The Populist Plague

February 4, 2010 by mattbenchener Leave a Comment

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

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , , ,

As Goes Massachusetts?

January 19, 2010 by mattbenchener 1 Comment

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

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , ,

Deserve Victory

December 16, 2009 by mattbenchener 1 Comment

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.

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Revisiting The 17th Amendment

September 24, 2009 by mattbenchener 5 Comments

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 sixth posting for the site.

At the beginning of the 20th Century, the Progressive movement (the forerunner to modern day liberalism) was at the zenith of its influence in the United States.  The group was so powerful that it was able to have two Constitutional amendments ratified in 1913: The 16th Amendment, which empowered Congress to lay and collect taxes on the income of persons, from whatever source derived, without regard to apportionment among the States and without regard to a census; and the 17th Amendment, which gave the power to elect members of the United States Senate directly to citizens.

Since its ratification, the 16th Amendment has been scrutinized and the consequences of that amendment, good and (mostly) bad have been analyzed extensively.  Much less attention has been given to the consequences of the 17th Amendment. US_Senate_Session_Chamber

This amendment, while  seemingly innocuous, removed a significant portion of the separation of powers the founders established in the Constitution.  In short, the 17th Amendment has resulted in the heavy consolidation of power by the federal government at the expense of the States.  The result has been a massive loss of personal liberty in the name of “enhanced democracy.”

Originally, the Constitution provided that senators would be chosen by state legislatures.  It was intended that the States (through senators) and individuals (through representatives) would both have representation in the federal government.  The concept was that the U.S., as a union of sovereign states, would structure the federal government such that each state would have an equal voice.  The purpose was to have several sovereignties working together—the states with each other, and the states with the federal government.  The result would be the diffusion of sovereign power between and among the States and the federal government.

The impetus behind this structure was the idea that states have interests that may, and often do, conflict with federal priorities on a wide variety of issues.  They have different views on business regulation, social policy, environmental policy, and other issues which not only conflict with the federal government, but may conflict with each other.  That was intentional.  By diffusing power among various sovereignties, there was less risk of consolidated political power, a risk which the founders rightly viewed as the greatest threat to personal liberty.  Political power is the power to coerce, but the more it is directed against itself, the less it can be directed at individuals.

The system worked well for 125 years.  States had a strong voice in the federal government, and as a consequence, the federal government’s ability to coerce the States and individuals was significantly curtailed.  After all, no senator could support a policy which would expand federal power at the expense of his State government and hope to get re-elected. 

The Progressives, however, aggressively moved to change the makeup of the Senate.  Their position was that the Senate was unable to act on behalf of the people because its members were not accountable to the people.  The Progressives viewed the Senate as an unaccountable and undemocratic body. 

While that may have been true, it is also beside the point. The purpose of the Constitution was not to provide for democracy.  The purpose of the Constitution was to establish a government for the United States that respected the sovereignty of the States and the rights of the people.  One of the results of this core purpose was a form of representative democracy, and the method of choosing members of the Senate was an important part of that balance. 

But, the Progressives thought they knew better and pushed through the 17th Amendment, disrupting the balance intended by the Constitution. Because of the enactment of the 17th Amendment, States no longer have any real voice in the making or implementing of federal policy.  States, rather then acting as competing sovereignties, have degenerated to being appendages of the federal government.  While nominally sovereign, the federal government bullies them into carrying out its policies lest they be deprived of their share of federal money.  The federal government is free to perpetually increase its power over the States since there is no longer any effective to check to such growth within the federal government.

As a result, the federal government continues to gather increasing amounts of power.  What the authors of the Constitution were explicitly trying to avoid has come to pass.  The federal government is now free to control states and to regulate citizens with impunity.  Lobbyists are free to concentrate their efforts on the federal government, which is the only source of real power. 

With centralization of power comes the destruction of personal liberty, and without an internal check, the federal government will continue taxing and regulating.  The people of this country lost an important check to the growth of federal power over them when, in the name of democracy, we decided to elect our own senators.  An ironic result, but true nonetheless.  Perhaps, it is time the 17th Amendment is revisited and repealed.

-Edward Mahee for TruPolitics.net

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , ,

Something Serious is Happening

September 17, 2009 by mattbenchener 4 Comments

This article was featured in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 9/20/09. You can read the newspaper version online here, or check out the print column each week.

