"A Change I Hope to Believe In"

“A Change I Hope to Believe In”
Or
“An American Note to Obama”
By: J. Thomas Hunter

On January 5th, the BBC begins airing its series, “Notes to Obama,”[1] which is a compilation of suggestions from “world citizens” to the next President of the United States, Barack Obama. A preview of the series shows a middle-aged man with a European accent asking that Obama address “world poverty, inequality” and “the planet” (presumably climate change). Rest assured that if Obama watches this series from the tropical islands of Hawaii, America will be deluged in “news” stories about it.[2]

Ah, the joys of tabloid media!

Call it sour grapes, if you will, but I am sick to death with the incessant media adulation for this idle idol! “Notes to Obama” is advertised to be something of a liberal Christmas list for a leftist Santa Claus. What exactly this idol will do for world poverty, inequality, and climate change is still unknown. Also unknown is what he has done for Illinois, and what he has done for anyone, for that matter, beyond writing 2 autobiographies and giving pretty speeches. On a list of worthy idols, Baal ranks 10 slots above Obama, and just under the golden calf. A golden calf is made of gold, after all!

In his defense; after promising an ebbing of the tide, creating an Office of the President-Elect and his own Presidential seal, and replacing the American flag on the tail of his campaign jet (“O-Force One”) with his “O” symbol; New York Times reporters, Adam Nagourney and Jim Rutenberg, write that “President-elect Barack Obama has begun an effort to tamp down what his aides fear are unusually high expectations among his supporters, and will remind Americans regularly throughout the transition that the nation’s challenges are substantial and will take time to address.”[3] Our cousins across the pond may not have gotten the memo.

In any event, Obama’s ego is not what most concerns me this week, but rather, I’m worried that America may suffer as a result of electing a self-described “citizen of the world,”[4]instead of an unabashed American for president. The two are polar opposites, with the “world citizen” represented by spineless, non-judgmental, naïve appeasers; and the American embodying a true moral leader—one who knows right from wrong and lives to fight evil. Americanism is more valuable to the world than an amorphous allegiance to a world without borders. I hope that President-elect Obama will learn that lesson within the next few weeks.

In the last century alone, America freed millions from Communism, Nazism, Japanese Imperialism, Muslim tyranny, and genocide. No country on earth can claim to have done anything but aid us to these ends. America’s mission has been to free enslaved people, and we have succeeded or died trying. In contrast, when Britain ruled the world, its mission was purely to enrich itself. Such was true of every world power that preceded us. Americanism, however, is a rejection of that trend in favor of a more uplifting message that says that liberty benefits everyone. America is different. She always has been.

The “world citizen,” on the other hand, is represented by the United Nations, or even its defunct predecessor, the League of Nations. Both share a tradition of utter impotence and moral vapidity. The League did nothing to stop Hitler. It did nothing to stop the Japanese. It did nothing to prevent the Second World War altogether. Similarly, the United Nations did nothing to curb Communism’s mass murders. It did nothing to stop the genocide in Rwanda, or Sudan. The U.N. hasn’t deposed a single African warlord, or Arab despot. Instead, it has written meaningless resolutions, chaired Sudan on the Human Rights Commission, chaired Syria on the Security Council, and condemned Israel for defending itself too effectively against Muslim suicide bombers.

America has done the world’s heavy lifting, and our thanks has largely been burned American flags, tortured effigies, and projectile shoes.

In tune with Obama’s rhetoric about uniting the world under his vision, and the gushing media stories relating overseas excitement about him[5], the President-elect has vowed to elevate the U.N. ambassador position to cabinet status.[6] This mistake points to a larger misunderstanding of the U.N.’s worth in comparison to America’s. Just four years earlier, America rejected John Kerry in part on the grounds that he advocated for American foreign policy to be subject to U.N. approval. How unfortunate that the U.N. will now have a voice in our government equal to that of the Secretary of State. It is bad enough that the State Department, National Security Agency, and Central Intelligence Agency vie to shape U.S. foreign policy independent of the President. Now, the feckless, amoral, U.N. will have its chance to dilute the best thing the world has got going for it—Americanism.

It is clear that America has been a positive force in the world—even more so than any nation on Earth. Howard Zinn, Gore Vidal, and Noam Chomsky may be ambivalent about America’s benevolent world leadership, but their greatest admirers, the “world citizens” preach their words but contradict them in action. “Notes to Obama” is a case in point. Only a benevolent leader could be approached with suggestions to better lead the world. Is there a “Notes to Ahmadinejad?” Did the BBC ever send “Notes to Saddam?”

