TRUE COLORS

Published in http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/true-colors/article/2556003

It is time to reclaim America from liberal elites.  The first step is to right a recent wrong.

During the 2000 Presidential election recount battle, long time Democrat turned pundit Tim Russert took the unilateral act of swapping out the long standing political colors for Republicans and Democrats.  His liberal media colleagues jumped at the chance to rebrand Democrats away from their 20^th Century left wing affiliations. 

Unfortunately, Fox News and conservatives also embraced this swap.  As a result, a two hundred year global tradition of blue meaning conservative and red meaning liberal ended in America. Along with swapping colors, media pundits and political scientists began using “red state; blue state” to simplify and “dumb down” their analysis of America’s richly nuanced civic culture.

Republicans and conservatives should be deeply offended at the liberal media’s unilateral and unofficial propaganda act.  Realizing the history of these colors should cause an outpouring of conservatives to demand at least their media friends at Fox and Talk Radio take a stand and return to the GOP’s noble blue color.

Colors have meaning. Uniforms and banners on the battlefield have identified friend and foe since the beginning of human history.  Most of history linked colors to nations and dynasties.  The most famous was England’s 15^th Century dynastic war symbolized between the white rose of York and the red rose of Lancaster. 

In the late 18^th Century, blue became the first modern political color.  It was worn as boutonnières by British parliamentary candidates supporting Pitt the Younger (the leader who helped William Wilberforce end slavery).

Blue evolved into the permanent color of the Conservative Party of England and of center-right movements around the world, including the Republican Party in America.  

Radicals and pre-communist activists did not have their own color until the French Revolution.

On August 9, 1792, antimonarchist provocateur, Jean-Paul Marat, called upon the people of Paris to rise up and overthrow King Louis XVI.  This was a reaction to recent French reversals on the battlefield and a rising concern by Robespierre over some Legislative Assembly delegates seeking national unity through reconciliation with the powerless King. 

The next morning, mobs swarmed the Tuileries, where the royal family was under house arrest.  The King allowed the mob into the complex and ordered his Swiss Guard not to fire.  Previous incursions had ended peacefully as moderate voices prevailed. Not this time. The mob slaughtered the surrendering Swiss Guards and then sought out servants and kitchen staff to tear apart – limb from limb.  One observer called it a “mad festival of blood”.  The King and his family were imprisoned in a fortified monastery with the guillotine looming ahead of them.

The mob stripped the blood soaked red uniforms from the Swiss Guards and paraded the shards on long pikes as revolutionary banners.  Thus red became the color of the most radical factions of the French Revolution and of left wing movements to this day. 

Remember that the next time a conservative uses “Red State” to describe Republicans and conservatives.

Scot Faulkner served as Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives and as Director of Personnel to Ronald Reagan.

GOP BODY SNATCHERS

Published in POLITICO
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/opinion-scot-faulkner-jonathan-riehl-the-gop-body-snatchers-97102.html
By Scot Faulkner and Jonathan Riehl

In the classic 1956 sci-fi film Invasion of the Body Snatchers, an alien race comes to Earth and begins turning humans into “pod people.” Their bodies are left intact, but their minds are regrown, rending them humanoid robots under the aliens’ command. Unrecognizable to neighbors, the pod people take over until nothing is left of human society.

At the time of its release, the film was seen as a metaphor either for communist takeover (according to conservatives) or an ironic criticism of the irrational fears of communist takeover (according to liberals). Today, we think the body snatchers conceit perfectly fits another trend: the takeover of the responsible conservative movement -- or least what is left of it. A small faction-within-a-faction -- government-decrying, religious-fanatic, anti-science -- have turned thinking Republicans into pod people.

There is growing concern that while Republicans may dominate off-year congressional elections, their ability to win a presidential election is diminishing. The crisis on the right revolves around two issues: demographic trends working against the GOP in the general election, and insanity working against the GOP in the nomination process. Extremist outliers now dominate both the public face and internal organization of the Republican Party. It is time to snatch these bodies back, and to steer the debate toward more concrete issues: America’s role in the world and the global economy; cultural divides over how to address environmental issues; our healthcare system and the costs of aging families; and bridging multicultural divisions in our country and around the globe. These are the issues the GOP needs to address head-on, with input from a wider range of perspectives.

The evidence of Republicans at war with themselves and with reality mounts daily. Even those recognized as seemingly “rational” Republican and conservative voices, both in elected office and the punditocracy, are pandering to religiously radical, inward-focused factions. The result is a GOP fixated on the roughly 10 million people who listen to conservative radio and television pundits, instead of projecting messages of inclusion and hope to 230 million registered voters.

It was not always this way. In 1988, George H.W. Bush coasted to the third Republican presidential landslide in a row. The GOP won five of six post-Great Society presidential elections, four by epic-sized landslides. In the elections of 1972 and 1984, the Democrats won only one state each, plus the District of Columbia. Up through 1984, the modern Republican Party had perfected appealing to voters across the political spectrum. Broad themes and accomplishments -- the economic growth after the Carter years, reversing the decline of the U.S. military, winning the Cold War, and generally re-energizing national morale -- neutralized internal factions and ideological differences within the Republican Party, while the Democrats were still healing from their Vietnam and Civil Rights meltdowns.

Although President Bill Clinton’s “triangulation” would eventually help lead the Democrats out of their wilderness, there were signs of the radicalization of the GOP as early as Ronald

Reagan’s second term. First and foremost, the United States and the West were winning the Cold War. It would take until Nov. 9, 1989, for the Berlin Wall to fall, but many within the Reagan administration and the conservative movement knew events were unfolding to end the Soviet Empire and free Eastern Europe, which the Republicans had made a key rallying point for years. As this happened, and with the American economy booming, core Republican and Independent constituencies lost their fervor to fight. Unfortunately, Republican leaders failed to develop or articulate a “third act.”

Into this vacuum stepped faith-based Republicans, also known as “TheoCons.” The TheoCons, including national politicians and the religious coalitions backing them, entered GOP circles during the 1978 off-year elections. Many were evangelicals who supported Jimmy Carter in the 1976 presidential election, hoping that Carter’s devout Christianity would usher in policies friendly to their Christian worldview. Their disappointment led them into the Republican Party. GOP leaders and Reaganites were grateful for these additions to the larger coalition, but they were also wary of the TheoCons’ preference for big government. While the Cold War raged, Republicans told the TheoCons to “wait their turn” at policy formulation.

The TheoCons used their time in waiting to methodically take control of the Republican Party at the county and state levels. Their fervor for biblical policies and evangelical beliefs easily overwhelmed the waning legions of GOP Cold Warriors and independent libertarians. This is not a criticism of the Tea Party movement alone; the TheoCons poach from this camp as well as a separate cohort of religiously driven conservatives who have been part of the conservative coalition since the late 1970s.

Fast forward to 2012, and the Republican Party of the 21st century looks more like 16th-century Europe, when doctrinaire Catholicism and fervent Protestantism were literally fighting over hearts and souls amid the Reformation. Science and medicine were locked in the realm of superstition. Absolute dictators ruled everywhere. It would take another 100 years before the beginnings of rational thought, scientific inquiry, and liberal democracy took root.

That is the fundamental problem of today’s Republican Party: Its philosophical “outliers” have become its activist core. This has infected Republicans at all levels, from the state house, to the Congress, governors, and the presidential contenders. Virtually any Republican candidate who wants to run and hold office, must at least give lip service to an activist government based on biblical imperatives. We know from personal experience, over recent years, that in some circles, in order to obtain the GOP nomination, raise funds, and attract campaign volunteers, Republicans must not only embrace biblical creationism, but also go on the record supporting the concept of a “young Earth” -- the creationist belief that our planet was formed in seven days, starting on March 18, 3952 B.C. (though dates vary). They must also agree to expand the size of government to enforce biblically based policies, like the absurd anti-sodomy debate going on in Virginia.

For GOP leaders, officeholders, and candidates who are afraid to confront the TheoCons, the dilemma is no longer about how to put this genie back in its bottle but how to placate this faction internally without broadcasting the fragmentation to the broader public. The TheoCon body snatchers have turned a Party of the Enlightenment and liberty into the pod people of science fiction movies. Many meetings among Republican fundraisers, caucuses, and party leaders have enforcers -- local activists -- ready to alert their fellow pods to heresy. Shrinking numbers and electoral defeat only strengthens the pod people’s hold on the party. More and more Republicans fall asleep under their spell, only to awake and join them.

The invasion of the GOP body snatchers is not just hurting the legacy of the Republican Party and conservative movement. It is hurting America’s ability to conduct a civil and sensible national debate. When the process of positive political dialogue is invaded by pod people, it ceases to be possible. Everyone has an interest in fighting the invasion.

Scot Faulkner was chief administrative officer of the U.S. House of Representatives and director of personnel to President Ronald Reagan. Jonathan Riehl is a communications consultant for political campaigns and national nonprofit organizations, a former speechwriter for Luntz Research, and instructor in communications at Wake Tech Community College in Raleigh, N.C.