Something serious is going on in this country. For the first time in recent memory, Americans are debating the fundamental role of government, the importance of Constitutional precedent, and the nature of foundational American principles. There is a clear dividing line being drawn between liberal and conservative ideology: One believes in large, redistributive government that places moral imperative on equality of outcomes; the other believes in small, limited government, that emphasizes personal liberty and self-reliance. The result of this struggle will define the future and direction of 9.12 Marchthe world’s most powerful nation.

Despite the gravity of our times, however, discourse on both sides has devolved into partisan rhetoric. Consider the following line-up of stories from the past six months, all of which received significant media attention: 1. President Obama is not a U.S. Citizen; 2. Conservatives opposed to President Obama are racists; 3. President Obama is a “secret Muslim” trying to ruin the country; 4. Healthcare town hall attendees are either uneducated, irrational hicks, or rich, white, hired political operatives (a strange dichotomy); 5. Tea party attendees are radical, right-wing extremists that will soon attempt to overthrow the government. I could go on.

The American political landscape has been marred by hyperbolic and irrational rhetoric for far too long, and it comes at the expense of prudent policy discussions. Now, perhaps more than ever, it threatens the legitimacy of fundamental and critical differences between liberals and conservatives.

July was rife with coverage questioning the legitimacy of President Obama’s citizenship.  So called “birthers” claimed that President Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, and was therefore ineligible to serve as President. They called for his immediate impeachment, buying into a watered-down conspiracy theory.

A few weeks ago, President Obama announced he would address the nation’s schoolchildren with a message of hard work and perseverance, stressing the importance of education. Parents, talk show hosts, and writers across the country rallied against the airing of the message, claiming they didn’t want their children to be “indoctrinated.” Multiple presidents have addressed the nation’s schoolchildren. Did those opposed also rally against Ronald Reagan’s speech to schoolchildren in 1988? Not to mention all of this occurred during a complex, impactful, and critical debate surrounding the future of America’s health care system.

Now, Democrats like Jimmy Carter and political pundits like Chris Matthews are claiming that opposition to President Obama is a product of racism. It’s a failed and disturbing attempt to delegitimize the swell of philosophical opposition to the President’s radical agenda. It is not only embarrassing, but transparently defensive. Michael Steele, the African-American chair of the RNC put it best: ““Voicing opposition to the president’s policy proposals is not being a racist. It is being an American…Injecting race into the debate over critical issues facing American families does not create jobs, reform our health care system or reduce the growing deficit. It only divides Americans rather than uniting us to find solutions to challenges facing our nation.”

The problem with such partisan, hyperbolic rhetoric from either side is that it shifts attention away from the vital issues facing the nation. President Bush was constantly attacked as “an evil tyrant,” “right-wing extremist,” and “religious fundamentalist.” It came at the expense of important, lasting discussions of international sovereignty, fiscal responsibility, and state security.President Obama

Many simply wrote off conservatism as tried and failed under President Bush, and embraced his successor, a man of sharp liberal policy. But President Bush’s own policies belied true conservative values of small government and fiscal prudence—his administration expanded government programs, deeply widened agency bureaucracy, and spent more than any administration since WWII. Yet these issues were patently ignored.

The same is happening in many circles with regard to President Obama. Saying he is not a United States citizen or comparing his health program to Hitler’s Germany diverts attention away from what is most important. Right now, in a defining time for the direction of our country, we cannot afford sideways energy.

Moreover, when we embrace partisan irrationality, we lose sight of what is best for the country. The irony of President Obama’s “indoctrination speech” to our public schools is that it was a powerfully conservative message of self-reliance, perseverance, and individual responsibility. I would want my children to have seen it. Those at the 9/12 march on Washington, the nationwide tea parties, and healthcare town halls expressed a deep, passionate patriotism firmly rooted in Constitutional values. I would want my national leaders to have been there.

It’s time we recognize that liberalism is a philosophy predicated on moral duty, communal provision, and societal responsibility. Conservatism offers a wholly different view of government—small, limited, and based on individual liberty through personal responsibility. We must learn to debate on the truth of each philosophy, or else we ignore the fundamental thought that shapes our nation. There is an important and stark difference between liberalism and conservatism, a divide which must be addressed if we hope to guide the country to lasting prosperity.

