ConservativeHome's Platform

On patriotism and the 2012 election

Kieran Conrad is a ConservativeHome College Columnist Winner.  He studied English at Middlebury College and Liberal Arts at St. John's College.

Patriotism (n): love for or devotion to one’s country.

What is patriotism? Since presidential hopefuls often talk about being patriotic, it is important to understand the meaning of the word. Let us carefully consider its definition in this instance: devotion means love, loyalty, or enthusiasm for a cause; a country is a political state; political means, or relates to, government; and government means the system by which a nation is conducted. Patriotism, therefore, is the love for, or devotion to, one’s system of government. Unfortunately, most people neither know our system of government nor understand the philosophy of liberty upon which it is founded: The United States is a democratic, constitutional republic, where the people elect representatives who will dutifully carry out their oaths to the laws that were created to protect the natural rights of the people.

However, today people believe that the proper role of government is paternalism, that it is government’s role to take care of the people. Citizens are reminded of this every four years when presidential elections occur. Candidates parrot the usual platitudes, the requisite partisan barbs, and the banal talking points. For “conservatives,” it is important to discuss lowering taxes, fixing healthcare and education, securing borders, strengthening national defense, and growing the economy. This is essentially what “liberals” say, too. Unfortunately, neither party wants to conserve the laws or philosophy upon which the federation was founded, nor do they truly believe in classical liberalism, which advocates the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals, including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets. Instead, candidates regurgitate the well-worn rhetoric of what they would do and what they would create, rather than saying what they would repeal and what they would abolish. While this would not be politically expedient, it would be patriotic.

What is patriotism, then? In our case, whether Republican or Democrat, a patriot is one who refrains from using the power entrusted to them by the people to impose their beliefs on others by use of force. The presidential race is looming, and two options remain for the candidates: whether to grow the government or the economy. One is grown at the expense of the other. It would serve every candidate and citizen well to remember history, and how the growth of government, whether through the loss of individual rights and freedoms, the broadening of economic and social control, or the expanse of militaristic imperialism and devaluation of currency, always ends the same, and it can happen here, too. If patriotism and conservatism are important, then it is important to contrast each candidate’s voting record with the system of government and philosophy of liberty we wish to preserve, and not choose candidates based on whom we believe will best use the power of government to force others to live the way we believe to be proper. Instead, the core issue should be the rate by which the government is growing and the economy is dissolving. Therefore, perhaps the only candidate qualified to fix the problems is the only one who predicted them.

            Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the pains to preserve it.

- John Adams, to Abigail, 26 April 1777

Rep Ted Poe: This team wants a new coach

Congressman Ted Poe represents Texas's 2nd congressional district.

We are worse off now than we were in 2008. The country is suffering through an economic recession with more long term unemployment than the Great Depression.

The economy was in bad shape, but this administration made it worse. The unconstitutional government-takeover of healthcare created a cloud of uncertainty for small business owners, stalling job growth. Our healthcare system was in trouble before, but this administration made it worse. 

Our country is spiraling towards a domestic energy crisis thanks to the administration’s insistence to punish U.S. energy companies. The price of energy was high before, but this administration has made it worse. Americans are becoming used to living with the word "crisis.” Under this administration, crisis has become the new status quo.

The president admits we’re on a bumpy road. Mr. President, this road is full of potholes. The national debt is expected to equal 101 percent of the economy in 10 years. Unemployment is hovering around 9.1 percent. Home sales have declined. The number of food stamp recipients has skyrocketed. 

Over the past three years, we have witnessed an administration set on entitling people, and paying them not to work as opposed to helping businesses hire people to work.  We are worse off now than we were before the president stepped foot at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

We are stuck in this hole because the White House’s policies have been toxic to the country’s job creators. Businesses do not operate like the government does. They don’t function under short term budgets. They don’t plan for the next six days or six months, like our government does. Business owners want a plan. 

They want to know what will happen next. Under this cloud of uncertainty, businesses face Obamacare’s employer mandate and an onslaught of costly regulations. This leaves them with few choices: hold tight and wait it out, comply with government oppression and suffer, shutdown or move overseas.