What about the leaders of the real countries of these “world citizens?” Where are their notes? Besides, shouldn’t Britons appeal to Gordon Brown to address “world poverty, inequality and the planet?” Why do the “world citizens” ask America to take on their burdens?

Because that’s what America does.

Barack Obama stands on the shoulders of the intrepid American mission and (unwittingly, perhaps) undermines it in an attempt to be liked by the very world that can’t save itself if not for us! How often is Obama compared to men like FDR, who prayed publicly for our troops and sent them on a bloody mission to defeat the evil Nazi regime in support of freedom; or JFK, who invaded Cuba and Vietnam because he believed it was America’s duty to spread freedom throughout the world? To the left, Obama mirrors these men insofar as their party affiliation and commitment to big government programs. In the case of JFK, Obama’s only resemblance beyond Party is youth.

Barack Obama is a man guided by his own ego: He loves the roaring stadiums, the praise, the fainting women, and the bizarre love songs to him. My true hope is that as he trains alongside George W. Bush, he learns that leadership can be lonely. Acting on principle can empty stadiums and inspire animosity. Doing what’s right may necessitate ducking shoes with cat-like reflexes, or watching your numbers in the polls dip substantially.

America is a nation with a mission to spread freedom so that useless “world citizens” can populate the U.N. and ruminate about the “Defamation of Religions.”[7] The world would be virtually unchanged if the United Nations were to suddenly disappear without a trace. Without the American mission, however, this world will die a quick, bloody, and horrifying death.

Article Sources:
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/world_news_america/7668493.stm
[2] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28332956/
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06expect.html
[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/24/obama-in-berlin-video-of_n_114771.html
[5] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/04/AR2008060402360.html?nav=rss_world;
[6] http://www.nypost.com/seven/12282008/postopinion/editorials/obamas_cabinet_creep_146128.htm
[7] http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/bg2206.cfm

Photo Sources: "BBC Logo" from http://www.dimsum.co.uk/images/sections/bbc-logo.jpg; "World Citizens" from http://massthink.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/wirth-citizen-of-the-world.jpg; "American Soldiers in Afghanistan" from http://www.associatedpress.com/; "George Bush" from www.associatedpress.com

"Freedom Through the Franchise"

"Freedom Through the Franchise"
Or
"Republicans Respect the Consent of the Governed"
By: J. Thomas Hunter

American skepticism of politicians runs deep in our blood. Our history begins with a bloody rejection of a tyrannical monarchy—one that the Declaration of Independence encourages in the event that our government rules in spite of our consent. With representation the likes of Eliot Spitzer, William Jefferson, and Rod Blagojevich, we have good reason to doubt the caliber of our "public servants." Scandals, however, are only one ingredient in why Americans don’t trust politicians—another is an overwhelming sense that the government acts independently of the will of the electorate. In short, voters feel disconnected. We are convinced that career politicians work harder to enrich themselves with our money than they do to represent us. Many Christian conservatives, for example, argue that despite providing solid support for Republican candidates, the GOP has done little to advance the cause of life and traditional marriage. On the other side of the aisle, homosexual activists are not encouraged by President-elect Barack Obama’s seeming indifference to gay issues. In both cases, the opposite party will not provide victories for the respective constituents. So, what is the answer? How can public servants enact the will of the people?

Through elections.

While Americans can be fickle, and swayed by media biases, we are sophisticated enough to vote for our own destiny. Americans know how we feel about gay marriage. We know how we feel about abortion. We know whether or not we want prayer in public schools, or vouchers to send our children to private schools. Americans understand the 2nd Amendment and are sophisticated enough to tell local governments how to regulate gun ownership. Federalism, or a return to greater state sovereignty, is an idea that animates and excites Republican politicians and voters alike. Republicans prescribe this remedy to almost every crisis that ails us, because Republicans understand that the answer to America’s crises is the ballot box. Voting is freedom.

When the California Supreme Court voted to overturn the will of the people, conservatives were outraged by the blatant disregard that activist judges had for the franchise. Liberal supporters, and politicians, however, were ecstatic. On the other hand, after the 2008 election supported a liberal president and a conservative interpretation of marriage by the same margin, leftists gay activists harassed, blacklisted, and threatened those who upheld the will of the people. The liberal reaction to both votes reflects what little regard the left has for the people’s consent. How can they claim to respect freedom if they don’t even respect the vote? Unfortunately, this liberal trend against freedom characterizes the left to this very day.

