The Tyranny of the Flywheel

April 22, 2010 by mattbenchener 7 Comments

Gaining and keeping power in a democracy is simple: Get more votes than your opponents. If you do this consistently, you can build permanent bureaucracies to institutionalize your agenda, drive money to special interests, and ultimately enhance your power. It’s the flywheel of government growth: Pander to get votes; win elections; use your majority power to build institutions and pass legislation that drive money to special interests and key voting blocs; those groups support you in your next election; the support helps you win. Repeat.

Now imagine that the critical first step in the flywheel (pandering to voters) can be accomplished through a narrow political strategy: Spending. Recent data released from the Tax Foundation notes that a full 60% of Americans consume more government services than they pay in taxes. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center showed that by 2011, 46% of Americans will pay $0 in federal income tax. This group, despite paying nothing into the system, will receive over $40 billion in government services. That’s a pretty good deal.

Even better, according to the most recent data from the IRS, the top 5% of wage earners pay 60% of all income taxes (despite making only 37% of income). Under President Obama’s new tax-and-spend heavy budget, this number will increase year-by-year for the duration of his term.

So, if you were playing the political game, would you target the 5% payers, or the 60% consumers? If you could appease the vast majority of voters by giving free government handouts, would you favor small government or big government?

In a pure democracy, power is gained through votes. Votes are gained by appeasing the greatest number of voters. When the greatest number of voters are consumers of government service rather than payers, expansive liberal policy is simply smart politics. If you want to win, you had better deliver big government. That’s why billions of dollars are wasted each year in pork-filled legislation, why two-thirds of the nearly $800 billion “Stimulus” went directly to special interest groups, and why entitlement programs now consume more GDP than ever before.

In politics, it is much easier to provide handouts than encourage responsibility. It’s much easier to “solve” problems through programs than make hard budgetary reductions. It’s much easier to hand out than to cut back. It’s much easier to give speeches wrapped in rhetoric of “compassion” and “help,” to promise that you will fix, bailout, and save, than to talk about fiscal responsibility, individual liberty, and self-reliance. It’s much easier to cast yourself as savior than as referee. If it is true that “the easiest way to get a vote is to buy a vote,” then liberalism simply makes practical political sense.

The problem, however, is that such a system creates a tyranny of the majority. The rights of 5% are trounced in favor of the political expediency of 60%. Politicians create irreversible entitlements (Social Security, Welfare, ObamaCare), build burgeoning bureaucracies, and pack the court system with activist judges. The political flywheel spins with ever-increasing fury as government grows and grows, until it eventually crumbles under its own malaise, mounting debt, and unsustainable liability. Liberty for some is pushed aside in favor of power for others.

That is why America was not founded as a pure democracy. America was founded as a Constitutionally-constrained Democratic Republic. Certain rights were to be inalienable, no matter the shifting tide of public sentiment or the growth of special interests. Personal property rights, the right to keep what you earn, to be taxed only when absolutely necessary, were to be protected by immutable Constitutional law. Our founders knew that unconstrained government always tends toward growth—men have always longed for increased power. That’s why our founders outlined limited places government could intervene and spend, and sought to isolate the major branches from one another. Sadly, we’ve drifted so far from Constitutional constraint that our country—yes, even America—is rapidly being consumed by the weight of the political flywheel.

The center-left Tax Policy Center recently ran data models to show what it would take to stabilize the deficit at 2% of GDP (the level economists recommend for long-term stability and economic growth) under President Obama’s new budget. They found that government would have to raise $775 billion in new taxes every year through the duration of his term. If he keeps his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class, the rich (those making more than $200,000 a year) will have to pay 90% of their income in taxes. But, not to worry, they only comprise 5% of the voting public. 

We need leaders committed to principle over power. We need representatives who see themselves as citizens, not politicians. We need a government willing to roll back its unfettered reach, to return our nation to what it was meant to be. We may be at a tipping point for our country, and the stakes have never been higher.