Coming up on this bumpy road is a domestic energy shortage. The White House seeks to punish the energy of today and tomorrow in favor of the potential energy of after-our-lifetimes. An energy agenda that is synonymous with stall, obstruct, discourage and penalize will only devastate our economy further and force more businesses and jobs to leave.

We’ve seen the administration slow-walk the approval process for offshore drilling permits despite “lifting” the moratorium. The delays have been costly, so costly that three rigs have left the Gulf for foreign waters. When companies leave the U.S., jobs leave the U.S. never to return.  

The coming domestic energy shortage will be partly due to the White House’s desire to help foreign nations with their own domestic energy production instead of maximizing our own god-given natural resources. When the president told Brazil that America would help expand its offshore drilling operations and be one of its best customers, he sent a clear message: I don’t support U.S. oil, U.S. companies or U.S. workers. 

Each day that passes without a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline – a pipeline that would transport oil shales from our stable neighbor to the north right down to my congressional district – is another day that the White House pivots on U.S. energy jobs. Meanwhile, China is eager and ready to be Canada’s customer and will happily work with Canada if the president decides to turn down this golden opportunity of the Keystone Pipeline. 

The White House has a none-from-below mentality. We need an all-of-the above strategy that encourages use of our natural resources and puts Americans back to work.  The administration has mastered the art of turning a crisis into an opportunity to show unpopular policies through. Over a year after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, the administration has come as close as it can to shutting down operations in the Gulf. The impact? 12,000 lost jobs. 
 
Are we better off today than we were in 2008? No. Our economy is still in a crisis of uncertainty. We’re in our third war, the latest an unconstitutional, unilateral action by the president that has cost over $700 million thus far.  Instead of blowing up Libya we should be building America.

The White House has operated in crisis management mode, but it’s made many of our problems worse. When your team is in trouble, you look to the coach for guidance, for inspiration and for leadership. Under this administration, crisis is quickly becoming the status quo. This team wants a new coach.

And that’s just the way it is. 

The media bias – circa November 2012

Stephen Kokx is a ConservativeHome College Columnist winner. He studied Business Administration at Aquinas College and received a MA in Social Justice and Community Development from Loyola University Chicago.

In an interview conducted several years ago, Barack Obama acknowledged that if the economy didn’t rebound by the time he was up for re-election he may be a one term President.

As poll numbers suggest, most American’s prefer a generic Republican to Obama in 2012. Although it’s premature to conclude that the GOP has the election in the bag, there is a record attached to Obama’s name – and it’s not pretty.

That being said, it’s safe to assume that if the President fails to get re-elected, the far left will do everything in its power to protect his legacy. Assertions of intolerance and greed will surely be cited, but the American people are smart. That’s why, when liberal leaning editorial boards write their election summary in November of 2012, they will already know what’s going to be said. I imagine it will be something similar to the following paragraphs:

The victim of possibly the most heinous smear campaign ever, our nation’s 44th President, Barack Obama, has lost his bid for re-election. Like the brave Martin Luther King Jr. before him, President Obama led us to the Promised Land, but sadly, won’t be there to see it to fruition.

We all remember the support he had when he defeated John McCain four years ago. But the vicious, racially-tinged, character assassination launched by the Republicans – who took over Congress during the mid-terms – has proved too much for the nation’s first African-American President.

Perhaps this undoing could have been predicted. Remember in 2010 when the so called Tea Party broke onto the scene? Well, it wasn’t long after that we discovered the hatred tea drinkers have for socio-economic equality.

Meant to be an uprising against big government, the Tea Party was soon hijacked by mainstream conservatives who inculcated these middle-aged, intolerant sensationalists with the belief that affordable health care, alternative energy and an enhanced public school system were bad things.

Led by the likes of Sarah “I can see Russia from my house” Palin, Newt “save our country from Socialism” Gingrich and Glenn “my mission in life is to ruin Van Jones” Beck, the Tea Partiers channeled their disgust for President Obama into a brainwashing campaign.

With ads portraying our former President as a communist and illegitimate citizen, the GOP crushed the hope that Barack Obama gave to so many underrepresented minorities. With the election of this President, their segregationist mindset has reached a tipping point.

Yes, there were some moderate Republicans in the GOP primary this year. But it is clear that the so called ‘Compassionate Conservative’ has been killed off for a more extreme view of America..

