Conservatives have a very rich history in this country which provides excellent groundwork for the future as well as the immediate needs of our country. When considering how to reestablish the Republican Party, I think that it is critical to use the past as a foundation and to look forward to what the country needs. In my opinion, it is essential to keep things simple and to rely upon two main principles to drive the conservative movement forward. These two principles include adhering to the Constitution and focusing on the family.
The Constitution is what has made our country unique. It is what provides us our freedoms and is the basis for liberties. Other nations look to it as the example of what a democratic republic should be. Far too often members of our party have strayed from its principles to represent a special interest or corporation. Also, many so called Republicans have distorted its intentions in order to expand federal powers and interfere with our freedoms. In my opinion, it is our responsibility as conservative Republicans to evaluate what the Constitution offers us and to strictly adhere to its principles. When endorsing any candidate for any office, we must ask, “Will they support and uphold the Constitution?” When supporting any legislation it must be considered, “Will this restrict our freedoms as outlined in the Constitution? Will it interfere with my freedom of speech? Will it take away my right to my own property?” Former undersecretary of state for Calvin Coolidge, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., put it well when he said: “God provided that in this land of liberty, our political allegiance shall run not to individuals, that is, to government officials, no matter how great or how small they may be. Under His plan our allegiance and the only allegiance we owe as citizens or denizens of the United States, runs to our inspired Constitution which God himself set up…This principle of allegiance to the Constitution is basic to our freedom.” (Improvement Era, July 1940, p. 444.) It is my guiding belief that as Conservatives we must consider what is in the Constitution as well as who is willing to defend it over any self interests.
I believe that focusing on strengthening the family structure should also be the primary goal of the conservative Republican Party. When the family unit is weakened, individuals are forced to turn to their government for support. It is my view that this is the underlying cause for the increase in dependence by our citizens on the government. Without a functioning family or a community support network in place, the only place to turn in times of distress and hardship becomes the government. I see this far too often in my profession as a hospice nurse. When a family member is dying and there is no extended family or community that is able to step in and provide relief, the patient relies on the support of the hospice staff, provided to them indirectly by the government through Medicare, in their place. I also see as growing trend citizens requesting benefits from the government that might normally be provided by a family member or community such as housing and food. When families are no longer able to provide for themselves they become the taxpayers burden and therefore I believe that it is the duty of our elected representatives to do everything in their power to help families become self sufficient and provide for themselves. This principle is of primary concern to conservatives who believe that the government should not be the primary provider and that citizens have a responsibility to help themselves.
By using these two main principles as a guide when determining the future of the party, I believe that Republicans will not only win the support of the people of our nation they will also gain the much needed cohesion that the party is lacking. In the process, Conservatives will also help preserve the freedoms of the citizens of this nation. Finally, I believe that keeping things simple and focused will create a new, strong foundation to build upon.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
Obama-come-lately
I have generally been holding back my opinion on this blog in an effort to have a discussion forum, however, when I heard this yesterday on NPR I about lost my mind:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120346278
Barack Obama, in order to address rising unemployment, is going to hold a "Job Summit" in December to bring in experts and discuss what could be done to create jobs.
So now he is going to do something to address 10.2% unemployment?
Yesterday was too late to do something about the lack of jobs. Last year was too late to be talking with experts about job creation. Taking a clue from Steve Wynn who said it should have been jobs, jobs, jobs since day 1!!
Instead, he has been preoccupied about stimulus, than stimulus, than cap- and- trade, than healthcare. You have to have a job first before you can reform the health insurance that you get from your job.
Also, there is no need for a summit. All Barack Obama has to do is to talk to the average citizen who would tell him that uncertainty is driving unemployment. With all this pending legislation which will possibly increase taxes, health insurance premiums, electricity, etc., nobody knows what they are going to be able to afford next month let alone next year. It doesn't take an expert to realize that the lack of liquidity in credit for small businesses is prohibiting them from growing. People are not spending because they are not sure if they will be able to pay their bills. Nobody knows for sure how things are going to go with the economy. Because of that jobs will not be created until the uncertainty is removed and an environment is created for business to grow through increased liquidity and reduced taxes.
Let me know what you think.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120346278
Barack Obama, in order to address rising unemployment, is going to hold a "Job Summit" in December to bring in experts and discuss what could be done to create jobs.
So now he is going to do something to address 10.2% unemployment?
Yesterday was too late to do something about the lack of jobs. Last year was too late to be talking with experts about job creation. Taking a clue from Steve Wynn who said it should have been jobs, jobs, jobs since day 1!!
Instead, he has been preoccupied about stimulus, than stimulus, than cap- and- trade, than healthcare. You have to have a job first before you can reform the health insurance that you get from your job.
Also, there is no need for a summit. All Barack Obama has to do is to talk to the average citizen who would tell him that uncertainty is driving unemployment. With all this pending legislation which will possibly increase taxes, health insurance premiums, electricity, etc., nobody knows what they are going to be able to afford next month let alone next year. It doesn't take an expert to realize that the lack of liquidity in credit for small businesses is prohibiting them from growing. People are not spending because they are not sure if they will be able to pay their bills. Nobody knows for sure how things are going to go with the economy. Because of that jobs will not be created until the uncertainty is removed and an environment is created for business to grow through increased liquidity and reduced taxes.
Let me know what you think.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Conservatives vs. Progressive Republicans
Who new that this issue would be the one to bring up so many emotions? I think that this is such an interesting topic because it is at the heart of the issues that Republican party is facing at this time. The Republican party clearly has no central leader or central focus and this battle that is raging between the two factions will eventually bring us to the heart of the matter: Which direction is the right direction?
