Philosophy vs. Policy & Why Republicans Are a Minority Party:

So, I had an interesting conversation with Jambo this afternoon. By the way, if you're going to critique him publicly make sure you receive any verbal response privately. He caught me with a phone call on my way into the gym and trying to compensate for his "heightened state" while still maintaining a publicly acceptable voice decibel was challenging to say the least.

However, I found the conversation very useful. As one could imagine such a visceral "pummeling" of any aspect of "New Deal 09" (formerly 08'), such as the one I posted elicited a detailed and impassioned defense from him on the nuts and bolts of why public works spending (that very specifically, not simply deficit spending for the sake of it) was warranted in times of financial crisis. Namely, he argued, because it gave the public "consumer confidence" it was neccessary. Now I'm not inclined to get into a John Meynard Keynes argument right now, every one here knows I think Kenesiyan economics is a farce, while Jambo & Titus are more inclined to embrace some level of it, while stopping far short of Obama-like numbers I'm sure. Rather what I am discussing is one inner circle removed from that argument.

See whether his (Jambo's) personal home alternative energy plan works on paper, or even if it works in the real world, or public works programs, etc it is all irrelevant to me. Because as a "right of center" Party in America we (the GOP and anyone opposing the direction of Obama, which encompasses everyone here) must stop playing the leftist game on economics, health care, energy, etc. We must reset the table for these domestic arguments, for whether it is public works or home energy units or any other response to a crisis (even if it seems reasonable on the face of it), once we concede to the basic template that GOVERNMENT is the first (and perhaps only) answer to any given problem we (as a Party or right of center movement) IMMEDIATELY guarantee future electoral losses. Because like a game of poker the left is always going to come back over the top and raise the bet. To concede to the government as the answer at the onset is to guarantee as a conservative that you lose ultimately because you're on the slippery slope of spending, moreover you will never outspend or grow government more than Democrats. They will ALWAYS come back over the top and say, "yes, that's a good start, but what we need is a little (or a lot) more." Then as a supposedly conservative Party you wake up one day bailing out this and that company, funding prescription drugs, and going along with spending you undoubtedly campaigned against - and guess where that gets you? A minority status, that's where.

I'll put it another way. Bush conceded to prescription drugs coverage for medicaid/medicare, and what happened? The Democrats came back the next election cycle and say, "yes, that's nice & all, but it really doesn't go far enough, what we need is more, maybe some version of universal health care perhaps ... lets have a summit." Bush conceded on a Ted Kennedy plan throwing more money at education and then Democrats and teacher unions came back the next election cycle slamming it and claim "it didn't go far enough" or "it was too encumbering, we want to keep/up the dollars but lose the requirements on performance. " And they picked up seats. What about S-CHIPS? The Republican congress under Bush concedes to the capped age going up from 18 & living with your parents, to 21. And Obama comes right behind that and says: "ya, that's nice & all, but it doesn't go far enough." And changes to include adults up to 25 years of age that are still attending school (whether you live at home or not). Again, this last election cycle: McCain's answer to every economic story that broke was basically "yes, I agree with Obama that we [government] needs to act ... but only this much, not that much." His entire campaign, once it became about the economy, was basically: Obama wants to do "double A plus triple B" to fix this crisis, but I think the double A is sufficient. It is a fundamentally flawed argument for us because what you are saying to the lay voter is "Ok, we all agree government is the solution here, but as a Republican I only want a limited amount of the agreed upon solution." Just a "little" of the cure. How is that effective?