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

Filed under Conservatism Tagged with , , , , , , ,

What Healthcare Reform Was Really About

March 25, 2010 by mattbenchener 1 Comment

This article was featured in The Philadelphia Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 3/28/10. You can read the online version here, or check out the print column each week.

Healthcare reform was not about healthcare.

Hours after the House narrowly passed its historic reform bill, President Obama poignantly said, “This is what change looks like.” He was right—the composition of America, along with 17% of its economy, will never be the same. Though the bill came with some smart reforms, its foundation—the government guarantee of health insurance for all—draws our nation ever closer to European-style socialism. Sunday’s vote was about more than CBO cost calculations, controversial legislative procedure, and complex insurance mandates. Liberal thinkers placed an ideological stake in the ground: Government will be the Great Provider.

Past liberal administrations began the march toward socialization, expanding government control and provision, demonizing capitalism, and shifting responsibility away from individuals and onto government. ObamaCare will take its place in the liberal cavalcade of massive government growth initiatives alongside Welfare, Social Security, and a multitude of entitlement programs. Democrat Senator Dick Durbin said the massive taxes and vast expansion of government required to run the program would simply be, “The cost…of having the kind of America we want to have.” What kind of America was he referring to?

Certainly not that of our founders. Our founders envisioned a country defined by Liberty. Liberty meant extremely limited government intervention: Individuals would keep the fruit of their labor, earn prosperity, and have responsibility for the outcomes of their lives. Government would stay away unless absolutely necessary. Our founders realized government welfare, in any form, would be a zero sum game: What government spends on some it must take from others. Since government could not raise its own revenue, each special program, bailout, or safety net given to some would be provided only by confiscating the earned income of others. This, they saw, was a fundamental infringement on Liberty. The larger government grew, the more Freedom and Liberty shrank.

As the nation aged, liberal thinkers began to believe they could solve society’s ills through government. Personal industry no longer mattered, government would save you. The more extreme ideologues, similar to those in the Obama Administration, felt redistribution was necessary to ensure “fairness” for all. If you didn’t have what others had, it wasn’t your fault. You were a victim. Fairness, forced equality of outcomes, and broad socialization were now the end goals. No matter Liberty. Cradle-to-grave government care would be the norm.

Thus, Americans need not be responsible to save for retirement; government will take care of you through Social Security. Americans need not worry about unemployment; government will provide for you through welfare. Americans need not carefully save to buy a home; Fannie and Freddie will give you a loan. And now, Americans need not work to earn healthcare—even if you make $40,000 a year—government will pick up the tab.

But wait, you say, how can providing for the less fortunate be wrong? In a society like ours, shouldn’t we show compassion? The problem is that forced “compassion” for some means the loss of liberty and private property for others. President Obama’s health bill is funded by $569 billion in new taxes on income that citizens and businesses have rightfully earned.

But for the liberal movement, foundational principles are subservient to ephemeral notions of “compassion” and socialized “equality.” This ultimate march toward collectivism will be stopped for nothing.

It will not be stopped for the public will—polls throughout the past year consistently demonstrated strong national distaste for the bill, culminating in a CNN poll the night of its passage showing nearly 60% of Americans opposed. It will not be stopped for electoral results—one of the nation’s most liberal states, Massachusetts, elected its first Republican Senator since the 1970s (Scott Brown), after he campaigned primarily in opposition to the bill. Despite the landmark election, Democrats dodged normal legislative rules and readily resorted to a procedural tactic to push the bill through. It will not be stopped for vast government overspending—the legislation comes at a cost of $940 billion and will add thousands to government administration. The Congressional Budget Office noted the IRS will need roughly $10 billion and 17,000 employees just to enforce the bill’s personal insurance requirement. It will not stop for the Constitution—for the first time, Americans will be forced by the government to buy a private product (driver’s insurance notwithstanding; you can choose whether or not to drive).

Americans must be aware of the force and aim of the liberal movement. Liberal thinkers believe the Constitution is malleable, the Founding irrelevant, and Liberty a luxury. Passing legislation funded through redistributive taxation, structured on expansive government, and driven by socialist ideology is a means to an end.

A friend of mine wrote to me the day after the bill passed and anxiously asked, “What can we do now?!” We must not forget the significance of the moment. This is a defining time in our nation’s history, and conservatives must carefully articulate what is at stake. This is not about legislative rules or 2,000-page bills. It is about the fundamental character and identity of our nation. Will we be a country defined by Liberty, personal industry, individual responsibility, small government, capitalism, and Freedom? Or will we drift ever closer to a Great Provider Government?

The good news is that, according to a recent poll from Rasmussen Reports, only 27% of Americans believe the country is headed in the right direction. November can’t come soon enough.

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

Filed under Healthcare Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Nobel Peace Prize: Watershed Moment for Obama

December 12, 2009 by mattbenchener Leave a Comment

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

Filed under Foreign Policy Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

The Soul of Liberalism

December 1, 2009 by mattbenchener 5 Comments

This post was 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.

Since the beginning of the Progressive Movement, adherents to the Liberal philosophy have held themselves to be kind-hearted, open-minded and compassionate defenders of the rights of the little guy.  While conceding that may be true for particular individuals, Liberalism as a whole remains concerned, first and foremost, with the accumulation of power to control society at the expense of the rights and the dignity of individuals.  To illustrate this, one need look no further than the effort by Liberals to implement policies concerning climate change and healthcare reform.

First, looking at healthcare reform, we are admonished by Liberals that we need to reform healthcare so as to ensure access to quality and affordable care for all.  The plans put forward by members of Congress, with the support of President Obama, all have several key things in common: They substantially increase taxes; they set up systems by which the private insurance market will be strangled to death; and they have the effect of dramatically increasing the government’s role in the distribution of healthcare resources.  As the Wall Street Journal stated on November 16, “The various health bills stipulate that Congress will arbitrarily decide how much to spend on health care for seniors every year—and then invest an unelected board with extraordinary powers to dictate what is covered and how it will be paid for. White House budget director Peter Orszag calls this Medicare commission ‘critical to our fiscal future’ and ‘one of the most potent reforms.’”

And it won’t just stop with seniors.  When the government is in charge of health care, we will no longer be able to get the medical care we want from whom we want without government interference.  Consider the recent findings of a government panel stating that women under the age of 50 without special risk factors no longer need regular mammography to detect breast cancer. Currently, it is recommended that women over 40 receive regular mammography, and since that became standard practice in the early 1990’s, breast cancer deaths among American women have fallen by 30%.  Given that, why would the government panel recommend a change in a practice which is evidently effective in preventing cancer deaths?  The reason is that the panel (which included no oncologists or radiologists) decided that the change was more cost effective. 

While such findings by government bureaucrats are currently of no real import, under a Liberal healthcare regime, they would be binding.  So, a 42 year-old woman with no risk factors for breast cancer will have to wait until she can feel the lump in her breast to get treatment, because that is what the government decided was cost effective.  What she wants notwithstanding.

The Liberal elite in this country want to control the health care system because that is the most comprehensive way they can control the individual.  Health care reform is not about compassion or equality.  Health care reform, as Liberals envision it and hope to implement it, is about them establishing power over you; your rights notwithstanding. 

The same desire to control is exhibited with the Liberal desire to deal with climate change in the form of Cap-and-Trade legislation.  The direct cost to each American family under the proposed Cap-and-Trade legislation (a/k/a American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009) is estimated to be between $1,000 and $1,500 annually.  The indirect costs on the American economy would be staggering, in the form of lost jobs, lost productivity, and additional debt in the trillions of dollars.  To what purpose?  According to climatologist Chip Knappenberger, Cap-and-Trade would moderate temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century. 

