a step in that direction:  hate crime laws.  Their stated purpose is to punish those who commit crimes against others simply because those others are different.  Their effect is to undermine the rule of law and to violate the most basic spirit of the U.S. Constitution.
 
It is the rule of law which separates this nation from those that persecute, prosecute and often execute others because they have violated the whims or beliefs of the person or group in power.  It is the rule of law which prevents the whims or personal beliefs of those in power in the U.S. from being imposed as "law."  And it is the Constitution upon which the rule of law is based.
 
At their core, hate crime laws are intended to control thought, to punish individuals "for what they are thinking."  If you know anything about history, you have heard of two closely-related political systems which use that principle as one of their basic tenets:  facism and socialism.
 
Ours is a Constitution of freedoms, not of controls.  If it were, Anwar and the millions of others who have struggled to bring themselves and their families to America's shores would not have bothered.  But they did.  And it is obvious they appreciate those freedoms more than many who were born here.
 
Those who support hate crime laws cloak themselves in the self-righteousness of helping those who have been unjustly wronged.  All victims of crime have been unjustly wronged.  Hate crime laws wrong us all.

 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Racism

The Reverends Jesse, Al and Jeremiah insist racism is alive and well in America.  And they are right.  All they need do is look in the mirror to see some of its most active proponents.
 
Racism certainly still exists among some whites in the U.S.  But anyone who thinks seriously about the issue also knows those people are a dying breed, and their number is infinitely smaller than the Reverends would have us believe.  Or, if such rampant racism does still exist, how do they explain the widespread popularity of Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Thomas Sowell, Star Parker, Anthony Bradley, Larry Elder?  All are black.  Surely the Reverends noticed.
 
And they are popular with those the Reverends insist are the most insidious racists:  conservatives.  Could it be conservatives actually believe in the idea of character over color?  The Reverend Jesse, especially, should recall the dream of a friend.
 
Nor is racism exclusive to the U.S., or to whites.  It is, in fact, a human condition.  To some extent, and in some respects, every person believes the race they were born into is superior to all others.  That does not automatically translate into the hatred or denigration of those born to other races.
 
And that brings us to the real issue.  Racism certainly contributed to yesterday's poverty.  Today's poverty has little to do with hatred, but much to do with culture:  the culture of individual responsibility versus the culture of entitlement.  And the latter certainly is not limited to minorities.  Nor do those who insist racism causes poverty want to hear that poor whites far outnumber poor minorities; especially not that many poor whites are also conservative.
 
In fact, the most overt racists are those who constantly play one race against another.  I would suggest that those the Reverends lead are not victims of white racism so much as that of the Reverends themselves.  They constantly ask what others have done for their people.  What have they done?  Have they helped them achieve better education, better housing, better jobs or rise from poverty?
 
What the Reverends actually achieve is the perpetuation of slavery:  not physical, but emotional, intellectual and economic.  It is the slavery of ignorance.  And it is exactly what the Reverends intend.  It gives them power.  It gives them wealth.  Them.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »