REAGAN's REVOLUTION

[Part of Constituting America’s 90 Day Study - Days that Shaped America]

The election of Ronald Reagan on November 4, 1980 was one of the two most important elections of the 20^th Century.  It was a revolution in every way.

In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) decisively defeated one term incumbent Herbert Hoover by 472-59 Electoral votes.  His election ushered in the era of aggressive liberalism, expanding the size of government, and establishing diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union.  Roosevelt’s inner circle, his “brain trust”, were dedicated leftists, several of whom conferred with Lenin and Stalin on policy issues prior to 1932.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan decisively defeated one term incumbent Jimmy Carter by 489-49 Electoral votes.  His election ended the liberal era, shrunk the size of government, and rebuilt America’s military, diplomatic, economic, and intelligence capabilities.  America reestablished its leadership in the world, ending the Soviet Empire, and the Soviet Union itself.

Reagan was a key leader in creating and promoting the conservative movement, whose policy and political operatives populated and guided his administration.  He was a true “thought leader” who defined American conservatism in the late 20^th Century.  Through his writings, speeches, and radio program, Reagan laid the groundwork, and shaped the mandate, for one of the most impactful Presidencies in American history.

The road from Roosevelt’s “New Deal” to Reagan’s Revolution began in 1940.

FDR, at the height of his popularity, choose to run for an unprecedented third term.  Roosevelt steered ever more leftward, selecting Henry Wallace as his running mate.  Wallace would run as a socialist under the Progressive Party banner in 1948.  Republican Wendell Willkie was the first private sector businessman to become a major party’s nominee.  Willkie had mounted numerous legal challenges to Roosevelt’s regulatory overreach. While losing, Willkie’s legacy inspired a generation of economists and activists to unite against big government.

As the allied victory in World War II became inevitable, the Willkie activists, along with leading conservative economists from across the globe, established policy organizations (“think tanks”) and publications to formulate and communicate an alternative to Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Human Events, the premiere conservative newspaper began publishing in 1944. The Foundation for Economic Education was founded in 1946.

In 1947, conservative “free market”, anti-regulatory economists met at the Mont Pelerin resort at the base of Mont Perelin near Montreaux, Switzerland. The greatest conservative minds of the 20^th Century, including Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman, organized the “Mont Perelin Society” to counter the globalist economic policies arising from the Bretton Woods Conference.  The Bretton Woods economists had met at the Hotel Washington, at the base of Mount Washington in New Hampshire, to launch the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Conservative writer and thinker, William F. Buckley Jr. founded National Review on November 19, 1955.   His publication, more than any other, would serve to define, refine and consolidate the modern Conservative Movement.

The most fundamental change was realigning conservatism with the international fight against the Soviet Union, which was leading global Communist expansion. Up until this period, American conservatives tended to be isolationist.  National Review’s array of columnists developed “Fusionism”, which provided the intellectual justification of conservatives being for limited government at home while aggressively fighting Communism abroad.  In 1958, the American Security Council was formed to focus the efforts of conservative national security experts on confronting the Soviets.

Conservative Fusionism was politically launched by Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) during the Republican Party Platform meetings for their 1960 National Convention.  Conservative forces prevailed. This laid the groundwork for Goldwater to run and win the Republican Party Presidential nomination in 1964.

The policy victories of Goldwater and Buckley inspired the formation of the Young Americans for Freedom, the major conservative youth movement.  Meeting at Buckley’s home in Sharon, Connecticut on September 11, 1960, the YAF manifesto became the Fusionist Canon. The conservative movement added additional policy centers, such as the Hudson Institute, founded on July 20, 1961.

Goldwater’s campaign was a historic departure from traditional Republican politics.  His plain-spoken assertion of limited government and aggressive action against the Soviets inspired many, but scared many more.  Kennedy’s assassination had catapulted Vice President Lyndon Johnson into the Presidency.  LBJ had a vision of an even larger Federal Government, designed to mold urban minorities into perpetually being beholding to Democrat politicians.  Goldwater’s alternative vision was trounced on election day, but the seeds for Reagan’s Conservative Revolution were sown.

Reagan was unique in American politics.  He was a pioneer in radio broadcasting and television.  His movie career made him famous and wealthy.  His tenure as President of the Screen Actors Guild thrust him into the headlines as Hollywood confronted domestic communism.

Reagan’s pivot to politics began when General Electric hired him to host their popular television show, General Electric Theater. His contract included touring GE plants to speak about patriotism, free market economics, and anti-communism. His new life within corporate American introduced him to a circle of conservative businessmen who would become known as his “Kitchen Cabinet”.

The Goldwater campaign reached out to Reagan to speak on behalf of their candidate on a television special during the last week of the campaign.  On October 27, 1964, Reagan drew upon his GE speeches to deliver “A Time for Choosing”.  His inspiring address became a political classic, which included lines that would become the core of “Reaganism”:

“The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So, we have come to a time for choosing ... You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream—the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order—or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.”

The Washington Post declared Reagan’s “Time for Choosing”: "the most successful national political debut since William Jennings Bryan electrified the 1896 Democratic convention with his Cross of Gold speech."  It immediately established Reagan as the heir to Goldwater’s movement.

The promise of Reagan fulfilling the Fusionist vision of Goldwater, Buckley, and a growing conservative movement inspired the formation of additional groups, such as the American Conservative Union in December 1964.

In 1966, Reagan trounced two-term Democrat incumbent Pat Brown to become Governor of California, winning by 57.5 percent.  Reagan’s two terms became the epicenter of successful conservative domestic policy attracting top policy and political operatives who would serve him throughout his Presidency.

Retiring after two terms, Reagan devoted fulltime to being the voice, brain, and face of the Conservative Movement.  This included a radio show that was followed by over 30 million listeners.

In 1976. the ineffectual moderate Republicanism of President Gerald Ford led Reagan to mount a challenge.  Reagan came close to the unprecedented unseating of his Party’s incumbent.  His concession speech on the last night of the Republican National Convention became another political classic.  It launched his successful march to the White House.

Reagan’s 1980 campaign was now aided by a more organized, broad, and capable Conservative Movement. Reagan’s “California Reaganites” were linked to Washington, DC-based “Fusionists”, and conservative grassroots activists who were embedded in Republican Party units across America. The Heritage Foundation had become a major conservative policy center on February 16, 1973.  A new hub for conservative activists, The Conservative Caucus, came into existence in 1974.

Starting in 1978, Reagan’s inner circle, including his “Kitchen Cabinet”, worked seamlessly with this vast network of conservative groups: The Heritage Foundation, Kingston, Stanton, Library Court, Chesapeake Society, Monday Club, Conservative Caucus, American Legislative Exchange Council, Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, the Eagle Forum, and many others.   They formed a unified and potent political movement that overwhelmed Republican moderates to win the nomination and then buried Jimmy Carter and the Democrat Party in November 1980.

After his landslide victory, which also swept in the first Republican Senate majority since 1956, Reaganites and Fusionists placed key operatives into Reagan’s transition.  They identified over 17,000 positions that affected Executive Branch operations.  A separate team identified the key positions in each cabinet department and major agency that had to be under Reagan’s control in the first weeks of his presidency.

On January 21, 1981, Reagan’s personnel team immediately removed every Carter political appointee.  These Democrat functionaries were walked out the door, identification badge taken, files sealed, and their security clearance terminated.  The Carter era’s impotent foreign policy and intrusive domestic policy ended completely and instantaneously.

Reagan went onto to lead one of the most successful Presidencies in American history. His vision of a “shining city on the hill” continues to inspire people around the world to seek better lives through freedom, open societies, and economic liberty. 

MENTOR FOR THE AGES

Also published in http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/158779, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mentor-ages-scot-faulkner?trk=prof-post,  and http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/r.i.p.-stan-evans-mentor-for-the-ages/article/2561371#.VQFrcu6oVos.facebook

 

A successful movement needs three things: a cogent core of beliefs; the capability to affect tangible and sustainable change; and a mechanism for recruiting, motivating, preparing, and promoting its adherents.

M. Stanton Evans, who helped create all these conditions for America’s conservative movement, died on March 3, 2015 at age 80, after a long battle with Pancreatic Cancer. America has lost one of its greatest citizens and a true original.

Stan was at the epicenter of the Post World War II conservative movement. He graduated with honors from Yale in 1955 and became close friends with another conservative alumnus – William F. Buckley.

Buckley established National Review and a hub of conservative thinkers in New York City. Stan moved to Washington, DC and became Managing Editor for Human Events.

The modern conservative movement was blessed with the greatest thinkers of the post-war era, including Milton Friedman, Friedrich von Hayek, Harry Jaffa, Russell Kirk, Frank S. Meyer, Ludwig von Mises, and Richard Weaver.  Evans and Buckley compellingly applied their works to current issues, and added epiphanies of their own.

In 1960, at age 26, Evans crafted the Sharon Statement; the most enduring manifesto of the conservative movement. It became the credo of Young Americans for Freedom (YAF), countering the emerging radical leftists on college campuses.

In Washington, Stan connected with other conservative political leaders, such as Barry Goldwater, H.R. Gross, and Walter Judd, and journalists like Rowland Evans, Robert Novak, Henry Regnery, Allan Ryskind, and Tom Winter.  He was one of the driving forces behind the presidential campaigns of Goldwater 1964 and Reagan 1968 & 1976.

From these experiences, Evans established the organizational foundations that would propel the modern conservative movement to its zenith during Reagan’s 1980 campaign, and his first term. 

In 1977, Evans founded the National Journalism Center (NJC), dedicated to preparing young people to be journalists.  He created the Monday Club, a free-wheeling networking luncheon for conservatives on Capitol Hill at the Hawk & Dove.  He founded the Joseph Story Society, the forerunner to the Federalist Society for conservative lawyers. From his NJC offices above the Hawk & Dove, Stan, accompanied by his loyal three-legged dog, Zip, crafted his most audacious and successful enterprise.

On September 24, 1979, Stan hosted a dinner for top conservative House staffers.  Josh Bill, Tom Boney, Pete Braithwaite, Rick Centner, Louis Gasper, Laura Genero, Carol Glunt, Karen Hoppe, Bob Moffit, Don Thorson, his chief aide Fred Mann, and I enjoyed an Italian feast at Toscanini’s and heard Stan’s vision of fomenting full scale guerilla warfare against President Jimmy Carter and the liberals in Congress.  This was the charter meeting of the “Chesapeake Society”.  Part study circle, part war room, it became the most successful opposition network in Republican Congressional history.  Eventually, Chesapeake comprised seventy-five Member offices plus committee and leadership staffs. It was a parliamentary wrecking crew, disemboweling liberal legislation, stopping some bills, and delaying many others.  The goal was to make sure as little of the Carter Administration was intact when Ronald Reagan arrived.  The plan was – the less liberal programs in place, the less effort would be needed to reverse or eliminate them.

On December 8, 1980, after Reagan’s landslide victory, Stan convened conservatives, involved in the Presidential Transition.  “Inchon” became the primary forum for sharing operational intelligence and maximizing the success of the Reagan Revolution. Its credo was “people equal policy” and focused on preventing “Evans Law” from manifesting itself in the Reagan era.  His famous law was, “When ‘our people’ get to the point where they can do us some good, they stop being ‘our people.’”  Co-chaired by Stan, members of Reagan’s Kitchen Cabinet, and myself, Inchon launched a generation of solid conservatives “behind enemy lines” in the executive branch (thus the Inchon reference).   Many of Inchon’s leaders went onto populate the Gingrich Revolution in Congress.

One other part of assailing the liberal pillars of Washington was to make sure conservatives had fun.  That is why Stan helped form the Coolidge Society, Conservative Club, and Conservative Cabaret.  These became models for today’s diverse array of conservative networking, social, and charitable enterprises, which help newcomers to the Nation’s Capital learn, and thrive, among the like-minded.  