The odd contradiction of Cap-and-Trade and healthcare reform is this: Liberal healthcare reform institutes policies under which the government will not expend money to save certain lives because such expenses may not be cost-effective; and yet, under Cap-and-Trade, the government is willing to spend enormous amounts of money in the hope that we can make the planet slightly cooler in 90 years.  In both cases the rights of individuals mean nothing.  Rather, we are all expected to toil in the vain hope that Liberals can remake the world according to their designs. 

What Liberal health care reform and Cap-and-Trade show us is the soul of Liberalism: The desire to remake the world and to control the lives of ordinary people in the effort.  The rights, dreams and desires of those people, to the extent they conflict with the Liberal agenda, must be set aside and done away with—and all for the “greater good.”

-Edward Mahee for TruPolitics.net

Filed under Conservatism Tagged with , , , ,

Can’t We All Just Get Along?

November 28, 2009 by mattbenchener Leave a Comment

This post was written by guest author Saylor Smith. Mr. Smith was and educator for over 40 years and is the author of two novels. He currently resides in Eugene, Oregon. This is his third posting for the site.

I believe it is a hopeful sign that patriotic Americans of the Right and of the Left are debating the relative merits of the conservative and liberal political philosophies. There are wide disparities between these philosophies that are worth examining. However, our country has become so large and so complex that the truth is that neither philosophy is “Correct” for every situation and, in a real sense, both philosophies are “Correct” for some situations. President Obama’s recent speech to American students was full of so-called “conservative” values (work hard, stay in school); I would posit that those are American values, embraced equally by conservative and liberal thinkers.

Conservatives and liberals — no, American conservatives and liberals — live in the same challenging world and see that world from similar perspectives; they seek security in their towns and cities; safe, productive schools; equality of opportunity; jobs for all who are willing and able to work; and a comfortable place to call home. We all agree on those vital areas of existence; we fight the conservative/liberal battle, then, on the margins.

I believe the central question is not large government vs. small government. After all, during “conservative” President George W. Bush’s eight years in office the federal government expanded, whereas during “liberal” President Bill Clinton’s eight-year tenure, the government contracted. The main question each political philosophy attempts to answer is: What role should the federal government play in guaranteeing to its citizens the freedoms outlined in the Constitution?

A simple way to examine the question is to consider the Four Freedoms President Franklin Roosevelt proposed as fundamental for all peoples:

1. Freedom of speech and expression

2. Freedom of religion

3. Freedom from want

4. Freedom from fear

Certainly, we would expect our elected officials to stand firmly in support of those values. However, should we expect them to take concerted action — to pass legislation, for example — as part of their “duties” to the people? A liberal might give a knee-jerk “Yes” answer to that question, and a conservative might give a knee-jerk “No” response.

The liberal sees the government’s representatives as fulfilling their duties by actively assuring those freedoms (passing minimum wage laws, for example, to protect people from want and fear, or passing laws to regulate the actions of large corporations when those actions threaten the safety and security of the people). The conservative sees the government’s representatives as putting up roadblocks to true freedom when they take such action (the conservative suggests letting the free market set wage limits, and he or she argues consistently for de-regulation of corporate America). For most intents and purposes, a liberal sees the government as “us,” while a conservative sees the government as “them.”

We are all of us freedom-loving Americans; it is part of the very fabric of our being as a people. As such, we have to respect and, indeed, honor the conservative’s uncompromising belief in the value of freedom. And each liberal has to recognize, accept and embrace that conservative value in him- or herself. Too, we are a compassionate, generous people; the conservative should honor that value in his or her liberal friends and accept and embrace it in him- or herself.

Each issue we face, especially the tough ones — gun control, healthcare reform, energy regulations, abortion — demands reasoned, honest judgment on the part of each of our representatives. “What,” he or she must ask, “is best for the people of my district, state and nation?” If a law promises to make life safer, freer or less fearful for Americans, the legislator is obligated by his or her allegiance to the most basic principles of the U.S. Constitution, to give it careful consideration, neither rubber-stamping nor rejecting it based on “left” or “right” ideology.