In my opinion there are many Progressive Republicans however they might not be the leaders that you imagine. I think that John McCain is the prime example. He ran as a "reform" candidate vowing to clean up the administrative mess that has been created through legalisation in favor of special interest groups. However, he still works within the framework of the bureaucracy. Also, I think Lindsey Graham is along the same lines.
The Conservatives however tend to be the rogue elements of the party that are trying to eliminate overspending and dramatically reduce government spending and regulation. They are also pushing against the own elements of their party which are more entrenched in the bureaucratic system using the mantra, "Is it in the Constitution?" I would consider Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty to be in this group.
This battle played out so interestingly in New York 23 Congressional race. The Progressive Republican was pushed out by party conservatives who than endorsed the Democratic Candidate who went on to win the race. The Conservative candidate who was a regular citizen that was endorsed by Sarah Palin narrowly lost in a district which has not elected a Democrat since 185o-something. This was a fascinating scenario which will continue to pay out over the coming months and in the upcoming elections. It will be interesting to see who prevails.
What do you think? How do you think that this battle is playing out?
In my opinion there are many Progressive Republicans however they might not be the leaders that you imagine. I think that John McCain is the prime example. He ran as a "reform" candidate vowing to clean up the administrative mess that has been created through legalisation in favor of special interest groups. However, he still works within the framework of the bureaucracy. Also, I think Lindsey Graham is along the same lines.
The Conservatives however tend to be the rogue elements of the party that are trying to eliminate overspending and dramatically reduce government spending and regulation. They are also pushing against the own elements of their party which are more entrenched in the bureaucratic system using the mantra, "Is it in the Constitution?" I would consider Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty to be in this group.
This battle played out so interestingly in New York 23 Congressional race. The Progressive Republican was pushed out by party conservatives who than endorsed the Democratic Candidate who went on to win the race. The Conservative candidate who was a regular citizen that was endorsed by Sarah Palin narrowly lost in a district which has not elected a Democrat since 185o-something. This was a fascinating scenario which will continue to pay out over the coming months and in the upcoming elections. It will be interesting to see who prevails.
What do you think? How do you think that this battle is playing out?
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Progressivism
As you might suspect, I am an avid Glenn Beck listener. One of the things that he persistently talks about is Progressivism and what he considered to be its evils. Hearing about this over and over, I have wondered what is Progressivism? I have been looking into it and I have decided that no matter what you think of it it is critical to understand what it is because it is the basis of the society in which we were living.
Progressivism started at the turn of the 20th century as a way to combat many of the social ills of the time. The people were looking for "reform" as they called it to alleviate many of the problems which were brought about by industrialization. Many of these efforts have brought us the security that we enjoy today including women's right to vote, child labor laws and food safety standards. These are all things that we take for granted and no matter what size of government we prefer we are very grateful for these guarantees because they improve our quality of life. However, this was also the time when special interest groups came into being as well as the growth of the administrative bureaucracy that is still growing to this day.
Also, it is important to remember that the main focus of progressives is to eliminate all social ills and the means they use to do that is through coercion by popular opinion or laws. Link and McCormick stated in their book Progressivism that, " The same basic drive for control motivated nearly every movement for social reform for the progressive era. Progressives sincerely believed that justice depended on social control."pg 103 I see this playing out in so many of the issues that we are being confronted with right now. For example, if you don't believe in gay marriage you must be a bigot or using compact fluorescent bulbs is the right thing to do and if you are not doing it you are hurting the earth for everyone.
Both Barack Obama an Hillary Clinton identify themselves as Progressives as well as many of the more liberal leaning legislators. This is another reason why it is essential to understand this aspect of history and the framework that has been set up by progressives to control social issues. This is a very complex issue and I feel that it needs to be understood so that we as citizens can act in our own best interest and advocate for issues that our important to us. Also, understanding Progressivism can help us to elect officials who will act in our best interests as well. Honestly, I am still forming my opinions on this topic. Let me know what you think.
Here is an excellent outline of the basic history of progressivism:
http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/lectures/lecture11.html
This is the book I read:
Link, Aurthur S. and McCormick, Richard L., Progressivism, Harlan Davidson Arlington Heights, Illinois, 1983.
Progressivism started at the turn of the 20th century as a way to combat many of the social ills of the time. The people were looking for "reform" as they called it to alleviate many of the problems which were brought about by industrialization. Many of these efforts have brought us the security that we enjoy today including women's right to vote, child labor laws and food safety standards. These are all things that we take for granted and no matter what size of government we prefer we are very grateful for these guarantees because they improve our quality of life. However, this was also the time when special interest groups came into being as well as the growth of the administrative bureaucracy that is still growing to this day.
Also, it is important to remember that the main focus of progressives is to eliminate all social ills and the means they use to do that is through coercion by popular opinion or laws. Link and McCormick stated in their book Progressivism that, " The same basic drive for control motivated nearly every movement for social reform for the progressive era. Progressives sincerely believed that justice depended on social control."pg 103 I see this playing out in so many of the issues that we are being confronted with right now. For example, if you don't believe in gay marriage you must be a bigot or using compact fluorescent bulbs is the right thing to do and if you are not doing it you are hurting the earth for everyone.
Both Barack Obama an Hillary Clinton identify themselves as Progressives as well as many of the more liberal leaning legislators. This is another reason why it is essential to understand this aspect of history and the framework that has been set up by progressives to control social issues. This is a very complex issue and I feel that it needs to be understood so that we as citizens can act in our own best interest and advocate for issues that our important to us. Also, understanding Progressivism can help us to elect officials who will act in our best interests as well. Honestly, I am still forming my opinions on this topic. Let me know what you think.
Here is an excellent outline of the basic history of progressivism:
http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/lectures/lecture11.html
This is the book I read:
Link, Aurthur S. and McCormick, Richard L., Progressivism, Harlan Davidson Arlington Heights, Illinois, 1983.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)