One of Stan’s historic accomplishment towers above all the rest. Those who knew him are recalling his ceaseless devotion to mentoring young people.  His door was always open.  There was always an extra chair at any table where he ate and drank.  He always answered his phone.  He always had time to listen & reflect, provide advice & support, and take action to help.  He was a mentor to us all.

The formal obituaries declared that Stan Evans had no immediate survivors.  They are wrong.  Thousands of conservative activists owe their lives and livelihoods to Stan Evans.  We are all Stan’s descendants.

[Scot Faulkner was Stan’s friend since 1978.  He served as Reagan’s Director of Personnel, on the Reagan White House Staff, and as Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives.]

6 Ways to Win the 2014 Elections

Current signs point to November 4, 2014 being a terrific day for the Republican Party.  The GOP may retake the Senate for the first time since losing it in 2006, and at least maintain its margins in the House and in state governments.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/senate-update-domino-effects/

Even with this wave of rosy analysis, Republicans feel a gnawing pit in their stomachs. The last four elections have seen mind boggling reversals of fortune as the GOP found amazingly creative ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  The ghosts of Aiken, Mourdock, and O’Donnell remind Republicans of their epic failures in candidate vetting and message discipline.

Last year’s Republican meltdown in Virginia was an object lesson on how ethics trumps party.  Virginia also proved that Republican candidates lose when they channel Tomás de Torquemada and Nathan Bedford Forrest instead of Ronald Reagan.

There are many things that Republicans should do, and should avoid, in the seven months before the next election.

OVERSIGHT!

Republicans are in a rhetorical bind.  On one hand, they berate President Obama for being weak in dismantling America’s global leadership role, and then they turn around and declare Obama to be an arrogant and aloof “Imperial President” over his expansive use of Executive Orders and recess appointments. http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-imperial-presidency/

One way Republicans can both slow-up Obama domestically and build their case against him is to conduct wall-to-wall oversight hearings. 

Every House committee and subcommittee has the legitimate responsibility to conduct hearings on the actions of executive branch departments and agencies. Some of this is already occurring:

http://www.govexec.com/management/2014/03/senate-panel-presses-omb-management-agenda/80407/?oref=govexec_today_nl

http://www.govexec.com/oversight/2014/03/republican-questions-treasurys-authority-delay-parts-obamacare/81034/?oref=govexec_today_nl

House Republicans should do far more of it.  They need to realize that executive branch entities spend dozens of staff days preparing for each hearing.  Senior officials and political appointees may sit before the microphone, but a cadre of staff and subordinate officials sit behind them.  This diverts countless executive branch resources from taking the initiative elsewhere. 

The more hearings - the less new mischief.  The more hearings – the more opportunities to expose Administration foibles and incompetence. 

One cautionary note - Republicans need to ask questions, not make assertions.  The most potent scandals occurred when the Legislative Branch asked leading questions.  “What did the President know and when did he know it?” remains one of the best mantras from the Watergate investigation.  The moment the investigator overreaches the evidence and leaps to a public conclusion, the tables turn and the public begins challenging the investigator and the investigation itself.  The ghost of Senator Joe McCarthy hovers over every Congressional probe.

REMEMBER WHAT CENTURY YOU ARE IN!

It is doubtful there are many Republican viewing parties for “Cosmos”.

Republicans used to be the science party.  NASA was formed under Eisenhower.  Voyager was developed and launched under Nixon.  Reagan remained stalwart for space exploration in the face of the Challenger disaster.  Reagan also initiated the Human Genome Project.

For some reason, many Republicans have turned their backs on the 21^st Century and marched back to the 16^th.  Top Republicans fight evolution, assert the Earth is only 5,000 years old, and selectively cite Biblical passages to promote big government intervention into private lives.  William F. Buckley, Ronald Reagan, and numerous other conservative intellects, found ways to espouse traditional values and faith while hailing science and the modern world.  Why is it so hard for Republicans in 2014 to strike the same balance?

Their embrace of fundamentalist Christians (TheoCons) has trapped them in the anti-science mindsets of Martin Luther (1483-1546) and John Calvin (1509-1564). It is truly sad that so many Republicans and “conservative” pundits have enthusiastically chosen anti or pre Enlightenment Era dogma.  They could easily embrace the thinking of Benedictus de Spinoza (1632-1677) and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716), who reconciled an active God with scientific discoveries. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/Mind/17th.html

Republicans will lose large swathes of the electorate if they continue to be caught in intellectual time warps.

AVOID BAD PHOTOS AND SOUND BITES!

Republicans and conservatives have a mental block about the digital age.  They forget that everything outside of their home is fair game.  In a world of security cameras and mobile phones, everything we say and do, if it is sufficiently embarrassing or the person is sufficiently significant, will be instantaneously shared with the world. 

The existing evidence is overwhelming. In 2012, Romney assumed explaining his negative view of Americans would not go past the high roller donors in a hotel ballroom (no one thought about the catering staff in the back of the room).  This year, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) booked a huge room for a marginal issue (at least in the minds of their attendees). The visual was devastating. http://aattp.org/the-gop-threw-a-minority-outreach-party-at-cpac-nobody-showed-up/

Message discipline should be a 24-7 fixation for anyone playing in the public space.  Leaders, and leader wannabes, are always on stage, even if that stage is shopping at a Walmart. Think before tweeting.  Think before posting.  Think before entering a studio.  Think before entering a room at a public or private event. Always have your core message hard wired into your brain and make sure you fit it into every utterance – digital, audio, video, or live.

LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD!

There are as many Looney Liberals as there are Crazy Conservatives.  However, you would never realize this parity from the Internet or the news media.

Republicans also make it harder on themselves when they promote friendly fire.  The Sesquicentennial of America’s Civil War has opened the door for some conservatives to embrace Southern succession and attack Lincoln.  This bizarre revisionism of history and Republicanism reached a pop culture boiling point when libertarian pundit Andrew Napolitano first attacked Lincoln on Fox News and then double-downed with a broader anti-Lincoln, anti-Union, rant on Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show”.  Many conservatives rallied to Napolitano’s defense and collectively threw Lincoln and the founding principles of the Republican Party under the bus.