We live in confounding times. Too many people argue that there are no verities, that all “truth” is relative. Surely that is not the case. Surely, there are decisions we can make and actions we can take that are based, very simply, on what is right. Let us all, conservatives, liberals and independents, come together in a determined search for what is, in the end, right.

-Guest author Saylor Smith for TruPolitics.net

Filed under Other Tagged with , , , , ,

Freedom, Bureaucracy, and Healthcare

October 16, 2009 by mattbenchener 13 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 seventh posting for the site.

During the recent debate over whether and how to reform America’s health care system, Americans have been asked to consider why the President’s proposed overhaul is warranted.  We are told that the health care system needs to be reformed to cover the uninsured, while at the same time we are told reform is necessary in order to control spiraling costs.  We are left to contemplate how we can expand the health care system through the federal government, while at the same time controlling costs. 

We’ve been told to shun experience and common sense, since either will tell us that any plan to reform health care through government control will neither improve coverage or control costs.  We will continue to be admonished by the media to allow Congress and the Obama Administration to govern by emotion, as we hear endless stories of the health care system gone awry.  This, of course is not to be hard-hearted, as errors do happen and people do suffer as a result. We just shouldn’t expect Congress, the Obama Administration, or the media to tell us similar stories of those suffering as they wait for treatment on government waiting lists, hoping their number is called when a bureaucrat says “Next!”

But the health care debate is part of a larger discourse regarding the relationship between the government and the citizens of the United States.  What is the proper role of government in the United States?  This country was founded on the idea that all men are created equal and have inalienable rights, and that governments are created to protect and sustain those rights. The key notion is that each individual is personally endowed with rights that other persons, and especially the government, are duty bound to respect and protect. 

This means that America was founded on the principal that each man or woman, individually, was free to make of his or her life what he or she chose.  That also meant we relied on voluntary associations to assist with community building.  People helped each other, invested in each other, supported each other and cared for each other.  America became prosperous through the effort of free individuals able to keep the fruit of their labor, with the support of friends, family, voluntary organizations, churches, and other institutions created and sustained by individuals choosing to do so.  The government was there to ensure that courts were open, criminal laws were enforced, contracts were honored, and the borders kept secure.

Fast forward to the 1910’s.  Since the inception of the Progressive Movement and its successors in modern liberalism, political elites have tried to overhaul this system.  We are told that the system of free government and free enterprise is alternatively heartless and cruel, or individualistic and isolating.  We are told further that the only way to have just and good society is to have everyone pull on the same rope, forming a true community, backed by the power of the federal government.  Our self-appointed elites will guide us into making a better world. 

The key observation, however, is that in this world view the rights of the individual are not central.  Instead, what is central and essential is the guiding hand of the elite. Individual rights, in order for society to be remade, must subordinate to the needs of the community as determined by those in power.  And to enforce their dream of remaking society according to their own designs, they take away individual freedom through coercion and taxation – all for “our own good.”

Fast forward again to today’s health care debate.  We hear very little from proponents of the Obama Plan about the rights of individuals.  In a free society, patients, nurses, physicians, and hospitals are free to contract with each other for treatment under whatever terms are mutually agreeable. However, over the past 70 years, both the state and federal government have colluded with insurance companies to increase their power over health care decisions.  As each effort by the government to make things better has come to pass (by increasing its own power, of course), the state of health care has worsened, and government claims the need for increased intervention. 

Finally, we come to the ultimate effort, putting the whole system under the control of the federal government. The results are predictable if Congress and the Obama Administration succeed—those in power will have more power to direct and control society.  And as they play the part of Leviathan, ordinary, once free people will be reduced to the hope that their name is called next on the bureaucrats’ list.

-Edward Mahee for TruPolitics.net

Filed under Healthcare 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 , , , , , , , ,

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 , , , ,

Liberalism and Feudalism

August 6, 2009 by mattbenchener Leave a Comment

TruPolitics.net is proud to welcome writer Edward Mahee. Mr. Mahee boasts an extensive legal background, and is an emerging conservative thinker. Expect articles from Mr. Mahee every other week. This is his third posting for the site.

