The Party of “No?”

February 26, 2010

This article appeared in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 3/5/10. You can read the online newspaper version here, or catch the print column each week.

Sometimes “No” is the right answer

Growing up, I gained the distinction of mischief maker in my family, readily disruptive and resistant. As a baby, I was given the affectionate nickname “Baby Rambo” because of my penchant for destruction, a trait that eventually morphed into characteristic childhood defiance and eventual teenage foolhardiness. As a result, I heard one word quite often from my parents: “No.”

Today, much of the liberal movement, led by the Obama Administration, laments the Republican Party as “The Party of No.” It’s become a popular political tactic aimed to distinguish Democrats as progressive and solutions-oriented, desperately trying to solve America’s worst problems. No matter how shaky the solutions, at least they’re trying. Republicans, the story goes, stand by as angry curmudgeons, content to drive away needed reform in favor of base resistance.

But sometimes, “No” is the best answer. As a toddler, was it good for me to eat Play Doh? No. Was it right for me to whip my brother with a belt? No. As a teenager, did staying up until two in the morning on a school night make sense? No.

Similarly, was it wise for government to pass the largest spending bill in history (the $787 billion stimulus) based on faulty Keynesian economics? No. Did it make sense to widen massive entitlement programs, passing spend-heavy budgets in the wake of mounting deficits? No. Should government have increased its reach into the private economy through corporate pay caps, takeovers of auto companies, and bailouts of banks? No. Is the best solution for health reform implicit government control of 15% of the economy? No. Should we pass economically damaging cap-and-trade legislation based on questionable, controversial environmental science? No.

Beyond simple resistance to poor policy, however, “No” springs from a fundamental philosophical divide between liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism places great faith in government’s ability to solve societal problems. Its first inclination is toward government action, growth, and involvement. Hence President Obama’s assertion that “government,” not the private economy, “will create or save jobs.” Likewise, his beliefs that tight federal regulation will spur long-term economic success, that redistributive taxation will drive societal “equality and prosperity,” and that individual healthcare is best delivered through government planners. Liberalism, therefore, can be seen as a philosophy of government action and involvement—when societal problems arise, government says “Yes” to its own solutions.

Conservatism, by contrast, views government action with a sharply critical eye. It believes in free market capitalism, in individual responsibility, and in small, limited government. It sees these tenets as vital to liberty and freedom—where government overreaches, it restricts liberty. Conservatism holds that government plays a dangerous zero sum game with its citizenry: Where it takes revenue, its citizens lose income; where it takes responsibility, its citizens lose accountability; where it grows, it citizens shrink. As a result, conservative government is a government of limited involvement. It readily says “No” to itself, but passionately says “Yes” to liberty.

That combined maxim is what conservatives must carefully articulate in the coming months. It must embrace, even champion the need to say “No” to government overreach, but it must couple that sentiment with an unwavering desire to protect liberty and freedom.

In reality, conservatives have offered prudent, measured solutions to the various problems facing the nation. On the economy, they’ve sought tax cuts to help spur investment and consumption from the private sector. On healthcare, they’ve proposed tort reform, portability, and transparency. On the deficit, they’ve offered a tough, but necessary rollback in government spending and administration. Republicans must learn to artfully weave these ideas into the fabric of foundational conservative values. Then they can become, as Ronald Reagan said, the “revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people.”

Ron Paul is famously known in the House of Representatives as “Dr. No” for his refusal to vote for any spending not explicitly allowed by the Constitution. Is he a bit extreme? Perhaps, but his defense and respect for the Constitution have proved a powerful indictment of government disregard for constraint, of how far we have drifted from our foundational structure.

Sometimes “No” is the right answer. When it comes to expansive, spend-heavy government, it may nearly always be the right answer. My parents were not “The Parents of No” for their careful restraint of my immature actions as a child. They were simply wise guardians of the right path for my life. In fact, it may be that “No” saved me from myself. Perhaps government should do the same.

-Matt Benchener is Supervisor of Newtown Township and Founder of TruPolitics.net

Leave a Comment » | Conservatism, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by mattbenchener

The Populist Plague

February 4, 2010

The hot new word in political discourse is “Populism.” Headlines following Scott Brown’s election declared a “Populist Victory,” while President Obama’s State of the Union address was called by many a “night for populists.” Republicans and Democrats alike have taken hold of this mantle, broadly defined as the politics of the many, hoping to galvanize their parties as the bearers of popular will. It is a dangerous trend emerging from both sides of the aisle.

Republicans have rallied behind polling numbers showing most people don’t want Mr. Obama’s health reform, highlighting the outpouring of anger during the tea parties and town halls. Many Republican leaders have stated that since the broad will of the people is against ObamaCare, the legislation should not be passed.

Democrats have applied this logic more broadly, forwarding government programs and regulations aimed to benefit the masses at the expense of a few (the rich; big business; Wall Street). President Obama’s recent State of the Union was markedly populist, denouncing “bad behavior on Wall Street,” and calling for “a fee on the biggest banks” and higher taxes on “oil companies, investment fund managers and those making over $250,000 a year.” Indeed, his most famous populist moment came in 2008, when he told Joe the Plumber that the U.S. should “spread the wealth around,” taking from the few to give to the many.

Here, both parties are wrong.

Our founders were careful to craft a government insulated from the ebb and flow of popular sentiment. Mob rule, a product of the emotion, irrationality, and susceptibility to dramatics that plagues crowds, precipitated the downfall of history’s most famous pure democracy in Athens. Direct Democracy, they saw, was deeply flawed, a victim of the changing tide of public sentiment that throws prudence aside. They also knew that pure majority rule would come at the expense of the minority. A government dictated only by the popular will of the people would mean the rights of some would be compromised by the will of the many.

That is why our founders formed a Democratic Republic, a representative form of government marked by checks and balances, and constrained by the Constitution. The people could elect those they felt would best serve their interests, but terms in office would be staggered and cyclical, and chambers of government would be separated from one another. Once elected, those representatives would be held to constitutionally established rights regardless of popular sentiment. Those “unalienable Rights” would serve to project all classes of society, and would not be torn away by the emotion of the present.

The recent rhetoric dominating the political landscape, however, has become almost centrally focused on the “will of the people.” The right decision, the thinking goes, is the popular decision, the “just” outflow of democracy.

But popular will is not always commensurate with justice. Slavery, for example, was not ended because of broad popular sentiment—in fact, it took our most divisive war to stop it. Slavery was ended because it was sharply incongruent with the foundational notion that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” It had nothing to do with populism, but everything to do with Truth.

So, the Republican argument against ObamaCare should not be couched in populist rhetoric or wrapped in ever-changing polling numbers. It should be defined by what is right—that large, expansive, redistributive government runs counter to fundamental American ideas of liberty, personal property, and individual responsibility. Healthcare needs reform, just not the kind that portends government control.

Similarly, President Obama’s argument for government management of corporate pay, bank bonuses, and redistribution should not flow from a populist Robin Hood mentality that robs some to pay many. It is flatly wrong for government to confiscate individual earnings, control private industry, and fund special interest programs through selective taxation. The veil of popular mandate does not dissolve the rights of the minority. Public “outrage” has a funny way of suddenly shifting; it should not guide policy, and it should never be the impetus for governmental decision making.

Liberals have been, for the most part, intellectually honest regarding healthcare. They believe it is a right that should be guaranteed by the government regardless of the recent public outcry. And that is where the debate ought to reside: What is the right thing to do? How does the Constitution inform our decisions? Are we defending Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? Critical questions must be considered about the role of government, the provision of the State, and what constitutes the careful balance between the protection of rights and the guarantee of liberty.

Protests, tea parties, town halls, and political punditry all have a vital place in the Republic. Free speech, as iron sharpens iron, forces us to constantly refine and evaluate the direction of our country. Similarly, popular elections create accountability, and remind our elected officials of the people they are sworn to serve. A Democratic Republic is the beautiful balance between the evolving will of the people and unalienable rights of the people. We must be careful to maintain that balance.

-Matt Benchener is Supervisor of Newtown Township, and Founder of TruPolitics.net

Leave a Comment » | Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by mattbenchener

The State of Our Union: Progress Vs. Change

January 28, 2010

This article was featured in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 1/31/10, and the Bucks County Courier Times on 2/14/10. You can read the online version here from The Bulletin, or catch the print column each week.

Just over a year ago, America witnessed the historic inauguration of its new leader. While only 53% of the country cast its vote for him, the vast majority saw promise in his fresh vision—his early approval ratings (70% positive – Gallup) made him nearly transcendent. It was clear most were willing to give his “Change” a chance.

A year later, the tide has turned.  President Obama’s approval rating stands at a paltry 47% (Gallup), and the number of Americans who strongly disapprove of his performance now outnumber those who strongly approve by a 15 point margin (Rasmussen). The country repudiated the Democratic agenda by overturning Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts in landmark elections since his inauguration, and support for his signature healthcare legislation is on life support.

In a telling moment, President Obama highlighted this dramatic shift in his recent State of the Union address: “I campaigned on the promise of change—change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren’t sure if they still believe we can change—or at least, that I can deliver it.” He’s right.

America was ready to embrace change, and the President’s historically high approval rating was a signal of a frustrated citizenry. The country was ready to follow a bipartisan leader; it wanted healing from years of tired political battles. It wanted to put an end to part-time conservatism, where government cut taxes but spent wildly and grew institutional bureaucracy. It saw the coming wave of Recession, and asked for a government that fostered economic health. It wanted fiscal responsibility, to reverse the fastest eight-year deficit growth in U.S. history. It wanted a government that focused less on divisive social issues and more on practical reform. It was ready to follow, ready to change, ready to champion responsible, prudent governance—it desperately wanted an inspirational, unifying leader to guide the nation forward.

But change for change’s sake is not Progress. Progress, woven into the fabric of American prosperity, must be built on the right foundation. In America, that foundation was forged of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and individual liberty. At a time when the country was starving for a new leader to embrace these principles, to unify rather than divide, and to address the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, aggressive liberal policies advanced through hardball partisan tactics represented Change, but not Progress.

It appears President Obama and the Democratic leadership may be waking up to the consequences of the past year. Rhetoric following Scott Brown’s election, and highlighted in the President’s State of the Union address, suggest the party will pivot to focus on job creation and the economy. It will likely temper its agenda until the election cycle has passed, proposing moderate spending freezes and scaled back reforms. But until it offers the American people the right kind of change—progress—it will have lost them.

As we begin 2010 and examine the state of our Union, we must focus on a simple plan for success. First, government should not spend more than it has—leveraged debt creates long-term financial insecurity and mortgages our future. It’s time we get spending under control. To that end, Congress should implement a pay-as-you go system, where all spending increases must be met by commensurate cuts. The administration should return the hundreds of billions of unused stimulus dollars, cut government bureaucracy by at least 10%, and set a goal to reduce discretionary spending until the budget is balanced.

As government controls its costs, it can work to return money to taxpayers. The capital gains tax should be lowered to under 10% to help spur investment, income tax rates should be lowered and flattened across the board to encourage spending, and the double-taxation of corporations should be eliminated to make our businesses more competitive. Less government and unleashed capitalism will create jobs and grow the economy.

Practical reforms to healthcare should be enacted to help lower costs and thus increase access. Tort reform should be a must—caps on malpractice rewards would reduce unnecessary defensive medicine and shrink the cost for malpractice insurance, which in turn would have the dual effect of increasing the quality of doctors and reducing overall costs. The insurance industry should reflect a free market with transparent prices, portability, and open competition.

Given the complexity of our times, there is much more work to be done, this is just a starting point. But whatever the work, whatever the change, it must be Progress. Progress built on a foundation of fundamental Constitutional values, standing on the shoulders of what has always made us great. Because no matter the President or majority party, the state of our Union has always been the belief that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness did not happen by accident—they were a product of Progress, not wholesale Change.

-Matt Benchener is Founder of TruPolitics.net and Supervisor of Newtown Township.

Leave a Comment » | Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by mattbenchener

Scott Brown and The American Experiment

January 21, 2010

“It is to me a new and consolatory proof that wherever the people are well-informed they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.”

 —Thomas Jefferson, 1789.

“The Republican from Massachusetts has the Senate floor.” That’s a line we never thought we’d hear. On Tuesday, Scott Brown, a little known state senator, defeated Democrat Martha Coakley by over 100,000 votes in a special election for the seat held by the late Ted Kennedy for 47 years. This wasn’t just any election; it was a statement victory that reaffirmed the fundamental American experiment.

The significance Mr. Brown’s victory is marked by the fact that he simply was not supposed to win. In fact, he was supposed to get crushed (down 30% in the polls in early December). Massachusetts is one of America’s most liberal states—Democrats out-register Republicans nearly 3-1 (only 15% of voters are registered with the GOP). The last time a Republican held a Senate seat in Massachusetts was in the 1970s, and President Obama won the deep blue state by 26 points just 14 months ago.

So how did Scott Brown win?

He brought the race beyond the boarders of the Bay State. The context of the times made the election truly historic—a victory for Mr. Brown meant Republicans could break the Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority. Americans were now able to choose the course they wanted for their nation. The answer was clear, and given President Obama’s recent victory, ironic: Change.

In its one year in power, the Democrat super-majority partnered with the Obama Administration to pass the largest spending bill in history ($787 billion stimulus), intervene deeply in private industry (corporate pay restrictions, AIG/GM/Chrysler takeover, TARP), widen massive entitlement programs, and propose controversial healthcare and cap-and-trade legislation. Partisan, hardball politics became the norm; the party finally had its chance to exercise and implement starkly liberal policy. Americans lost jobs at nearly record rates, and the national deficit ballooned.

Scott Brown decided to make the race a referendum on those liberal policies. He highlighted his opposition to the healthcare reform bill, runaway spending, and mounting deficits. He asked voters to choose between big government liberalism and Constitutional conservatism. He spoke openly about free market capitalism, job creation, and fiscal restraint. He even called upon Massachusetts’s most famous son, John F. Kennedy, highlighting the former president’s successful supply-side cuts. He drew a line in the sand between himself and President Obama’s aggressive agenda. He won.

Political spinsters from the left are desperately trying to downplay the results, saying Ms. Coakley ran a poor campaign and that Democrats took the race for granted. Such sentiments are at best disingenuous, predictable tactics used to blame the losing candidate—now the sacrificial lamb—in order to distance the party and its underlying ideology from the loss. Ms. Coakley was a strong enough candidate to win a sharply contested primary, dominating a field of four experienced and influential Democrats. She was a strong enough candidate to be the popularly elected Attorney General for the state. Most importantly, she was a Democrat running for office in Massachusetts. She lost.

Our nation’s leaders would be wise to take notice: Mr. Brown’s win was a powerful statement about what Americans want from their country. When considered with the landmark GOP victories in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races last November (states which Obama carried 53% – 46% and 57% – 42%, respectively), Mr. Brown’s victory is evidence of a roaring tide of discontent with liberal policy.

At its core, America is fundamentally center-right, built upon foundational conservative values of limited government, fiscal restraint, and personal responsibility. The nation has been differentiated since its creation by firm commitments to liberty and personal freedom. In America, individuals have the essential right to determine their own outcomes, to, as Abraham Lincoln once said, “Eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which [their] own hand earns.” We are a free nation, and freedom demands exceptionally limited government.

The American experiment—government by the people and for the people—was bred of discontent with the heavy-handed rule of the British monarchy. The experiment marched on in the face of socialism and communism, as central governments around the world attempted to control society in order to dictate outcomes. In 2009, we learned that some would like to “Change” the character of our nation to reflect that brand of government. In 2010, the Massachusetts election was a referendum on who we are as a country. America’s voice was heard loud and clear.

-Matt Benchener is Supervisor of Newtown Township and Founder of TruPolitics.net

1 Comment | Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by mattbenchener

As Goes Massachusetts?

January 19, 2010

This post is written by guest author Edward Mahee. Mr. Mahee has an extensive legal background, and is an emerging conservative thinker. This is his eighth posting for the site.

As goes Massachusetts, so goes the country?  In usual times, such a statement would be greeted as a joke.  After all, Massachusetts is seen not as a political bellwether, but as a reliable strong hold of big-government liberalism.  But these are not usual times, and this is not a usual election.  Regardless of the result in Tuesday’s special election to replace the U.S. Senate seat vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy, the fact that the race is worth paying attention to is suggestive of a truth that many don’t want to come to grips with: The American people, including many Democrats, are not willing to endure liberalism’s heavy hand too long.

Polls overwhelmingly demonstrate that voters have bristled at the prospect of President Obama’s health care initiative becoming law.  The hostility can be explained by ever growing frustration at policies employed by the Democratic leadership in Washington, a group which has piled up debt at record rates without addressing the core national concern of job creation. Despite growing unrest over the economy, the deficit, and unemployment, Democrats have forwarded monumentally expensive entitlements bred of their ideological desire to control.  Unfortunately for them, they have to stand for election and explain themselves. 

Voters have been unimpressed.  When forced to defend liberal big government, Democrats have been flatly unsuccessful.  In elections and public opinion polls, voters are expressing their extreme displeasure.  Even in deep blue Massachusetts, the home of the liberal lion Ted Kennedy, voters appear to have had enough of big government liberalism in Washington.

At the beginning of last year, we were promised a new politics and a new path to prosperity.  Americans waited with anticipation as our new leaders set to work to figure out how to put America back on the path to prosperity.  Americans gave the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Obama and his allies when they promised a new kind of post-partisan politics, a politics that would remove us from the era of his maligned predecessor.  One year in, however, the people have lost patience with Mr. Obama.  And the reason is simple: His policies have been expensive and have produced no results. 

Now, having to fight an unexpectedly difficult race in Massachusetts, Democrats have been warning voters that their Republican opponents will simply take us back to the policies of George W. Bush.  If Republicans revert back to the former President’s policies, Democrats will be correct.

For Republicans to take full advantage of the electoral winds at their back, they need to push a strong conservative agenda promoting policies designed to unleash America’s entrepreneurial spirit.  This will address the most acute concern of voters—jobs.  Republicans need to articulate the message that free markets and free enterprise drive prosperity and wealth creation.  By reducing the size of government and reducing the tax burden on individuals and employers, Americans will take the economic risks necessary to make innovation and job creation worth while. They need to explain that the price of big government is the removal of rewards of economic success; big government doesn’t make economic success worth the effort. Voters have demonstrated they care about the economy, not entitlements.

Democrats will counter that such policies failed during the Bush years.  They neglect to mention that George W. Bush was not truly conservative.  He did cut taxes, but he spent too much and was too enamored with big government.  Republicans need to articulate an authentic conservative message that says freedom in the hands of free people is the surest way to preserve and enhance American prosperity. 

Voters are willing to support such a platform; they have shown as much in Virginia, New Jersey, and now Massachusetts.  Conservatism isn’t perfect, but a limited federal government which leaves the people free to work, worship, and associate as they see fit is much preferable to the alternative of being wards of the almighty state.