Republicans need to honor their roots and their heroic Presidents.  Democrats and liberals always have preprogrammed accolades for every Democrat who made it into the White House, as well as a preprogrammed defense or dismissal of anything negative about their Presidents.  Republicans, on the other hand, find it easier to generate negatives rather than positives about their political ancestors.  The only exception is their fixation with venerating the Bush dynasty (more on that later).

Republicans are also at a disadvantage because many of their crazies love publicity and attract ovations and accolades within the conservatives’ incestuous media echo-chamber. It is hard to label crazies as “outliers” when they keynote political functions and are feted on talk shows.

Republicans not only need to silence or marginalize their crazies, they must strategically reposition the lunatics on the Left.  On any given day there are stories about corrupt Democrats and over-reaching liberal loonies, but they remain buried in local news stories or conservative social media sites.

Here are some examples:

Democratic Pennsylvania State officials accepting bribes:

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2545875

http://tcotreport.com/philadelphia-enquirer-democrat-ag-in-pennsylvania-fails-to-prosecute-democrat-legislators-caught-accepting-bribes-on-video/

In Hawaii, Democratic Legislators are defending the slaughter of dogs and cats for meat.  Why is that not fodder for Fox News and conservative talk radio?

http://nypost.com/2014/03/14/hawaii-tries-to-ban-eating-cats-and-dogs/

A Long Island School banned footballs and other athletic equipment to reduce injuries.  Supposedly, Nurf balls are okay. 

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/10/07/long-island-middle-school-bans-footballs-other-recreational-items/

Republicans need to establish a daily drumbeat of stories that force Democrats and liberals to confront their own outliers.

UP YOUR GROUND GAME!

In 2012, the Democrats’ NARWAL get-out-the-vote program ate the Republicans’ ORCA get-out-the-vote program.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/11/inside-team-romneys-whale-of-an-it-meltdown/

ORCA was an embarrassing joke from its inception, but local Republican leaders were afraid to speak up or bought into the hype.  Underlying this abject failure is the collapse of Republican grassroots precinct capabilities.

In the 1950s, Eisenhower Republicans built the golden age of precinct operations.  The basics of, “identifying your voters”; “motivating your voters”; “getting your voters to the polls” were perfected by legions of stay at home moms, retirees, and eager College and Young Republicans.  Reagan conservatives reinvigorated local voter operations in the 1980s. Then things fell apart. 

Mass mailings, robocalls, and ultimately the Internet, eviscerated precinct operations.  Everything was top down, nationalized, and driven by huge amounts of money.  The era of dedicated volunteer precinct captains being a civic “welcome wagon” for new voters ended.

Republicans also refused to embrace new voter behaviors.  They fought or dismissed early voting.  Instead of using this opportunity to mobilize working families to vote on weekends they asserted, “Our voters come out only on election day”. In 2012, millions of Republican votes were lost to this obtuse myopia. Thankfully, others are finally calling for a return to electoral basics. http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2545990

Republicans also lost credibility with their ill-conceived and poorly positioned voter ID programs.  Anyone who has contested elections knows that voter fraud occurs either in the initial registration or in the final counting, NOT when voters cast their ballots in polling places.  Republicans focused on the one part of the voting process that works.  The result was embarrassing laws, rhetoric, the taint of voter suppression, and charges of racism.

STOP BEING HYPOCRITES!

Ultimately, to win in 2014, Republicans need to regain the rhetorical high ground on a wide range of public issues.  The only way they will achieve this is to stop being such blatant hypocrites.

- Republicans cannot oppose government intrusion into business conduct, while pushing legislation expanding government intrusion into personal conduct.

- Republicans cannot keep “cherry picking” budget cuts.  Waste is waste no matter which agency or program is to blame.

- Republicans cannot oppose all tax increases.  There are outrageous government subsidies that only exist because lobbyists gave money or favors to public officials.  It is in the best interest of America to expose and end these revenue boondoggles.

- Republicans cannot cheer on George W. Bush’s and the Republican Congress’ spending binge of 2001-2006 and then rail against the Democrats current spending spree.

- Republicans cannot attack President Obama’s over-use of surveillance when the over reaching laws, processes, and technology were developed by President Bush and enthusiastically supported by “conservatives” in Congress and the media.

The other problem Republicans face is the Diaspora of Bush Administration functionaries who permeate the Washington media and its think tanks.  The Diaspora’s primary purpose is to unquestioningly defend every utterance, policy, and action of the Bush era. 

There has been much discussion about leaving Reagan behind in order to redefine and reposition conservativism and Republicanism in the 21^st Century.  Many of those promoting this are Bush alumni who only want to supplant one time warp with their own.  Only by sanctifying Bush 41, Bush 43, and future permutations of the Bush dynasty, can they look in the mirror every morning and ignore their epic mistakes that ruined America at home and abroad and wrecked havoc on the Republican and conservative movements.

To win big in 2014, and lay the ground work for victory in 2016, Republicans must tell voters that they will reverse the last 14 years of mistakes not just the last six.

Republicans have a huge challenge and an equally large opportunity.  Obama’s countless missteps and lies opened an historic electoral door.  Much work needs to be done before Republicans can walk through the portal.

THE NUMBER GAMES

                       

 Published in http://hnn.us/article/154391

Quality guru Dr. W. Edwards Demming always asserted, “You can't manage what you can't measure.” America is suffering from this ailment as facts and numbers become increasingly politicized. Everyone cherry picks statistics to build their case. They ignore or assail numbers that challenge their case. We are at a point where rational political discourse has evaporated along with objective facts and figures. Few are willing to stipulate to anything. Our ability to achieve reasonable middle ground fades by the day.

There are three areas where this numbers’ crisis is harming our nation and the Republican Party in particular.

THE REAL ECONOMY

Every pundit pounces on economic indicators. America’s economy has something for everybody. The stock market is at a record high and the economic recovery continues, although at a tepid pace. However, outside of the “top 1%” of income earners things are far from rosy.

