“Obviously Our Hearts Are Broken”

The President of the United States managed to briefly interrupt his fundraiser in Las Vegas to inform the crowd of his regret regarding the death by murder of the representative of the United States in Libya, Ambassador Chris Stevens.  “Obviously our hearts are broken,” he exclaimed. Well as Mark Steyn would say, not so obvious.  The middle East is exploding in a masturbatory orgasm of Islamic radical spasm toward the great satan America, and the President, who once exclaimed that his mere personhood would reduce the invective felt by all Muslims towards America due to the unique blundering heavy-handedness of the clueless Bush, could not manage separate himself from the needs of the fundraiser to serve the needs of his nation, other than that brief, offhand remark.  Honestly…. stunning.

Chris Stevens was a man who had given his entire avocation to understanding the Islamic crescent of North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean seaboard.  He had earned a college degree from Berkeley, a masters from the National War College, and a Law degree from the University of California.  He had served in the Peace Corps in Morocco,  learned French and Arabic in addition to his native English, and ably served his country diplomatically in Jerusalem, Damascus, Cairo, and Riyadh.  He was one of the pivotal figures in helping to direct the United States communication with the Arab Spring rebels, fundamental in achieving the  overthrow of the  Libyan dictator Qaddafi, and in May 2012, was named American Ambassador to Libya and its fledgling government.  Chris Stevens was one of those special people who made their life work trying to find a way out of the chaos for those whose lives were perpetually crushed by the chaos.

Chris Stevens’ life of service was paid back by the Libyans he helped by brutal assassination and the obligatory infantile dragging of Stevens’ lifeless body through  the streets of Benghazi by the thugs who murdered him and their sycophants.  The Secretary of State Hillary Clinton managed to view this as “Libyans carried Chris’s body to the hospital.” Again….absolutely stunning.  Are these clueless people truly the ones implementing our national policies and protecting our sovereignty?

We live in times dominated by the theater of the absurd.  The President and Secretary of State of the most powerful nation on earth enunciate their vision for American diplomacy as “leading from behind”.   The Ambassador representing them in one of the most hostile and unstable places on earth is left on September the 11th, the anniversary of Islamic Radicalism’s greatest triumph, essentially unprotected at an”interim facility” in Benghazi on the terrorists’ most sacred date, the perfect sacred cow for sacrifice to the Islamic radicals greatest deity, the god of death. To bring the Absurdity to culmination, the UK Independent reports that the vulnerability of the American Mission was known for 48 hours and the American administration did nothing (except guest appearances on television shows and fundraising events).  Most absurdly, this American administration’s interpretation of this organized assassination squad was that it was after all the fault of America, because an obscure video on YouTube had obviously driven the initially peaceful protesters to distraction, and propagated their uncontrollable outrage to engage in ambassadorial murder… with apparently the RPGs, mortars, and other heavy weapons they just so happened to be carrying on their heretofore peaceful demonstration.  Absolutely, absurdly stunning.

We are currently being led into a snake-pit of financial collapse and paralytic foreign policy by a President whose most important constituency is himself.  He sees this country as his personal petri dish, where he can concoct absurdest  policies and visions of socialist utopias, and the lemmings will support him blindly.  Tremendous individuals  like Chris Stevens are being burned up in circular policies with no beginning and no end except the re-election of the prevaricator in chief.  Before we all pitch ourselves off the cliff following this absurd pied piper, let us find our sanity, and do the right thing on November 6th, 2012.

 

Pictures After An Exhibition

The country has now survived  the two packaged events once known as political conventions, and the early indications are that not much has changed in the snapshot of the November contest.  The President holds a several point lead over Mitt Romney that continues to be paced on something obliquely referred to as a “likeability ” factor and a general sense that the President speaks for the everyguy.  Its the “everyguy” that is the facinating feature to me, and how that has changed so dramatically in the course of my lifetime – specifically, what apparently the “everyguy” cares about.

Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post has a spot on commentary as to what the Democratic Party image has become as reflected at the convention and is a must read.  The party has morphed into a series of two dimensional pictures at an exhibition, each a specific image of grievances bound together only by the intensity of their sense of grievance.  The African American political activist at one time energized by the fight for civil rights and the concept of individual liberty, now consumed with the fight for monolithic governmental benevolence.  The 30 year old female law student, having achieved equal access to the law, now wanting the law to assure her free birth control as the signature achievement of her educational journey.  The public union leader, who has turned the concept of public service into the responsibility of the public to serve the public official.  All together, strident pictures of an America not founded on elevated ideas of personal liberty and freedom to succeed, but an America that is owed something, and the something that is owed, is owed  by one American to another.

And the framer of all these disparate pictures, the artist in chief, President Obama.  The lofty goal setter of 2008, with a vision of a healed planet and oceans whose rise is slowed, was no where in sight at the president’s acceptance speech.  That Obama was replaced with the plea bargainer, asking for more time to achieve the transformation of America from the united vision of the founders to the land of “at least I got mine”.  There was no mention anywhere of the approaching calamity of trying to support those entitled, on the backs of those who would provide the means for the entitlement.  Rubin states it perfectly:

So then it wasn’t merely that Obama let lose the rent-seekers (and birth control-seekers and free-education-seekers). No, he needed them to fill up the space and the airwaves, to promise that no matter what (fiscal crisis, recession) he will still be there to cater to the whims and demands of the constituent groups. Sure the economy is bad, but whose going to give you free college tuition?

It’s ludicrous, of course. If the economy doesn’t improve and we don’t avoid the fiscal cliff, we’ll be taking away, not handing out stuff. This is the “austerity” against which the liberals inveigh. In fact, they are driving us ever closer to the point where we will will have to quickly and severely cut out the handouts.