-Edward Mahee for TruPolitics.net

1 Comment | Politics | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by mattbenchener

Flight Delays and Healthcare

January 13, 2010

This article was featured in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 1/23/10. You can read the online version here, or check out the print column each week.

Nothing quite says “Christmas” like holiday travel. And nothing says “holiday travel” like a three hour delay at the Philadelphia airport. This year’s experience was uniquely telling.

My wife and I left our house hours ahead of our flight time, encountered almost no traffic, breezed through security, and made it to our gate an hour before boarding. It was far too easy. Then my wife, herself a frequent traveler,  made a grave mistake. Upon boarding the plane she said to me, “This is the easiest trip I’ve ever taken; everything’s gone so smoothly. Knock on wood.” Only there was no wood to knock on.

Sure enough, an hour later we were sitting in a 90 degree plane cabin in the middle of winter (are there really no vents on airplanes?) waiting for a small mechanical “fix.” The captain announced it would take less than 5 minutes to fix the problem—apparently the crew loading the baggage had left a cargo door open.

Of course, the five minutes became nearly two hours. We watched as countless workers drove by the plane to deliver baggage elsewhere, maintenance other planes, and direct incoming traffic. We even had visits from mechanics that weren’t “qualified” to close the door. A businessman sitting nearby dryly remarked that it wasn’t in their “union job description” to close doors. He continued saying, “In no other industry do we expect such consistently poor service, bureaucracy, and inefficiency.” “No, there’s one more,” I responded. “Government.”

The unfortunate truth of my Christmas travel story is that I have dozens more like it, as do most travelers. The U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics reports that close to 25% of flights arrive late—where else is a 25% error rate acceptable? This, of course, does not account for mishandled baggage, poor service, and various TSA hassles.

The incompetence in the airline industry is nearly exceptional. Nearly.

Enter the federal government, society’s shining example of inefficiency and bureaucracy.  Operating outside the normal constraints and principles of private industry, the federal government has run at a loss to the tune of $12 trillion. In other words, the U.S. government has spent so feverishly and with such little regard to its expenses that it now owes over $40,000 per U.S. citizen to its creditors. General Motors would be proud.

Beneath that debt are countless examples of waste. Economist Brian Riedl of The Heritage Foundation uncovered $72 billion in lost taxpayer dollars due to government payment errors in 2008. Government auditors recently completed a five year study examining all federal programs and found that 22% (with a cost of $123 billion annually) provided little or no assistance to the populations they are supposed to serve. In November, the Associated Press reported that government agencies wasted more than $98 billion on improper tax credit and benefit distributions.  This all led Senator Tom Carper, chair of the Senate panel on federal financial management, to state, “It goes without saying that these results would be completely unacceptable in the private sector, as they should be in government, especially at a time of record deficits.” Senator Carper was just skimming the surface.

Just as “flight delay,” “lost baggage,” and “impossible-to-open bag of peanuts,” have become synonymous with “air travel,” “bureaucracy,” “red tape,” and “waste” have become synonymous with “government.” So why do we put up with such poor quality and inefficiency from both groups? Because we have to.

In many ways, the airline industry is a quasi-monopoly. Consumers traveling, for instance, from New York to California, fly close to 100% of the time, even though they expect significant delays and hassle; there is simply no other reasonable travel option.

Government, likewise, suffers the same monopolistic disease—the government has a monopoly on government. You cannot “buy” another federal government, and emigration is constrained by international law, community ties, and nationalistic impulse. Government operates in anything but a free market.

The result in both cases is the stark absence of the basic competitive forces that drive improvement and innovation. Economists Nick Abraham, Joshua Hall, and Ben VanMetre recently wrote the following about the U.S. Postal Service, the government’s “business” that lost $6 billion in 2009: “It is a quasi-monopoly, which does not allow for competitive forces to eliminate inefficiencies and determine better ways of operating. The postal service is a textbook example of a monopoly that, because of a lack of competitive pressures, faces little incentive to minimize costs and thus continues to operate at inefficient levels.” The same can be said of all government.

Aside from monopolistic factors, a portion of government’s poor quality is flatly unavoidable. A democracy will always be subject to political pressure—while businesspeople make decisions for economic purposes, politicians make decisions for political purposes. Agency appointments (made as political favors without regard to merit), special interest programs (made as political kickbacks—see the multi-billion dollar Stimulus), and expansive bureaucracy (a factor of both), are evils of democracy that will not fade. An organization without competitive pressure, subject to unprecedented institutionalized red tape, and driven by political consequence will rarely deliver an efficient, high-quality product.

That is why the best government is small government. Our founding fathers saw wisdom in limited government, power in unfettered capitalism, and liberty in personal responsibility. With its inherent inefficiencies and short-comings, we ought to keep as much of society out of government control as we can.