The most accurate figures are being generated by Gallup. They show the unemployment rate at 7.4%. However, under-employment – people who are taking lower paying jobs to make ends meet - remains stuck at around 17% for the last three years. Wage earners, as a percentage of the U.S. population, are stuck at around 43% during this same period. The “Labor Participation Rate”, those employable in core earning years (ages 25-64), continues to lag at record lows (82%).

Congress reconvenes to face the future of unemployment benefits. Many families are at risk because unemployment insurance benefits ended on December 28, 2013. What no one is discussing is the fact that there are many Americans who have not been able to qualify for unemployment benefits. Unemployment insurance is partially funded by deductions when a person is employed. When a person is laid-off they qualify for benefits if they paid into unemployment insurance at least two quarters during the previous eighteen months (known as the base period). This only occurs if the person was employed as a W2 worker. Consulting work (1099) does not count because these are fees not wages. Therefore, an unemployed person who has worked as an independent contractor is not eligible for benefits.

Currently, 34.4 million Americans work as contractors or part-time without benefits. When they get laid-off, and cannot find follow-on opportunities, they become a large element without unemployment benefits. Media stories, and Congressional angst, are rare regarding Americans barely hanging on – not poor enough for welfare, but not being able to make ends meet. This is the real hole in our safety net.


FISCAL FLIM FLAMS

Once again the clock is ticking toward raising the debt ceiling. Congress is also sparring over how to fund unemployment benefits through spending offsets. The liberal chorus for taxation to ease the pain of the Sequester can also be heard on a daily basis.

These false deadlines and balance sheet fictions are designed to avoid real facts and serious decisions. There is over $680 billion lying around unused and unobligated in countless accounts throughout the Federal Government. Obama is the only recent president who has not conducted a “budget sweep” to retrieve these funds. A memo from either the U.S. Treasury or OMB would sweep this money back into a general fund to stave-off the national debt ceiling for a full year. Alternatively, an across the board hiring freeze of federal employees would save $350 billion a year. This would solve the debt problem for nearly six months. Still another option is to save $650 billion by annually implementing the 9,000 Inspector General and Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports.

Congress and the White House won’t admit there are real opportunities to balance the Federal budget. They are adrift in a sea of sham.


PURITY PURGES

In a world where “Duck Dynasty’s” Phil Robertson has replaced “Firing Line’s” William F. Buckley as the intellectual symbol of conservatism, numbers still matter.

The Republican Party, like the Democratic Party, is an amalgam of interests gathered around a set of philosophical concepts. In order to win elections, and therefore to govern, political parties must expand beyond their comfort zone to attract candidates and voters who don’t always adhere to these core concepts. Expand too far and party labels are meaningless. Restrict too much and the party is sent into the political wilderness.

A key test for striking the right balance comes when a Party disciplines one of their elected officials for being too wayward. At some point being useful for “organizational purposes” is undermined by a pattern of votes that threaten Party integrity. In 1970, Republicans ended the political career of Senator Charles Goodell (R-NY) because he was voting less than 50% of the time with his Party and taking the lead in sponsoring ultra-liberal legislation. As Goodell had been appointed to fill the vacancy left by the death of Robert Kennedy in 1968, his bid for a full term was the ideal opportunity to make an example. James Buckley, brother of William F. Buckley, ran on the Conservative Party ticket against Goodell. Goodell was made a “poster child” for disloyalty. Buckley crushed Goodell by nearly 2-1.

It is one thing to purge disloyalty at the 50% or less threshold. It is quite another to launch primary challenges at the 100% or less threshold. That is what is happening across the Republican Party as it enters the 2014 election cycle. For example, the Texas Tea Party has declared Rep. Pete Sessions (TX-32) an “under performer” for his American Conservative Union rating of 97%, and is fielding candidates against him.

Incumbent re-election rates are always over 85% and are many times over 90%. Open seats are another matter as are divisive primaries. In these circumstances the incumbent party retention rate, depending on state, can plummet to 50%. Thanks to multiple cycles of gerrymandering, individual Congressional districts have skewed more partisan. However, Republicans make up a third or less of registered voters in most states. In order to win Senate seats, Governorships, and other statewide races, Republicans need to appeal to Independents and open-minded Democrats. As Ronald Reagan once said, “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.”

Tea Party purity purges play well on conservative talk radio, but the only way to govern is to control the government.

Republicans' Uncivil War

This was published in Politico

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/republicans-uncivil-war-89696.html

By Scot Faulkner & Jonathan Riehl

The Republican Party is at war with itself and it is losing. For every successful Republican governor, there are Republican state legislators who embrace personally oppressive and interventionist initiatives. For every reasonable Republican member of Congress there are more who embarrass. Every compelling soundbite from Republican candidates and pundits are overwhelmed by those that repel.

It wasn’t always this way. Republicans used to be known for ending wars not starting them. Eisenhower negotiated the end of the Korea War, Nixon ended the Vietnam War, and Reagan ended the Cold War. Republicans used to be known for competent management. Truman turned to Herbert Hoover to bring order to the chaos of the New Deal. Reagan established the Grace Commission to focus on government waste and reform, while launching the Baldrige Award to provide stellar examples of leadership, organizational effectiveness, and customer service to make America more competitive. In 1995, Republicans in Congress cleaned-up the scandal-ridden mess left by decades of institutionalized corruption.

Republicans were also once known for their emphasis on science, empiricism, and environmental responsibility. Teddy Roosevelt established parks and a national ethic for conservation. Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency. Reagan led the way for private-public partnerships for historic preservation, notably the restoration of the Statue of Liberty. Eisenhower created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and started planning the moon missions. Man landed on the Moon under Nixon and dominated space with shuttles under Reagan.

Americans rewarded these policies and actions. The Reagan Revolution dominated America in the 1980s with three consecutive landslides of 489, 525, and 426 electoral votes. There was talk of the Democrats’ demise. Then something went wrong for Republicans. Terribly wrong.