-Matt Benchener is the founder of TruPolitics.net and is the Republican candidate for Newtown Township Supervisor. Learn more at Benchener09.com

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

The Danger of Political Royalty

September 13, 2009 by mattbenchener 2 Comments

King George III

King George III

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

In Episode 4 of the HBO miniseries “John Adams,” based on David McCullough’s best-selling book, there is a powerful scene where John Adams is addressed by Great Britain’s King George III.  At the end of the scene, the British king remarks that he prays the United States will not suffer too much for want of a monarchy.  Mr. Adams responds that the United States would endeavor to answer those prayers.

Americans have always held themselves as examples of how free people can govern themselves without the need for an established and paternalistic class of elites. We have long demonstrated that citizens can govern themselves successfully and, as a result, have turned a backwater at the edge of the world into the greatest, most powerful nation-state in recorded history. In America, the citizen, not political royalty, has always come first–it forms the foundation for a democratic republic and national prosperity through liberty.

However, there are many still enamored with the idea of princely power, great men and women ruling over peons. We, of course, do not have a monarchy, or established permanent ruling class. Some would have it quite differently, embracing the idea of political royalty and heavy top-down governance.

This became strikingly and disturbingly clear during the recent passing of Senator Edward Kennedy. There are many who wish to use the Kennedy family as a kind of royalty by proxy.  We are admonished to be reverent and to pay special homage to the Kennedy clan. 

One such example of this came in an op-ed published in the Washington Post on August 28, written by Eugene Robinson titled “Ted Kennedy: An Eternal Prince” soon after Sen. Kennedy’s passing.  The attitude toward the Kennedys held by many in elite circles is well represented in Mr. Robinson’s piece.  He wrote “Ted Kennedy was the youngest of nine children in a family whose ruthless patriarch was intent on building an American dynasty.  The old man, business titan Joseph Kennedy, was a king.  Ted’s older brother Jack, the handsome young president, was a king. The other two brothers, Joe and Robert, were slated for the throne but died too soon.  Ted made a run for president…but was not meant to win…he was the eternal prince.”

That language is unnerving.  The elder Joseph Kennedy and his children worked hard cultivating the image of the Kennedys as a kind of American royalty.  His personal motivation was understandable; the motivation of so many others to buy into it, lock, stock and barrel is not. 

The telltale mark of royalty or nobility is that they are people set apart.  By their very nature, they are different kinds of people as a matter of law.  America was founded in direct opposition of that notion.  It was founded on the notion that, while we may admire some, we will not put any family or group over and above to govern us.  The glamour of royalty is seductive, but we would do well to remember the warning of William Graham Sumner who said, presciently, “the constitutional republic, however, does not call upon men to play the hero; it only calls upon them to do [their] duty under the laws and the constitution, in any position in which they may be placed, and no more.” 

Members of the Kennedy family have been trying to avoid this admonition.  They wish to be viewed as heroes—their status depends on it.  The retort from those who support the Kennedys’ dynastic aspirations is that they do so much good and are committed to service.  That may be true; doing good and doing right is the obligation of every American.  That does not mean, however, that we ought to have a family overseeing us, and it certainly does not mean that ordinary people should submit to increased taxes and regulation for the Kennedys’ good intentions.

Ted Kennedy was in many ways a remarkable man.  But Americans must be careful not to embrace the celebrity, or royalty, of any family or leader. If we do, we risk losing our identity as self-reliant, free, and strong individuals. The citizen and its Republic must always come first.

-Edward Mahee for TruPolitics.net

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , ,

Abandoning The Partisan Paradigm

September 10, 2009 by mattbenchener 2 Comments

TruPolitics.net welcomes guest author Saylor Smith. Mr. Smith was an educator for over 40 years, and is the author of two novels. He currently resides in Eugene, Oregon. This is his second posting for the site.

Donkey ElephantI disliked the us vs. them mentality that dominated American life for most of the last quarter of the twentieth century, and I’m disgusted to note that it continues unabated here in the first decade of the new millennium. “We’re Number One” has become the most over-used cliché of all-time, applied in virtually every aspect of life, from the rivalries of high school forensics teams to the battles between major league baseball, basketball and football teams, to the overblown advertising claims of beer, soda pop, automobile and antacid pill manufacturers. Now, I’m sorry to report, that self-important attitude has begun to shape the growing political contentiousness between conservatives and liberals.