It is, as conservatives have said for so long, the Western European syndrome. As we spend and cater to the demanding crowd, we push ourselves closer and closer to the point where both the excessive demands and actual needs will go unmet.

Indeed. Yet the pictures as idealized as they are painted by the President can not hide the crumbling edifice beneath.  The promises of an economy put forth by this President that would equalize risk and reward, and therefore elevate all – the socialist ideal – is sliding into a malaise that may prove beyond any of our control.  The policy of picking winners has led to more and more Americans simply giving up on their efforts to find their way.  August 2012 employment figures show the unemployment rate dropped due to an ever increasing number of Americans who have simply stopped looking for work.  These are the pictures the artist in chief could not reveal – the student graduate in their twenties who can’t get started and the laid off workers in their fifties who have recognized there won’t be one more chance out there to finally get things right.  This country is increasingly looking like just another failed state, with no idea how to move forward and no will to adjust priorities.

The American everyguy used to be someone who regardless of personal circumstances could sense the larger picture, feel when the country was dangerously surging off kilter, and recognize the need to right the ship of state.

The election in November looms large.  We need the “everyguy” to step up and do what is necessary. We need to change the artist, if we have any hope of changing the picture of our future.

 

 

RNC 2012 Day 3 Impressions: Mitt Romney -The Competent in Chief

The 2012 Republican convention had a unique problem to solve when its presidential candidate rose to the podium to give the closing speech to the conventioneers and the nation.  What to do when your standard bearers, the articulate, impassioned, and committed spokesmen for the cause – have already spoken?  Like a great ship on the ocean, the Republican Party has dramatically shifted course toward a different horizon, and the captains of that ship from this time forth are Ryan and Rubio.  No two presentations before a national convention have ever put in place a more perfect bookend explanation as to what this political party believes and fights for, and the two will likely be the coming generational face of the party for the next 16 years.  Both will be indispensable, and it is likely both will be President someday.

But someday is not 2012, and the party’s candidate is Mitt Romney, and from all appearances he took on the problem of the two shining stars that preceded him and laid out a case that in executive positions, it is not flash, but competency that matters.  Challenging in prose and delivery the two previously mentioned  superstars would have been risky, and frankly I don’t believe is in Romney’s DNA.   His speech (and the speechwriters who framed Romney’s thoughts) went with a beeline to the residual pool of disaffected Obama voters who hoped for more production from the President to match his soaring rhetoric of 2008. Romney made the speech about competency, and since this is after all a contest between he and Obama, who would be the better competent in chief.

He made the argument rather well, but without the symphonic tones of the Cicero lectoring before him, Marco Rubio.  Recognizing President Obama’s residual likability advantage in polls, Romney did not try to paint the President as uncaring or disconnected, but simply not up to the task of management of a enterprise as complex as America.  Echoing Clint Eastwood’s quirky tome on Obama earlier in which Eastwood said, “And when somebody doesn’t do the job, we got to let them go.”  Romney stated it in terms of the disillusionment he believes is out there:

 If you felt that excitement when you voted for Barack Obama, shouldn’t you feel that way now that he’s President Obama? You know there’s something wrong with the kind of job he’s done as president when the best feeling you had was the day you voted for him.

Romney pointed towards President Obama’s tendency to put the position of American President in a different kind of metaphysical calling, as a global arbiter of morality and fairness, not the elected representative speaking for, and standing up for,  the American people.  This dissonance from the American purpose was perfectly framed in Romney’s best line in the speech:

President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. MY promise…is to help you and your family.

Romney spent the greater part of the speech outlining the relative ordinariness of his upbringing and personhood, ordinary in the extraordinary way that seems to be a recurrent theme in American success stories – immigrant routes, one generation sacrificing so that the next generation may prosper, the importance of family, the willingness to try and fail ultimately to succeed – all endearing elements of the Romney story that perhaps may have provided some softened nuance to the media so determined to paint him as some kind of uncaring capitalist hedge fund manager.  To my ears, however this section seemed somewhat disjointed and overly long, and lacking in connectivity to Romney’s argument of competence.

Conclusively, however, Romney eventually restored managerial competency to the forefront and laid out an evidence and results based tone to a Romney administration, a stark contrast to Obama’s cork in the ocean journey of no budgeting, no adjustments, and no practical plan for the looming crises:

And unlike the President, I have a plan to create 12 million new jobs. It has 5 steps.

First, by 2020, North America will be energy independent by taking full advantage of our oil and coal and gas and nuclear and renewables.

Second, we will give our fellow citizens the skills they need for the jobs of today and the careers of tomorrow. When it comes to the school your child will attend, every parent should have a choice, and every child should have a chance.

Third, we will make trade work for America by forging new trade agreements. And when nations cheat in trade, there will be unmistakable consequences.

Fourth, to assure every entrepreneur and every job creator that their investments in America will not vanish as have those in Greece, we will cut the deficit and put America on track to a balanced budget.

And fifth, we will champion SMALL businesses, America’s engine of job growth. That means reducing taxes on business, not raising them. It means simplifying and modernizing the regulations that hurt small business the most. And it means that we must rein in the skyrocketing cost of healthcare by repealing and replacing Obamacare…

The speech as a summation of all the collected voices of this convention was a success in reminding all what American exceptionalism is all about.  That it is not enough to field a team of stars, strivers, and dreamers, but humbly direct them with competent management , is the foundation on which Mitt Romney is staking his claim to the American Presidency.  It may not be enough to get Romney eventually on Mt Rushmore, but it may be the perfect recipe to restore balance and adult standards to a shaky America that is concerned that our leaders are playing loose with our destiny.