It was evident that the game plan for the GOP was to resist change the day they took over the House. By stalling and playing politics with the 2010 Gulf Coast oil spill, hampering progress on immigrant rights, and holding a gun to the head of the American electorate by refusing to raise taxes, the Republicans made it their number one mission to stonewall any type of real progress.

It should be noted that as President, Barack Obama expanded healthcare to millions of people, secured a credit card bill of rights and fought for worker’s solidarity by enhancing the status of blue-collar union members. Let us never forget his legacy.

As we move forward, we need to re-enliven the progressive movement by demanding social and economic justice. Please support those Congressmen and Senators who still want to follow down the path President Obama laid forth. For, if we live in a democracy that supports the politics of fear over the politics of hope, we will never be able to fulfill our Democratic agenda.

Now, we have to fight, not with, but against, this President, and demand our beloved leader’s message of hope once again.

If ever in doubt, just remember “yes, we can”.

Washington style honesty

Stephen Kokx is a ConservativeHome College Columnist winner. He studied Business Administration at Aquinas College and received a MA in Social Justice and Community Development from Loyola University Chicago.

Before assuming office, Barack Obama was labeled the country’s first post-partisan President. There was, of course, no real evidence of this. It was simply inferred by the mainstream media after a dazzling display of oratorical gift on the campaign trail.

And, as expected, in the hopes of proving to voters that he is still seeking the greater good, the President decided to address the nation on Monday about the debt ceiling.

Yet, instead of being honest with the American public and admitting his own party deserves some of the blame – at least, in large part due to the fact that Harry Reid decided not to raise the debt ceiling while Democrats were still in office – or that he voted against a debt ceiling increase in 2006, the President rolled out the usual excuses for our nation’s fiscal crisis. None of which are his own doing, of course.

High unemployment? Not enough taxes on millionaires and billionaires. Record deficits? Blame the Bush tax cuts and two unfunded wars. Why hasn’t there been a compromise? Look no further than the radical Tea Party.

Although the deal between the President and Congress regarding the debt ceiling is yet to be fully written, the President has successfully sidestepped the fact that his “recovery summer” was a bust and that he has put forth no real substantive deficit plan himself – of course, if you consider annual presidential budgets a deficit plan, then Obama has indeed put forth a plan of his own. But it’s one that triples the national debt over the next 10 year and was voted down in the Senate 97-0.

It is this type of duplicitous behavior that prompted Charles Krauthammer to recently say “This is Obama at his most sanctimonious, demagogic, self-righteous and arrogant.” Later pointing out that “the Republicans have offered a detailed plan… [while] the President has offered nothing” and “has never once spoken about real cuts.”

The lack of leadership exhibited by the White House is truly stunning and is starting to hurt the President both in the polls and among his base. Even Senator Bernie Sanders is calling for a primary challenger to the President.

Amidst of all this, however, he may still receive a temporary bump in favorability after a deal is reached. But what next? He still has an entire year left in his Presidency. And with the economy remaining sluggish and his political capital having long been spent, what will one of the most inexperienced Presidents ever seek to accomplish? Instead of fixing the economy, it looks as though he will launch into full on campaign mode.

As Fred Barnes has pointed out in The Weekly Standard, the President has actually been in campaign mode since being elected in 2008: 

When a president seeking reelection appears at a party fundraiser or a campaign rally, he plays a partisan role, both as a candidate and as the leader of his party…[B]ut the distinction between the presidential and the partisan in the Obama White House has not simply become fuzzy. It has vanished altogether.

Barnes concludes that:

[T]he line between a president’s official and his partisan roles is not always bright. The roles sometimes come together. But never as they have with President Obama.

Just days ago, the President – in an attempt to shore up his Hispanic base – spoke at the National Council of La Raza. The speech, filled with allusions to the DREAM Act and immigration policy, fell short, though. La Raza President Janet Murguía denounced Obama by saying “we’re not satisfied the president has kept his promise.”

Though Murguia may feel slighted, at least she got to hear Obama admit that “the Democrats and your President are with you.”

It must be nice to hear the truth for once.

