Hope and Change We Really Need

The hope and change slogan always annoyed me, but I never took the time to figure out why. Now I have. Instead of the hope of changing America, which is a great country not in need of great change, but rather small incremental improvement, I would like to see a candidate of hope and change with a statement like this:
"I hope to faithfully respect the freedom and best interests of our nation and I pledge to change the culture of corruption in Washington DC by reducing the role of the federal government as dispenser of goodies to favored interests."

The belief that the federal government will solve every problem and allay every risk is bleeding the country dry. Further, because goodies are dispensed to the most successful lobbyists, we have provided incentive for corrupting behaviors, whether or not they are actually illegal. The Republicans could easily reinvent themselves and clobber the Democrats by making themselves the party of small government and reform, which go hand in glove. Unfortunately their track record is abysmal and they are not reaping the rewards of the Democrats obvious bad behavior.

Ultimately, voters are rational. Given the choice between an avowedly left wing socialist party and an incompetent right wing socialist party, they will go with the competence. Time for Republicans to end the earmarks, the porkulus, the special favors that they have been as guilty of as Democrats, and they will be able to win big in 2010 and beyond.

There May be Hope and Little Change for us yet

Will Rogers famously said, "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." The opening agenda of the Democrats seems to confirm the quote and I happy to see them tackling issues that will waste their political capital.

Obama's supposed first act will be to close the Guantanamo Bay holding facility. I commented on this previously, but now I say, great, chew up political spin cycles on how you are going to deal with moving the prisoners to the U.S., the embarrassment of no other countries taking them and a big fight over what constitutional rights they should be afforded. Ultimately, this is a small issue. If the Democrats start to look weak in the fight against jihadis, I think that will be self correcting. Meanwhile, I look forward to them wasting time and political capital on this issue.

Second, in a shocker, Nancy Pelosi says she is open to prosecution of former Bush administration officials. I say, go for it. Hold hearings. Televise them. Get conservatives worked up over the injustice of it all. Embarass yourselves with comparisions to Clinton, Blagojevich, Tim Mahoney, Bill Richardson, the mayors of Detroit and Baltimore, etc. Criminalize participation in the Executive Branch and see how many capable folks on your own side decline nominations.

Third, the Democrats are signalling that they are going to run against Bush in 2010 and 2012 as well. They are trotting out talking points about how this "deep recession" might last that long, and why they should be forgiven if they don't have it fixed by then. Good luck. Even though the shenanigans at Fannie Mae could be fairly blamed on the Democrats in Congress and the previous Clinton administration, see how far that got the Republican party in the last election. And desrvedly so, I might add. Because, it was Bush's watch, and he could have used the investigative power of the Justice Department to clean up Fannie and Freddie if he had the will to do so. My point is that blaming the previous administration will only buy you about a year. Then, tough, it's your problem. Meanwhile, the Democrats will have given conservatives some time to re-group to challenge what I consider the biggest menace, the proposal to slowly nationalize health care.

See Carpe Diem and Beers With Demo for some excellent discussion on why more free market competition would be good for health care costs, not less. More from Professor Perry here and here.

Freedom Coalition Agenda Update and Debate

Seems I'm not the only one thinking about an agenda for conservative forces. Larrey Anderson, at American Thinker, has penned an article entitled Where should Conservatives Draw the Line? I must admit to be a little chagrined at what I see as a bit of defeatist attitude. Among other topics, he wants to punt on opposition to bailouts, socialist health care, and higher taxes. I find this frustrating.

On the bailouts, while it is true that many are a done deal, opposition to further bailouts would signal a turn around for the Republican party. Further, I sense that the public is weary of the bailouts and rightly senses that they are unaffordable. A principled position against further government debt for private ventures along with a demand for a time line to pay back the current loans would be popular AND in the best interests of the nation.

Socialist health care is also an avoidable outcome. First, there is no money to pay for this with the government piling up debt and unemployment payments growing. Obama promised to pay for this debacle by cutting other programs "that are not working." During the election season I posted about the impossibility of that working. One plank of opposition would be to loudly, vociferously and repeatedly call to attention Obama's promise to pay for universal health care by cutting other programs. As a practical matter, the United States will wreck its health care system, much as Britain has done if such a program passes. Surely we can win when the facts are on our side and shame on us if we don't.

Finally, I can't believe we would punt on the higher taxes issue, when Obama seems ready to surrender himself. He knows that politically, higher taxes during a recession are political suicide. We hardly have to work at all to win this one. If we then focus on balancing the budget, we can make the argument for smaller government.

Larrey then turns to his favorite issues: illegal immigration, education, freedom of religious expression and the "Global Warming Hoax." (Road Dawg likes that last one.)

I admit to some confliction over illegal immigration. I believe strongly in the rule of law and it is being flaunted today by illegal immigration. But the economist in me wants labor to flow like any other economic good to its place of highest utility. My only solution, unlimited immigration if you can prove you are not a criminal, is not today politically viable.

I agree on the education issue, but as I previously stated, this has to be more about choice than a particular agenda for school boards. I already discussed freedom of speech in my previous post.

Finally, as much as I would like to believe that global warming is a hoax, I find the evidence on both sides inconclusive. So while I am willing to do battle on that basis, it would wreck our credibility to argue this point too vehemently.

However, it's great to see serious thought going into setting an agenda and a recognition that it is needed.