In Chicago, in the midst of the Blagojevich scandal, Democrats, again, prefer tyranny to liberty. Instead of holding a special election for the embattled open Senate seat once held by Obama, Illinois Democrats choose to fight the special election in order to appoint a Senate replacement. The Blagojevich scandal has highlighted the deep corruption in Illinois politics, and threatens to revitalize a reformist state GOP. Illinoisans deserve the right to vote for such a reformer. State Democrats disagree. Retaining their own power supersedes empowering their real bosses—the electorate!

These examples demonstrate how important freedom through the franchise is to conservatives, and how liberals disregard dissenting votes. Republicans believe that the vote is sacred. It is the crux of our liberty, and the real pulse of the average citizen. Elections should be encouraged to solve the abortion issue. A federal amendment defining marriage in traditional terms should depend on a national referendum. School vouchers should meet the voters in an election booth.

Every issue that has gone unaddressed for years should be tackled by free elections.

The vote is not a guaranteed shift rightward, but it is a guarantee that the American public will shape the policies that govern it. Voting makes us the masters of our destiny, instead of making us slaves to elected and appointed politicians. Republicans support Federalism. Republicans support letting the people decide. Republicans support the will of the people, because Republicans support freedom. Voting is freedom.

Photo Sources: "Fat Cat Politician" from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/The_Subsidised_Mineowner.jpg/180px-The_Subsidised_Mineowner.jpg; "Gay activists" from http://www.topnews.in/law/files/gay.jpg; "Voting Booth" from https://www.printelectstore.com/images/T/Model%202000%20Voting%20Booth%20Soft%20Curtain.gif

The Problem with Purging (Reason #3)

“The Problem with Purging (Reason #3)”
Or
“Like Moths to a Flame”
By: J. Thomas Hunter

For the past two weeks I have been writing reasons why the Republican Party cannot rely on purging members to succeed in future elections. First, I argued that the party consists of two necessary and competing factions—namely traditional conservatives, and libertarians, and expelling either from the party would severely weaken the GOP. Second, I argued that political parties aim to represent more people, not fewer people; so purging the GOP of so-called “undesirables” would be a wrongheaded approach. This week, I will provide my third opinion on why a Republican witch hunt would be suicidal.

Reason #3: The Republican Party grew by attracting Democrat discontents, and it cannot continue to do so by enforcing a staunch litmus test of conservative ideas.

Look closely at the constituents of our two political parties. You may notice some lopsided allegiances among some demographic groups. For example, though George W. Bush attracted many more black votes in 2004 than he did in 2000, blacks overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Likewise, religious voters overwhelmingly prefer Republican candidates to Democrat ones. These lopsided allegiances exist because the demographic believes that they have no place in the opposite political party. Both, the Democrats and the Republicans, struggle to break some of the traditional ties certain groups have with their opponents, and add the dissenters to their ranks. This feat cannot be accomplished by requiring ideological goose-stepping, but rather, must be fostered through a free exchange of ideas and open armed acceptance.

Republicans did this successfully after the 60s Revolution. Traditional Americans on the left felt out of place when radicals, who completely rejected traditional values, hijacked the Democrat Party. Feminists railed against marriage, and were proponents for abortion on demand. Homosexuals flaunted their lifestyle, and were succeeded by deviant groups like the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Counter culture rejected wisdom, and embraced sex and drug use as the aspiration of an enlightened society. The classic Democrat was out of place and the Republican Party welcomed the defection.

Today, traditionalists—people who revere traditional institutions like marriage, religion, and other conservative values—still feel at home in the Republican Party. As the Democrat Party veered further left, more Americans found themselves alienated and searching for a political ideology that they could embrace. (See Reagan Democrats.)

The progress that the GOP made to solidify a reliable base of supporters would come to a screeching halt if the Party decided to enforce a strict ideological allegiance requirement as a prerequisite to joining the Republican ranks. Even worse, a great opportunity to reestablish dominance by pursuing Democrat constituents would be squandered on a silly reactionary tactic. It is time that the idea of purging certain constituencies from the GOP be put to rest! While Democrats stand up for their candidates, Republicans instinctively form a circular firing squad and aim blame at one another.

The point of this series is to reiterate that the problem with the GOP has less to do with its members than it has to do with articulation of its values. The Republican brand is damaged right now because so many people don’t know what we stand for. Some Americans are positive that they know what we stand for—wealthy, white, elites. This is a misperception that must be corrected immediately! We must remind America that we are not united by a desire to wage war for economic gain. Instead, we are driven by the mantra that God grants every human being the right to liberty. It is this liberty that must be expanded in order to achieve real peace in the world. Free people do not choose to war with free people. Republicans understand this. Democrats do not. At this very moment, the Republican Party is in an excellent position to attract voters by dispelling damaging rumors, and by drawing a sharp contrast between them and the Democrat Party on the issue of freedom.

May that be our goal. And for the sake of this nation, may we be successful.

Photo Source: "GOP Elephant" from http://www.woodbridgegop.net/images/gop%20stomp.jpg; "Bush Hates Blacks" from http://metropolitician.blogs.com/scribblings_of_the_metrop/achdirective_1882_10091068.gif; "GOP Elephant superimposed over American Flag" from http://www.acc-tv.com/images/globalnews/gp_republican_1006.jpg

The Problem with Purging (Reason #2)

“The Problem with Purging (Reason #2)”
Or
“Less is More?”
By: J. Thomas Hunter


Last week, I wrote about the first of three reasons why I believe the Republican Party should not rely on purging its members in order to win future elections. I wrote that “Republicans should not purge members from the Party, because it is too difficult to decide who should stay and who should go.” After all, should the religious, or the secular, be ousted? Is fiscal savvy more important than moral fortitude? Or is it the other way around?

This week I would like to relate the second reason why Republicans should focus on articulating their message rather than expelling supporters.

Reason #2: Political Parties should aim to represent as many constituents as possible.

We lost the last election because more people voted Democrat than Republican. As simple as this is to understand, there are some Republicans who want to shrink the Party even more by telling previous GOP supporters that we no longer need them in our ranks! This strategy, on its face, is counterproductive and silly, especially given the strengths of the Republican message.

The Republican message of freedom is virtually universal—and no constituency in this country wants less freedom! Therefore, the Republicans simply must articulate to every American how conservative values will increase their liberty, and in so doing, grow Republican support. For example, Christians must be convinced that they will not be taken for granted. They are the fabric of America, and as they thrive, so too does the nation. As well, the secular must understand that the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party stands with them—defending America’s tradition of religious pluralism, and defending the republic from becoming a theocracy. Blacks must be reminded that the Republican Party is the Party that freed the slaves, and stood by them during the Civil Rights era. The GOP stands with them today. Black traditional life, steeped in religion, love of life, and perseverance in the face of adversity aligns naturally with the Republican message.

These are but a few groups of Americans who can feel comfortable in the Grand Ol’ Party. Articulation, however, is the key to winning the hearts and minds of millions of Americans, and preserving great American values. Currently, liberals are poised to deluge this country in European ethics, and failed ideas. If America is to withstand this onslaught of destructive ideas and policies, the Republican Party must cope with the 2008 election results maturely, and take advantage of the many opportunities we have to roar back to power in the near future. This task may be difficult, but it is surely not impossible. Luckily for the GOP, America leans right already!

For example, even though Barack Obama swept easily to victory on Election Day, leftist agendas, namely proposals to redefine marriage, did not. In other words, the same blacks and Latinos who overwhelmingly supported Obama in states like California, also overwhelmingly rejected the notion that marriage should be extended to homosexuals!

Look, also, at the rise in gun-ownership among Americans who believe that an Obama White House endangers our God-given Second Amendment rights. Many of these people who are buying guns at record rates supported Barack Obama.

Obama, himself, has kept some of George W. Bush’s cabinet appointments in place, because he recognizes that if he does not curb his leftist tendencies, he will be wholly rejected by this right-leaning nation!

All of this news represents an opportunity for the Republicans to regain lost ground. This speaks to the reality that America is thirsty for a conservative movement to share its vision for the country. We cannot win the war of ideas, nor can we win back the trust of America if we make an irrational decision like trying to grow the Party by expunging members! Instead, we must rely on our message of freedom. We must contrast ourselves with the Democrats in a way that showcases our dedication to serving the greatest yearning of the human soul—to be free.

Article Sources: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/11/obama.gun.sales/;
Photo Sources: "GOP Change" from http://www.geocities.com/perry_peterson_1999/gop-change-toon-lg.jpg; "People" from http://www.allstate.com/content/refresh-images/citizenship/HEAD_citizenship_diversity.jpg; "Elephant" from http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/15/republicans_want_a_new_image_in_cal.jpg

"The Problem with Purging (Reason #1)"

“The Problem with Purging (Reason #1)”
Or
“Preventing a GOP Witch-Hunt”
By: J. Thomas Hunter


After a tragic defeat, it is healthy to look introspectively and ask, “What did I do wrong to bring this upon myself?” With some sober soul-searching, and humility, you can identify the problem and vow to rectify it. In the case of the GOP, however, a little more sobriety is in order to avoid it from making a disastrous mistake—purging members from the party.

There are three main reasons why this course of action would be so self-sabotaging. I intend to write about the first of the three reasons here, and give the others in later articles.

Reason #1: Republicans should not purge members from the Party, because it is too difficult to decide who should stay and who should go.

The Republican Party, as we know it today, is borne from a gentle fusion of two viciously competitive factions: Libertarians and Traditional Conservatives. Libertarians are renowned for their dogged opposition to government intervention, and their sharp indifference to social morality. Before they were known as libertarians, they were called “Individualists.” Traditional Conservatives, while believers in capitalism and less intrusive government, are characterized primarily by their advocacy for a more moral government. Traditional Conservatives are also known as Traditionalists. The struggle between these two conservative ideologies is at least 50 years old, and the rivalry thrives today.

Dr. Lee Edwards, of the Heritage Foundation, wrote perhaps the most profound piece on the divide and coalescence of these two ideologies titled, “The Conservative Consensus: Frank Meyer, Barry Goldwater, and the Politics of Fusionism.” In this piece, Edwards highlights the main objections the factions have against each other: Libertarians resent Traditionalists’ religiosity, and Traditionalists resent Libertarians’ rejection of Judeo-Christian values. Libertarian Ayn Rand called Traditionalism a “mixture of capitalism and religion” that “sullied the rational with the mystical.” L. Brent Bozell, speaking as a traditionalist said, “the purpose of politics was not the promotion of freedom but the promotion of virtue…The story of how the free society has come to take priority over the good society is the story of the decline of the West.”

Libertarians oppose abortion restrictions, the Iraq War, the Defense of Marriage Act, the Patriot Act, prostitution laws, and drug laws. From the outset, one could mistake a libertarian for a radical leftist! A traditionalist; like I; if under the spell of dogmatic, ham-handed excommunication; might want to expel people like this from the GOP ranks. That, however, would negate some of the priceless benefits that libertarians bring to the conservative movement. After all, libertarians aren’t radical leftists. They have some fresh, provocative, and brilliant ideas!

For example, libertarians incessantly, and rightfully, rail against George W. Bush’s uncontrollable spending and his expanding the federal government. They champion the elimination of the Death Tax, and the Capital Gains Tax. Libertarians are strong Federalists, meaning that they believe in the integrity and sovereignty of local and state governments. Even in law, libertarians offer some common sense solutions that will deter tax payer-funded abuses of power.

I have always contended that America would be a much greater country if the two competing ideologies were not liberalism vs. conservatism, but rather libertarianism vs. traditionalism. How free we would be!

Nevertheless, there are Republicans who see the future of the Party belonging strictly to religious conservatives—the so-called “Moral Majority.”

But they, too, have detractors.

Traditionalists support small government, but aren’t seemingly as committed to it as libertarians. The same is true with government spending. As I mentioned earlier, George W. Bush, a traditionalist, grew government and spent recklessly. This unfortunate trend cost us two elections! Libertarian, Michael Tanner, of the Cato Institute, warned for years that if the Republican Party did not return to its limited government roots, then defeat in 2008 would be inevitable. Tanner’s book title properly summed up America’s disillusionment with the GOP: “Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.”

Another criticism of traditionalists is that they too often rely on theological arguments or phrases to make secular points or frame discussions. Referring to the “sanctity of life”, the “sacred” institution of marriage, and the “divine spark” of life, for example, can turn off Americans who are not religiously motivated. When this vernacular is used by a Party whose leader obsesses about an Islamic threat, secular Americans may be concerned that U.S. foreign policy is motivated too much by a religious interpretation, instead of a reasoned strategy. On the domestic front, civil libertarians fear that religious fundamentalism may justify intrusive government intervention for the sake of promoting a “moral” society.

Should religious conservatives be ousted from the GOP? Clearly, not. Such a move would sink the Republican Party—permanently even.

Deciding who should be “kicked out” of the GOP is counterproductive, impractical, arbitrary, and most importantly, unworkable. Creating an ideological litmus test, and forcing Party members to swear allegiance to it smacks of fascism. Instead, the goal of the Republican Party should be to articulate its message in terms of freedom, so that it resonates with all people—secular and religious alike.

Articulating our bright, positive message is the key to success. Engaging in an ideological witch-hunt would be the death of the Republican Party.

Article Sources: http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/fp8.cfm;
Photo Sources: "Dead GOP Elephant" from http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2008/08/gopelephantdead_2.jpg; "Libertarian Flag" from http://filebox.vt.edu/users/dwatson/Libertarian%20(750%20x%20502).gif; "Evangelical Christians" from http://www.crimsonian.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/evangelicals-worshiping.jpg