Politics is about prevailing. To prevail you have to garner enough support to overcome opposition and apathy. This requires actions and rhetoric that are reasonable and inspirational. Republicans have become terrible at both. Rather than listening to the American people, they are listening to their failed paid consultants and media echo chamber.

In the late 1980’s conservatives were pioneers in new media. The end of the “Fairness Doctrine” in 1987 opened the door for radio and TV stations offering political points of view. Rush Limbaugh’s show premiered in 1988 and ushered in “conservative talk radio.” The Fox News Channel launched in 1996. MSNBC shifted to the left as a counter. On the other hand, William F. Buckley’s “Firing Line” ended its 33-year reign in 1999. This shift created larger-than-life personalities that were more interested in self-promotion via hyperbole over rational discourse.

This tilt was a mixed blessing. “Firing Line” attracted approximately 32,000 viewers, but now Fox News dominates audience ratings, besting its nearest competition by 4-1 in viewers, while its personality driven shows blow-out their competitors by as much as 6-1. The conservative movement’s annual convocation, the Conservative Political Action Conference, went from a microscopic 200 attendees in the 1970’s to a major political event with over 10,000 participants being covered by all major news outlets.

While Buckley conservatives and Reagan Republicans attracted smaller real-time audiences, their ideas and discourse appealed to an ever-expanding universe across the political spectrum. On the other hand, the three million who regularly watch Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity and the upwards of 15 million who listen to Limbaugh each week, are content with their solid, but stagnant universe. Republican office holders and candidates have tailored their messages and thinking to this reality, as Bill Maher says, it’s “life in the bubble.” Unfortunately, 15 million fanatical fans are dwarfed by the 130 million people who voted in 2012. Yet Republicans seem ambivalent to expanding their domain.

Another phenomenon fed this myopic Republican universe. Pro-government Democrats entered the Republican Party in the late 1970s. NeoCons were Hubert Humphrey/Scoop Jackson Cold War Democrats who fled the dovish accommodation policies of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter to rally to Reagan’s victory over rather than coexistence with anti-communism. Around this same time the TheoCons arrived. These were a mix of pro-life Democrats and Southern Democrat evangelical Christians who felt betrayed by Carter. They helped Carter get elected in 1976, only to have him promote government policies that felt like a war against religion and family values.

At first the Republican Party welcomed these refugees. The NeoCons were Cold War soul-mates, while the TheoCons aligned with the libertarians in fighting intrusive left-wing policies and regulations. However, when Reagan left office, these two groups were no longer content to be junior members of a diverse coalition. These pro-government and pro-interventionist groups saw a weak and malleable leader in George H.W. Bush. The death of powerful Republican National Committee Chairman Lee Atwater left a power vacuum within the party. The Neos and Theos marched in and took over.

A new self-perpetuating political echo chamber was in place. The naturally exclusionary Neo and Theo factions drove out or silenced the broad Reagan coalition. They espoused big government ideas, a legacy of their Democratic Party roots, which alienated core Republican constituencies and trumpeted bible-based science and morality that drove off independents and blue collar Democrats.

Fox News and conservative talk radio were more than willing to be forums and advocates for this ascendant coalition. George W. Bush, and his political Svengali, Karl Rove, embraced the Neos and Theos to cobble together a narrow victory in 2000. In exchange, Bush was willing to fight their wars and move their policies, cheered on by the ersatz conservative echo chamber. The fact that these actions contradicted decades of Republican and conservative thought seemed irrelevant to all involved.

Bush 43 added his own straw to the political camel’s back by his willingness to allow cronyism to trump competence. By promoting amateurs to bungle the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq and allowing the once noble Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, to make an epic mess of Hurricane Katrina relief, Bush eviscerated the long-standing Republican reputation for management competency. The Republican echo chamber remained silent to this dismal record, violating another of their core principles – holding power accountable. A Republican world view, devoid of facts and critical thinking was taking hold. Like Thelma and Louise, Republican politicians and pundits alike grasped hands and floored the gas peddle into the abyss.

Except for some stellar governors, the Republican movement has been in free fall since late 2005. Like a cancer patient on remission, the tea party-fueled 2010 election blowout offered a fleeting and aberrant reversal of fortune. It remains to be seen if Republicans can heal themselves or whether the Democrats will over-reach clearing the way for a GOP comeback by default. Either way, America’s political landscape is denuded when rational thought and competence are edged out of the picture.

Scot Faulkner was Personnel Director for the Reagan-Bush campaign in 1980 and the Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives. Jonathan Riehl, J.D., Ph.D., is a communications consultant for political campaigns and national nonprofit organizations and a former speechwriter for Luntz Research, and an instructor in Communications Studies.

Where have all the REAL Conservatives Gone?

Published in History News Network

http://hnn.us/articles/where-have-all-real-conservatives-gone

By Scot Faulkner & Jonathan Riehl

Recent Republican and Conservative convocations have displayed one common thing. Those who pass for thinkers and leaders of these intertwined movements think they can keep doing the same things but achieve better results. With the notable except of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, most Republicans, after sifting through the debris of November 6, think they need new spokespeople and better packaging.

The only thing standing between Republicans and the great Reagan landslides of 1980 and 1984 is them. This is a sad commentary on once noble movements. Republican and Conservative “leaders” think 21st Century Americans are waiting to embrace 10th Century stands on social issues and science, and blustery vague pronouncements on government spending. Does any rational person think today’s Republicans and conservatives bear the slightest resemblance to those who rallied around Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan? Those two icons would not have finished in the top ten in the 2012 Iowa Caucus or South Carolina primary.

What built the success of late 20th Century Republicanism and conservatism was not just charismatic and articulate candidates. After World War II, the Foundation for Economic Education and its publication The Freeman (1946), the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (1953), and National Review (1955) formed a triad of scholarly forums where the great thinkers of 20th Century conservatism discussed issues. Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley, Frank Meyer, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Heyak, Milton Friedman, James Burnham, and countless other great minds, applied the principles of the Enlightenment (1650-1789) and 19th Century liberalism to modern challenges. This three hundred year provenance of reason, critical thinking, scientific inquiry, and the nature of man and his relationship to the state formed a solid foundation for philosophical exploration. It is hard to go wrong using John Locke, Isaac Newton, Denis Diderot, Charles-Louis Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, and America’s Founding Fathers, as touch stones for civil discourse on the role of government in society.