It was not too long ago that the minority party considered itself the “loyal opposition.” I always thought that had a nice ring to it: loyal even when opposed — we are, it suggested, all patriots here. There was not a hint of one-ups-man-ship in the presentation of the possessor of such an honest political position. The majority party representative knew that his or her position of ascendancy was tenuous at best and that time and the vagaries of modern life would undoubtedly reverse the parties’ relative positions all too soon. The minority party representative knew to have patience — and to be consistently, if nothing else, loyal.

We were, these men and women understood, in the life struggle together, Americans all, with many more natural impulses to unite us than to divide us.

Where and when did this mutual understanding change? Some might blame it on the “liberal” 1960s, the age of Medicare, Vietnam protests, Civil Rights legislation, free love, hippies, women’s liberation and political assassinations. The other side might point to the 1980s, which included the fall of the Berlin Wall,  Iran-Contra, “Star Wars,” the invasion of Grenada, construction of the Vietnam Memorial, and, of course, Reaganomics and the resulting deregulation of corporate America. These were decades when critical issues began to divide citizens in dramatic ways. Whereas Democrats and Republicans had always managed to maintain civil debate on the largest questions before the country, the new liberal vs. conservative fracas deteriorated into contentiousness that often crossed the line into vitriol and vicious hyperbole.

Today, sharpened by the hate speech of talk radio, the language of civilized debate no longer applies on the political stage in America. As standard operating procedure, politicians and their supporters insist on demonizing opponents. A political adversary today is not merely wrong on the issues; he or she is a danger to our way of life, un-American, a supporter of the enemy — a traitor. There is no “loyal opposition” any more; a fellow Congressman or Senator of the other party is no longer a colleague to be respected; he or she is a virtual enemy to be denigrated and defeated. Members of the U.S. Congress seem to spend more of their time writing or speaking against their political opponents than they do in legislating for the benefit of their constituents.

Now voters are moving in greater and greater numbers to change their registration from Democrat or Republican to Independent, a direct result, I would argue, of this unreasoning chauvinism by members of the so-called Right and Left. When an almost unknown Illinois state senator gave a speech at the 2004 Democratic convention reminding us that we live not in “conservative” America or “liberal” America, but the United States of America, most of us applauded the sentiment in the hope that “us vs. them” could become “all of us together.”

Democrats are not better than Republicans; they agree on many fundamental American truths, including this partial list: 1. That the U.S. Constitution offers us the best road map for the future; 2. That each of us must bear responsibility for his or her own actions; 3. That war is unconscionable and that we will commit to it only as a last resort; 4. That we must unite to take care of the least among us; 5. That the federal government must, as must each of its citizens, ultimately balance its economic books; 6. That the three branches of the federal government must retain equal levels of power and authority; and 7. That a strong national defense establishment is critical to provide protection for the people of the nation.

It seems highly likely that separate, divisive political parties have outlived their usefulness in the United States of America. We need politicians at all levels who have, as their constant goal, the establishment of measures that will benefit all of our citizens; politicians who will not weigh issues on a conservative vs. liberal scale but rather on a humanity scale; politicians who refuse to vote against their own consciences to assuage their party leaders.

I worked for a high school administrator who asked his teachers one question when they proposed program changes or requested funds for the implementation of new ideas in the classroom: “How will it benefit students?” He didn’t care if it was a “liberal” idea or a “conservative” idea. We should initiate a similar measurement tool in examining each federal proposal: “How will it benefit citizens?” Then, perhaps we can get out of our own way, forget the labels and make good things happen.

-Guest author Saylor Smith for TruPolitics.net

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , ,

Is the Honeymoon Over for Obama?

June 23, 2009 by mattbenchener Leave a Comment

For the first time since taking office, President Obama’s Presidential Approval Index fell into the negative. The index, tracked daily by Rasmussen Reports, polls likely voters and subtracts those who strongly disapprove of the president’s performance from those who strongly approve.  On Monday, President Obama’s rating fell to -1—33% of the nation’s likely voters said they strongly approve of President Obama’s performance, while 34% said they strongly disapprove.