I'll give you another one: these bailouts started under Bush. Such a move goes against every notion of a conservative ideology and outraged the GOP base to no end. And guess what? Obama hit "Republicans" (via Bush) over the head for "not doing enough", and he comes in, quadruples down on the bailouts and the budget - and maintains a 60% approval because he did "a lot" of what the GOP was only willing to do "a little" of! We can not beat these guys at spending & government growth, SO WHY ON EARTH ACCEPT THAT TEMPLATE AS THE SOLUTION TO CRISIS? THAT is why no matter how seemingly reasonable a Jambo energy or public works program is on the face of it we MUST discontinue our knee-jerk support for government as the solution to crisis, less we lose to them each cycle, and worse they just take it one (or 10) steps further then our government proposal. Now Jambo says, "well, so no more bridges get built, then huh", no, no I'm not saying freeze all traditional government activity, but such things will have to be lobbied and done in local state Houses as a part of normal budgetary expenditures, which makes any discussion about Pawlenty in this sense, irrelevant. What I am arguing is the "crisis response", or the answer to chronic problems such as health care, as a Party we must not allow ourselves to be roped into a discussion that STARTS with a government solution, wherein we end up debating "how much" government is warranted. That's a political and electoral loser for us, not to mention more importantly for our country. We have to start with the template as part of our national discussion with the American voter on how best to get the government out of the individual's/private sector's way so that "crisis X", or "chronic problem B" can be remedied. THEN we have a winner of an argument.

Do you see what I am saying? We are playing THEIR GAME on economics and most domestic issues, and have been for decades except for 2 notable exceptions: Ronald Reagan & Newt Gingrich. And just look at the margins they won by when they stopped accepting the template of government intervention as a solution to domestic crisis. And we can win by those margins again because I am convinced that Americans will see the common sense inherent in the DNA of the right of center, or conservative, ideology: you don't spend what you don't have and the government is most efficient when it is smallest. Minimal government and maximum personal liberty/responsibility. And the opportunity with this president is there in a way it has never been before. There is a huge hanging curve ball sitting right over the sweet spot of the plate, and an articulate AUTHENTIC small government conservative needs only to step up and hit that puppy out of the park! The fact that no such leader has done so yet is exactly why we as Party remain disorganized and ineffective.

So, my tying a kerchief around the eyes Jambo's various "new" New Deal policies, and giving them a final cigarette before I yell "fire" isn't because the plans themselves are necessarily flawed (although I am convinced the feds would find a way to foul up even the best of his plans), but rather because as a conservative the extra bridges or personal windmill isn't worth establishing/continuing the template of a government solution to each and every crisis. Sorry, get that done in your state budget in a fiscally responsible way, because we as a Party can not win (nor can America herself) by starting OUR response to problems the same way Democrats do: "government."

From Wilson to FDR to Johnson to Obama, every time we have a complacent "compromising" GOP (or as with Bush a flat out advocate) on government spending/growth they (Democrats) come right back & say we need to go further, building, one-upping, on the flawed public spending of the past.

BIG government is now "cool", the norm, acceptable to the American voter. Do you know why? Because over the last 8 years the GOP said "yes" to a medium government. We played their game, accepted their template & look where we are - they have a super majority in the Senate, a clear majority in the House, and are about to add one more to the judiciarie's Supreme Court. We have to do what Reagan did - offer a bold contrast. Make government, let alone BIG government, a punchline to a joke, a fool's option. And with Obama's appetite for growth, we have a fertile pool.

I am convinced that at their core the American citizen is still a right of center individual. They have to balance their own checkbooks, they have to stand up to their personal bullies, they have to work hard for their own money - and they know government MUST do the same. But we as a Party are stuck in a cycle doomed to fail when we don't make that argument. The Democrats tell us that writing 10 hot checks is the answer, and our leaders have been saying, "no, it's 3." And the Democrat says, hold on a second, we all agree this is the answer, why don't you want to "really" help the poor, suffering American out there? And they win, because we gave away the argument at the onset. When in reality what is best for our nation & best for the success of the Party is for Republicans to scream: "PUT DOWN THE GOD D*** CHECK BOOK!" Then the American people will rally behind us. And if that means even otherwise clever plans that involve government intervention must be sacrificed (or relegated to local budget adjustments if they want a new bridge), then so be it, because we have GOT to stop conceding to the template of government solutions to our various crisis. In that game the left can not be beat . . . so we need to stop playing it.