I was reading the transcript of Marco Rubio’s appearance on FNS and found this interesting exchange early on.

WALLACE: But wait a minute, you said mainstream positions. I thought you were a conservative?

RUBIO: Conservative thought is the mainstream position in America. What is not mainstream in America is the belief that we should spend money that we don’t have. What’s not mainstream in America is the belief that we should take this crazy complicated tax code and make it crazier and more complicated. What is not mainstream in America is this belief that somehow if America weakens its position in the world, the world will become a safer place. These are the positions that quite frankly the policies coming out of Washington would create. That’s well outside the mainstream of American political thought. So I believe that what political pundits describe as conservatism and I embrace as conservatism is mainstream thought in America.

That is why I like Marco Rubio. “So I believe that what political pundits describe as conservatism and I embrace as conservatism is mainstream thought in America.”

I agree.

Tweet

I told you I wanted to spend more time developing this site, and boy have I. I spent several hours last night setting up the Reclaim Conservatism Wiki.

The wiki is being set up to be a repository of conservative information and resources. You are encouraged to help with this project by adding and editing information there, or by sending your information to: wiki at reclaimconservatism dot com. At the very least, please take a look and bookmark the site. Point others to it too, if you will.

I am really looking for people who are familiar with working on a wiki. Your help will be invaluable.

Well, I’m headed over there now for a few minutes. Join me?

Cross posted from Reclaim Conservatism

Tweet

Via Twitter I found this story from Indiana. It talks about Indiana Senate Resolution 42 which passed on Thursday (4/9/09) by a vote of 44-3. The text of their resolution:

Whereas, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States specifically provides that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”;

Whereas, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution of the United States and no more;

Whereas, Federalism is the constitutional division of powers between the national and state governments and is widely regarded as one of America’s most valuable contributions to political science;

Whereas, James Madison, “the father of the Constitution,” said, “The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people”;

Whereas, Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not “subordinate” to the national government, but rather the two are “coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government”;

Whereas, Alexander Hamilton expressed his hope that “the people will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the general and the state governments.” He believed that “this balance between the national and state governments forms a double security to the people. If one [government] encroaches on their rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by [the] certain rivalship which will ever subsist between them”;

Whereas, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be limited in its powers relative to those of the various states;

Whereas, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and infringe upon Indiana’s reserve powers and the people’s reserved powers;

Whereas, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States , 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

Whereas, A number of proposals from previous administrations and some now being considered by the present administration and from Congress do infringe on the States’ reserve powers and the people’s reserved powers, and may further violate the Constitution of the United States; Therefore,

Be it resolved by the Senate of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SECTION 1: That the State of Indiana hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

SECTION 2: That this Resolution serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal government to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.

SECTION 3: That all compulsory federal regulation that directs Indiana and her sister states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions, or directs states to pass conforming legislation under threat of losing federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.

SECTION 4: That the Secretary of the Senate immediately transmit copies of this Resolution to the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States, the Majority Leader of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of each state’s legislature of the United States of America, and each member of Congress from the State of Indiana.

Following some available links I also discovered the Tenth Amendment Center. Chasing that rabbit trail led me to a WND Story about Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona who has introduced H.R. 450, or the Enumerated Powers Act.

When he introduced the proposal Jan. 9, Shadegg gave a House floor speech reminding his colleagues of limited authority granted in the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

It states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

“What that means is that the Founding Fathers intended our national government to be a limited government, a government of limited powers that cannot expand its legislative authority into areas reserved to the states or to the people,” Shadegg said. “As the final amendment in the 10 Bill of Rights, it is clear that the Constitution establishes a Federal Government of specifically enumerated and limited powers.”

Further in the story:

WND columnist Henry Lamb has been urging voters to contact representatives and ask directly if they will co-sponsor and vote for the Enumerated Powers Act, or explain why not – in writing.

The legislation has 19 co-sponsors – all Republicans.

Lamb suggested the act become the theme song of the tea parties taking place around the nation.