Rebranding Conservatives

"You can't compete with Santa Claus"

Rush Limbaugh

The Republican and conservative brands have been painted into a pop culture corner as being “un-cool” or worse. Democrats and liberals get to use Robin Hood and Santa Claus. The GOP is portrayed as the Grinch, Scrooge, Gordon Gekko, and other negative symbols of elitism, greed, racism, stupidity, and angry old white guys.

Sometimes conservatives relish being portrayed as bad guys. In 1980, some at the Reagan-Bush National Headquarters would give directions, “we are two blocks to the right of Attila’s” in reference to a local restaurant.

It is time for conservatives and Republicans to embrace a pop culture hero that embodies their core beliefs – Zorro!

The great 1940 classic, starring Tyrone Power as Zorro and Basil Rathbone as his arch nemesis, Captain Esteban Pasquale, was shown today on TCM, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mark_of_Zorro_(1940_film).

In that 1940 movie, the rights of the people are oppressed by a greedy and corrupt government. Villainous government officials brutally enforce confiscatory taxes on everyone, including the church and the poor, in order to siphon unaccountable funds to their special interests. Dissent is crushed. Everything is regulated. Everyone’s property and privacy are at risk.

Enter Don Diego Vega, a child of privilege who takes on the secret identity of “Zorro” (the “fox”), to thwart the plots of corrupt officials, reclaim the taxes for the people, and ultimately bring liberty and justice back to all. Zorro does all this with great flair while winning the love of beautiful Lolita Quintero (Linda Darnell). He also makes the case for an armed populace, as the business elite join with poor farmers and townspeople to storm the fort and send the bad guys packing.

As Republicans and conservatives wrestle with how to reach the masses with their ideas (once they figure out what those are), they should consider embracing a fictional Hispanic hero whose actions speak volumes. Countless Zorro movies and a hit 1950’s television show http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorro_(1957_TV_series) create a pervasive pop culture icon that could rehabilitate a damaged brand.

Whither CPAC?

By Scot Faulkner & Jonathan Riehl

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) begins today.  Ironically attendance has skyrocketed while the quality and diversity of discussion has plummeted.  It is as if the movement that vanquished the Soviet Empire has adopted the Soviet Comintern model.

Diversity of opinion is prohibited. Tired old leaders are favored over new experimental thinkers. Ideological purity, not intellect, is the requirement for admission. Empty slogans are shouted to the uniform applause of rooms of people who strangely seem to all look the same. Down with Obama! Up with the Tea Party! Down with the climate change hoax! All hail Limbaugh! Down with the lies of the Lame Stream Media!

CPAC was formed in 1973 as a forum for geographically and ideologically diverse conservatives to exchange ideas, and build an ever expanding network of activists to eventually prevail on the major issues of the late-20th Century. Members of Congress, and their staff, attended to report on legislative ideas at the national level while learning about successful legislative ideas at the state level. Networking turned new ideas and energy into creative ways to govern and to shape dialogue on emerging issues.

Cold warriors, libertarians, values voters, economic conservatives, and traditionalists heard the icons of their movement as well as the up & coming leaders. The conservative movement was born in the Enlightenment, forged during the American and Industrial Revolutions, and launched as a counter balance to an ever expanding federal government and the external threat of Communism. CPAC was designed to grow this movement through learning and applying new ideas, and attracting new allies, to core principles. This was an expanding intellectual universe and it was thrilling to attend.

The CPAC that gave traction to the Reagan Revolution is long gone. Conservative organizers seem to now be taking meeting tips from the Communist Chinese Party Congress on how to further stifle innovation, democratic exchange of ideas, and how to alienate a nation. TheoCons, NeoCons, and Tea Partiers are using CPAC to perfect ways to build ever smaller tents for their movement. The true conservative legacy is in dire peril.

Of course the Chinese, and the Soviets before them, didn’t care much for debate anyway; they were after all single-party regimes. We would point out to the organizers of CPAC that people have a rather clear historical tendency to reject this kind of governance. Stifling debate in favor of ideology does not shore up a movement. It destroys it. The Soviets learned this the hard way in 1989; we hope the Chinese will learn a similar lesson sometime soon.

The analogy to the Communist system goes further. What we have been witnessing in the GOP ranks over the last several election cycles even uses the old Soviet term: “Purge.” This is what Stalin did after Trotsky; what Khrushchev did after Stalin; what Mao did during his Cultural Revolution; and what Deng did after Mao.

CPAC’s ongoing meltdown was highlighted again with the snubbing of Governor Chris Christie, probably the most popular Republican office holder in the country today. This decision is illogical in the extreme to anyone not sufficiently indoctrinated. A group of gay Republicans, GOProud, has also been shut out, making a mockery of the noble conservative tradition of personal freedom. This is proof positive that the movement’s hard core is more interested in biblically inspired government intervention than defending individual rights. Just like the old Central Committee, they are so insular that their eventual crash will come as a complete shock.