Sen. Jim DeMint: If conservatives want to continue our successes in 2012, it is essential we understand why we were so successful in 2010

Sen. Jim DeMint is a Republican from South Carolina. 

The 2006 and 2008 elections were disastrous for Republicans. When Republicans controlled Washington, spending and earmarks exploded. Democrats were more than happy to help us expand federal control of health care and education, increase the national debt exponentially and ignore our job-killing tax code.

We didn't keep our promises to reform Medicare, Social Security or reduce the size of the federal government. You could accuse the Republican majority of many things, but certainly not of being too conservative!

When I expressed my disappointment and frustration with the way Republicans in the Senate were doing business, one senior member of my party's leadership told me, "Jim, you can't change the Senate."

That's when I realized the people in the Senate were not going to change, and it was time to change the people serving in the Senate.

Keep reading at the Washington Examiner...

Miles Taylor: No time for retreat - the dangers of an isolationist GOP

Miles Taylor works in the U.S House of Representatives and previously served in the Department of Homeland Security. He is co-founder and senior editor at Partisans.org.

Republican presidential hopefuls spent little time on foreign policy in last week’s CNN debate, instead focusing on the economy and healthcare—and Herman Cain’s persistent xenophobia toward Muslims.

But when the subject did come up, Mitt Romney made an unexpected statement while discussing Afghanistan.  “We’ve learned that our troops shouldn’t go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation.  Only Afghanis can win Afghanistan’s independence from the Taliban.”  The comment came on the heels of his appeal to “bring our troops home as soon as possible.”

Romney’s remarks were surprising for a number of reasons—not least of which was his odd decision to frame the conflict solely as a “war of independence.”  Until now, the former governor has been a staunch supporter of U.S.-led effort.

Romney is not alone among conservatives in his criticism of interventionism, though.  Presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman recently hopped on the bandwagon, too, declaring that we were “wasting our money” in Afghanistan and Libya.  House Republicans seem to agree and are reportedly considering a proposal to defund the U.S. military’s involvement to oust Qaddafi.

These comments and actions are indicative of a broader trend gaining traction among GOP leaders:  isolationism.

This comes as a bit of a surprise.  Many of the Republicans using isolationist terminology are the same ones who strongly backed U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and who voted to more than double foreign aid during Bush’s tenure.  Have war-weary conservatives changed their views on America’s role in the world? 

It is unlikely.  A better explanation for the shift, though not a more encouraging one, is political posturing.  The top presidential contenders, for example, are competing for the support of the Tea Party movement and several have adjusted their positions to court the movement’s isolationist strains.

It was only last year, for instance, that Mitt Romney released his book, “No Apology:  The Case for American Greatness,” which argued for anything but an isolationist foreign policy.  But Romney has become a “weathervane,” as one analyst put it, and appears to be trying to “appease Ron Paul’s [isolationist] constituents without actually being Ron Paul.”

For other Republicans, though, the shift to an isolationist message appears to be little more than reflexive opposition to anything “Obama.”  As a result, GOP members of Congress who would have almost certainly backed a Bush-era toppling of Qaddafi are calling Obama’s Libyan intervention “unconstitutional” and accusing the president of wasting taxpayer dollars on an unnecessary escapade.

During the Bush Administration, though, Democrats were guilty of the same habit.  They ridiculed Bush’s advocacy for democracy promotion and argued that Americans could not afford to be the world’s policemen.  Those Democrats had ignored—or conveniently forgotten—their support during the Clinton years for democracy promotion and police actions in places like Yugoslavia and Somalia.

In fact, the partisan-inflicted amnesia was so great that today there is still a good deal of ideological confusion in liberal foreign policy circles, perpetuated by the Democratic Party’s lingering disdain for President Bush.  Many seem to have forgotten that it was leaders of their own party, like Woodrow Wilson, who promoted an activist, values-based foreign policy in the first place.

But whether today’s isolationist shift in the GOP dialogue is genuine or simply political posturing is irrelevant.  The reality is that it legitimizes a foolish and dangerous foreign policy.

Today, America underwrites global security for the world’s 6.7 billion people.  This is a costly and often thankless burden for the country, but far preferable to the alternative.  A U.S. withdrawal from the international scene would be an unmitigated disaster.

For every inch America retreats on the world stage, nations like China and Russia move an inch forward.  Does the United States want to be responsible for creating a vacuum in global security—one that will be filled by countries with starkly contrasting values?

It’s not difficult to imagine what Russia would do in bordering states without American influence, or what China might do in the Pacific without the same.

Even when the United States has given into more moderate impulses to “step back” in the past, the result has been damaging.  For example, the United States still hasn’t fully recovered from the “peace dividend” retreat of the 1990s, which left the foreign service in disrepair and decimated America’s covert workforce overseas.

It would be a mark of shame upon the Republican Party—and a danger for the rest of the world—for the next GOP president to take office vowing to roll back America’s involvement overseas. 

* * * 

Isolationists like Ron Paul proudly cite George Washington, who made a final appeal before leaving office for American leaders to avoid foreign entanglements.  His advice was probably wise for the time.  America was young, weak, and unprepared to agitate despotic states around the world, who might try to crush the fledgling democracy.

But applying Washington’s advice today would be borderline delusional.  America’s “foreign entanglements” have freed billions from the chains of poverty and despotism, changing the course of history and the face of the world as Washington knew it.  Diminishing America’s global presence now would lead to a world that is both less prosperous and less friendly to freedom-loving people.

Isolationist Republicans are wrong to seek a diminished U.S. role in the world. 

The world needs America’s innovation, which is the lifeblood of the global economy; its ideals, which are the foundation of the most prosperous societies; and its might, which has served for a century as insurance against the aims of rogue regimes.

In short, the world needs America to care about “foreign entanglements”—or someone worse will. 

A 20-something voter explains why Mitch Daniels is the ideal candidate for 2012

Miles Taylor has written for The Chicago Tribune, The World Politics Review, The Daily Caller, and Arms Control Today. He works in the U.S House of Representatives and previously served in the Department of Homeland Security. He is co-founder and senior editor at Partisans.org.

Haley Barbour is out. The Mississippi governor announced this week that he would not seek the presidency, surprising many in the Republican Party establishment. The announcement left observers on the right feeling pessimistic (again) about the lackluster start to the 2012 campaign.

Barbour’s exit from the stage has led to some soul-searching. Will our party put forward a serious presidential candidate? Is anyone bold enough and experienced enough to take on the task? To hopeful observers, there is an answer — and all eyes are turning to the Midwest.

Indiana’s budget-slashing, motorcycle-riding governor, Mitch Daniels, has emerged as a quiet favorite — not simply because he appeals to Barbour's now-adrift supporters, but because the Hoosier politician is the party's single best hope for re-taking the White House in 2012.

Party insiders have, for months, fantasized about Daniels as a leading contender for the nomination — and his stock has gone up quickly in recent weeks. His was the first name on the lips of former Vice President Dick Cheney when discussing the race, and Daniels’ former boss, George W. Bush, is said to have privately urged him to run.

Yet even his closest advisers remain mystified about whether he will enter the race. Indeed, Daniels has stayed true to his word that he wouldn’t speculate about a presidential run until the end of Indiana’s current legislative session.

But the wait will soon be over. The state’s general assembly wraps up its work this week, having passed a legislative package pushed through by Daniels that includes a balanced budget, tax relief, and a school voucher program — initiatives branded by news outlets as “ready-made for a Republican campaign.”

There could be no better time for Daniels to announce his candidacy than after proving, yet again, that he has become one of the most effective governors in the nation. In his six years as governor, Daniels has amassed a stunning record, for which he was named a “Public Official of the Year” in 2008 by Governing Magazine. That record is ready to be showcased to the Republican base and, more importantly, the broader American electorate.

Daniels brings to the table real executive experience. Americans care about this now more than ever, particularly after witnessing the consequences of electing a president whose executive experience consisted of running a Senate office — the management equivalent of overseeing a medium-sized McDonald’s.

Mitch Daniels ran a Senate office, too, as Sen. Dick Lugar’s chief of staff, but did so at the beginning of his career. Since then, he has overseen a major think tank, a Fortune 500 company, the White House Office of Management and Budget (and America’s three-trillion dollar budget) under President Bush, and the state of Indiana.

