A Winning Conservative Platform for 2008
By Brad Comments (16) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
If you were designing a platform for a conservative that wasn't just the party line...but really a platform that could win a national election, what would you choose?
Here's my take....
As Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator, taught us, a campaign focus of about 3 issues tends to work best. In deferrence to that legacy, I'll list my 3 issues. I welcome your suggestions on other campaign issues that might carry the day.
First, I would focus on returning conservatives to their fiscal roots. We need to get our financial house in order, and that begins with cutting back on spending. Spending, even non-Homeland Security spending, has increased at a greater rate under President Bush than it did under Pres. Clinton. A lot of things happened under Pres. Clinton, but that's not important now.
Cutting wasteful spending is the first prong on this issue, and continuing tax cuts is the second. Economic data proves that tax cuts spur the economy, and conservatives need to do a better job of preaching this message.
Second, our candidate in 2008 needs to focus on moving the US towards energy independence. This can be achieved with the right mixture of tax incentives for alternative fuels, like ethanol and biodiesel, and opening up areas for further oil exploration. Americans need to understand that our oil purchases from the Middle East are what funds terrorism. Such a platform can emphasize that domestic energy independence is a form of national security. Taking money out of the hands of terrorists benefits every American.
Third, meaningful immigration reform. Polls show that a vast majority of Americans understand that illegal immigrants are, in fact, illegal. LEGAL immigration is a good thing, but illegal immigration hurts our country from both a tax perspective (no taxes collected) and a national security perspective (terrorists can enter the county through our swiss-cheese border).
These issues, trumpted on the campaign trail, would be a winning package in '08. What do you think?
- Brad Young
Everytime you post i sit there for a second and think, Wtf i didn't post this, then i notice the "C" in your name.
Save the planet, Kill yourself
That Pence has to run for higher office to even be considered for the nomination and frankly as much as I'd love 100 Coburn's in the Senate, I'm not sure he's the guy to make as an exec.
Tax and expenditure cuts: totally agree. Indeed, actively cutting back the role of the state is now paramount, even more important than tax cuts. But you need specifics: it is no good talking about cutting waste, everyone says that, but in large organisations immune to competition was is systemic. What does the government currently do which it should in future not do? Also note, there are serious expenditure implications to your other proposals, meaning your cuts have to be deeper.
"Energy independence" is a new name for corporate welfare. It means taking money from some businesses (meaning their consumers) and giving it to others. Abolishing existing corporate welfare is a better plan than creating more.
Immigration reform: again you need to be specific. There is no reason why an illegal immigrant is more of a threat to national security than a legal immigrant, unless the procedures for legal immigration are amended to take account of national security needs. Maybe this could be done, but I doubt it would be more than marginally effective. (Though that is not a reason to try, I suppose).
My plan would be:
1. Privatise social security.
2. End corporate welfare (including tax breaks).
3. Tax cuts.
4. Win the War on Terror.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
I see no evidence that cutting spending wins elections, and I don't think now's a good time to start messing with that.
Not all spending is equal. When Republicans spend money, it tends to be much less harmful than when Democrats spend money. So let's tone down the anti-spending rhetoric as long as we're in power.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
But, to be credible, large scale tax cuts need cuts in expenditure. I agree that the second half of the equation is usually less popular, but you usually get a good number saying they want to get rid of corporate welfare. Except *their* corporate welfare, obviously, but they tend not to classify their own subsidies as welfare. Just talk to a farmer.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
"But, to be credible, large scale tax cuts need cuts in expenditure."
Credible with whom? And why?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I don't think most people believe that you can make really deep tax cuts, and keep cutting taxes, without some cuts in expenditure.
I know about the Laffer curve, but I also know what happened to the Weimarer Republic when they started financing 97% of their expenditure by printing money.
The US is certainly in a very fortunate position. People - including huge numbers of foreigners - believe in the Dollar, and want to hold dollars in circumstances that would have them fleeing other currencies in droves. But there ARE limits. If you want to see really big tax cuts, you have to cut expenditure too.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
So Republican Pork is better than Democratic Pork, that's your story?
Sorry, it's Green eggs and Ham, ham made from Republican Pork or Democratic Pork is all the same, it's PORK!
Give me that old time "Line Item Veto" religion as an issue in '08.
Sorry, but pork isn't going to motivate people to vote. It's a vanishingly small part of the budget that has minimal impact on non-recipients of the money.