Since the beginning of its movement in the late 19th century, liberal thought has claimed to be progressive, forwarding thinking, and innovative. Its proponents state that humanity can achieve greater prosperity by embracing new solutions to age-old problems. As Barack Obama said during last year’s presidential campaign, “We are the ones we have been waiting for.”  More poignantly, Hubert Humphrey once noted that, “Liberalism, above all, means emancipation – emancipation from one’s fears, his inadequacies, from prejudice, from discrimination, from poverty.”

When observing liberalism in practice, however, what surfaces is not a philosophy of innovation and change. Rather, it becomes increasingly clear that liberalism is simply a reiteration of tried and failed ideals, which may explain its inability to accomplish its stated goal.Medieval Feudalism

At this point you may be saying, “Come on Mahee, get a grip.  We’ve already been over liberalism as socialism or liberalism as soft totalitarianism.  It’s not liberalism that is rehashing old ideas, it’s you.”  And that I understand.  The truth, however, is that liberalism is not simply a reiteration of socialism or totalitarianism.  Rather, liberalism’s antecedents can be found in feudalism.

Feudalism was a method of societal organization which had its apogee in medieval Europe and Japan.  While there were many variations of feudalism, the basic structure was as follows:  On the top of society was the king; below him was his retinue of barons; below them were knights, below them were yeoman (free peasants); and below them were the serfs (peasants tied to the land on which they lived and worked).

The hallmark of any feudal society was a system of two-way obligations of payment and fealty in exchange for protection.  In other words, a serf owed his lord taxes, labor and obedience, all in exchange for his lord’s protection.  The same was true for knights with barons and barons with the king. Of course, these mutual obligations were not of equal value. When a serf was dependent on the noble lord for protection, the serf lived at the mercy of his lord, and the lord ultimately lived at the mercy of the king. 

The basic principal underlying feudalism was that ordinary people were incapable of governing themselves—they had to rely on the kindness of their lords to protect them and to govern them.  Ordinary people were therefore unable to live and work for themselves.  For centuries, men and women lived and died under the eye of another.  They were not free to choose to live outside the bounds of the feudal world. 

So how does modern liberalism relate to feudalism? Liberalism presents itself as a philosophy that, if applied, will free individuals from fear and want.  Under the guiding hand of a benevolent elite (in our case, a politician or government official), individuals will be protected from life’s dangers and granted a certain degree of prosperity.  

In return, of course, the elite demands support, votes, and taxes.  That is, they demand control.  Liberals, in the name of the protection and happiness of the collective, will control what one eats, how much one can save, whether or not one gets medical care, what kind of car one may drive, and where and how children are educated. A free person is useless to a liberal elite because a free person does not need to be governed.   The parallels to our current administration are exceedingly clear.

One reason America was so attractive, even before Independence, is that individuals could conduct their lives without explicit oversight and control. They could organize and govern themselves as they chose. But now, in the name of protecting people from themselves, liberals will promise you the moon if only you surrender your freedom to them.

For 100 years, liberals have been asking American citizens to surrender their freedom, all the while ridiculing those who resists for their “lack of compassion” or “selfishness.”  The time has come for Americans to decide that our natural born rights as free people be respected. Otherwise, we will continue to surrender our liberty to elites—as our ancestors did to their noble lords—who have convinced us that we are incapable of governing ourselves.  Liberals demand our fealty for protection.  Will we give them our fealty, or will we, as free people, say no?

-Edward Mahee from TruPolitics.net

Filed under Other Tagged with , , , , ,

Obama’s America: A Course Charted by the Republican Party

May 7, 2009 by mattbenchener 7 Comments

This article was featured in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 5/8/09. Check out the newspaper version here, or catch the print column every Thursday or Friday.