And yet, Democrats are now working to reconcile legislation that will place 15% of our economy under government control. The same federal government that bankrupted Social Security and ran up record deficits will now expand its bureaucracy by an estimated 150,000 employees to run health care. We had better hope their error rate is less than 25%.

-Matt Benchener is Supervisor of Newtown Township and Founder of TruPolitics.net

Leave a Comment » | Healthcare | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by mattbenchener

Happy Holidays

December 23, 2009

TruPolitics.net wishes you happy holidays! Thank you all for your support throughout the year. Through your dedication and involvement, the site has had over 12,000 hits in just 10 months, been featured in numerous publications, and has helped forward political discourse.

Heading into 2010, expect weekly columns and podcasts (the site’s newest, upcoming addition). We’ll be back in action with a post early next week–possibly in the wake of a healthcare overhaul (an early present, or a lump of coal from Democrats?). Until then, enjoy the break, and stay informed!

1 Comment | Other | Permalink
Posted by mattbenchener

Deserve Victory

December 16, 2009

This article was featured in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 12/19/09. You can read the online version here or check out the print column each week.

In admonishing Britain during the Second World War, Winston Churchill famously said, “No one can guarantee success…but only deserve it.” His words spoke to the faulty propensity of humans to focus on the likelihood of an outcome, rather than on the steps needed to secure that outcome. He sought to focus his nation on what might bring them victory, rather than the victory itself. It worked.

The domestic political landscape of the past year has seen its own war of sorts. The Left swept into power following the 2008 elections, carrying exceptional majorities in Congress and capturing the White House. The months that followed were an opening salvo in what proved to be a defining year for U.S. policy.

In his first 100 days in office, President Obama passed the largest spending bill in history (the stimulus), initiated unprecedented government intervention in private industry (bailouts, pay Czar, AIG controversy, GM/Chrysler takeover), rewrote foreign policy (release of the torture memos, closing of Guantanamo Bay, the “apology” tour of Europe), and forwarded a spend heavy budget funded by aggressive redistribution taxation. His administration, sensing blood in the water, then went on to propose controversial landmark healthcare and cap-and-trade legislation.

It quickly became clear that President Obama was going to deliver on his promise of “change.” His brand of government was big, spend-heavy, and far-reaching. Our nation would begin to embrace European ideas of socialism above traditional American ideas of capitalism, exceptionalism, and restrained government.

But then something happened.

Americans took notice of the substance of this “change.” The radical nature the president’s agenda sparked a backlash from previously dormant conservatives. Concerned citizens organized nationwide tea parties, drawing millions to publicly question the nation’s course. People normally uninvolved or dispassionate about politics suddenly became activists. Conservative groups sprang to life across the country, uniting around beliefs in individual liberty over government control, low taxation over redistribution, fiscal responsibility over expansive spending, and personal accountability over government welfare.

As the summer came to a close, town halls overflowed with citizens opposed to the new liberal agenda. The groundswell was so strong that Democrats, for fear of the coming elections, failed to pass their most important pieces of legislation—health care reform and cap-and-trade—despite overwhelming majorities in Congress.

In November, the 2009 general elections evidenced how quickly national sentiment had changed. Republicans won the vast majority of nationwide races, including landmark victories in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races (states which Obama carried 53% – 46% and 57% – 42%, respectively). Republicans, newly motivated, turned out in near record numbers. Independents moved increasingly to the Right.

Polling data released last week showed the Democrat controlled Congress with an approval rating of just 26%, including only 28% for Speak Nancy Pelosi and 14% for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Democrats trailed Republicans by four points in Gallup’s generic ballot, and President Obama’s approval rating dropped from over 70% in February to a fading 47%.

In many ways, 2009 was a bifurcated revolution of the Left, then the Right. Democrats won in 2008 riding the tide of pro-Obama fervor. The Obama they rallied for, however, was revealed to be sharply liberal—a far cry from the JFK-Clinton centrist many had hoped for. When his aggressive agenda came to light, many Americans felt they would lose their country. So began the revolution of the Right.

Given the changing tides, political analysts predict significant GOP victory in next year’s elections. 2010 may look like 1994, when Republicans took 54 seats in the House and eight in the Senate. Optimism is running high in the GOP.

But before the Republican Party begins its celebration, it must heed Churchill’s famous words and deserve the victory it seeks. Americans made it clear in 2009 that they deeply value foundational values of fiscal responsibility, personal accountability, and small government. They want to preserve the distinct American principles that led to our nation’s founding and guided our unparalleled prosperity. It is a platform to build on, a big tent to unify a broad base of voters and citizens alike.

The Republican Party lost its way during the last decade, becoming a party of “wedge conservatism”—divisive social, international, and cultural issues dominated the platform. It took on an unattractive arrogance by forcing members to sign on to a prescribed set of beliefs that had little basis in conservative thought. It’s time the party walk the conservative talk.