Twitter Friend Smalltalkwitht found,

20 states so far have/are pass/ing Sovereignty resolutions ND SC SD WA IN TX NH AZ MI MN MO OK HI Coming AK AL AR CA CO ID NV ME PA.

I don’t see Florida in that list. How about your state?

Tweet

Michelle Malkin has the video and transcript of Sen. Jim DeMint (SC) speaking out on the National Service Reauthorization Act. One section stood out as applying to more than just this piece of legislation.

Unfortunately, our history shows us when Government gets involved, it tends to take something that is working and make it not work nearly as well. Civil society works because it is everything Government is not. It is small, it is personal, it is responsive, it is accountable. Civil society must be protected from any effort to make it more like Government.

It is really an outstanding speech, but more than that it is an accurate assessment of government’s misplaced role in our lives.

Sen. DeMint points out the faith-based aspect of many volunteer organizations, and the hurdles that government has placed in their paths.

Now we are going to come in and help solve the problem we have created. We want to promote voluntarism, we want to promote community service, when what we have done over the last several decades is essentially tried to destroy the motivation for people to serve a cause that is greater than themselves.

Watch the video or read the transcript. I hope it will encourage you like it did me.

Tweet

Well, I didn’t expect this series to take over two weeks to complete. If this is your first visit, I’ve been examining the points John Hawkins made in his PJM post Six Keys to Turning Around the Republican Party. The last key is Stop thinking that the rules of politics don’t apply to Republicans and this is what John had to say:

The very first rule of politics is to secure your base. That means, priority number one for the Republican Party needs to be convincing conservative radio hosts, bloggers, and activists that they’re part of the solution, not part of the problem. Once that’s done, then the party can feel free to reach out to the middle in ways that don’t alienate the base.

I contend that the way for the Republican Party to convince “conservative radio hosts, bloggers, and activists” that we are part of the answer is to understand that conservatives are looking for a conservative home. They undercut that effort every time they dilute their message or dismiss the concerns of their base.

We are part of the solution. And by we I mean conservatives who actively seek to use our voices through whatever means we have available to educate voters, influence policy makers, and make our representatives at every level accountable for the decisions they make.

John makes a very good point saying, “Once that’s done, then the party can feel free to reach out to the middle in ways that don’t alienate the base.” It can be done. It must be done. But it must be done from a strongly held and communicated set of core beliefs, and not from a position where we are trying to pull the base to the middle.

Of course all of this is predicated on the assumption that we have a universal set of beliefs. That is true — to an extent. Issues arise when we try to inflate policies and programs as beliefs.

For a long time I have felt that it would be a great exercise to get a handle on the things conservatives hold as their core values. Let’s get started in the comments here. What do you think are the unalterable values that conservatives can agree on. Please try to concentrate on values rather than specific policies or programs.

Have at it.

Tweet

The fourth key of John Hawkins Six Keys to Turning Around The Republican Party post is Expanding our domestic agenda. I have a little bit to say about that this morning, with an idea related to this that is still percolating around in my head for later. Here is what John wrote:

The GOP has become almost entirely reliant on tax cuts and social issues on the domestic side. While those are still strong issues, we also need to expand our appeal by talking about a wider array of policies that can appeal to the American people. For example, we should get behind true energy independence through nuclear power and shale oil. We should develop a real security-first policy on illegal immigration. We should focus environmental efforts on clear water, clear air, and a non-polluted environment. Finally, we should strive to reduce health care costs by giving health care tax breaks to individuals not companies and allowing people to buy insurance from any state.

The short version of this is the old maxim, “All politics are local.” While people see the needs and issues we face as a nation, at the core they are most concerned about those things that impact them directly.

One thing we need to do as we attempt to share our vision for the country is show people how the ideas that we propose impact them personally. We can only get so far by declaring that some policy is best for America. We have to be able to demonstrate clearly how that policy is best for the individual we are trying to reach.