 

RNC 2012 Day 2 Impressions: Paul Ryan: The One We’ve Been Waiting For

Ramparts has spent the better part of two years intermittently raving about a wonky, generally unknown congressman from Wisconsin as the next coming of Reagan.  Aware of this man’s spot on seriousness about problem solving, his earnest, absolutely natural way with people of all stripes, and his capacity to present the most complex issues in ways that anyone can understand, digest, and commit to participating in the solution have marked him in Ramparts as the leader we have yearned for to restore America to her immense capacities for opportunity, productivity, and moral persuasion.  At times it seemed he would be held back by his youthfulness, his “position in line of succession” so fixated upon by the Republican Party over the years, or his desire to stay in the weeds of budget crafting in Congress. It seemed he would resist the calling to avoid placing his young children in the harsh lights of national prominence.  Maybe, he just didn’t have it in his “gut”, to give his professional life up to the non-stop demands of a national candidate.

Enough already.  Thank you, Mitt Romney.  He’s here and he’s every bit the one we have been waiting for.

Paul Ryan wowed the convention and the national audience with a tour de force performance that only enhances his building legend.  He has always been articulate, a great communicator in the mold of his idol Reagan, a warrior for the cause- but who knew he could deliver a political speech like that?  It certainly wasn’t present in his acceptance speech in Virginia a few weeks ago. There, in front of that large crowd,  he was nervous, fidgety, and halting to the task.  This speech was on a whole nother level – crisp, confident, interactive, devastating to his opponents without sounding arrogant or mean spirited, and perfectly timed, building to a crescendo that had his audience yelling and gasping for more.  Ronald Reagan, when he finally received adulation for his communicating skills was a seasoned older politician reflecting back to a better time. Paul Ryan was more John Fitzgerald Kennedy, full of youthful energy, can-do spirit, and forwardly confident.

The speech was perfectly written, full of lines that resonate as little sun brightened jewels on the beach, though on closer inspection had the painful sting of  little jellyfish:

I’m the newcomer to this campaign.  So let me share a first impression.   I have never seen opponents so silent about their record, and so  desperate to keep their power.  They have run out of ideas. Their moment  came and went.  Fear and division is all they’ve got left.  With  all of their attack ads the president is just throwing away money…and he is pretty experienced at that.

and

You — you the American people of this country were cut out of the deal.   What did taxpayers get out of the Obama stimulus? More debt.  That  money wasn’t just spent and wasted, it was borrowed, spent and wasted…

and

But we are four years into this presidency. The issue is not the economy that  Barack Obama inherited, not the economy as he envisions, but this economy  that we are living.     College graduates should not have to  live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life.

Paul Ryan took the current Administration to the tool shed for a whuppin’ and never once looked beastly doing it.  In Kennedy fashion, he re-acquainted us with the inherent tools each of us has with the rights guaranteed in our founding documents to strive for better, to not accept the maudlin future that has been placed before us.

Now when I was waiting tables, washing dishes, or mowing lawns for money, I  never thought of myself as stuck in some station in life. I was on my own  path, my own journey, an American journey, where I could think for myself, decide for myself, define happen as for myself.  That is what we do in  this country.  That is the American dream.          That’s freedom and I will  take it any day over the supervision and sanctimony of the central planners…

and

We have responsibilities, one to another.  We do not each face the world  alone.  And the greatest of all responsibilities, is that of the strong  to protect the weak. The truest measure of any society is how it treats those  who cannot defend or care for themselves.        Each of these great moral  ideas is essential to democratic government, to the rule of law, to life in a  humane and decent society.  They are the moral creed of our country, as  powerful in our time, as on the day of America’s founding.  They are self-evident and unchanging, and sometimes, even presidents need reminding,  that our rights come from nature and God, and not from government…

and

The right that makes all the difference now, is the right to choose our own  leaders.  And you are entitled to the clearest possible choice, because  the time for choosing is drawing near.     So here is our  pledge.     We will not duck the tough issues, we will  lead.     We will not spend the next four years blaming  others, we will take responsibility.     We will not try to  replace our founding principles, we will reapply our founding principles.

Paul Ryan appears to be some Ronald Reagan and some John Kennedy, but in the end he is all Paul Ryan.  Mitt Romney has done us all a service by putting this special leader on the national stage at a time when the country is thirsting for people who are the pathfinders to a better future.  It speaks very well of Romney.  Tonight, we will find out if Romney’s grasp of the task is as developed as his skill in picking the people who can accomplish such difficult tasks before us.

RNC 2012 Day 1 Impressions: The Bench is Deep

The first day of the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida was the culmination of the Republican Party’s change in strategy since the thrashing delivered to them at the hands of the Democrat Party and President Obama in the 2006 and 2008 elections, respectively.  In baseball terms, the Republicans have pursued a “Billy Beane” strategy.  Billy Beane is the legendary Oakland Athletics general manager who has built winners on the contrarian strategy of building talent pools in the minor leagues, meshing together so called “no-names” with specific skill sets into a cohesive team, and letting the “celebrity” big money ballplayers go.  The Democrats have the ultimate “celebrity” player in President Obama – all monies, support, and aspirations flow through him to the exclusion of any other talent, despite his rather worrisome statistical performance the last three and one half years.  The Republicans have instead developed an astonishing number of talented “no-names” with an array of skill sets, and have built a significant pool of next generation players that may yet dominate the electoral process. The impressions of the first night speakers of the RNC is that the bench is deep, indeed.

The Natural:           Mia Love is the republican candidate for the 4th congressional district in Utah and she showed herself to be the “Natural” star in the making that everyone has been whispering about.  She is a Democrat Party stereotype machine’s worst nightmare – African American, female, Mormon, daughter of Haitian immigrants, smart as a whip and conservative as the day is long. The mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah, she was the Tea Party’s human tornado at the district convention, coming out of nowhere to destroy her establishment competition and take the congressional seat nomination.  Her success gives lie to the farcical stereotype propagated by Democrats that the conservative message is skin deep.  In the nation’s most consistently conservative state, Utah, the rising star is winning with the message of limited government, responsible fiscalism, and individual freedom, and the shade of her skin is mattering not one wit.  Her speech last night was well sculpted, articulate, and shining in its conviction.  She is in the baseball vernacular, “a five tool” player- runs, throws, defends, hits, and hits with power – and Utah which has had several near misses on the national stage – Hatch, Housmann, Leavitt – may have its star coming out party last night.

The Governors –  While President Obama has attacked the recession with the ham-handed technique of throwing 6 trillion dollars of deficit spending at it, a murderer’s row of effective Republican state governors have been succeeding at turning around their state’s fiscal messes and restoring sanity to the budgetary process.  The emerging stars of a nation wide wave brought in the election 2010 were on the dais last night, and all were worth listening to.  Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, the winning general of one of the bitterest political wars of the last several decades, spoke to the importance of reform in achieving a voter consensus.  He noted that voters will reward fiscal discipline and need for sacrifice, if the issues are presented to them as adults, and that reform doesn’t have to mean another word for “giveaway”. Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey framed the keynote speech in similar terms of “Adult” conversations, and that the electorate understands what made America the economic superpower of the 20th century, and what level of coordinated sacrifice is needed to keep it the superpower for the 21st. Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia and Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina argued as to what diversity in approach can mean to the manufacturing base and job creation, and that winners and losers in job creation need to evolved, not selected by the system.  The overwhelming tone of each of these speakers is that competence wins, and truthful conversations with the voters can be popular notions.

The Hispanic Conservative – Shining brightly were two conservative voices of the emerging hispanic hue to the American story. Hispanics have become the battleground demographic for votes between the parties, now that the African American vote consensus has becoming rigidly fixed to the government centered philosophy of security and safety net.  The hispanic vote is appearing more diverse, with different strains from the Caribbean, Mexico, Central and South America, and generational native bornes all deflected the value curves differently.  A vote lost by more than 30% McCain to Obama, the hispanic consensus is still malleable- more generational family oriented, marriage centered, and concerned about opportunity more than assurance as the driving economic value.  This has not been lost on either party.  Senate candidate Ted Cruz of Texas presented his speech without podium or prompter, speaking directly to the camera and the hall and was faultlessly articulate, a heretofore unknown republican candidate virtue.  More importantly, he defined the constitution as a universal document, as magnificently protective of new  immigrant rights as a seven generation Mayflower claimant. A two language lector who has argued before the Supreme Court, Ted Cruz is going to give Marco Rubio a run for his money in representing the new hispanic American consensus.  Luce Vela Fortuno, wife of the governor of Puerto Rico, and successful lawyer in her own right, reminded the audience that the principles of limited government and reduced capital gains taxes have been as attractive to a Spanish language population in Puerto Rico as anywhere else in the United States, seeing a surge in employment and business opportunity that would be the envy of many “blue” states.  Along with other stars such as Marco Rubio, Senator Sandoval of Nevada, and Governor Martinez of New Mexico, the battle to be the philosophical representative of the American Hispanic is on.

The Turncoat:   Artur Davis had one difficult job last night. Former democrat representative from Alabama and a co-nominator of President Obama at the 2008 Democrat convention, he had to explain his willingness to turn on his previous party and enter the lion’s den of the opposition possibly viewed as no more than a blow in the wind turncoat.  No need to worry- Artur Davis was spot on.  Mr. Davis did not spend anytime facetiously explaining how he had suddenly become a conservative; he knew his audience wasn’t that dumb.  He simply explained that when it came down to it, President Obama’s hollywood staging and actor’s voice was not sufficient to overcome the progressive sense in Mr. Davis’s mind that Obama’s substance was lacking and his actions progressively destructive to his constituents.  He intimated in the end it is not enough to want something to be true; to get things done having core principles of managing with intelligence and constructiveness a naion’s destiny is paramount, and Obama’s wool has been lifted from Mr. Davis’s eyes.  I’m not expecting two votes to change as a result of Artur Davis’s conversion, but listening to him I believed him, and heard the inklings of independent thought processes beginning to emerge from a locked down African American consensus.

The Women:  The cluster of female talent presenting as strong leaders in the Republican party is making it clear to me that the last white male/white male Republican ticket we are going to see is Romney Ryan.  The number of female voices that have moved beyond the “soccer mom in tennis shoes” nonsense is everywhere, and the bench is going to produce some terrific candidates next round.  Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Kelly Allote of New Hampshire, and Susana Martinez are hitters, and hitters with power that have been borne of the Sarah Palin mold, full of her energy and connectivity with the public without her seeming “unpreparedness” for executive office.  Palin’s heroic battle with the vicious sexism of  the establish media that wants to pigeon hole women leaders, and will go to any length to destroy the diversity in womens’ views of the world, has been sacrificial for the next generation of strong Republican female conservatives.  If Palin wasn’t “the One”, she was at least the “john the Baptist” heralding the coming of the next wave.  For that alone she should have been able to be able to add her voice to emerging female inflection of her party.

Questions in Tampa

The national Republican Party will convene today in Tampa to put forth to the American people their best scripted vision of what an elected Republican President and legislature would accomplish given the chance to represent the American nation as elected officials.  And it will be a scripted vision.  The days of suspense, argument about platforms, dark horse candidates competing for the presidential nomination, floor demonstrations, and incalculable outcomes are in the distant past.  The state primary system forever eliminated the suspense by allowing the best funded candidates with the most momentum to early on coalesce an overwhelming number of the selected state delegates to their side prior to the convention nominating process. The convention nomination has become, as a result, a coronation rather than a contested vote.  Whether this picks the best, most representative candidates for the party and ultimately the nation can be argued, but it certainly detracts from the compelling need to watch the conventions for their drama.

That said, there are compelling reasons to watch the story unfold in Tampa, given the importance building to the 2012 election as a bellwether election as to what kind of country fundamentally Americans want to live in.  Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican  candidate, is little known beyond the caricature placed upon him by the national media, and is up against the all time media favorite candidate in President Obama, personally well liked, and stuffed with cash to help define Romney.  The republican convention is Romney’s chance to own his own story and the larger Republican story to the nation, and how he handles the questions raised by his nomination  will be drama enough.

Tea Party vs Establishment – The surging popular force of Republican Party success over the last three years has been on the backs of a highly motivated, highly mobilized grassroots force of common-man activists known as the Tea Party.   Set on fire by both parties’ profligate deficit spending, arrogance in tax policy and big government regulation, and general ignorance and abandonment of the country’s founding constitution as the template upon which American rights and governance should be based, the Tea Party achieved huge electoral success in 2010. Over 60 legislative seats switched parties, 6 Senate seats, and a majority of state houses.  This ability to organize electoral victories has continued in the stunning results in elections in Wisconsin and Texas, and the Tea Party is primed to see their principles become the dominant platform of the national Republican Party, or they will find another outlet for their ideas.  Mitt Romney is not the Tea Party’s candidate, and as the establishment figure he needs to find a way to marshall their revolutionary zeal and reflect their voice, without being pegged as rigid himself.  The naming of Paul Ryan as Vice Presidential nominee went a long way toward accomplishing that.  The neglect and rejection of powerful Tea Party representative Sarah Palin as a speaker at the convention did not.  A delicate ballet is unfolding and the final answer and ultimate electoral victory may be in Romney’s acceptance speech.

Paul Ryan and the Wisconsin Revolution –  When Paul Ryan was named by Romney as Vice Presidential nominee it was not only an affirmation of the congressman from Janesville but the entire revolution in governmental policy projecting from the state of Wisconsin.  Wisconsin, long a progressive, left leaning state, has been cresting on the wave of a fundamental movement, and by selecting Ryan, Romney has taken on the mantle as his own.  The origins of the Wisconsin political earthquake started with Tommy Thompson’s Welfare to Work concepts, but the revolution has seen fruition through the Reaganesque triumvirate of Reince Priebus, now Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Governor Scott Walker, and Representative Ryan himself.  The tenets of the Wisconsin idea are founded on budgetary discipline, small business support, limited regulatory suppression, individual rights and responsibilities, and upfront and definitive tackling of entitlements.  With two of the three national positions in the hands of Wisconsin revolutionaries, Romney must make the case to the American people why the Wisconsin Vision should be the National vision.  A very compelling case can be made, given our national impending deficit crisis, but Romney and Ryan must articulate it in a way that appeals to all Americans and reassures them.  The convention will give them the national stage to make just that case.

Romney vs Obama – Americans like and respect their Presidents, and the process of rejecting a tried product for an untried one is one that since the beginning of the 20th century has proved to be a daunting task for the challenger.  Romney must not only face such history and President Obama’s personal likability, but also a narrative rigidly adhered to by the press that the liberal candidate stands for the average American, the conservative one for the elite. In such an environment, Obama’s partial birth abortion stance is seen as mainstream, while Romney’s personal support for right to life is considered extreme,  Obama’s cumulative addition to the deficit now more than all the previous President’s combined is seen as providing a safety net, Romney’s fiscal responsibility as pointed at the downtrodden, and Obama’s 700 billion dollar carve out of Medicare funds to underwrite Obamacare is seen as maintaining Medicare “as you know it”  while Romney’s support of the Ryan plan is seen as scuttling it.  How Romney frames whether his vision for the future of America is “Extreme” or “Common Sense” will go a long way to determine whether the independent voter stays with Obama or determines to secure his future with Romney.

It is enjoyable to read history books  about how political conventions were once about wheeling and dealing, back stabbing, suspense, and surprise.  The 103 ballots for the 1924 Democrat National Convention   to nominate John W. Davis to be the sacrificial lamb against Calvin Coolidge, or the final convention suspense of the Republican Convention of 1976, when Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan came to the convention essentially tied in support of electors, is a thing of the past.  The conventions are still, however, the home of the ultimate expressions of American political thought and organization, and as such remain tied to original concepts laid out by the founders, that We the People, will formulate our futures through elections and will fight for our vision of this great nation at the ballot box.  That is excitement enough for me.

The Game Changer

What we thought we knew about Mitt Romney changed forever at 800am central time yesterday.  The number of people who think they should be President of the United States is immense, but the number of people who actually have projected beyond the proverbial plea to ‘pick me’, to articulate why the nation should give uniquely them such responsibility- well, you can count them on your fingers.   With the naming of Paul Ryan as his running mate, Mitt Romney has shown himself to be far from the madding presidential crowd.  Mitt Romney turns out to be one principled, dead serious candidate for President.

