Gingrich - Is He Our Man?

Several entries ago, when former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was languishing in the polls, I explained why, reluctantly, Conservatives should support Mitt Romney as the GOP nominee.

Has the recent “Newt surge” caused me to change my mind?  No.

Gingrich surely tells us what we want to hear.  He offers red meat to a ravenous crowd.  He expresses conservative ideas boldly and succinctly while Romney often fumbles when given the opportunity.  And best of all – and most exciting – he attacks President Obama with gusto; he draws blood.  We envision that with him as the nominee, the vaunted public speaker in the White House will meet more than his match in next fall’s debates.

Newt Gingrich makes conservatives feel good.  That’s also true for Ron Paul.  We know his free market views are dead on.  But his foreign policy perspective follows that of the left around the world; he’s dead wrong. 

Feel good?  Don’t all of us (forget politics) enjoy that sensation?  It is a strong motivation indeed.

Since Conservatism dominates the Republican Party, Gingrich’s appeal may win him the nomination.  But that’s not exactly tantamount to a pass to the Presidency.

Emotions usually trump contrary intellectual judgment… until the passion subsides.

Polls have consistently shown Mitt Romney to be a more popular general election candidate than the former House Speaker.

Is electability to be ignored?  In 2010, GOP voters in Nevada and Delaware chose Senatorial nominees who were more fervently conservative than their more “moderate” (but generally more appealing) primary opponents.  Both lost in an otherwise big GOP year.

Do we want to beat Barack Obama or is “feeling good” about his opponent more important?

Tax the Rich More? Is that Fair?

President Barack Obama proclaims that the rich should pay their “fair” share of taxes.  Hence, he advocates higher taxes on those making over a million dollars annually.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid backs that call and introduces legislation for a nearly 6% tax hike for the “one percent.”

But what is meant by fairness as the term is employed by liberals and their media friends?

According to a report by the Congressional Budget Office a few years ago, the top 1% of income earners paid over 28% of all Federal Taxes.  And their average tax rate was about 30%.  (Approximately half of all Americans paid no income tax.) 

If we define fairness as equal treatment, maybe the one percent are the victims, not the so-called 99%!

Of course, perhaps when using the term “fair”, equal treatment is not at all what is meant by the critics of the rich.

If one believes in equality of results, something else entirely is meant by “fairness.”  By that standard something is very wrong – unfair – when so few have so much.

It is true that the Administration might be – as GOP spokesmen claim – using the “tax the rich rhetoric” as a political ploy.  There are far more non-rich voters than the other variety, after all.

I suggest that more than cynicism is involved.  Isn’t a tendency toward leveling results, rather than opportunity, a common feature of liberal philosophy?  It is hardly incidental that proclaimed socialist governments in the world have imposed confiscatory tax rates above income levels deemed to be “too much.”

The appeal of such policies to human nature’s less appealing aspects (envy and jealousy in particular) is undeniable.

But if America is to hold on to what opportunity still exists in this land, egalitarianism’s siren call must be resisted. 

Otherwise, a positive aspect of human nature will be suppressed: initiative.

Taxes discourage it.  Without it, businesses are not formed, workers are not hired and taxes are not paid.

Is that the cost of liberal “fairness” America should pay?

Diversity of What? And Why?

One hears the term a lot as a desirable objective in workplaces and on college campuses.

But what does that term mean as used by its proponents?  Different economic backgrounds?  Geographical locations?  Cultures?  Religious experiences?  Languages?  Or is it race?

And why is diversity a value to be sought?

Prior to a Supreme Court decision in 1978 (Bakke v. Univ. of Michigan), colleges used an applicant’s minority race as a primary factor in determining admission under a policy known as affirmative action.  Since then, the race of an applicant has supposedly been far less important in the college admission process.  However, I suggest that it should have no role to play.

Differences in a student population certainly can contribute to what is an educational opportunity by exposing members to unfamiliar ideas and perspectives that are the product of different backgrounds and experiences.  That is diversity that matters.  What does color have to do with it?