Unfortunately, today’s conservative touch stones are Karl Rove, Dick Morris, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. The forums are soundbites on Fox News and Talk Radio. Today’s activists came of age under George W. Bush’s NeoCon global adventurism, theocratic government activism, and opportunistic federal spending. They view the libertarian/conservative fusionism of Goldwater/Reagan through this clouded lens. The Republican and conservative movements have become what Russell Kirk once stated he despised a party of “millenarian ideas of pseudo-religious character.”

Where are the REAL Conservatives? Who today mentions Enlightenment ideas, or bases their policies on this noble philosophical heritage? What the Right has now is a handful of pundits, and a disdain for those who possess any scholarly credential. The demise of the conservatives is not a matter of “messaging” as many on their side has claimed. It is a demise of intellect. The great sages of conservatism, from Edmund Burke to John Adams and contemporary figures like Buckley, spent their time reading not blogs, but books. Further, they spent time writing dissertations on them; unlike today’s “leaders” who wear their ignorance as badges of honor and electability.

Has conservative philosophy been lost? In the words of Kirk, citing T.S. Eliot, has “wisdom” been lost to a vapid neoconservative philosophy of “information”?

The exchange of ideas -- the cornerstone of philosophy and democracy -- depends upon differing sides exchanging ideas. It cannot consist of one side saying, for example, diplomacy means blowing up the United Nations building in New York, and the other wanting to cede America’s sovereign authority to an unaccountable and dysfunctional international body.

This shows only how the extremes have grown so far from the roots of Western political and philosophical thought. Yet there are a handful of us who still think these matters deserve consideration aside from partisan politics, electioneering, and fundraising.

We are in a different place now. Conservatism has been drawn into the blogosphere, the talk radio universe, and the cable news echo chambers in which each satisfies their own micro-targeted audiences. Even “live” forums like CPAC and the National Review Institute Summit are more forums for media soundbites than critical discourse. Conservatives, but also all Americans, need civil forums for the purpose of good governance and debate, deeply rooted in conservative principles and tempered by liberal ones, supporting openness, and nurturing common sense and common ground.

We write in that spirit and in the hope that both sides in our democracy reclaim their roots. Conservatives, in particular, must re-examine their evolution over the several centuries, and return to key philosophical principles, if they wish to remain relevant. Our view here is that a robust democracy only flourishes when both sides match each other. Today there is no balance, and we are hopeful that will change.

Pat McCrory's College Comments Betray Conservative Principles

By Jonathan Rielh & Scot Faulkner

Published in http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/01/30/2644321/pat-mccrorys-college-comments.html

Gov. Pat McCrory has made news with his recent comments on conservative talk radio, attacking liberal arts education in general and UNC-Chapel Hill in particular. In doing this, he has lit the fires of progressive academics and riled up the Fox News tea party base. With the governor’s star rising in the GOP, his comments no doubt were strategic.

They also represent a total betrayal of conservative principle.

The meltdown of the conservative movement in recent years has many causes, including an addiction to the media echo chambers of the blogosphere, talk radio and Fox News. Anti-intellectualism is another part of this new, destructive ideology. A spokesperson for this anti-intellectualism was, of course, Sarah Palin, who famously could not identify what newspapers she read. To be conservative means not reading newspapers?

Not so. As a political philosophy, conservatism is grounded in intellectual thought and deliberation. The governor’s statements about education are therefore not only counterproductive but also anti-conservative.

Ironically, the notion of colleges and universities as factories for job-performance smacks much more of leftist, socialist societies where individuals were not valued for their knowledge or perception but for their ability to perform tasks. As a philosophy, conservatism has in fact battled this idea for hundreds of years. The governor is apparently not familiar with this history. Perhaps his education was not liberal enough.

Is it not practical, in preparation for entering the workforce, to have read deeply in philosophy, cultural history, politics and literature? Those 3 a.m. debates with college roommates about these ideas produce individuals better able to obtain rewarding positions in the ever-more competitive global marketplace.

The point of a liberal arts education is to make those debates possible, to give young students a broad-based knowledge that allows them to think about matters widely and deeply, to form their own opinions and find their place in society. Only an environment that teaches the value of knowledge, not just “information,” will allow them to decide what path they wish to take and what identity to choose: liberal or conservative. Choices cannot be made without perspective.

We are proof positive. We benefited from superb liberal arts educations, one at the University of Virginia, the other at Lawrence University. In both cases, we were able to explore wide-ranging topics and were required to read deeply in topics we knew little about and have little involvement with now (from geology to astronomy). We were taught to think about matters that had little to do with the careers we would map for ourselves and to consider ourselves better for it. We also would like to think we have given back, as educators, political activists and private sector businesspeople.

We find ourselves voting for different parties, but we share a deep admiration for the conservative movement and its heritage. Not just in recent times, when intellectuals like William F. Buckley Jr. forged the coalition that produced a revolution under Ronald Reagan, but in history dating to our founders Madison, Adams and Jefferson, and tracking from there to Burke, Montesquieu and even Plato.

Would the governor have students in North Carolina schools reading technical manuals rather than these thinkers, not to mention contrarians from schools of Marxism and postmodern deconstructionists? Young conservatives need to understand the ideas they might oppose.

Turning colleges into trade schools is counterproductive as well as anti-conservative. If there is to be a revival of conservatism, which is today moribund at best, it will happen only if an educated new generation can converse with its opponents in well-informed terms.

Technocratic specialization is the enemy of democracy, which asks us to have a wide lens – a “liberal” view not sequestered within our own limited perspectives. Conservatism, properly understood, asks us to engage, not disengage.

That is the purpose of a liberal education.

Sadly, our hypermediated age leads us to place too much attention on superficial labels. Identities are formed by talking points, not principle. Leaders on the left and the right flock to media outlets whose viewers already agree with 99 percent of the “news” they are delivered. The governor is playing to that crowd.