To deserve victory in 2010, the party must focus on what spurred 2009: A simple platform of less government, more fiscal discipline, and a nation that embraces its unique and powerful identity.

-Matt Benchener is Supervisor of Newtown Township and Founder of TruPolitics.net.

1 Comment | Conservatism, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by mattbenchener

Nobel Peace Prize: Watershed Moment for Obama

December 12, 2009

Foreign policy is delicate and complicated; few Presidents do it well. Leaders of nation-states must place their own country’s interests first, commit to strong national defense, and ensure military security. Indeed, the preamble of our Constitution lays out this duty as a primary and essential function of government: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense (bolding added)…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” A critical, arguably irrefutable, function of government is to defend its people and ensure their security.

Achieving this goal, however, is more nuanced than is immediately apparent. Effective foreign policy also weaves in notions of diplomacy, cooperation, and international alignment. It is difficult for any government to achieve the totality of its goals through raw military might.

In fact, a leading school of thought in political science known as international Liberalism (separate from domestic liberalism) holds that security is best attained through a one-world viewpoint, with total cooperation and convergence of each nation. Here, it is believed nations overcome inherent international anarchy and insecurity by tying themselves tightly together. Thus, attacking one another would be foolish. Proponents point out that two democracies have never gone to war against one other (due to their shared values and structures), and contend that organizations like the U.N. bring nations into a common framework and reduce international angst.

The opposing viewpoint is found in Realism, the idea that nations always pursue their own self-interest, and therefore adopt policies that further their own security. Countries use force as they see fit, act independently, and engage in diplomacy only insofar as it furthers their own goals. Realists hold that the only reason nations participate in organizations like the U.N. is to impose their own interests on other countries (note U.S. military leadership and dominance within the U.N. and its security council), and will break from international alignment when necessary (see Iraq).

The Bush Administration tried to strike a balance between the two theories, a philosophy they dubbed “Neo-Conservatism.” In short, the U.S. would pursue its own security interests by forcefully creating cooperative nations. This was the philosophical underpinning for Iraq: Make Iraq a Democracy and you have a sympathetic nation-state for U.S. interests.

So where does President Obama stand?

At the outset of his presidency, it appeared he was squarely in the camp of Liberalism, arguing the U.S. should apologize for charging ahead on its own, have open dialogue with enemies, and act in concert with broad international institutions. He was widely criticized by hawks and Republicans alike for his “apology tour,” “bow to Japan,” and apparent rejection of American exceptionalism.

Beginning two weeks ago, however, he displayed a wholly different viewpoint. Committing thousands more troops to Afghanistan, he stood by his campaign promise to pursue U.S. security interests by dismantling al Qaeda’s operations in the Arab world. He was widely criticized by pacifists and the Left for furthering U.S. involvement in a difficult war.

Thursday, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, President Obama had what many are calling a watershed moment in his young presidency. He established the unique role of the U.S. in international security, spoke of the need for “just war,” and stressed his personal duty to defend American interests above all else. The speech was markedly Realist, examining world history through the lens of U.S. power:

“There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified…Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason….Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms.”

Robert Kagan, a leading neo-conservative, called the address “a substantial shift away from the more one-worldish approach” of the president’s June address to Muslims in Cairo. He continued saying, “He’s moved from a somewhat apologetic rendition of American history to an explicitly exceptionalist approach of an American president at war.” Kagan joined in the chorus of conservative praise coming down from the likes of Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. The speech was all the more striking given the largely liberal, pacifist audience.

Cynics say the President’s shift was in response to internal White House polling data showing the broad decline of support for his liberal agenda. The Administration and the Democratic Party, some think, are worried about 2010. But such cynicism is intellectually dishonest—you cannot criticize the President at every turn, claiming to be non-partisan, and then dismiss him when he gets it right. Rational discourse requires acknowledgement of principles and ideas, not political banter.

In many ways, the president’s shift marks a welcome balance to U.S. foreign policy. He wants international alignment, but realizes U.S. interests must come first. He wants our nation to be understanding of opposing viewpoints and cultures, but recognizes America’s vital role as the City on a Hill. He wants diplomacy first, but understands force is often necessary. He wants to partner with the international community, but knows American exceoptionalism portends individual action.

President Bush was exceptional in his defense of our nation. For all of his shortcomings, the prism of history will remember that he kept us safe in the wake of the greatest terrorist uprising in history. In many ways, however, President Bush took American exceptionalism too far. It became an arrogant Realism—Join or get out of our way. In the end, that’s how you want your leader to make decisions, in your country’s sole interest. But he should do so with tact, with balance, and with leadership borne of humility through duty. Diplomacy is an essential part of long-lasting security.