As a coda, we recall that in Barry Goldwater’s 1964 convention speech, he stressed that conservatism values proven ways, "not because they are old, but because they are true." CPAC is turning its back on traditions dating back to the Enlightenment where truth is not announced, but arrived at through an evolutionary process of debate and exchange. The current rejection of empiricism in science mirrors the closing of its doors to those with differing ways to apply conservative principles. We doubt Barry Goldwater would be invited to CPAC today, or would want to go even if he were.

It is a sad day for those of us who have been part of the conservative movement, and no less so for those who study it and respect its legacy even if disagreeing with its favored policies at times.

Scot Faulkner attended twenty-one CPACs and spoke at three of them. He was 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 former speechwriter for Luntz Research, and 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.

Conservative Chaos Theory

This was published in Politico

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/a-vacuum-of-conservative-leadership-85961.html?hp=r19

By Scot Faulkner & Jonathan Riehl

The continuing crisis in Washington illustrates many things: A dysfunctional, wholly unproductive Congress, a total lack of long-term thinking or leadership from either party, and nonstop partisan bickering. Aside from these systemic problems the past few weeks also illustrate the complete and utter breakdown of conservatism as a force in politics. Republicans may complain of an intransigent President. But President Obama, at least, has an agenda. The Republicans have none. There is no conservative vision, no conservative agenda, no conservative movement.

Others have argued that an emerging problem on the right is the lack of any conservative identity aside from disliking, disparaging, or despising the President and his agenda. Years of opposing instead of proposing has put more nails in the coffin of responsible conservatism. The strategic defeats of 2012 laid bare the vacuum of conservative leadership. The Christmas crisis draws that vacuum into stark relief.

Some may agree, along with the Senate Majority Leader, that the only job of current Republican legislators is to stop anything Obama wants to do. Earlier conservative Congresses have seen it as their primary task to throw sands in the gears of liberal administrations. The problem is that this Republican Congress is not backed by any intellectual or policy foundation that would replace that which they oppose. These Republicans, unlike earlier movement conservatives, are, to borrow a phrase, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.

A favorite film of ours, David Lean’s masterpiece “Lawrence of Arabia,” offers some valuable lessons, providing a cautionary tale on the difference between warfare and governing. In the movie, T.E. Lawrence and his Bedouin army become experts at blowing up trains, but fall into utter chaos when they try to govern Damascus. Current conservatives hone their demolition skills, while avoiding governing skills. Recently, Sean Hannity admonished Republicans on his radio show to, “forget about governing – focus on fighting”. Worse yet, Republicans are now taking a two week recess instead of building their public case for an alternative approach to budgeting and governing. Instead of oversight hearing exposing government waste and proposing management reforms, they are waiting to pounce on the President’s inaugural address, State of the Union speech, and official budget submission. The Republican game book of defensive guerilla tactics is a recipe for marginalization.

Conservatives love to heap praise on Ronald Reagan, though their mythologizing often masks the hard fought political battles and compromise which led to his election. Movement conservatives devoted years preparing for that election, preparation that included a conservative cohort in Congress wrecking President Carter’s trains and tearing-up his rail lines on a daily basis. Our parliamentary warfare was designed for a purpose – every bill defeated was one less law we would have to reverse once Reagan was President.

The difference between 1978-1980 and the current warfare is that that earlier generation had a core understanding of what was to come. Reagan and the conservative movement that propelled him had a clear vision of what was needed to revive America, defeat communism, and reform government. Reagan was able to articulate that vision in a way that resonated with a majority of the nation not because he had a handful of focus-grouped magic phrases, but because his rhetoric conveyed an actual political and cultural vision grounded in a concrete conservative philosophy.

The current Republican “leadership” offers no vision, because it is no longer grounded in the conservative tradition. Their only vision is further disruption. There is nothing conservative about this. In fact, it smacks more of leftist anarchy. Great conservative thinkers like Friedrich A. Hayek, for example, were championed by Reagan and Thatcher precisely because they sought to create order out of chaos.

The current Republican leaders have indeed become experts at blowing up trains. Both sides display skill at stopping things and ratcheting up the rhetoric in their favored media echo chambers. But the real problem is that both sides have lost the ability to govern. These Republicans (we hesitate to even refer to them as conservatives) have no plan or vision for bringing order out of the chaos they continue to foment. Common ground has vanished. Worse, it is viewed as the domain of the weak.

Wreaking havoc with your opponents is necessary when you are preparing the way for political victory and a fundamental change. However, what if there is no plan after battlefield victory? Republicans have forgotten the lessons of their own conservative movement’s history, which waged tactical political warfare only in the service of a positive political vision, not for warfare’s sake alone, and not for the vilification of an enemy.