Rasmussen Approval Index

Rasmussen’s poll is unique, because it essentially measures the polarization of a president among likely voters. As you can see, the trend lines have been steadily moving lower since President Obama took office, meaning his policies have become more and more divisive. Nearly all presidents face a declining approval rate over time, but for a president who promised hope and inspirational unity, the results are significant.

Upon taking office, President Obama had unprecedented political capital, marked through unusually high public approval ratings and a media enchanted with his persona. He also had the good fortune of following a president demonized by both groups. He used this capital to forge one of the most aggressive and politicized early-term agendas in U.S. history. It appears that capital is starting to run out.

President Obama’s good will among voters and the media allowed him to pass one of the largest spending bills in U.S. history (the stimulus). He also forwarded a budget proposal that will nearly triple the national debt. He then overtook private American car companies, used taxpayer money to bailout the financial and mortgage industries, and came out strongly in favor of redistribution policy. Nearly all of these aggressive initiatives passed without significant opposition or controversy. They should have.

The stimulus should have been the most controversial and indicting piece of legislation in decades—it was jammed with over 50% partisan pork at a time when the nation desperately needed rational relief. His budget proposal should have been thrown out as irresponsible, widening the deficit to dangerous levels in favor of party agenda items. The bailout and control of the finance and auto industries should have sparked national outrage, setting a precedent of government control usually relegated to socialist nations.

Now we face a liberal activist judge (Sonya Sotomayor) and a socialized healthcare proposal that have both drawn heavy fire. Justice Sotomayor will likely be affirmed, but it is important to recognize the faults of her judicial philosophy. Socialized healthcare should prove to be a much tougher battle for the administration.

President Obama’s political capital is clearly running thin, and hopefully Americans will take heed of his aggressive, expansive agenda. If and when they do, I doubt he will continue his unprecedented winning streak. The heart of America is not socialism, welfare, or bailout. It is not big government, controlled industry, or redistribution.

It is time the nation wake to realize that prudent governance is a bit like marriage: Once the honeymoon is over, the real work begins.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , ,

Specter Is Finally Where He Belongs

April 29, 2009 by mattbenchener 11 Comments

This article was featured in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 5/1/09. Check out the newspaper version here or catch the print column every Thursday or Friday.
 
On Tuesday, longtime Republican Senator Arlen Specter sent shockwaves through the political landscape by announcing that he will switch parties in the 2010 primary election. Senator Specter’s decision is significant, not simply because his three decades of service in the Senate have all come as a Republican, but also because his decision comes at an ideological turning point for the country. It was not long ago that President Bush emphatically supported Sen. Specter’s reelection, hailing him as one of the leaders of the party. Now it seems Specter is more comfortable on the same side of the aisle as Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Barack Obama. What happened?
Sen. Arlen Specter Announced Tuesday He Would Be Switching Parties

Sen. Arlen Specter Announced Tuesday He Would Be Switching Parties

Many political pundits claim that Sen. Specter’s decision serves as an indictment of the Republican Party. The party, they say, has shifted too far to the right to allow centrists like Sen. Specter to survive. Specter’s own remarks Tuesday reflect this sentiment: “Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.” For Sen. Specter, the blame rests with a Republican Party that has abandoned him. But, in many ways, it is a healthy sign for the party that Specter is departing.

Sen. Specter began his political career under the Reagan Administration, when the Republican Party experienced its powerful resurgence following the Carter era. Reagan’s Republican Party was established on the foundational conservative principles of low taxes, constrained spending, and small government. For much of Sen. Specter’s early career, he reflected these ideals.

In recent years, however, Sen. Specter has tried to hold firmly to a Senate seat that is quickly slipping away. The challenge began early in the Bush Administration, when Specter angered social conservatives by coming out with heavily liberal views on abortion and stem cell research. The cascade continued as he sought to secure the union vote, supporting union-first legislation at the expense of United States businesses. Throughout, Specter became one of the foremost abusers of earmarks, deftly directing money to specialty interest groups that promised support in his next election. Over the last eight years, it became increasingly difficult to distinguish Specter’s voting record from centrist Democrats’.