Daniels also has a stronger domestic policy record than any of his potential opponents — and is a fiscal conservative’s dream. He entered office facing a $600 million budget deficit and in one year turned it into a $300 million surplus. During the recession, Indiana was one of the few states to emerge in the black after Daniels cut nearly $2 billion in spending. It’s tough to find a candidate with better credentials for tackling the country’s fiscal woes. At the same time, the governor was able to attract tens of thousands of new jobs to the state through his innovative Indiana Economic Development Corporation.

He has also been a forceful advocate for de-regulation to improve America’s economy.

“The regulatory rainforest through which our enterprises must hack their way is blighting the future of millions of Americans,” the governor declared in a recent speech. “Today’s EPA should be renamed the ‘Employment Prevention Agency.’ After a two-year orgy of new regulation, President Obama’s recent executive order [to reduce regulation] was a wonderment, as though the number- one producer of rap music had suddenly expressed alarm about obscenity.”

Limited-government conservatives will be excited to note that Daniels used variations of the word “freedom” roughly 30 times in the same speech.

Daniels’ record also demonstrates a passion for real solutions to manageable problems. “Purity in martyrdom is for suicide bombers,” Daniels likes to say. And he has shown a willingness to compromise in order to achieve his broader policy goals, including the successful launch of health savings accounts in Indiana, a plan to cut taxes (and to automatically return money to Hoosiers when the state runs surpluses), and bold education reforms that feature vouchers for low-income students and merit-pay for public school teachers.

Mitch Daniels is not only the “hand-in-glove” candidate to fix today’s public policy challenges, but he is the ideal leader to help shape tomorrow’s America—the America that current 20-somethings want to live in one day.  Our generation is hungry for a candidate that refuses, again and again until he is blue in the face, to pass the buck onto his children.  We are watching— and judging—our nation’s leaders on these issues, particularly whether they decide to leave America’s fiscal train wreck on our doorstep.

Obama may have swept the youth vote in 2008.  But Mitch Daniels can give him a run for his money with the Twitter generation in 2012.  Daniels talks the best game in town when it comes to confronting issues head-on that young people care about, has a proven record of addressing them, and—yes—he even rides a motorcycle.

Republican skeptics are concerned that Daniels is a “blank slate” on foreign policy, though. This may be true, but we don’t have to guess hard at what a Mitch Daniels foreign policy would look like. He was a top advisor to the president who ended the Cold War, Ronald Reagan, and was a member of the National Security Council of one of the most ardent democracy supporters to have ever occupied the Oval Office, George W. Bush. He has also offered praise for both presidents’ “peace through strength” policies.

But perhaps the best sign that Mitch Daniels would be a great candidate is his hesitance to seek higher office. As Plato famously noted, the ideal leader is the reluctant one — the one that doesn’t hunger for power and prestige. At an early age, Daniels demonstrated this quality, turning down an appointment to a vacant U.S. Senate seat, afraid it would take him away from his young family. Now he is being drafted again, this time to run for the nation’s highest office.

Daniels is the ultimate counterweight to the current president on everything from balancing the budget to fixing America’s economy, and he would electrify the Republican field and young voters. The only problem now is getting him into the ring. America needs a “Mitch Daniels” to join the fight now more than ever. And this week or next, we’ll find out whether we get one.

A version of this article appeared on Partisans.org.

Raheem Kassam: Don’t believe every poll – foreign policy credentials will matter in the 2012 presidential race

Raheem Kassam is the Director of Campaigns for the Henry Jackson Society – Project for Democratic Geopolitics 

Tim Pawlenty was one of very few to take the time to rail against Obama’s foreign policy at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington D.C. a few weeks ago, but it’s becoming glaringly obvious that the President could face down certain GOP opponents in this area.  It all depends on who the Republicans see fit to field.

Isolationists will have you know that foreign policy isn’t at the top of the agenda for the electorate right now – it’s not even close.  But nor was it the deciding factor in the 2000 elections which featured most prominently; education, social security and – you guessed it – healthcare.  In fact, 32% of television spots between September and November 2000 focused on healthcare.  Just 0.2% were foreign/defence related in 2000.  It’s an issue that doesn’t need to dominate the mind of a voter – they just need to know their candidate has some semblance of understanding of foreign affairs; the nouse to act on their behalf on the world stage.  As Donald Trump remarked recently – there are reasons why Ron Paul isn’t electable for President.  Potentially similar reasons for Trump himself.