Related to this is the need, as the minority party, to present an alternative to any policy we propose. We are portrayed as the party of “No” by the left and the media. It is a tool they use effectively to marginalize conservatives and the Republican Party. That doesn’t make it true. What is true is that we are not always effective in communicating the reasoning behind our opposition and the positive alternatives we offer.

Some will argue that our message is ignored by the left-leaning press and that the majority leadership spares no effort in making sure that our voice isn’t heard. While that is certainly true, it is not a reason to give up the fight. In the face of opposition that hopes to win by presenting only their side it is incumbent on us to redouble our efforts to get our message across.

One way in which President Reagan was most effective was in taking his ideas directly to the American people. Granted, he had the bully pulpit of the presidency, but there are still things we can do to circumvent the obstacles we encounter.

Individual blogs, even the “biggies”, are extremely limited in their scope. That is offset to some degree by the number and diversity of offerings out there. I believe that there are some people who read bRight & Early and other similar sized blogs that don’t regularly read Michelle Malkin, Right Wing News, Ace of Spades, or the other big hitters. Having that variety of voices making the case for conservatism is just one way we can overcome the attempt to limit our effectivness.

It would take another post, or several, to explore the ways conservatives can get their message out there, and that really isn’t the point of this “Key.” However, I do believe that it is related. Much of what could be described as expanding our domestic agenda is really a matter of expanding the visibility of items already in place.

As I stated in the begining of the piece, I have more to say on this subject at another time. The ideas are still stirring.

Tweet

This morning I am taking a look at the third key John Hawkins mentions in his post Six Keys to Turning Around The Republican Party. This will leave three more keys to examine this week. Here is what John had to say:

What the last four years have proven conclusively is that there is no future for a “Democrat-light” party in this country that talks about small government, keeping spending under control, cleaning up corruption in Washington, and law and order while delivering none of those things. Yes, we do need to continue to be a socially conservative party and we do need to continue to stand for a strong American foreign policy. However, those two issues alone will not carry us back to the promised land. We also need to “walk the walk” on the other parts of our agenda that were all too often ignored during the Bush years.

I’ve never been real happy describing the Republican Party as a brand as if it were a car, beer, or the latest battle in the Cola Wars. However, the analogy is apt and serves as a way to describe the dynamic between the message we offer and the American voters.

There are, I believe, two intertwined issues surrounding rebuilding the party brand — education and control of the message.

As in advertising, either you make your case to the consumer or your competition will do it for you. You will not be successful if the opposition is given free reign controlling the message that people hear.

Rush Limbaugh repeatedly describes how the liberals and Democrats describe us as “Sexist, racist, bigots and homophobes”. Quite frankly, they have been very successful at doing so. It isn’t enough to complain that we are being mis-portrayed as even that has been used against us to paint our party as paranoid and whinny.

If you’ve listened to AM radio at any length you have probably heard an ad campaign produced by The Famous Radio Ranch with the theme, “It’s called advertising, and it works.” Those spots focus on several important areas — saying nothing allows your competition to control the message, getting the message out has to be done constantly and consistently, and the underlying idea that advertising is really about education.

However the most important point that I can make about rebuilding the party brand is that no matter how well we control the message or educate the people it means very little if the “brand” itself is something people don’t want. I believe very strongly that what conservatives have to offer is what people honestly want and what is best for their lives. Rush Limbaugh was correct in his speech to CPAC this past weekend when he said,

The American people may not all vote the way we wish them to, but more Americans than you now live their lives as conservatives in one degree or another.

Unfortunately, John’s description of recent Republican offerings being “Democrat-light” is right on the money. We can not keep portraying ourselves as not quite as bad as the Democrats. As they say in South Carolina, that dog won’t hunt. It’s time for us, as conservatives, to Reclaim Conservatism and take the lead in showcasing our brand.

Other posts in this series:
The job of the loyal opposition is to oppose
Stop conceding so many groups of voters

Tweet

The second key John Hawkins espouses in his PJM article Six Keys to Turning Around The Republican Party is Stop conceding so many groups of voters. His point is a good one. It doesn’t matter how big our tent is if it is mostly empty. Here is what he had to say:

The GOP needs to do a better job of reaching out to Hispanics, blacks, Jews, Muslims, women, and young voters. That doesn’t mean we need to compromise our principles, but it does mean that we do need to stop writing off these groups and giving up before we get started. The truth is that the Republican Party is a better fit for every one of those groups than the Democrats, and we can make that case.

Let me tell you a story to illustrate my thinking on this point.

A friend and co-worker many years ago provides a good example. He was a deeply dedicated family man, involved with his children and wife in every aspect of their lives and very close to his parents. He was an avid hunter and fisherman and loved to be outdoors involved in those pursuits.

From the long hours of discussions we had working together I know that he was against high taxes and over intervention by the government. On several occasions he expressed the view that the best thing government could do was get out of the way of people and businesses.

In many ways he embodied the image of a typical Republican that is often portrayed by the media and the left: A Southern hunter with a traditional family and traditional views. There were two other things to offset that however. While he was well informed on issues he wasn’t particularly political, but he typically voted Democrat. And he was black.

I asked him on several occasions why he voted for democrats. His explanation was that he really didn’t think about it that much.

If you look at this as a marketing exercise, we have a better product but have done a poor job of advertising and education. Worst of all we have allowed the opposition and others to define us. John makes this point:

But to do that, we need to tailor our message to each group and make a real, consistent, long-term effort to bring more people from these groups into the fold instead of making a halfhearted effort, saying “they’ll never vote for us anyway,” and giving up.

He uses three words that I want to explore to finish the look at this key: Real, Consistent, Long-term.

There has to be a real effort, not a halfhearted token of an effort. That means two things. We have to educate voters on what conservatism and the Republican Party are really about. We need to show people why our policies and platform are better for them and how their values, goals, and dreams are best served by the positions and objectives that Republican conservatism stands for.

The second part of a real effort is a real effort in controlling our message. We have to stop allowing others to define who we are and what we stand for. This applies to both the opposition, who are glad to portray us as something we are not, and the media who are content to rely on old cliche’s that don’t, and never did, represent us.

Central to this is one thing I have yet to mention. I do not believe that we appeal to people outside of the party by diluting our message. Not only do I believe that the traditional Republican views of limited government, strong national defense, fiscal responsibility, the wisdom and original intent of our founders, the value of the individual, and personal responsibility are best for me, I also believe they are the best for everyone. There is no need or reason to offer something less in a vain attempt to appeal to groups and individuals by presenting anything other than what we truly believe.

That means our message and our effort must be consistent. Consistent day to day and group to group. We may tailor the message to best inform the people we are talking to, but the underlying principles must not change.

Finally, the effort must be long-term. We are not going to overcome years of misinformation, misunderstanding, and inaccurate portrayals in one day, or even one election cycle. If we believe that the things we offer are really the best answer for continuing America’s greatness we must dedicate our selves to promoting our views and helping others see how our policies and ideas mesh with their ideals.

Previously: The job of the loyal opposition is to oppose

Tweet

I stated the other day that I wanted to examine the Six Keys to Turning Around The Republican Party suggested by John Hawkins. Today I’ll take a look at the first offering, The job of the loyal opposition is to oppose. Here is what John had to say:

The key to firing up the base, drawing the clear distinction with the Democrats, and for that matter, good governance, is loudly opposing bad bills at every opportunity. The GOP should never support bad legislation merely so it can claim to be “bi-partisan” or so it can say it “did something” at election time.

I’ve heard it said that you can compromise plans, but never compromise principles. Working from this basis takes us in two complimentary directions.

When there is agreement regarding an action to be taken it is reasonable to compromise over the path used to accomplish that action. An overly simplified real world example would be suggesting to a co-worker that you go to lunch at one o’clock. If they state that they are really hungry and want to go at twelve and you counter that you have a conference call at twelve, but that you should be ready by twelve thirty and they agree, you’ve reached a legitimate compromise. You were both in agreement about the principle of eating lunch. The rest, as they say, is details.

The flip side of this scenario is opposing any alternative just on the basis of who made the suggestion, a desire to wield power, or simple contrariness. That reasoning typically leads to one party being resentful for no legitimate reason. Taken to the extreme nothing gets done and no one is happy.

That being said, John’s point was that the job of the loyal opposition is to oppose. There is a case to be made for standing in strong opposition to issues that are contrary to deeply held principles. There is no virtue in adopting the “go along to get along” stance when doing so goes against what you truly believe.

Let’s go back to lunch with a somewhat silly example to make the point. You have a principled stand against eating at The Pig Trough, a local barbecue joint. Your opposition is rooted in your beliefs that cleanliness is a virtue in a restaurant, visible vermin are a turn-off, trichinosis is something to be avoided, and $19.95 is too much to pay for a pulled pork sandwich. Even if your co-worker’s favorite eatery is The Pig Trough this is not an opportunity for compromise.

How does this apply to turning around the Republican Party? I believe that standing in opposition to bad policy and bad legislation, even when that opposition is unsuccessful, is the right play to make in two primary ways.

Most importantly it is the right thing to do. When our party and it’s leaders take a stand on any issue it should be based on the principles and beliefs that advance what is best for both individuals and the country as a whole. When opposing some policy or piece of legislation it is vital that our opposition is rooted in principle. Being on the winning side is not victory if it is the wrong side.

An important corollary to opposition made on this basis is that the opportunity then exists to show the people and demonstrate the principles that define our opposition. I would argue that standing in opposition while offering neither an explanation or an alternative is no better than tacit support.

Finally, principled opposition creates a clear demarcation between our stands and those that we stand against. One recent and recurring criticism of the Republican Party is that we have become Dem-Lite. There is little reason to support a party that is nearly identical to the other party, just less so.

I welcome you to add your thoughts on this post. Next up — Stop conceding so many groups of voters.

Other posts in this series: Stop conceding so many groups of voters

Tweet

John Hawkins examines a National Review piece by James Gimpel. Here is a bit of the flavor of Gimpel’s work:

A campaign doesn’t move toward them [centrist or moderate voters], but instead attempts to inspire them to come in the candidate’s direction. The incoherent center moves to the left or to the right, inspired by the candidate’s enthusiasm and the enthusiasm of his supporters. It is foolish for the candidate to move to the center, because the center is never a fixed position to move toward.

Moving centrists toward one’s candidacy is not a process that hinges on taking the right policy stands, either. Instead, it involves the enthusiasm and social contagion that builds around exciting candidates. We know from several volumes of political-science research that less-informed voters commonly substitute someone else’s judgment for their own. That someone else is often a spouse, workmate, or neighbor knowledgeable and enthusiastic about one of the candidates. Support for a candidate spreads through social influence processes.

I believe the case could be made that moving toward the center does nothing more than move the center. When either the left or right changes their focus those in the middle also shift so that they remain in the “center”. Conversely, moving toward your base could, I believe, move the center in your direction as well.

Here is Hawkin’s take as it relates to the Republican party:

The GOP no longer has the courage of their conservative principles and so, on many of their core principles, they offer up nothing but mush.

In other words, we’re a small government, cost cutting, law and order, party of the middle class and honest government that supports big government, ever increasing deficits, illegal immigration, tolerates corruption, and doesn’t offer much to the middle class.

People wonder why small government and cutting deficit spending doesn’t appear to be all that popular with the American people right now. Well, could it be because the same Republican politicians who are talking up “small government” have brought us large deficits, the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit, and are nationalizing our banks as part of a ridiculous, unnecessary bailout?

If the Republicans in Washington don’t even believe in their own party’s principles, is it any surprise that moderates don’t either?

No, it’s not.

Tweet