President Roosevelt’s Vice President John Nance Garner was once quoted as saying the position of Vice President “wasn’t worth a bucket of warm spit”.  This unpleasant analogy for many years defined the process by Presidential candidates of viewing the Vice Presidential candidacy as a ticket balancer or a sop to alternate factions of the party, then basically ejecting the Vice President, once elected, to the administration’s wilderness.  The Vice President exemplified by Garner was a hand shaker, a funeral chaser, and a yes man with remotely no significant interactions with Presidential policy formation.  When another Roosevelt Vice President, Harry Truman, became President with the death of Roosevelt in 1945, he stated “I felt as if the moon, the stars, and all the planets had fallen on me” as he was thrust into the Presidency, having been completely out of Roosevelt’s inner circle, and thoroughly out of the loop as to any of the current issues, directives or secrets of a nation in perilous war.  The considerations regarding Vice Presidents have evolved, however, and some modern Presidents have looked to their Vice Presidents as more of a secondary counsel, then a ‘one heart beat away’ threat.  The most profound example of this was George W Bush’s selection of Dick Cheney, who offered him no identifiable  electoral college advantage, but a lifetime of experience in matters of state he could mine for sage advice.

Paul Ryan is the uber Cheney.  In selecting Ryan, Romney had to know he was opening himself up to possibility that America would see the election as determined by the nation’s comfort with the Ryan plan to save America, not the Romney plan.   Paul Ryan has over the past four years positioned himself as President Obama’s primary philosophical nemesis, the intellectual counter to the idealistic vagaries of Obamacare, Obamonomics, and permanent restructuring America as an Obamination.  This is crystal clear anytime the two men are in the same room together – Obama has a profound dislike for Ryan because no one can continue to pretend Obama is the smartest one in the room.  Ryan has worked his way under Obama’s skin so deep that Obama has gone out of his way to upstage him, denigrate him, and destroy him.  As Obama’s foil Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner stated, when confronted with Ryan’s crushing arguments regarding the administration’s stunning lack of any conceptualization  of dealing with the spiraling debt they were creating for future generations, “We’re not coming before you to say we have a definitive solution to our long term problem.  What we do know is that we don’t like yours.”

The selection of Paul Ryan says more about Mitt Romney then almost any other action he could have taken.  It shows Mitt Romney to be a man very comfortable in his own ego and intelligence to allow such a transcendent mind to be constantly compared to his own on the campaign trail, and potentially, into policy discussions at a Romney White House.  It shows Mitt Romney to be considerably more principled than the initial glossy version presented to the public in the primaries, a candidate willing to make this an election of hugely stark contrasts, of two diametrically opposed, competing visions of America.  It shows Mitt Romney after all to be a man of fundamental values – free market vision, results oriented governance, constitutional clarity, and willing to take on problems no dominant nation has yet to solve coherently without public turmoil.  The process by which Romney selected his running mate turns out not so much about the elevation of Ryan,  but instead a profound focusing of what has been a blurry Presidential candidate in Romney.  In a game changing decision, the questions and doubts as to the core presence of a Romney as  principled  conservative are gone forever.  He has made the 2012 election, and risked his entire lifelong ambition to be President, on the notion that he is actually who he said he was.

 

 

100 Days

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One hundred days separate the American voter from the day of decision in the 2012 Presidential election.   The weight associated with decisions of such magnitude only slowly begin to pervade the consciousness at the century day mark.  Americans are tied to their Presidents – even unpopular Presidents seem to hold on to a veneer of poll support as the election approaches, weighed against their lesser known opponents.  The idea of “starting over” is not a comfortable concept with most voters; the tested seems preferable to the untested.  The discomfort comes from the simple premise of having to admit an electoral mistake the first time – the pesky recognition that the selection proved to be not quite up to the task of running the the most powerful and complex country on earth.  Such determinations are not flippant decisions but rather gut checks that become rational to the voter in the last days before the election.

The hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent by the current candidates in a blizzard of campaign advertising in the next one hundred days will be focused on convincing us of the capacity of each candidate for the job, to the denigration of the other.  The more personally negative the campaign typically the weaker foundation of performance of the candidate and the greater concern of the candidate to their own progressive image they  have developed in the eyes of the public.    This year appears to be entering into just such a phase, and the owner of the negativism appears to be – the President.  Struggling to project his “successes” on  a wary public digesting a burgeoning public debt, extended recession, and flagging international respect, the President’s talk has turned to the dismantling of his opponent.  The President’s caricature of Romney is a man who is too rich to relate to the plight of “folks”,  whose Mormonism is “too weird” to reflect the values of the everyman, and who’s determination to reduce the nation’s burgeoning dependence on governmental largess is stealthily racist.

A similar script defined the election of 1980 between President Jimmy Carter and his challenger Ronald Reagan.  Carter’s record of performance in office battered by the twin economic peaking headwinds of 15% inflation and 20% interest rates and shackled to immobility by the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter re-directed the focus onto Reagan’s capabilities.  Despite a record of innovative and stable governance of the nation’s most productive state, California, Reagan was labeled a dunce, a failed  B-movie actor, an extremist, a demagogue, and most tellingly, a warmonger.  The polls at the time suggested Carter and his accomplices in the media had marked their target well – a January 1980 Harris poll had Carter leading Reagan a stunning 65-31% and across all voting groups, and Carter continued with a double digit lead into September of that year.  Under considerably worse economic trends it appeared the 1980 voting public was comfortable with staying with the known factor Carter against the potentially “unstable” Reagan, regardless of their sense of Carter’s grasp of the nation’s needed course corrections.