Presently the national deficit, government spending and civil liberties dominate the political discourse.  But America is not out of step with the rest of the world as some would try to have you think.  Debates are raging over Egypt, Libya and Iran, not to mention the current theatres of war along with South America and the world island of Eurasia.  The GOP must not fall into a tea-party concocted trap of fielding a straight up pacifist – it would cost them too much in 2012.

Most of what we’ve heard so far are vague criticisms espousing Obama’s failure to act decisively.  Rick Santorum suggests the US ‘turned its back’ on Hosni Mubarak – as if Egypt’s past few decades of rigged elections and 'emergency rule' were something for Americans to be proud of sponsoring.  A Cold War reality became a morally questionable irrelevance and Obama will take points from having this democratic revolution occur on his watch without committing U.S.resources. 

At CPAC just over a week ago, a straw poll once again was topped by the isolationist Senator Ron Paul.  Don’t let it fool you.  Most voters were under the age of 25, thus the sum total of their experience of U.S. foreign policy is less, ‘Tear down this wall,’ and more ‘Dude, Where's My WMDs?’  Older audiences will be reassured to see the U.S. maintain a strong defensive capability and an exceptionalist attitude.  Obama is not by any stretch of the imagination the embodiment of this – his foreign policy credentials (or lack thereof) necessitated the Biden shaped padding in his administration.  But after a CPAC once again dominated by isolationists, Tim Pawlenty was the one who came out on top in terms of strategic defense.  Perhaps a sign that the GOP need to consider a bold, varied ticket for 2012.  McCain and Palin, leagues apart in appearance at the least, began to mirror each other as the election drew closer in 2008.  It's crucial that a Republican ticket gets the balance and difference correct. 

Although Pawlenty is polling ahead of Palin, Gingrich and Paul – he’s still at only 7% to Mitt Romney’s 40%.  Romney wasn’t bad on the subject matter – but when you hear Pawlenty echo what the world has been thinking about the United States’ international policy, that is, ‘We undermine Israel, the U.K., Poland, the Czech Republic and Colombia, among other friends,’ you tend to think that unless the GOP finds the dream team of someone tough on big government and tough on foreign affairs – it’s going to be Obama 2012.

Dennis Lennox: Post-partisan Obama a threat to Republicans

 

Dennis Lennox is active in Republican politics in Michigan and is the elected drain commissioner in his county government, an office that dates to the 14th century when Geoffrey Chaucer was appointed as commissioner of dikes and ditches. He has worked on presidential, congressional and statewide campaigns. You can follow him on Twitter by clicking here.

The GOP must be careful not to play into the hands of the White House’s new strategy to cast President Barack Obama as a pragmatic voice opposing, as they call them, the extremes partisans of the Democratic and Republican parties. 

The image of a  post-partisan, centrist-driven president who is more concerned about sound public policy worked in 2008, when Obama was successful in capturing self-identified independents and enough moderate-to-liberal Republicans — headliners by the likes of former Governor William Weld and Susan Eisenhower. Many conservatives will say good riddance to what they call Republicans-in-name-only, but the fact remains that a party cannot realistically win nationally when it writes off upwards of 15 states.

It takes independents, who are drawn to support Lincoln Chafee — the liberal former Republican senator, who opposed both the Republican and Democratic parties to win the governorship of Rhode Island in November. These swing voters are the same demographic that propelled Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate after winning a by-election in Massachusetts last year. It’s also what helped Governor-elect Rick Snyder win in Michigan with 58% of the vote. By comparison, Obama won Michigan, a traditional swing state, with 57%.

In a recent poll, Obama would win Michigan in 2012 with only native son and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, whose father was a popular governor of Michigan, coming close to picking up the home of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler.

With Obama playing up his independence from party orthodoxy in the first skirmishes of his re-election campaign, his numbers are increasing, according to a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll released late Wednesday. As with the Michigan poll, only Romney comes close to defeating the president.

Obama’s new strategy is boosted by phony criticism from Democrats in Congress, who are gleefully playing along. The Democratic charade is then of course picked up by right-wing talking heads, who claim it’s an example of liberal frustration with the Obama administration.

This gives conservatives, and by extension Republicans, a false feeling of security.

For Republicans to win, they must also play the pragmatic card and not allow Obama to rebuild his winning coalition. It’s very much what propelled the victories of Prime Minister John Key’s National Party in New Zealand and the center-right coalition of Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt in Sweden.

If Republicans can’t focus on what matters to swing voters, Obama will coast to re-election with the help of middle-class suburban voters in swing constituencies, such as the one held by Democrat Congressman Gary Peters in metropolitan Detroit.

This is the demographic drawn to Obama’s reborn pragmatism. These are same voters who supported Republicans in the mold of Snyder, Weld, Brown and popular common sense Governors Bob McDonnell of Virginia and Chris Christie of New Jersey.

To defeat Obama, Republicans must take a page from the solutions-based electoral strategy of these sensible conservatives. 

If GOP 2012 hopefuls want to emulate Reagan, they need to reverse American declinism, not just repeat well-known policy slogans

Mason Herron is a freelance political writer living in New York City and a contributor to FrumForum.

As the contest to be 2012’s Republican nominee for president continues to heat up, there is a name that all candidates will undoubtedly go out of their way to mention: Ronald Reagan.

They will try to promote themselves as the next Gipper, the true heir to his ideas and legacy, and the only nominee who can reinvigorate the Reagan Revolution. Their attempted emulation of our 40^th president will more than likely focus on his policies, ideology, and legacy. While these will be helpful in establishing their conservative credentials, mimicking these traits can only take someone so far in a field of candidates all aspiring to be the same man.

Instead, when the potential nominees look to Reagan, they should attempt to harness his message, his optimism, and his ability to communicate. These qualities are what made Reagan a great leader.

When Reagan announced his candidacy for president in 1979, he did so in the midst of what was—at that time—the worst economic climate since the Great Depression. They had endured an assassination, the Vietnam War, and Watergate. They had hoped Jimmy Carter was the answer, but his presidency had fallen far below expectations.

And then Ronald Reagan ran on a platform of American greatness. In his acceptance speech for the Republican nomination, he professed that “they say that the United States has had its day in the sun; that our nation has passed its zenith. They expect you to tell your children that the American people no longer have the will to cope with their problems; that the future will be one of sacrifice and few opportunities. My fellow citizens, I utterly reject that view.”

He felt that Americans no longer believed in themselves, and that the inner glow that had driven American achievement in the past had faded. Americans had to be proud once again of their greatness, and proud of their country’s power. He didn’t want Americans to trust him; he wanted them to trust themselves. Limited government and a stronger national defense were simply the logical extension of this worldview.

When we trusted our current leaders to pull out us of a crisis they instead spent billions of dollars on wasteful stimulus pet projects while enacting a health care reform bill against the will of the American people. In response, the country elected a wave of Republicans, who, if they are wise, will not lead with policies that corrode American self-reliance, but policies that allow it to flourish.

Today, Americans find themselves feeling lower than they did in 1979. Talk of American decline in the face of rising powers continues to reverberate and capture proponents, our leaders have expanded the role of the federal government more so than any other in recent memory, and the economic crisis we face is the worst in eight decades.

The winner of the 2012 Republican nomination will be the candidate who is best able to convince the country that it isn’t up to our leaders to change America—it’s up to Americans. He or she cannot simply repeat tired phrases that merely strike patriotic chords or assert a conservative mindset. Rather, our next president will provoke Americans to look inside themselves and find what it is that has made the American dream possible.

Standing in the shadow of President Obama’s cautiously pessimistic inaugural address should make this easier. Furthermore, they must run a campaign based not on the message of what it is that they can do for America—as Obama did—but rather what it is that America can do for itself. As Reagan said, “’Trust me’ government asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust him to do what's best for us.” The optimism of Obama’s campaign was misdirected—it shined on him, not on Americans.

In that sense, the Republican nominee must be the anti-Obama. There will be significant negative campaigning against the Obama platform in the early stages of the primary campaign, but eventually one of the nominees must separate themselves from the rest. It is here that they must display the ability to communicate with not only the American people, but also the American spirit.