The truth is that the politically correct usage amounts to “affirmative action” by another name.

What about the work place?  Unlike a college setting, diversity doesn’t even have the cover of being an educational virtue.

The only value in the workplace hiring policy should be competence.  Does the applicant have the skill and temperament to perform the job?  What do differences of any sort have to do with that?

Ah, irony.  In 1963, Martin Luther King, a paragon in liberal mythology, expressed his deeply-held hope during his Washington Mall speech:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

So what happened?

Why Does Government Require You to Wear a Seat Belt?

That’s easy.  Because it’s for your own good.  I mean, after all, if you are in a serious collision, traffic studies make clear, you are more likely to avoid injury or death if you are belted.

But what if, for whatever reason, you don’t like to use them and respond “I’ll take my chances!”

And that is a very good point.  Because what, after all, should be the role of government?  Is it to provide an orderly, civilized setting in which a nation’s citizens can live and hopefully prosper?  Or is it to look after you as a nanny does a child?

The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution explained that its purpose was “to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility,  provide for the common defense, promote the generale Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

So how did we get from there to mandatory helmets for motorcycle riders, seatbelts for all and health insurance for those who don’t want it?

Because over many decades a view among our political leaders has become increasingly prevalent (aided greatly by the liberal academy): individuals can’t be trusted to make proper decisions for their own welfare.  And when they inevitably make a bad decision, others also pay a price.  Thus forcing people to do the “right” thing is in everyone’s best interest.  So what’s wrong with that?  If one wants to protect individual liberty, everything.

This is not to suggest that society should have no role in dictating the conduct of its members.  Requiring a four year old child to be transported safely in a safety seat should be unobjectionable.  Isn’t a child properly considered to be (usually) deficient in judgment and maturity in comparison with (most) adults? 

But can a nation long remain free if the government plays the role of nanny for adults, too?

Take motorcycle helmets.  I don’t doubt that if a rider falls off and hits the road, his head will fare better if he has one on.  And proponents of requiring that they be worn are undoubtedly right that minimizing head injuries reduces demands on the health care system, and this is an economic plus.  But is reduction of risk the only concern to be considered?  Why permit motorcycle riding at all?  A head encased in plastic, feet in boots and legs and torso in leather clothing is not exactly comparable protection to airbags and surrounding steel.

Of course, there is a broader cost involved when the choice turns out to be a bad one.  For example, if you want to do mountain climbing, you might get stranded atop a snowy peak and require rescue at public expense.  Do we ban mountain climbing because of the risk of public expenditure?  Or do we acknowledge that the exercise of freedom, like not wearing a helmet, involves potential cost?

Freedom for individuals means the right to make choices.    Fundamentally, we have to choose between values. 

To the extent that a reduction in risk is required, so too is liberty restricted.

A risk-free society would be a safe one, but it would hardly be free.

Does Barack Obama Deserve Re-election Because He is Black?

A recent Washington Post article discussed efforts by black talk show hosts to generate support for Barack Obama's re-election.  “Stick together, black people,” one was quoted as saying.  He continued, “We have the chance to re-elect the first African American president, and that’s what we ought to be doing.”

Why?  Shouldn’t the question be whether President Obama’s election would be best for the country, not whether his ethnicity or skin color is pleasing? 

The emotional appeal is understandable.  After all, John F. Kennedy was an attractive presidential candidate to many Americans, in part because his heritage was that of an Irish Catholic.  And so, plainly for different reasons, was the election of Barack Obama to the presidency four years ago.

But is ethnicity an appropriate criterion?  America was founded on individualism.  English settlers fled their homeland in search of religious liberty.  Isn’t freedom for the individual a core American value?  We, as Americans, in accordance with that principle, usually focus on individual choice, not on group attitudes.  What should matter is which presidential candidate will best serve America.  That is a matter of policy and character, not group identification.  Why would blacks, of all Americans, want to be viewed as members of a group as opposed to individuals with independent thoughts and political views?