Though he faltered when he began, it appears President Obama may be changing course. Perhaps the reality of the office and the weight of his position brought him back from the idealist rim of complete international cooperation and pacifism. Or, perhaps this was his position all along, and he is just now letting us in. In the end, he will be judged on the totality of his actions, and not simply his words. But for now, we should take heed that our President may have his watershed moment on foreign policy, and it was a moment we should be proud of.

For the full text of the speech click here:  President Obama’s Nobel Acceptance Speech

 -Matt Benchener is Supervisor of Newtown Township, and the Founder of TruPolitics.net

Leave a Comment » | Foreign Policy, President Obama | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by mattbenchener

The Emperor Has No Clothes

December 9, 2009

This article was featured in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 12/14/09. You can read the online version here or check out the print column each week.

In the popular 19th century tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” two weavers make an Emperor a suit they claim has magical powers. The suit, they say, is invisible only to those that are “incorrigibly stupid,” or unfit for the position of Emperor.

As his new “suit” is being crafted, the Emperor has a shocking revelation: He can’t see the thread. Worrying he will be exposed as too stupid or unfit for his post, however, the Emperor pretends to see the suit, and summarily puts it on.

When he eventually parades through town with his new outfit, the crowd shouts with feigned praise and awe, each subject hoping to avoid the shame of being the lone person unable to see the magnificent magical thread. Until, of course, a child too innocent to know the difference shouts out, “But he has nothing on!” The Emperor is exposed, the crowd vindicated.

Recent weeks have thrown the climate change debate back into the spotlight, and coming months may mark historic policy change for the U.S. and its international partners. The Environmental Protection Agency announced Monday that greenhouse gasses will officially be considered a “dangerous pollutant,” and should be tightly regulated. The announcement came as world leaders convened in Copenhagen for a U.N. climate change summit, the focus of which is to gain international consensus on reduction of carbon emissions. Domestically, debate among U.S. politicians about the need for extremely controversial “cap-and-trade” legislation heated up as the bill moved through Congress.

The outcome of each of these disparate but converging events is the same: Increased regulation, taxation, and forced reduction of greenhouse emissions. Simply put, businesses will be required to either significantly reduce carbon emissions or pay the government in the form of carbon credits and fines for the difference.

What is exceedingly clear from these policy discussions is that such drastic change will place a heavy burden on U.S. businesses. It’s simple economics: When government forces environmental activism on industry, industry necessarily makes choices for environmental, not economic purposes, and profit falls.

Domestically, increased costs from carbon regulation will have a triple affect on the U.S. economy: 1. Companies will pass the costs through to consumers, resulting in a form of energy tax on U.S. citizens; 2. Many companies will be unable to sustain required technology investments and process changes, driving down profitability and creating job loss; 3. Companies will move overseas to developing nations that do not have such stringent regulations, again resulting in job loss.

For these reasons, industry leaders from across the country have opposed the forthcoming legislation. U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue said recent regulatory proposals “could result in a top-down command-and-control regime that will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project,” and may “stifle our economic recovery.” The National Association of Manufacturers stated that the recent EPA proposal is “certain to come at a huge cost to the economy.” A recent Heritage Foundation analysis of the cap-and-trade bill projects it will cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, or $1,870 for a family of four.

At a time when the global economy is struggling to recover from near collapse, with U.S. unemployment at its highest levels in 26 years, it seems any directive that would significantly damage the economy should come with irrefutable, unquestionable, and undeniable force. It should require immediate action, with evidence so overwhelming that its negative effects are simply an afterthought.

With millions of Americans now questioning the American dream, struggling to pay mortgages and put food on the table, any policy that worsens their odds should be of utterly historic necessity. Right? Not exactly.

Earlier this year, over 700 scientists worldwide conferred to issue a statement saying they fundamentally disagree with the findings of the U.N. panel that are driving current policy discussions. Later, Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who had contributed to an earlier U.N. climate report, said man-made warming is “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giaever called global warming the “new religion,” based on faith rather than fact. A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, demanded the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled on the issue. Last week, MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen wrote, “Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre,” calling global warming science “the grossest of ‘bait and switch’ scams.”

In a final blow, the now infamous Climategate scandal at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit revealed that leading proponents of global warming activism have been manufacturing the scientific “consensus” they claimed, blacklisting dissenting scientists and journals, distorting peer review, and shunning Freedom of Information requests.

It seems climate change may have had its Emperor-With-No-Clothes moment.

So why are activists charging head on into a policy that will surely damage the economy? The story of the Emperor has a telling conclusion: “It seemed to him that they were right; but he thought within himself, ‘I must go through with the procession.’ And so he held himself a little higher, and the chamberlains held on tighter than ever, and carried the train which did not exist at all.”

-Matt Benchener is Supervisor of Newtown Township, and the Founder of TruPolitics.net

2 Comments | Other | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by mattbenchener

« Previous Entries