Madness

To understand the current deadlock on the Fiscal Cliff one should read Barbara Tuchman’s masterpiece “The Guns of August”.

http://www.amazon.com/Guns-August-Pulitzer-Prize-Winning-Outbreak/dp/0345476093

In “The Guns of August” Tuchman vividly describes how institutionalized bias and determinism led to an avoidable world war and unnecessary carnage.  Her work offers lessons for the current political combatants, who are spending their time digging deeper trenches rather than finding common ground.

The Republican world view –

Republicans assumed that they would be welcoming the incoming Romney Administration and a new Republican majority in the U.S. Senate.  From this vantage point spending and taxes would be cut and entitlements would be reformed.  How they were going to get past January 1, 2013 to the promised land of the Romney era on January 20, 2013 was never discussed.  How the voters were supposed to support a new Republican era based upon no details was also left off the table.  What details there were included a tepid embrace of the “Ryan Plan”, cherry picking of the Bowles Simpson plan, some partisan swipes at Public Broadcasting, an overall sense that the current tax code was just fine as is, and an unwavering belief that there is not one penny of waste or inefficiency in the Defense Department.

Was it possible that Congressional Republicans hoped that anti-Obama barrages from the movie “2016”, Fox News, and conservative talk radio would get them over the finish line?  How would they have sorted things out had victory been theirs? 

The Democratic world view –

Democrats assumed that Obama would win by a landslide allowing them to retake the House of Representatives and surge to 60+ seats in the Senate.  They assumed Republicans would be so shell-shocked by their overwhelming defeat that there would be no effective opposition to whatever the Democrats wanted to do.  The Democrats firmly believe that the main problem with the federal government is that it does not have enough money.  They also believe that the tax code’s main deficiency is that it does not take enough money from people making over $250,000.  Coupled with this is a fundamental orthodoxy that the federal government is a well oiled efficient machine that only wastes money in the Defense Department, that the fiscal cliff is only real when discussing revenue, and that the economic and moral future of America depends on expanding government’s role.

Just like the English, French, Germans, and Russians in the years leading to World War I, the opposing political forces in Washington, DC, assume their facts are facts no matter the real facts. They also assume that the tactics they have used over the previous decades are sufficient to help them prevail in changing circumstances.  The devastation of August 1914 proved the madness of the political and military leadership among the great powers.  The gridlock and impending chaos of December 2012 is now proving the undoing of the political parties and eliminating the last shred of trust Americans hold for their elected officials. 

The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of their 13^th b'ak'tun on December 21, 2012.  America’s fiscal cliff calendar runs out on midnight December 31, 2012.  Only time will tell which date denotes the end of an era.

Fiscal Flim Flam

The following appeared in the Washington Examiner

http://washingtonexaminer.com/congress-white-house-budget-trickery-now-backfiring/article/2514965

The only way the real fiscal cliff can be addressed is for everyone in Washington, D.C., to stop talking about the fake one. Here's the reality: The bomb is about to explode in the hands of its own maker. There is no disaster looming, only one created by the same Congress and the same president who are now voicing dire warnings about sequestration. The coming demise of federal programs is a manufactured problem, designed to meet the partisan needs of each side of the current debate.

Congress and the White House assert that $1.2 trillion must be cut from the federal budget over the next 10 years. This multiyear effort commences on Jan. 1, 2013, with $50 billion in cuts from the Defense Department and $70 billion from discretionary domestic programs. Everyone in Washington, D.C., including the pundits, has been creating increasingly apocalyptic visions of what will happen should these cuts occur.

It never had to be this way. There is currently $2 trillion in unexpended balances arrayed throughout the federal government for the current fiscal year. According to both the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office, $687 billion of these balances are completely unobligated.

Again, in 2012, the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, and the 73 department and agency inspector general offices identified more than $650 billion in annual, ongoing waste. The vast majority of these findings, and the actions recommended to address them, have never been acted upon by either the executive or legislative branches.

Finally, there's the federal government's legendary and perpetually unaddressed inefficiency. Large private corporations, like Walmart, have at most five layers of management between their front line service personnel and top executives. The federal government has upwards of 23 layers.

Given these three facts, why are our political leaders saying that federal spending cannot be cut, and that they must have more of our earnings and wealth to make ends meet?