Conservatism is grounded in a very different heritage. Democracy was founded on the principles of rhetoric – reasoned debate and exchange among citizens. This cannot occur if we eliminate liberal arts education in our public schools.

North Carolina has a proud history of supporting broad-based liberal arts education, thanks in large part to the leadership of a popular Democratic governor, Jim Hunt, who eschewed partisan politics in favor of consensus. Hunt understood that economic growth depends upon broad education, and the job growth in the Triangle is testament to this strategy.

Conservatism is in freefall. We have no successors to William F. Buckley Jr. in our midst. We will be able to nurture new conservative thinkers only if we teach our young people about the intellectual legacy that produced intellectual leaders like him.

Conservatives at a crossroads: Harold Hill vs. William F. Buckley

Published in Politico
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84101.html
By: Scot Faulkner and Jonathan Riehl


The GOP’s trouncing has triggered a wave of “soul searching” typical in its post-election timing, but more significant in its impact for our politics and for the conservative movement — if there is one. We think not. The conservative crisis of 2012 is not just a crisis of messaging; it is a crisis of conscience.


The cast of characters now presenting themselves as conservative leaders bear nothing in common with the intellectual cadre that brought the movement to prominence in the 1960s and 1970s. For months we watched in horror as a parade of Harold Hill hucksters mouthed empty tea party phraseology, followed the advice of Dick Morris and Karl Rove, and parroted Frank Luntz’s magic words — all the while selling a boy’s band that simply does not exist. Their polls, their news, their understanding of America, are a façade. The people of River City — the conservative base — were willingly sold a bill of goods. They got their reality check on Nov. 6.

Like the traveling salesman from “The Music Man,” the right’s media echo chamber has captivated the townsfolk. It is full of rapid-fire talkers, fearless pugilists and moralistic re-enforcers. To be clear, media access and its persuasive power have always been central to the conservative cause. But how far we have come from the days when William F. Buckley, Jr. hosted a PBS program called “Firing Line,” where conservatives of all stripes, liberal intellectuals and policymakers debated issues in depth. Today the conservative base prefers the endless recitation of things it already believes.

In a larger sense, the problem extends far beyond the “dumbing down” of a noble policy movement into cartoonish diatribes mouthed by one-dimensional personalities. It’s not about bad messaging. It’s the lack of any coherent framework or foundation for that message.

The movement, once a coalition of cold warriors, traditionalists and free marketeers, no longer exists. Buckley did not preach an ideology; he helped maintain a fusion of different factions. The key players, and candidates, came from very different camps but were united in a fundamental understanding of the limited role of government and the power of the individual. These groups often disagreed. But their differences were worked out through reasoned debate and exchange, guided by a 300-year provenance dating to John Locke and earlier.

What we see today, in contrast, is a dialogue of empty sets of talking points with no intellectual content or critical thinking to back them up — epitomized by Mitt Romney’s foundationless candidacy that pandered to a shrinking and ideologically extreme base. But conservatism, as it was understood by those who built the movement in the postwar years, was never an ideology. The great conservative philosopher Russell Kirk wrote in the early days that properly understood conservatism is not an ideology, but rather “a mood.”

Ideology and ideologues were imported into the party in recent years, especially by extreme theocratic types whose embrace of an intrusive Big Government is in fact antithetical to Republicanism and conservatism. Others, including the neoconservatives, embrace expanding government for their adventurist war agenda abroad and anti-libertarian activism at home.

A different conservative intellectual legacy extends back to Edmund Burke and beyond, a legacy emphasizing the long view over the short one, which thrived not on political marching orders but on debate and diversity. It is a tradition that dates to the dawn of Western civilization and the invention of democracy grounded in the practice of rhetoric. The modern conservative media machine, in its vapid self-congratulation, is a total negation of this tradition. While a few survivors still try nobly to maintain the real conservative tradition, their voices are drowned out by those who want to blame the media, demographics, Obama flimflams, and anything else — except themselves.

The two authors here come from different generations and our own politics are not in line with each other all of the time. Still, we have both studied conservatism, and share an admiration for the movement built over the past 60 years. We are saddened to observe what has become of its legacy — and its cast of pretenders to the throne. If you are a Republican, it is a sad day for your party and the movement that built it. If you are a believer in American democracy, it is a sad day for the country.

Scot Faulkner was Director of Personnel for Reagan-Bush 1980 and Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives under Speaker Newt Gingrich. Jonathan Riehl, J.D., Ph.D., is a communications consultant for political campaigns and national nonprofit organizations.

William F. Buckley

I only met William F. Buckley once. That was during the fortieth anniversary reception for National Review in 1995. I shook his hand and thanked him for reshaping America.

Mr. Buckley was the Thomas Paine of 20th Century conservatism. He gave the isolated pockets of conservative thought and activism a central identity. In an era before the Internet and cable television, his show “Firing Line” and his magazine “National Review” reminded conservatives that they were not alone and that their philosophy was both noble and ascendant.

The campaigns of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan would not have been possible without William F. Buckley. They would have still run, but they would not have had the ability to so immediately and effectively tap the grassroots wellsprings of conservatism. The revolution within the Republican Party in 1964 and the revolution in America in 1980 were his progeny.

I pay homage to William F. Buckley on page 74 in my book, “Naked Emperors”. For me, and millions of other young conservatives, Buckley was more than a great writer and more than an icon of our movement. He rose to the level of being an “Epiphany Person.”

An “Epiphany Person” is someone who guides us to a profound understanding of life itself. These encounters are epochal moments, as uplifting and all encompassing as the light entering the cave described in Plato’s “Republic”:

“At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision.”

Buckley’s insights, commentary, and humor gave us lessons about philosophy, public policy, and life that we took with us wherever we went. For many of us, his words propelled us to elective and appointive office and shaped our actions and deeds while in those offices. Buckley’s words and thoughts continue to guide us through new encounters and experiences in the 21st Century.

William F. Buckley was the “indispensable man” of our time. I, like every other conservative, will be forever in his debt.