I know pork wouldn't motivate me to vote. An inability to be principled, yes, but being a Republican who is fine with pork doesn't automatically make one unprincipled.
So yes, Republican pork is vastly, vastly better than Democratic Big Government regulation and social engineering. It's not even close.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Neil,
In today's political environment, PORK is part of the political landscape. From a bridge in Alaska, to moving a railroad in Mississippi, it's the grease on the axle of keeping in office. Republican politicians are neither better or worse than their Democratic counterparts when it comes to PORK spending, just answering to different consistencies.
As an issue, I think any Presidential candidate in '08 can resonate with the American people on the spending issue by being visible in favor of a Federal Line Item Veto bill that will pass Constitutional muster.
Why not write and pass a Constitutional amendment to do an actually Constitutional line item veto?
Answer: It's not popular, so going around attacking porkers does nothing but split the party, erode support for our majority, and harm our party.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
"Answer: It's not popular, so going around attacking porkers does nothing but split the party, erode support for our majority, and harm our party."
If the Republican party does not stand for fiscal conservatism, then what does it stand for?
One of the reasons I am a Republican is that I am in favor of me spending my own money, not the Federal government spending my money. I won't even start a rant on the lack of progress to passing meaningful legislation by the majority party on illegal immigration ether.
While the issue of PORK may not be popular, is that the standard now, supporting only those issues which are popular?
As far as I can tell, the Republican party hasn't stood for budget hawkery since Ronald Reagan. I don't know where you were in the 80s, but I was in elementary school and even I remember the attacks made on the Reagan-era deficits.
We are supposed to stand for smaller government, but when you're talking smaller government, you're not talking about pork. See my diary with the figures that show that eliminating all pork tomorrow would barely dent the deficit, and would go unnoticed from the total budget.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I see no burning issue for the Social Conservative wing of the party in your list of issues.
If SC Wing is the major part of the base, what issue is there that will excite the base?
Judges are pretty much not that burning an issue with two Supreme Court appointments by President Bush. The next President will get to appoint one maybe two to the court, but that's a bit of stretch.
Gay marriage as an issue is out there, but until the Democrats do something dumb again, or manage to get the issue into some court or the other challenging DOMA or state laws, this issue has no legs.
Abortion issues seem to be moving towards SC points of view, with no major court case that I know of coming up.
I think the issues you point out are great ones and could be great ones to run on, but the '08 Presidential race will most likely be about the war in Iraq. If things are going well then it won't be an issue, if things don't improve, at least in the view of the public, then the war will be the proverbial elephant in the room (no pun intended).
The top campaign issue for 2006 should be national security, and for 2008 as well. Besides the obvious, national security has become a very broad and encompassing issue. You touched on two of its many pillars with Energy Independence and Border Enforcement/Immigration Reform.
Although they are powerful stand-alone issues, when framed in national security terms, the direction of the debate highlights the democrats' weaknesses, and reenforces their lack of credibility on those issues.
The democrats are unable to run on their voting records, or justify their countless, politically-damaging public statements against the very same national security strategy and intelligence programs that have kept Americans safe since September 11, 2001. We win this debate.
Education and Opportunity would fill my number-two slot. Optimism and the promise of a productive, rewarding future are necessary to combat the left's inevitable, class-warfare campaign.
Remove the obstacles that hinder self-achievement and promote academic freedom. A well-educated citizenry will be required to maintain our economic growth and compete in the global economy as we advance into the 21rst century.
The education bureaucracy must be held accountable for the quality of the product it produces. After all, they are our children. They are our future.
The economy, taxes and fiscal responsibility round out my top three. There is ample economic evidence to support making the “Bush Tax Cuts” permanent.
Fiscal responsibility must center around restricting the rate of growth in federal spending and reducing the federal budget deficit. It would be disingenuous to call for actual cuts in federal spending during war time.
It can't be stressed enough: "We are at war."
Accountability, full disclosure and the line-item veto are positive issues that express forward-looking thinking, and they are easily understood by the electorate.
(Side note: The Fed needed to back away, quit chasing the inflation ghost and let the economy find its equilibrium in June.)
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Pence and possibly Coburn are the ONLY two who could run on this platform(and mean it)and win.The GOP needs to get its house in order,I say Indiana Congressman Mike Pence for President in 2008!