The result was stunning reversal of the predicted polling trends.  Reagan squashed Carter winning the Electoral College by 489-49  and the popular vote by 10%, with the greatest damage to Carter appearing to come from his own voter base, so called Reagan Democrats who abandoned Carter in the last few weeks of the campaign and latched their hopes on the more positive views of America’s future elicited by Reagan.  The foundations of the landslide turned not on the popularity or likability of the two individuals nor their personal proclivities but on the premise Reagan framed so brilliantly in the final debate with Carter:

“Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we’re as strong as we were four years ago? And if you answer all of those questions ‘yes’, why then, I think your choice is very obvious as to whom you will vote for. If you don’t agree, if you don’t think that this course that we’ve been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then I could suggest another choice that you have.”

The devastating conclusion of the voter was that things could not keeping going the direction they were going, and that they could not continue to be led by the current office holder in the direction he was leading.  An election of personalities in the final two weeks became an election based on competence, and the voting public had seen enough of the competence of one to decide to take a chance on the competence of the other.

The elements of the current sense of unease are in my mind similar to the buffeting winds of 1980.  The polls suggest a tight election and the electoral college maps still forecast an Obama victory.  I believe however the next hundred days, baring some unforeseen calamity, will progressively focus the voter on the logic of the echoes of Reagan’s framing of the above question.  Are you better off? Will your children be better off? Will the world be better off?

I believe the question as to four more years of expanded governmental influence on economic decision making, debt proliferation, loss of individual determination, and the permanence of government as central decision maker in our lives will be answered conclusively.  Romney 51.5%, Obama 48.5% ,  Romney 307, Obama 231.  The driving force of this year’s election?  A voting group heretofore not known – the Romney Democrat.

 

 

June 2012 – the Yin and Yang of the Western Ideal

The month of June proved to be an epic month for the forces that will determine the future of western ideals of individual liberty and free will.  As modern society seems to have determined, the forces are not directional, but in direct conflict with each other.  Taoist Chinese philosophy describes an equal and polar opposite juxtaposition of forces, the “dark” and “light” or yin and yang of events or actions.  Western philosophy as expressed in the enlightenment put forth the notion that the individual could take a hand in his destiny through free will and placed protections in the form of contracts with the individual, such as the precursor Magna Carta and the Enlightenment’s masterpiece, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.  These documents placed a firewall between individual liberty and destiny and the external forces that could drive an individual’s fate or shackle his free determination.

June 2012 may have indicated the Chinese philosophers are on to something.   The month began with the dramatic democratic expression of Wisconsin’s June 5th governor recall election, where the voting population under enormous pressure voted to preserve their capacity to dictate how the hard earned resources of the state would be used, rather than a special interest.  The month climatically ended on June 28th, with the Supreme Court of the United States determining the polar opposite,  a constitution wrenching decision that the government has the capacity for the arbitrarily greater good of society to compel people to participate in actions regardless of their individual desire to do so.

We are at this crossroads for the obvious reason that society itself is conflicted.  We are not the confident culture of the founders generation that universally trusted their own work ethic, personal responsibility and faith in God to secure their futures.  We live in a time when personal freedom is oft seen as a burden that too often allows the risk of bad choices and looks for a general blanket of security to protect against failure.  The evident security bargain has led to the “freedom” to obtain abhorrently expensive yet meaningless degrees that celebrate victimhood and security over personal elevation and competitive advantage. All the better to have someone else pay for this false choice then.  It has led to a government that seeks to remove free will from the map of life – whether its the car you own, the type of fuel it uses, the food you eat, or investments you make in your own health.  As it apparently it is no one’s responsibility to make these choices it becomes everyone’s responsibility, and burden.  It has driven us to support our fear of choice to invest in our own security at the expense of future generations, celebrating the perfect society, only to irreversibly sew the seeds of its inevitable collapse.

The Wisconsin election suggested the recognition by the voting public that mandating the future does not preserve the future, is not a dead concept.  Like a morbidly obese person who recognizes that their personal exhaustion and moribund status is related not to the  architecture of their humanity but rather the increased burden excessive weight  places on the usually capable physical machinery,  the Wisconsin voter opted for governmental weight loss, and the result was a state that can breath easier,  walk farther, and more confidently face the future’s challenge.   The Supreme Court decision implies that it remains for the national voter to grasp the effects of a morbidly obese national debt on the nation’s health and energy, and face the hard decisions the Wisconsin voter did.

Chief Justice Roberts failed in one crucial sense when he voted to uphold a law he knew to be adversarial to the tenets of the Constitution he took an oath to preserve.  It was his failure to recognize he became political by suggesting the Court had to be above politics and therefore not interfere in policy.  He stated:

“We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders.”

“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

Chief Justice Roberts may have been correct when he stated that it was not the Court’s role to determine whether policy was bad or good, but he failed in discerning that whatever the political pressure,  it is the Court’s unique role  to determine as to whether  policy , bad or good, is constitutional or not.  His logic implies an underlying absence of conviction that the constitution as designed with limited and enumerated powers  is good.  Bad or good policy ruled unconstitutional can be re-written  to reflect constitutionality and voted on again.   Unconstitutional policy whether bad or good alllowed to stand destroys the fabric of law enforcement’s constitutional basis.  If the Chief Justice feels it is politically damaging to apply the standard of the Constitution to legislated law, it calls into question why any law should accept the Court’s constitutional role by the founders to check and balance for legislative exhuberance.

The month of June ends with the ying and yang of western civilization becoming ever more acute and pertinent.  Is it the role of western society to evolve in such a way that it evolves itself out of existence?  Are we smart enough, prescient enough to recognize the elements of our own survival lies in trusting the latticework constructed by our greatest thinkers so long ago to guide our future?  Chief Justice Roberts is yin, Scott Walker is yang, and We the People are the inevitable whole that will need to provide the ultimate destiny.

Things That Can’t Go on Forever, Don’t

The American economist Herbert Stein, counselor to presidents Nixon and Ford has been quoted as saying in various alliterations, “Things that can’t go on forever, don’t.”  The great social experiments in history, roman citizenry binding unlike peoples, islamic caliphates achieving the submission of  cultural disparities through religious”truth”,  the French Revolution eliminating social strata by eliminating the social elite,  and the Communist manifesto subjecting the self determination of the individual to the will of the collective have all come under the eventual reality of Professor Stein’s law, as natural economic forces for need for expression of individuality, survivorship of the most agile and fittest, need for rule of law, and the corrosion of the original experiment’s purity all come to bare.  We may be seeing a evocation of Stein’s law with the 75 year experiment of attempting to achieve social equality through the marriage of elected governments and the governmental growth industry of a population beholden to that government, a process strengthened and ever emboldened by the vast access to tax dollars.  Access that is truly vast, but owing to Stein’s law, not unfettered.  The citizens of Wisconsin June 5th determined to put Stein’s law into effect and soundly put an end to the progressively disastrous idea that a government held hostage by its own citizen employees was a permanent feature, and democracy in its current state existed only to re-inforce the notion and replenish the coffers of its enablers.

Wisconsin, a posterchild for the national and international trends of democratically elected governments to feed upon their own to sustain the ideal of achieving the universally secure life, had found over the last ten years the supposed  promise of  guaranteeing security to all had become an unholy burden.  Locked into having to produce a balanced budget by a constitution written years earlier by a more fiscally responsible and mature citizenry, increasingly unethical fiscal tricks were required to assure the entitled their unfettered cut of the budget.  Multiple elevations in the tax rate for both individuals and businesses eventually proved insufficient to feed the multi-billion dollar requirements of entitlements and the democrat Governor Doyle  did the only rational thing felt he could given the inseparable link of the entitled to the health and power of his party – he stole.  First hundreds of millions from the transportation funds exclusively set aside through energy taxes to maintain the transportation system, and then from health care professionals and patients through the state’s malpractice fund.  When that didn’t prove to be enough, he took what he could from a one time subsidy from the federal government’s stimulus funds, and retired, leaving the whole stinking pile for the next governor to deal with.  The election of 2010 between Scott Walker, a fiscal realist, and Tom Barrett, mayor of Milwaukee, who promoted a further expansion of unsupportable tax mechanisms, was Wisconsin’s first dip into the cold water of fiscal reality and stunned every one with electorate’s decision to go with the adult in the room, and promote Walker to Governor.

Walker proved to be one of those politicians that people who had co-opted government for their own devices had assumed they had intimidated out of existence – a politician who believed in every principle for governance he laid out,  and was determined to stand behind what he had campaigned on.  The backlash was immediate and total, because the stakes were so high.  If Walker could actually achieve fiscal sanity of government through realistic budgeting, shared sacrifice, and mechanisms for restoration of a more balanced relationship between the government and  the people it supposedly served,  without identifiable calamity, then all the myths and dire predictions of those who controlled the governmental entitlements would be exposed.  That would be intolerable, and the next two years reminded everyone of how determined, entrenched, and vicious the governmental oligarchy syndicate could be.  Wave of recall after recall election was promoted and paid for.  When the legislature did not immediately dissolve in the face of the intimidation, the syndicate looked to unseat the Supreme Court majority that stood in the way of constitutional support for legislative actions.  Death threats were aimed at the governor and legislators that stood in their way.  The indentured democrat servants were forced to flee the state by their masters in order to obstruct the process.  A mass of radical professional protesters filled the halls of the people’s capital with a cacophony of noise and filth and threatened to not leave until they got their way.  And when none worked , they risked all and aimed for the head of the beast.  They looked to recall Walker himself, and did so by presenting the mirror election of two years previously, Walker vs Barrett, so the electorate could show the world that they had been wrong the first time and recognized the error of their ways.

On June 5th, the governmental oligarchy rolled the dice for ultimate control – and lost.  Not by the squeakily narrow margins they had for so many years been able to manipulate, but resoundingly.

In just two years the impossible had occurred.  The political elected forces had balanced the budget through sustainable means, eliminated a towering 3.6 billion dollar deficit, achieved job growth rather than company flight in the state, funded its healthcare mandates,  restored local municipal control over budgets and investments, and did so without unethical pilfering or onerous tax increases on the backs of its economic producers.   Most stupefyingly of all to those who thought everyone was in on the take, the electorate recognized what they had achieved, and showed its overwhelming stamp of approval.

Herb Stein the professor may prove to be Herb Stein the prophet.  In democratic free market societies, there may yet prove to be self correcting capacities.  Deficits as far as the eye can see and beyond what might be conceptualized does not have to be the fate of an engaged electorate. If the alternative is securing one’s security at the expense of prosperity and all that future citizens, the electorate may be capable after all in discerning who is willing to present and follow though on solving problems, and   making a course correction before the crisis strikes.   The Wisconsin motto,  Forward, may have reached fruition in this election and may be the way forward for a nation that is about to face the same moment of electoral truth.  When all is said and done the resilience of the American Idea, that the unbounded power of its people to move forward is a beacon for the rest of the world may once again be the positive miracle of our times.