Student Loans - Unintended Consequences

Stories are rife – college and professional school graduates are overburdened with student loan debt.

Certainly, that government-backed program made sense - superficially - twenty-five years ago.

If a person wants to go to college but doesn’t have the money for tuition, the Federal government will either insure or guarantee student loans at low interest rates.  After all, the more educated our citizenry, the better for all of us economically and otherwise. 

Not coincidentally, between 1986 and 2010, college tuition rates rose 500% while inflation rose 115% and outstanding loans ballooned to over $700 billion.  In response, President Obama has directed that student loan balances after twenty years be forgiven.  Since such loans are guaranteed by the Federal government, that means, of course, that U.S. taxpayers pay the balance.

How did this happen? Of course, this was not intended.  But that is no excuse, for those who promoted the policy failed to mind a simple economic lesson:  with increased demand, prices go up.

Education is a service product which must be paid for.  Like any other product, its price is a reflection of costs, supply and demand.  If the demand is limited, the provider must focus on costs to ensure that its product is affordable so that students can afford the school’s tuition.

However, if the price the student pays can be deferred, without worries (at least then) about affordability, the school’s incentive to control costs largely disappears.  And as the 500% tuition increase in twenty-five years shows, school budgets exploded with the influx of the student loan money.  With no apparent ceiling to the loan money available (remember the guarantee), the school spending increase generated ever higher tuition demands.  More buildings, more sports facilities and higher salaries, of course, required more tuition money.

But now we see the consequences, unintended (though hardly unforeseeable) as they may have been.  But isn’t that often the rule with government programs?  Gains are relatively immediate and thus alluring.  Even if problems down the road are foreseen by proponents, they are either ignored by the politically cynical or wished away by the well-meaning, and the taxpayer is left holding the bag. 

Does the sub-prime mortgage debacle ring a bell?

Penn State Football and Child Abuse

As The Sensible Conservative, I do not believe that the application of common sense should be restricted to politics and public policy. 

I’m not a PSU graduate and, thus, this question is not posed defensively:  What does Penn State football have to do with child abuse?  Nothing.

Of course, public commentary is to the contrary, but simple truths have either been ignored or are unknown to those jumping to that conclusion.   

The reported facts: a decade or so ago, an assistant coach named Jerry Sandusky sexually abused a 10-year-old in the Penn State locker room.  A witness on the team’s staff told head coach Joe Paterno about the episode (in what detail, we do not know), who then reported that information to his administrative supervisor, and up the chain of command it went.  Nobody called the police.

Penn State football players were not involved, that assistant coach wasn’t focusing on team members as targets, and there is no suggestion whatsoever that the football program fostered or tolerated a culture of child abuse.

To be sure, if former coach Sandusky is indeed the sexual predator as charged (remember, I’m a lawyer) and Penn State personnel knew that, they personally are properly condemned for not reporting him to law enforcement officials.

But, if so, how does that qualify as an indictment of the PSU football program for which it and its players should be punished (“cancel the season; no bowl game”)?

Was the failure to report what may have been known as a serious crime motivated by greater concern for reputation than the victim?  Very possibly.  But remember, that knowledge up the chain was dependent upon what was conveyed.  Did the initial witness tell all to Joe Paterno, for instance?  And was the witness “sure” about what he had seen? 

Keep this in mind:  even if the knowledge acquired was more definitive, people want to believe the best of their friends (and Joe Paterno and the subject assistant had had a long term relationship).  They wish to ignore or downplay that which reflects poorly.  And wouldn’t the same factors and considerations be in play in any organization (in and out of sports)?

Yes, human nature has less agreeable qualities, too.  So Joe Paterno, if he knew then what so many claim to know now, undoubtedly should have done more.  Maybe he’s no longer worthy of adulation as an exemplary human being. 

But what do Joe Paterno’s personal failings have to do with Penn State football?

Romney is the Choice

The top priority for Conservatives is to defeat President Obama in 2012.  As long as he remains in office, our agenda (repeal Obamacare, cut spending and taxes, rescue the economy, etc.) will be thwarted by executive veto even if Republicans hold onto the House of Representatives and regain control of the U.S. Senate.

That being said, running the best conservative available as the Republican nominee is, therefore, of secondary concern.  If a less conservative candidate is more likely to prevail next November,  that should be a conservative’s choice.  Mitt Romney fits the bill.

First, although his proclaimed loyalty to conservative principles and policies can be fairly questioned, given his political history of being a somewhat liberal Massachusetts governor, Romney’s responsiveness to the demands of his audience (resulting in calculated policy shifts) should not disqualify him.   The continuing - and forthcoming – conservative strength in Washington ensures that he will stay in step with, and certainly not oppose, our policies.  Mitt Romney has made clear his desire to go with the flow.

But what makes him more electable, for instance, than Gov. Rick Perry or Herman Cain, whose conservative credentials are certainly more authentic?  Gov. Perry expresses himself awkwardly and seems frankly uninformed about national issues other than energy.  And while  Mr. Cain’s blunt talk is appealing, his tendency to put his foot in his mouth is not.  (Is he really pro-choice?  Did he really not know that China has had nuclear weapons since the sixties?)

Simply, Mitt Romney is the better national politician.  This is largely due to his experience and “moderate” manner.  His candidacy will reassure those voters labeled as independents who prefer their politics  in pastels rather than bold colors.  His careful, relatively mistake-free manner won’t upset them.   (Unaligned voters were essential to Obama’s victory; they are key to his defeat.)  Further, Romney has proven to be a steady debater who can be expected to at least hold his own on a public stage against the “smooth talker” currently residing in the White House.  Having been on the national stage now for some years, any skeletons in Romney’s closet would have been exposed by now.  He’s been vetted in the ways that other GOP candidates (with the current exception of Herman Cain, to his great embarrassment) have not been.

Remember the objective:  Mitt Romney is the Republican candidate most likely to reach it.

Note:  Does Romney’s  religious faith affect his electability?  Probably not.  Interestingly, new polling data suggests a strong sympathy among Jewish voters (usually strong Democrats) for Mormons.  Maybe that’s because both faiths have evoked strong hostility from often sizeable portions of the community.  And, anyway, whatever a religious conservative might think of the theological underpinnings of the Church of Latter Day Saints, there is no disputing that its values of family and individual enterprise and responsibility resonate.

What's wrong with Barack Obama

President Obama means well.  I have no doubt that he strives to do good.  But he usually doesn’t know how.

Experienced poker players understand well the adage:  Play the hand you’ve got.  So why did Barack Obama, taking office in the early stages of a serious recession, waste his electoral winnings on an untenable, complicated health plan when his countrymen wanted reassurance of their economic future?  Why did he think he could transform a pair of deuces into a royal flush?  Because he believed he knew what was best for America regardless of what its people thought.  As a man of the left, he thinks in terms of what people “should” do, and if they “won’t” do as desired, compulsion is appropriate.

The Sensible Conservative

I am a lawyer who has focused on criminal defense for the bulk of my career.  In the past, I have also worked for the conservative movement’s flagship magazine, National Review, toiled as a political reporter, served in Vietnam, been a county  GOP chairman and a Bar Association activist.  I’ve also been an avid student of history and political philosophy.  Over the years, I’ve learned a thing or two about human nature and society.  One of the most important things I’ve absorbed is that theory is over-rated while experience is under-appreciated.  Life is short and wisdom is hard to come by.  I know that few people wish others harm.  But, truly, good intentions are no substitute for common sense.  Plainly, a Conservative is a sensible person relying on experience.  I hope you find the observations and thoughts of the sensible conservative of value.  Read on and spread the word.