Sen. Specter’s most notable and telling departure, however, came just a few short months ago, when he provided a key vote to support the Obama Stimulus. The $749 billion stimulus represents the largest expansion of government since FDR’s New Deal, and is filled with upwards of $400 billion in spending on liberal pet projects. It was, perhaps, the most liberal piece of legislation ever passed, and Arlen Specter was a deciding vote.

Pennsylvanians, recognizing his dramatic shift, have been growing impatient with Specter, who limped into office in 2004 with just 52 percent of the vote. So, when the stimulus vote came down, conservatives across the state decided that they could no longer endure a Republican representing them in name alone.

Proof of this came last week when a poll was released showing strong conservative Pat Toomey with a 21 point lead over Specter in the upcoming primary. So what did Specter do? He jumped ship as quickly as possible, hoping to avoid the conservative backlash that, frankly, he deserves.

In his Tuesday statement, Specter noted that, “It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable…I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate.” Specter then went on to say that the “extremes” have taken over in the Republican Party, and that the pushback against the stimulus was unfair and unfounded.

While at first it seems disconcerting to hear Sen. Specter and other political commentators say that the extremes of the party pushed him out, this may indeed show the increasing resurgence of conservatism. During the Bush Administration, Republicans embraced a faulty brand of ‘neo-conservatism.’ The idea was not to keep government small, but instead to spend money on ‘conservative’ initiatives. The line between Democrat and Republican became defined by abortion, stem cells, gay rights, the Iraq War, big oil, global warming, and international intervention.

Will Ronald Reagan Be The New Face of the Republicans?

Will Ronald Reagan Be The New Face of the Republicans?

Foundational conservative principles fell to the background, and the party lost its identity. Now, the party is starting to realign behind its conservative roots.

It is ironic that Sen. Specter claims he is no longer welcome in the Republican Party because it does not reflect Regan’s Big Tent. Reagan’s Big Tent was simple: You were welcome as long as you supported low taxes, small government, fiscal responsibility, and strong national defense. Those are values any American can embrace. But given his recent legislative history and support of a sharply liberal agenda, it is laughable to call Sen. Specter a Reagan conservative. Indeed, for Specter, the exact opposite is true. His switch was simply a matter of political expediency, because Regan conservatism is starting to take hold again. There is no place for a politician who supports a massive spending plan that widens government and increases national debt. There is no place for a politician who favors government handouts, union control, and expansive earmarks.

Arlen Specter may have been a Republican, but he was not conservative. As the Republican Party begins to remake itself on the conservative principles which once made it great, Arlen Specter is finally where he belongs.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Political Snapshot: Arlen Specter Switches Parties

April 28, 2009 by mattbenchener 1 Comment

This is a new feature on TruPolitics.net. Political Snapshots offer a brief, concise summary of a current issue. Each Snapshot has a representation of the left and right perspective, as well as the TruPolitics take on the issue.

Senator Arlen Specter announced Tuesday that he would be switching parties for the upcoming 2010 primary elections. Specter, who has served nearly three decades in the Senate as a Republican, has suffered greatly in conservative circles from his decision to support the stimulus.

Right: Republicans will be happy that Senator Specter is switching parties, as his strong ties to unions, support of President Obama’s stimulus, and liberal spending record depart sharply from party lines. They will be upset, however, that Specter has betrayed them, ignoring his 2004 promise not to switch parties, and throwing away the decades of support the Republicans have given him.

Left: Democrats will welcome one of the Senate’s most senior members to their ranks. Specter has great power and influence in the Senate halls, especially as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and an influencial presence on the Appropriations Committee. This switch now gives the Democrats a legitimate chance to capture the Pennsylvania seat that has been held for three decades by Republicans.

TruPolitics.net: Specter’s decision can, in many ways, be seen as his final betrayal of the Republican Party in a long run of departures from conservatism. His tenure as Senator has been largely ineffective, filled with earmark-laden legislative proposals, recently culminating in misguided and politically expedient support of the Obama Stimulus. For decades, he has been a Republican in name alone. This departure clears the way for Pat Toomey, a true conservative, to regain the seat for the party. Significantly, a recent poll showed Toomey with a massive 21 point lead on Specter in the PA Republican primary. Specter’s switch is clearly driven by personal political aspirations–he saw the door quickly closing, and he made a desperate move.

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , ,

← Older posts