The sequestration cuts are a bogeyman, specifically designed to inflict as much damage as possible on American citizens. For example, 53 percent of the sequestration cuts within the Department of Education are within the Elementary & Secondary Education Act programs -- funds sent to states to supplement the salaries and hiring of teachers. The sequestration cuts 60.9 percent of these funds. That is why so many politicians and pundits are predicting massive teacher layoffs. Meanwhile, the sequestration targets only 4 percent of the Department of Education's headquarters budget. The bureaucrats wouldn't be missed, but they are safe. The teachers will be missed, and they are ground zero for cuts.

What should have been a serious management exercise has become a race to see who can paint the worst scenario should budget talks fail. Democrats cite the collapse of social services and education, while Republicans predict massive layoffs of defense contractors and the hollowing out of our military. Both sides predict chaos in the economy leading to a second recession.

Democrats won the election, so they are now in the best position to use this crisis that both parties manufactured. They are setting off a stampede for more tax revenue that Congress will probably just spend away anyway. Had Republicans won, they would probably be calling for ideologically focused spending cuts (like public broadcasting) to prevent the ruin of the military.

Congress and the White House designed the sequestration to wreak destruction on government services and the economy as a way to create a false sense of urgency for a substantive budget solution. Their plan, if it was a plan, has backfired.

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.

What were they thinking?

Elephants supposed to “never forget”, but do they ever learn? They didn’t learn much from being defeated in 2008 [see http://citizenoversight.blogspot.com/2008/11/perdition.html  ]


The 2012 elections provide a new cornucopia of lessons learned. Only time will tell if any of them sink in. Here are just a few of them…

Getting out the Vote
Project ORCA was a dismal failure. It was supposed to either supplement or supplant local Republican GOTV efforts. It did neither. Poorly trained and clueless ORCA workers siphoned resources away from real voter efforts. Worse – ORCA was an ill-conceived band-aid for the decades-long decline of Republican precinct capabilities.

Democrats figured out years ago that early voting would be a boon to their cause. Republican leaders hung onto getting out their vote on Election Day – ceding up to thirty days of voting opportunities to the Democrats. Worse – if Republican rhetoric is to be believed – that their supporters work for a living and are family focused – then why assume that these busy working people will either get up early to stand in long voter lines before going to work, or delay being with their families after work to stand in long voter lines? OCRA not only shrunk GOP voting efforts to one day – it shrunk it to the first and last hours of the voting day. No wonder 3 million less Republicans voted in 2012 than 2008.

Voter Fraud
There is always some voter fraud. This happens in the original voter registration or in counting the votes. Republicans chose to ignore these facts to focus on possible irregularities during actual voting. Countless days and weeks of activism, along with mountains of political capital, was spent on solving the one part of the process that worked. Imagine if all this Republican effort was spent on early voting. It also gave the Main Stream Media (MSM) an easy and ongoing target to pummel the GOP.

War on Women/Gays/Science/Privacy
No matter how much conservative talk radio and Fox News denies it, there are large swaths of Republican activists and elected officials, especially at the state level, who yearn for the 10th Century over the 21st. It is a fundamental contradiction to real conservatism and Republicanism to selectively promote unwarranted and aggressive government intervention into personal lives. You cannot assert there is either no or only a limited role for government in society and then create a huge “BUT” flashing in neon lights for imposing narrow theocratic-based dogma.

Originally, faith-based activists within the conservative and Republican movements stood for getting liberal dogma out of schools, homes, and churches. Sometime in the late 1980s things flipped around to replacing left-wing onerous government interventions with right wing ones. Outbursts by Republican Senate candidates were not isolated incidents. They were a mere sampling of a tragically obtuse thread of anti-intellectual totalitarianism that undermines both the movement and the party.

It is long overdue for Republican and conservative leaders to have their own “Sister Souljah” moment with fanatical theocrats. This moment is named for the pivotal Bill Clinton speech where he sealed-off racial hatred in rap music from mainstream public discourse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Souljah_moment

Bush Legacy
The Bush dynasty diverted the conservative movement and the Republican Party into an agnostic pandering abyss. [See my earlier post http://citizenoversight.blogspot.com/2012/06/wrong-track.html  ]

Bush 41 purged conservatives from the Executive branch, raised taxes, expanded government, bungled the end of the Cold War, bungled Iraq, and undermined everything Reagan stood for. Why revere him?

Bush 43 turned conservativism and Republicanism into micro-targeted pandering mush. He bungled Afghanistan, launched a totally unnecessary and dilatory war in Iraq, reduced America’s influence in the rest of the world to fixate on Iraq, undermined civil liberties, and expanded government. Why revere him?

Conservatives and Republicans can and should revere true the leaders of our movement as timeless role models – Presidents Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Coolidge, Reagan; intellectual leaders Buckley, Goldwater, and countless other thinkers ranging back to the Enlightenment. None were perfect, and true independent thought requires critically assessing their legacies, but their writings, speeches, and actions will always remain the touch stones from which 21st Century conservatives and Republicans get their bearings.

A few words about Romney

Romney could have won. His flawed campaign was no where near the fool’s errand of McCain 2008. However, there were numerous opportunities lost and self-inflicted wounds that sank him.

No theme – the conventional wisdom was that 2012 had to be about Obama or Romney would lose. How many think 1980 was only about Carter? Americans in 2012 felt powerless. They were being harmed by an out of control economy. They feared a world spinning out of control. They no longer trusted an unaccountable government. Romney could have spoken to these issues, but didn’t.

Bain – What the federal government needs most are Bain-like teams tearing apart, rethinking, and restructuring every agency and program. Romney could have proudly asserted his value proposition of committing to this long overdue weeding of the federal garden. Instead, he ran from Bain and its positive impacts, ceding the field for his opponents to demonize his strongest credential. When pressed on cutting federal programs Romney opted for going after Big Bird instead of using the question to discuss $650 billion in annually documented waste and how his management background could do something real.

Rope a dope – Why did Romney allow Obama to carpet bomb him from April through August? This period of negative ads created a deficit that was almost insurmountable. Why didn’t Romney run ads about his saving the Olympic movement during the Olympics? Why did he make this historic accomplishment a pre-primetime throw-away at the National Convention? Why did it take a pre-convention Fox news interview at his home to finally show he was a normal human? It is sad that highly intelligent and successful Republican business people (Steve Forbes, Pete DuPont, and now Mitt Romney) cannot connect with the party of business. They should all go back and read about how successful utility tycoon Wendell Willkie became a folk hero during his presidential run in 1940.

Class warfare – Republicans chided Obama and the Democrats for fermenting class warfare. Why oh why then did Romney spew his own version of class warfare? “47%” was a gift that kept on giving to the MSM and the Democrats. First, who in their right mind today, thinks that in this world of smart phones anything they do or say outside of their own home will not be documented and shared if it is deemed stupid enough? The “47%” comment is the antithesis of the type of empowering and inclusive conservatism espoused by the late Rep. Jack Kemp. His world view was that everyone can and will become a conservative once they realize how the free market is in their best interest. This positive message has been drowned out by vapid negativity among the so-called conservative and Republican leaders.

2016 & Beyond
There remains a small hope that (1) Obama and the Democrats will overplay their hand, creating backlashes and opportunities, and (2) that the next generation of Republican leaders – Jindal, Christie, Martinez, Fallin, Haley, Rubio, and others at all levels of government, learn from the past while shaping the future.

Republicans Partying Like Its 999

“No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!” is one of the great Monty Python sketches.

The bizarre utterances by Missouri Republican Senate Candidate Rep. Todd Aiken were unfortunately very predictable. It is what happens when Republicans allow big government Democrats to hijack their party.

It all began 36 years ago…

On January 19, 1976 legions of pro-life Democrats helped Jimmy Carter win the Iowa Caucuses. They embraced Carter’s general remarks about making pro-life and faith key priorities of his Presidency. The day after this unexpected win, Carter aides Hamilton Jordan and Jody Powell sat down with these pro-life Democrats and told them Carter’s remarks were taken out of context. These activist Democrats felt duped and misled, but the Carter train had left the station, barreling toward his November victory.

In January 1978 several of these pro-life Democrats knocked on my door in Fairfax County Virginia. They were very open about their big government Democratic Party affiliations. However, they were also open about their motives. They wanted pay-back for Carter’s Iowa treachery. Their vehicle was to help enough conservative Republicans win in the 1978 elections to hobble the Carter presidency. If that worked, they were willing to help defeat Carter in 1980. All they asked in return was for the Republican Party to commit to limiting or reversing the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision on abortion.

Their meeting with me, and their subsequent meetings with other members of the Richard “Dick” Obenshain for Senate team, put into motion an historic tilt in the Republican Party. During the hard fought U.S. Senate nomination battle the pro-lifers delivered both in pro-Obenshain telephone calls and in massive turn-outs at county conventions. They helped the most conservative candidate win the nomination. On August 2, 1978, a tragic plane crash ended Obenshain’s life and campaign, leaving the door open for moderate John Warner to prevail.

The Obenshain campaign was only one test bed for pro-lifers and a broad collection of Christian activists. That same year, “big government” pro-lifers toppled the leadership of Christian Voice, and in 1979 founded the Moral Majority. The Christian Voice was part of a faith-based movement built with libertarian Christians who wanted to stop the federal government and activist courts from restricting freedom of religion and pressing a left-wing social agenda in public schools. Howard Philips and other faith-based leaders called for “defunding the left”.