President Obama recently completed his first 100 days in office, a period marked by an aggressive agenda in the midst of an economic crisis. His early policy initiatives have been nothing short of historic, and it is clear he hopes to redefine the nation. In this brief period, he passed the largest spending bill in history (the stimulus), initiated obama changeunprecedented government intervention in private industry (the bailouts, the AIG controversy, and the 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 election came in the wake of an incredible overturn in Congress, where Democrats now hold a powerful majority that it is virtually filibuster-proof. The course of the nation is now decidedly left. In reflecting back on President Obama’s first 100 days, what is perhaps most astonishing is how dramatically the course of American politics has changed in just four years. When President Bush was reelected in 2004, the Boston Globe declared that his sweeping victory granted him “a clear mandate to advance a conservative agenda over the next four years.” Conservatives are now left wondering what happened.  

While the answer to that question is varied and complex, it is important to note that the rise of the Democratic left came with the fall of the Republican right. The roots of the fall can be traced back to the decision to shun traditional conservatism.

The Bush Administration was arguably the most polarizing administration of the last three decades. “Conservative” or “Republican” meant you were a right-wing extremist who went to an evangelical church every Sunday, owned a gun, were pro-life, hated homosexuals and immigrants, and adhered to a rigid belief system. You also supported the Iraq War, thought global warming was a farce, believed stem cell research was immoral, and were a shareholder of Halliburton. The Republican Party had become a caricature of its leader in the White House.

In an effort to win two very difficult elections following the popular Clinton Administration, Republican strategists thought it necessary to mobilize the traditional conservative base through hot button social issues. Controversial lightening rod issues, like abortion and gay marriage, became the focal point of debate, and the party was “finally rallying behind its conservative base.” 

Such policy required a new brand of political activism, known to Bush advisors as “neo-conservatism.” At its core, neo-conservatism sought to advance certain “conservative” values through government intervention. With abortion, for example, neo-conservatism called for government funded abstinence programs, faith based pregnancy centers, and pro-life public relations funding. Stem cell research brought similar action, coupling tight regulation with increased spending on alternative methods of scientific research. The list goes on and on.

The party was realigning itself along highly controversial lines, forwarding an agenda focused on government activism, and by proxy, government spending. Interest groups within the party, and certain policy leaders, felt that the country ought to look a certain way and embrace certain societal, cultural, and religious values. Those values became “conservative” values. The “conservative” government was attempting to define societal and cultural norms.GOP

“What’s the problem with being pro-life, or believing in the sanctity of marriage?” you may be asking. Nothing. Each of the social programs embraced by the Bush Administration had merit. The problem arose when Republicans became functional liberals, expanding government and spending wildly to enforce these values. The defining line between the left and the right was no longer marked by small government v. big government, low taxes v. redistribution, or personal responsibility v. welfare. The defining line was now marked by incredibly controversial and divisive issues, and the new level of government activism posed a direct threat to those on the opposite side of that line.

That threat brought about an astounding degree of political activism, and gave rise to a highly energized liberal base. The early years of the Bush presidency gave rise, among other things, to MoveOn.org, Nancy Sheehan, and a decidedly liberal media. When the movement began, they were not fighting for liberalism, they were fighting against President Bush. All the while, the Republican Party lost its conservative identity, and became a party marked by partisan politics. It was only a matter of time before the partisan tables were turned.

A recent Fox poll showed that 76% of independents worry government will spend too much to help the economy; only 12% worry it will spend too little. The same poll showed that the vast majority of Americans fear big government more than they fear big business. Americans are conservative at heart. Our nation was founded on the principles of personal industry, small government, and fiscal responsibility. Excessive taxes, after all, gave rise to the original tea party. When the Republican Party was its strongest, it embraced Ronald Reagan’s Big Tent: Anyone who believes in low taxes, strong national defense, and small government is welcome. Reagan left office with the highest approval ratings of any President.

It is a great shame that conservatism took on a wholly different identity over the past eight years. Now we are reaping the political consequences. It is time that conservatism become the foundational political philosophy it was always meant to be.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net

Filed under Conservatism Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts