Current Date

The Conservative Reader:
Iowa

Healthcare Fallout: Obama’s Growing List of Coalitions

Healthcare Fallout: Obama’s Growing List of Coalitions

The bedrock of winning elections at every major level of politics is building coalitions of supporters for whom you can count on to head to the polls and cast a vote for you.  Especially in a country as large and non-monolithic as ours, coalition building on some level is a requirement for victory and often explains why politicians are so willing to speak often, but say very little.

A close look at President Obama’s effort in this area reveals that he has elevated this process to an art form—but far from art, what he has created is an ugly picture beneficial to himself, but terrible for America.

While the Supreme Court’s ruling on Thursday to uphold the Affordable Care Act certainly carries the negatives of energizing Republicans and leaving him to defend a tax increase, it is foolish not to acknowledge the potential political windfall that he has unleashed.  He has managed to cement a new member in his group of coalitions—a group with millions of potential voters.

As we have discussed here before, for decades the Democrat party in America has used the social safety net and the laws of this country to build a formidable coalition of voters.  The newest members are the up to 33 million people who will now be guaranteed health insurance by virtue of being a breathing American.  For the first time in history an American president will be able to say ‘if you vote Democrat you will have (possibly for free) health insurance, and if you vote Republican you will not’, a potent motivator.

The addition of the health care voter coalition can now be added to the two others that he has bolstered recently, in what may be the most cynical and politically motivated two months in American presidential history.

First it was going on record with the news that he had “evolved” on the issue and now supports gay marriage. This was followed by a surprise move to essentially remove the possibility of deportation for young illegal aliens.  While the gay community is relatively small, bolstering his claim to the Hispanic vote was a huge benefit to his Electoral College math.  Early next week, we will have a story detailing how the health care law really has more to do with sealing up the Hispanic vote than anything else.

Besides the Latino vote, Obamacare allows the Democrat Party to further stack the deck against Republicans as they try to implement the Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid reforms in the Paul Ryan budget over the next few years.  Top Democrat strategists have to be secretly celebrating, knowing full well that the already difficult politics of reforming these programs just got down right suicidal now that 16 million more people have been added to the rolls.

Moving Forward

The Presidents relentless coalition building will continue from now until November.  With the economy not in position to rebound at all, and the two major initiatives of his Presidency either unpopular (health care) or ineffectual (the stimulus), he really has no other choice.  I am predicting that sometime in the next few months he will make a shocking public policy jester to the unions, who remain the last sizeable group he has not tried to directly entice.

Though it goes against the grain, at this point I would consider advising Mitt Romney to not moderate on illegal immigration and stay as far right on this issue as he was during the presidential primary.  The reasons for this are several.

First, it is the law and the right thing to do—we simply cannot be the only nation on earth that doesn’t enforce its borders.  Though many are quick to forget it, this is a message that resonates with nearly all Republicans, and millions of Independents.  Second, there is simply no way for Republicans to match what Democrats can offer.  While Republicans and Latinos have large overlaps in religious beliefs and family values, Democrats are in essence offering citizenship, free or nearly free health care, and an ever-expanding web of financial assistance that delivers from birth to death.

It may be high time to face the facts—winning over the Hispanic community is not going to happen anytime soon, and the more Republicans bend and soften on these issues the more they enrage fellow Republicans and appear hypocritical to Independents.

The irony here is that many of the Republicans who have been hesitant to support Mitt Romney, largely due to their belief that he tries to be all things to all people, are the same people that are urging him to cow tow to the Hispanic vote and moderate his position on illegal immigration.

There are still tens of millions of Americans who still believe strongly that we are a nation of laws.  Should Mitt Romney take a stand on this issue and add this too often ignored group to his list of coalitions, it may end up being a net positive in November.

 

 

The post Healthcare Fallout: Obama’s Growing List of Coalitions appeared first on The Conservative Reader.


Healthcare Fallout: Obama’s Growing List of Coalitions

In the Age of the Selfish Voter

In a Representative Democracy, voting for a particular political candidate or philosophy is the most impactful way a citizenry can change their country.  While the “who” a person votes for is what actively shapes a Republic, digging into the motivation behind that vote is far more telling, and ultimately reveals far more about ourselves and where we are heading.

As government involvement in Americans day-to-day lives has expanded, the possible motivating factors at play driving each citizens vote has also expanded—and the effects of this have been devastating.  Boiled down to the most basic level, there are two motivations that influence a political vote—you can vote in what you believe is in the best interest of the country, or you can vote in your own personal interest.

In past generations, before the American government was so deeply involved in the giving business, the vast majority of our population largely had only the best interest of the country as a whole to consider.  Unfortunately, today nearly half of our citizens have the legitimate option of choosing to vote for their own personal gain at the ballot box.

Not Your Grandfather’s Democratic Party

Though it sounds crass, the modern day Democratic Party has evolved into a selfish group of constituencies that have something to gain in voting for Democrats and against Republicans.  While the most obvious entries on the list involve financial assistance from the economic safety net—unending unemployment benefits, housing subsidies, food stamps, Title 19, etc.—in recent years this list has grown to include several other things.

Hispanic Americans can now vote Democrat to ultimately allow their friends and relatives who are here illegally become citizens.  Gay Americans can now vote Democrat to gain the right to marry and the economic advantages that come with it.  Union members can vote Democrat in order to receive more favorably negotiated salaries and benefits at the bargaining table.  Those Americans who, for whatever reason, did not have health insurance can now vote a straight Democratic ticket in hopes of retaining it, since they have now been given it.

In large part this massive constituency of selfishly driven voters explains what the mind-boggling national debt has become so out of control.  Far more than any other issue, not running annual deficits and paying down the national debt are two things that are in the best interest of the country—and not necessarily in the best interest of each individual American.   The polling data bears this out showing that, even with the national debt north of $16 trillion, only 66% of Democrats cite lowering this number as a major priority.

Contrarians to this line of thinking will make the charge that Republicans vote in their own best interest by voting for politicians who believe in lowering their taxes.  As usual this charge leaves out one unavoidable fact—that the money taken by the government for taxes is earned, and it belonged to the individual in the first place.  Put simply, voting to keep more of your own money and not giving it away to a largely wasteful entitlement state (especially one with a progressive tax code) is not a greed driven motivation—rather it is a logical one.

What It Means

The selfishly motivated voter is the single biggest reason why European style democracies are self-feeding, self-defeating, unworkable, and unsustainable.  Yet in spite of the real-time evidence playing out across the Atlantic, a near majority of Americans refuse to change course.  Increasingly, it is hard not to assume a major reason why American voters are unwilling to do so is that they would be putting themselves out to do so.

The only way to break this cycle is for the Democrat Party to shift away from promising things to an ever-widening group of voters.  The sad truth though is that they have built a political base only able to stand upright through some combination of deficit spending, large tax increases, and social pandering.  They have become so politically dependent on various sub-groups that making decisions for the economic good of the country, even if they wanted to, would quickly result in them paying a huge political price and losing elections.

Whenever Americans choose to overlook our national interest and instead vote in favor of their own, neither is well served.

 

 

The post In the Age of the Selfish Voter appeared first on The Conservative Reader.


Finding Meaning In The Iowa Supreme Court Retention Vote

Finding Meaning In The Iowa Supreme Court Retention Vote

Kathie Obradovich’s Sunday Des Moines Register column this week provided an interesting question for us: can we reasonably interpret the results of the retention vote beyond it’s singular purpose?

As Kathie tells us, there are a number of perspectives pressing on this ballot item, although many would point directly at the Varnum v. Brien decision. And as Kathie also notes, if any or all of the three judges up for retention fail to be retained, the decision will still be in place and “same-sex marriage will still be legal [emphasis mine] in Iowa…”.

Mind you, “legal” in this case really goes as far as the administrative authorities accept it to be. It is still open to debate among many (myself included) whether the government administration is obliged to enact a judicially declared “law”. What makes the court’s action “legal” is more the acceptance of those who actually are expected to follow the law created by the legislature and approved by the Governor.

Although it is safe to say that the tensions that keep our society in balance are those that recognize the rule of law and and the overall desire to maintain order. It is in our self-interest to maintain order or we would drop into chaos. But it is dangerous for us to accept idly the unlawful action of a court when it, unelected and perceived to be the ultimate authority, decides to go beyond its bounds.

Regardless of what society as a whole is determined to do about marriage, it is wrong to allow the court to own the universal remedy as it has taken to doing in this case.

It is foolish to watch as the court takes power it does not and should not have. If we stand idly by, we allow tyranny to grow. It could take years or decades, but doing nothing will fuel its growth.

What is the People’s remedy? There are several (truly more than those listed here):

The People can demand that the Administration ignore the court’s order.

The People can change the Constitution to clarify the definition and scope of marriage.

The People can demand that the Legislature change the judicial selection process.

The People can change the Constitution to provide stricter constraints on the role of the Judiciary.

And the People can refuse to retain the judges who have tried to usurp power.

Or the People can just sit back and let the courts continue to amass power until we can no longer recognize our great state.

The retention vote process is not just a rubber stamp. It is the People’s only direct role in a process that we mostly watch from a distance as others choose those who could, if allowed, rule over us. This is how we keep them in check.

What will the vote mean?

I don’t think it will be a mandate on marriage, although it might be fair to see it as one, as much is it will be a statement of who holds power in Iowa.

Let it be the People.

Iowa GOP Legislators All Fired Up!

Iowa GOP Legislators All Fired Up!

iowa-gopI attended this morning’s 2010 Republican Legislative Kickoff Breakfast. At least 200 people, including legislators, party leaders, lobbyists and candidates were in attendance. The event was opened by Jim Kurtenbach, Iowa Republican Party Co-chair. Brief speeches were given by:

  • Steve King, US House District 5 Representative.  Invocation and some comments.  He acknowledged that the results of our work are in God’s hands.
  • Linda Upmeyer , Iowa House Republican Whip.  She reminded us to pray, work to get volunteers on campaigns, and raise the financial resources needed to win.
  • Kraig Paulsen , Iowa House Republican Leader.  He commented that he has a lot of love in his trunk, plus a few sticks of dynomite.
  • Steve Kettering, Iowa Senate Republican Whip,   He said “A comeback for Republicans is a comeback for all Iowans!”
  • Paul McKinley, Iowa Senate Republican Leader.  Paul related a story about meeting some US Department of Labor employees in New York who stayed at the Ritz Carlton at the government’s expense… their comment: “It’s a new day!”.
  • Matt Strawn, Iowa Republican Party Chair.  “Iowans have gotten a taste of what a Democrat dominated government is like” and “we have solutions”.

Through out the speeches, a consistent message of satisfaction that all Iowa Republicans in the 2009 voted consistently with the party, that we cannot support a budget that exceeds revenue, that we need to give Iowans the right to vote on the definition of Marriage, labor unions cannot be allowed to destroy Iowa businesses, and that Democrats are extremely vulnerable.

I was honored to sit next Royd Chambers from Sheldon, who was deployed with the Iowa Air National Guard to Kyrgyzstan during the 2009 session. I was also seated next to Bill Northey, Iowa’s Secretary of Agriculture. I had a good chat with Bill about the upcoming budget work in his department, and it sounds like everyone is putting the nose to the grindstone!

Governor Branstad was there, as well as Bob Vander Plaats. I’m assuming the Rod Roberts and Chris Rants were also there, but I did not get a chance to see them. Other candidates that I happened to see included:

  • George Eichhorn, running for Secretary of State
  • Dave Funk, Brad Zaun (Iowa Senator from Urbandale), and Mark Rees, all three running for US House District 3
  • Chris Reed and Mariannette Miller-Meeks, both running for US House District 2

I saw Dave Vaudt as well… Tom Latham was not able to attend the event.

Overall, the event was encouraging and a great opportunity to connect with folks I had not seen in a while.   Although Republicans are in the minority, our legislators are ready to do the hard work of helping reduce unnecessary spending and fight for Iowans rights.

Healthcare Fallout: Obama’s Growing List of Coalitions

What Republicans Need: Less Gross, More Sense

The following piece addresses specific thoughts about the direction of the Republican Party.  While the writer is actively serving as Communications Director for the Polk County Republican Party of Iowa, the opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Polk County Republicans, the Republican Party of Iowa, or the Republican National Committee.

If you’ve followed The Conservative Reader earlier in 2009, you would note that we discussed a need to rethink the Conservative/Republican agenda. We have not yet dug into that process deeply, although many have been voicing their opinions about what needs doing.

There has been a substantive effort on the part of some Christian Conservative Republicans to promote an agenda that honors God with a level of apparent intolerance to those who do not agree with them. “No Compromise” is their war chant. While their positions certainly fall within the same realm as my own, their approach, ability to listen, and ability to acknowledge that they will not achieve the political utopia they seek (especially not on their own power), are all sadly lacking in the true message of the very God they are trying to serve. Interestingly, some of these folks have even stated some of the clear Christian principles that come in opposition to their behavior: Love, Mercy, and the need to change hearts through the power of God’s Grace and not through human Law. Instead, one hears little more than condemnation, personal attacks, and hatred. These folks could do themselves and the world a greater service by listening more and saying less. Regardless, I hope they continue to speak out about what is right (without the personal attacks), because that is a message that the World needs to hear. But Politics is never the final playing field of Truth.

Contrast that with the efforts of Doug Gross, who in the August 30 Des Moines Sunday Register delivered an Op-ed piece recommending complete abandonment of our efforts to drive back the social diseases that have infested society and have been embraced by the courts. Gross, who has been an unsuccessful candidate for Governor, believes that the key to the Republican Party’s success in 2010 will be a complete focus on fiscal issues and minimizing of efforts to try to address social issues such as Abortion and Gay Marriage. His position seems to be as simple as this: the Republican Party will continue to falter while struggling with the “cultural and ideological wars”, so drop (or at least soften) the socials issues already so we can win. And he continues to argue with numbers of registered Republicans (which are a bit lower than Democrats and both largely lower than Independent… Iowa is mostly an Independent state) instead of looking at the very issues he decries and the overwhelming number of Iowans who continue to support Traditional Marriage and the lives of the unborn.

Doug also references research by the Iowa First Foundation. The focus of that research is party image. While I agree the image of the party is substantively tainted by public displays of in-fighting, a history of government largess, corruption and moral failure, it seems untenable to state that abrogating key party principles is really appropriate.

Keep in mind, the number one issue for Iowa Republicans is the Right To Life. The very first plank of the Iowa Republican Party Platform is:

1. A Right to Life

We believe life, from conception to natural death, is a sacred gift from the Creator and thus is an inalienable right as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Therefore:

1.1. We affirm that every innocent person, including the unborn child, has the God-given and Constitutional right to life beginning at conception and ending at natural death

1.2. We reaffirm our support for an amendment to the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Iowa that protects innocent human life from conception to natural death.

1.3. We oppose using public revenues to fund abortions or organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, which advocate abortion.

1.4. We commend those who provide alternatives to abortion by meeting the needs of mothers and offering adoption services. We furthermore support their right to perform the services in a manner that does not violate their values.

1.5. We support a ‘Woman’s Right to Know Law’ whereby performers of abortions must provide complete factual information to the pregnant woman about the complications of abortion, the biological development of the unborn, fetal pain, and the availability of alternatives to abortion.

1.6. We support legislation requiring that upon completion of informed consent as outlined in “Woman’s Right to Know Law” there shall be a three (3) day waiting period before any abortion services can be provided.

1.7. We support legislation requiring consent by a parent and/or legal guardian before a minor child receives an abortion or any other reproductive services and products. Such law should require proof of identity of the parent in order to protect children from continued abuse by sexual predators who pretend to be the parent taking their child for an abortion.

1.8. We support the reversal of Roe vs. Wade.

1.9. We support the use of non-embryonic stem cells to advance modern medical research. We oppose somatic cell nuclear transfer (human cloning), embryonic stem cell research, human fetal-tissue research from induced abortions, and the commercial use or sale of fetal parts.

1.10. We strongly urge that the 2002 Human Cloning Ban, which was repealed in the 2007 Iowa Legislature, be reinstated.

1.11. We believe euthanasia, assisted suicide, and infanticide are murder.

1.12. We support the ban of partial birth abortion.

1.13. We oppose the removal, by order of a court or state agency, of fluids or nourishment from those who are either acutely or terminally ill. We believe the decision should be left to the family or conservator.

1.14. Whereas DNA evidence is allowed in our Judicial system as proof of identity, we believe that DNA proves that a fetus upon conception, has DNA separate, from his parents, identifying him as a separate individual, with all the rights endowed him by the Constitution of the United States, that among these are the right to life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

1.15. We believe in “conscience clause” legislation so that no physician, pharmacist or other health care provider can be penalized for refusing to prescribe, dispense or participate in the procurement of abortion or anything contrary to the conscience of the health care provider.

1.16. We support the confidential statistical reporting of abortion procedures to the State Health Department by all doctors and facilities performing abortions in Iowa.

A lot of Iowa Republicans, I would suggest that most of those that voted at the 2008 State Republican Convention, support this plank. Furthermore, I think that a large number of Independents do as well.

We have a similar story on Family Values. Much of the plank on this topic is focused on Traditional Marriage and sexuality:

6. Family Values

In keeping with the reality that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that our nation’s foundation and subsequent blessings flow from adherence to and respect for the Judeo-Christian ethic, we affirm the following:

6.1. Traditional, marriage-based (one male and one female) families are intrinsically procreative and thereby essential to a stable, thriving, and lasting civilization. Therefore, public policy must always be pro-family, encouraging marital and family commitment, while also supporting parental rights and responsibilities.

6.2. We support an amendment to the Iowa Constitution stating that “To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.”

6.3. We support an amendment to the United States Constitution stating that “Only marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized in the United States, and that neither the Federal government, any state government, or the political subdivisions thereof may create or recognize a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals.”

6.4. We encourage adoption of children by heterosexual married couples consisting of one man and one woman.

6.5. We oppose adoption by same-sex couples.

6.6. We believe access to sexually explicit material, especially on the Internet, poses a serious threat to our families and children. Therefore we must strengthen and enforce our laws to protect our families and children.

6.7. We believe in the sanctity of marriage and call upon the Iowa Legislature to rescind “no-fault divorce” laws.

6.8. We believe that parents are responsible for their children and we support the rights of parents to discipline and protect their children.

6.9. We uphold the Declaration of Independence and the Pledge of Allegiance, with references to the Creator as presently written, and believe that it is constitutional and does not violate separation of Church and State, but ensures freedom of religion and not from religion.

6.10. We oppose any law, ordinance or policy that would approve the practice of homosexuality.

6.11. We strongly oppose the UN “Convention on the Rights of the Child.”

6.12. We call for the repeal of sexual orientation in the Iowa Civil Rights Code and we oppose any other legislation or executive order granting rights, privileges, or status for persons based on sexual orientation.

6.13. We believe the father of a child, born or unborn, has the same rights and responsibilities as the mother in all matters regarding the child.

Again, this is what Republicans in Iowa believe in. There are other areas of social concern (Health and Human Service, Immigration) as well.

Do I think the platform is perfect? No, but then again I do think it is well done, and fairly well addresses the concerns of Iowa Republicans. Should we ignore or discard these sections of the Platform? That would be wrong. You may hear me suggest that in working with the opposition party, one must be prepared to listen and perhaps work out a compromise in order to achieve a path toward long-term success. However, the Party Platform provides the most substantive statement of what we think is “right” as Republicans and we must maintain steadfastly our core message.

Doug thinks that promoting our Conservative Social Agenda (read “religious”) will just continue to make Republicans irrelevant. Doug thinks that “Iowans get nervous when their politicians wear their religion on their sleeves.”  The image of wearing religion on one’s sleeve is dramatically at odds with the simple fact that for many Republican politicians, Faith is one of the key drivers behind their policy positions (as it is for many Iowans), and it is a sign of integrity that they make that fact clear to voters.  Although there are some who are turned off by that, I find that most folks I encounter find this honesty refreshing as long as aligning with that faith is not presented as a cultural or organizational mandate.

There is no doubt that we have a large amount of diversity within the Republican Party and that we need to be inviting even to those who don’t necessarily align perfectly with our entire platform (and I am speaking more toward party members than I am toward potential candidates).  But frankly, the challenge goes both ways: those who come in should learn to understand and accept the fact that the majority has established the principles and policy positions, and the majority should be willing to take the time to not only explain but to also listen to those that hold a differing viewpoint.  Regardless of the majority decisions on anything, each individual in the party has value and should be treated that way.

Doug provides some compelling and valuable ideas regarding areas where the Republican Party can make some improvements, and indeed the Party has already done so at the state level and within many county organizations. This includes working to engage our youth, leveraging newer communications technologies and strategies, and a stronger emphasis on recruitment. And, as Ted Sporer said in response yesterday,

Given the economic collapse our nation faces, and Iowa’s role as arguably the worst business climate in the nation, there really cannot be any argument that the economy is our best punch.

Agreed, the economy and the impact even the fear that Socialized Medicine brings to Iowans are areas of essential work.

But to deprive the public of both the information and opportunity to debate the critical social issues that assail us today is not only ingenuous, but weak. Despite the fact that Democrats hold sway in the Iowa General Assembly and that the Iowa Supreme Court is made of up folks that sincerely believe it is their responsibility to mold society to their value system, Iowans have and want the right to speak clearly on these issues.  Our party is their only real hope of having a voice.

There were some folks in our country’s history who did some awesome things… we call them the Founding Fathers.  When the Declaration of Independence was written, they debated references to slavery, and ended up dropping the language, an unfortunate decision.  Further work was attempted throughout the building of our nation, but it took over 80 years for us to address this disease on our society officially, and we still suffer some of the ill effects of this decision today.  But it took the forming of the Republican Party, and an unswerving commitment by the Party and its leaders, to bring slavery to an end.  It wasn’t politically prudent.  Lincoln almost lost his reelection  bid over the war that ensued.  But it was the right thing to do, and we are the better for doing what we know is right.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

There is one other aspect that needs consideration, especially if you are concerned (as Doug is) about the core value of “winning”.

I spoke with my dear wife about Doug’s position on this last night. Keep in mind that my wife is not as driven to engage in the political quagmire as I am, and typically does not express strong opinions on topics such as “What should the Republican Party do about the internal debate regarding social issues?”.

Her response to Doug’s position was simple. “That’s stupid”. And here’s her reasoning. If as a party we step away from our values, especially regarding Life and Traditional Marriage, we will instantly lose the support of those that provide the fuel for our party. These are smart folks… they read the Des Moines Register and blogs like this, they listen to talk radio, they work on their own key agendas, and they are fired up about how Republican Principles speak to their values, and I guarantee they read Doug’s piece on Sunday with angst.

Those folks might still vote Republican in an election, but their volunteer, financial and vocal support for the party will evaporate. Without this hard work and critical support, the Republican Party will no longer attract voters.

And, according to Doug, our “business is attracting voters”.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I made a passing reference to a piece that Ted Sporer published yesterday at his blog. Ted was spot on, and as usual was able to express his position much more eloquently than I. Some of my thoughts and comments were helped by having read Ted’s piece, so I want to especially acknowledge that.

I also appreciate the opportunity to talk through these thoughts on The Beanwalker Live! program this afternoon (about 25 minutes or so into the program) with Tim Albrecht.  Tim is very sharp and a great sounding board for topics like this.  Catch his great site The Beanwalker.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Reading Assignment:

    Log in