However, while these big government Christians were willing to support “defunding the left”, they also wanted to fund and expand a faith-based activist government. During 1979-1980 this philosophical battle played out in weekly “Library Court” meetings under the auspices of Paul Weyrich. Howard’s sister, Susan Philips, and I were assigned the task of facilitating this group in the hopes of channeling the energy of these Christian activists into dismantling the liberal state not constructing a new theocratic one. We failed.

During the Reagan Administration, these Christian activists uneasily took a back seat to toppling the Soviet Empire and assailing big government. Instead, the TheoCons methodically captured state Republican organizations by the same methods they used for Obenshain and Reagan – they made countless telephone calls and turned out their legions to dominate Republican caucuses and conventions. By 1988, large swaths of the Republican Party’s field operations were run by big government Christians.

It was only a matter of time before all Republican candidates and office holders had to at least give lip service to the Christian agenda. Eventually, true believers, who actually wanted to expand government based upon their interpretation of the Bible, were in office at the state and local levels with sufficient numbers to aggressively move their agenda. This agenda included eliminating all abortions under any circumstances (including “Personhood” bills that limited contraception), legislating morality - especially anything to do with homosexuality, and bringing a faith-focus to public classrooms - especially anything that promoted the “young earth” version of creationism (the belief that the Earth is just 5,000 years old and that a literal interpretation of Genesis is the only accurate history).

The true conservative movement, and its core within the Republican Party, was driven underground. Being branded an abortionist or pro-gay was a political death sentence. The TheoCons pushed their activist agenda until, like Lenin, they “hit iron”. They never did. Emboldened, the more radical TheoCons began pushing blatantly anti-women policies and know-nothing science and still they did not encounter opposition within the Republican Party.

This race to the 10th Century culminated in Rep. Aiken’s making his obtuse statement and the Republican Party being pulled into a vortex of its own making.

Some Republican Leaders have finally pushed back, but is it too little too late?

Return of the Jedi

By selecting House Budget Chair, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, Governor Romney has put the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement back on track.

In 1980, Reagan was supposed to pick Rep. Jack Kemp as his running mate. FBI and other background checks had been done. However, last minute rumors about Kemp's "roving eye" sunk his chances - leaving the Reagan team in disarray in Detroit. Reagan’s longtime friend, Senator Paul Laxalt, was "Option B", but this was an era when running mates from adjoining states was unheard of (regional balance) and some felt Nevada was still viewed as a mob-run den of sinners. Senator Lugar and former Treasury Secretary Simon were Options C & D, because neither was viewed as capable of igniting national excitement.

Many commentators fixate on the Detroit Convention being about forging a “Dream Ticket” of former President Gerald Ford as Reagan’s running mate. Outside of party moderates and a few operatives, bringing Ford and his sidekick, Henry Kissinger, onto the podium with Reagan would have been a “Nightmare Ticket” – undermining everything Reagan and the conservative movement stood for. As one of Reagan’s Congressional Liaisons at the Convention and as a close friend of most of his Regional Political Directors, I watched this strategic turmoil play out within the Renaissance Center and the VIP Sky Suites ringing the Joe Louis Arena. Ford and Kissinger went public with their own delusion of a "Co-Presidency". This included Walter Cronkite infamously egging them on during his live interview. Reagan and many of his inner circle felt the only way to regain control of the situation was by reaching out to his former opponent George H.W. Bush.

Thus history took a strategic, and for many true-believers like myself, terrible turn. It was supposed to be a “Conservative Continuum” of Wilkie-Taft-Goldwater-Reagan-Kemp allowing a limited government ideology, rooted in the Enlightenment and America’s founding principles, to evolve into an ever more inclusive and creative political force. Reagan to Bush brought in a family dynasty, where Bush 41 "cleansed" the Executive Branch of Reaganites, turned-off rank and file conservatives, and opened the door for faith-based big government activists to fill the void. Bush 43 turned everything upside down with big government at home and Neo-conservative adventurism abroad. Bush and the ersatz Republicans also embraced Rove's micro-targeting the electorate, which plunged the sixty-year modern Conservative movement into a pandering mush.

Paul Ryan got his start working with Wisconsin Senator Bob Kasten (a good friend from my own years in Wisconsin politics), who embodied the “Conservative Continuum”. Ryan then worked directly for Jack Kemp, the great hope of the “Conservative Continuum”, as his speechwriter during his 1996 Vice Presidential campaign. Therefore, Ryan’s basic instincts run to the “Conservative Continuum” instead of "big government conservativism" of the Bush dynasty. In a master stroke, Governor Romney has made 2012 about not only America’s past and present, but about an inspiring vision for its future.

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.