New Ideas
The Republican Party is on the hunt, or at least part of it is. If you’ll scroll back a bit, you can read my prediction that the Party would split in to the Country Club, Social Conservative, and Libertarian factions, which we’re starting to see. The Libs and the Socials (I really love being able to apply those abbreviations to the Rightward side of the spectrum) have their philosophies pretty well hammered out and, despite repeated evidence that the majority of Americans do not share them, are convinced that eventually the rest of us will smarten up and see things their way. The Country Club set, however, is looking for new ideas. As John Stewart notes here, they pretty much rule out wide swaths of ideas before opening up the floor for questions, thus freeing themselves to just say no to everything that won Obama and the Dems the last election.
Although this is billed as a listening tour, the clips that I saw mostly featured the three official “listeners” giving opinions and those whose ideas they sought asking questions that sort of boiled down to “What’s in it for me?” (Example: “What are you going to do for small business?”)
I will allow that news organizations are more interested in quoting famous people than ordinary ones and that maybe the group wants to keep those new ideas to itself until they can polish them up a bit, but still. I’d like to ask some questions. Maybe someday they’ll make it out to a pizza place in my neck of the woods (I would highly recommend Wallery’s over in West Salem, OR.) But in the meantime, in the interest of letting them prepare, here are some questions I have. After all, they say they’ll listen to anybody.
Oops! Well, I just found out that the “Listening Tour” has been canceled by executive order of Rush Limbaugh. Still, I don’t want to tell them anything, just ask questions, so my offer stands. Here are the questions:
- America is a place where people can work hard and get rich. But what if some of the strategies used to get rich harm other people? For example: A company can save millions by not installing pollution controls. This can create a health care crisis, with millions of people suffering from things like asthma and cancer. Given that the Republican Party is against universal health care and has been against environmental regulation for the past 3 decades, how do you propose to deal with this problem?
- The Republican Party places a high value on individual effort and feels that government should have as little input into the private sector as possible. Often the pioneers are cited as role models, people who heroically tamed the wilderness, turning it into productive farmland. However, this view of history ignores the Homestead Act, by which the government gave away millions of acres of land for free or a small filing charge, and it ignores the role of the US Army and the US Bureau of Indian Affairs (both taxpayer-supported government agencies) in wresting that land from its original owners. It ignores the fact that the railroads were given rights of way, which they then leveraged via bank loans to construct the railways. (Both of these programs were signed into law by Abraham Lincoln.) What is the modern Republican equivalent of the Homestead Act? What are the industries of the future and how would a Republican-led government create an environment favorable to their establishment?
- Governor Romney, you are a highly successful businessman. You made your fortune buying up failing businesses and restoring them to profitability, which is a good thing. You’ve discovered a business model that works and have been busy replicating it. At the same time, banks make a tidy living making loans. They too, have found a successful model and use it over and over : lather, rinse, repeat. So we have a situation in which American businesses reduce their domestic labor force, sending jobs overseas, and people who previously could make their payments no longer can, and the whole economy falls apart. Can you see how this is like two freight trains, each intent upon its own journey toward riches, racing toward a place where the tracks intersect? Is there a role for regulation? If it’s not the government that regulates, who or what would? Given that business executives are trained to seek short-term profit, who looks out for the long-term interest of the nation?
- Republicans frequently cite the Founding Fathers and the original principles of our nation. Benjamin Franklin once said, “All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.”
Walmart is an example of an organization that has successfully used government programs (the Interstate highway system to move goods, Medicaid to provide its employees with medical benefits). Why does the Republican Party oppose asking those who have benefited the most from the system to contribute a higher percentage toward its support? - Who does menial tasks (harvesting, cleaning, food prep, etc.) if the wages for such work are too low and the working conditions too dismal to attract American workers? How do you balance the need to get those jobs done without mandating higher wages and decent working conditions or bringing in impoverished people from other parts of the world to do those jobs?
- Given that everyone understands the importance of Education in individual and national success, why do Republicans favor policies that divert funding from the public school system, weakening it?
It seems to me that until the Republican Party addresses these issues in terms other than the boilerplate terms “freedom,” “traditional values,” and “low taxes,” they will doom themselves to increasing irrelevance.
Get email updates here!
You make some great points in this article and your present them a very poignant fashion. However, have you considered the possbility that our federal government doesn’t make things better in matters of social programs? It’s not that education isn’t important, but maybe the education programs would be better managed at a state level. The “funding” that you refer to never reaches the student at his desk – this is the harsh reality of federal government programs. The federal government involvement has no direct relationship to improving a sector of our society.
It’s certainly a different viewpoint than yours, but I feel that the most thoughtful citizens must discuss their differences to best challenge their ideas. I was wondering if you could read a post, I wrote several days ago and other your thoughts.
Sincerely,
Matthew DiGeronimo
http://blogtoamillion.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/simplicity-endangered/
Matthew DiGeronimo
May 6, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Thanks for commenting, Matthew. I do agree that it’s important to exchange views and explore each other’s thinking. I did read your blog post and had a question for you. If each library in the country got $38K, as you propose, How would that shake out in practice? A town with an existing library setup might get enough to pay five years worth of monthly broadband bills, while a small rural community still wouldn’t even be able to run a broadband line from the nearest trunk line for that amount of money. Will private enterprise step into the breach? Not for a town of 300 people in an income range where buying a computer is way over the horizon. Not with the promise of one client: the public library.
I understand where you are coming from, but your logic leads to the notion that rich nenighborhoods should have paved roads, whereas any neighborhood whose inhabitants can’t afford to pave their own streets should have to live with the potholes. (And the broadband/roadway analogy is a valid one.)
Throughout history, humans, the herd-animals that we are, have seen value in communal activity. Barn-raising, potluck dinners, having an army and a police force as opposed to hiring mercenaries to guard our homes. Chipping in for services like roads, sewer systems, and schools.
The issue, as I see it, is who controls those communal activities and what ends do they serve? A police force that believes that the law should be enforced differently, according to the color of one’s skin or church membership is a problem. Same thing with government spending. Who controls it? Who does it serve? From what I’ve seen, most government programs have a Liberal public face while being constructed to benefit those who can afford to pay lobbyists, and who frequently and vociferously come down on the conservative side of the spectrum. This is why all the Founders made comments along the line of “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
John Perkins _Confessions of an Economic Hit Man_ is enlightening.If you’d like to be able to track which pol is supported by which corporation, what legislation he or she has sponsored, and who got the ensuing contracts, go to http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/.
I believe that it’s always a balancing act between the individual and the group, between the humans and the earth, and that we need to tread carefully and thoughtfully.
And remember, they can’t throw spitballs if you’re looking them in the eye. Eternal vigilance, and all that.
tfgray
May 7, 2009 at 10:19 am
Point taken regarding the library funding. However, I wasn’t actually proposing that solution. I was using that as an example of government solutions that are simple, transparent and fair. As it stands now, who will decide where that money will go, how will get there and when? We as citizens have no ability to access this information which is not trivial.
With respect to inequities in what a certain amount of funds will be devoted into a particular area, I don’t agree with your example regarding the potholes. How did the rich area become rich? How were the potholes on those streets filled – through local taxes (which amount to more in a rich neighbor). Are we trying to provide all of our citizens with the same standard of living or are we trying to protect our citizens’ right to live freely. The two are mutually exclusive. If you choose the former, you are choosing a socialist approach – which although I do not agree with, there is a case to be made for it, by I do not believe that is the principle upon which this country was built. This is the land of opportunity, not the land of security. Like risk and reward – the two principles are inversely related and no amount of government involvement can change that relationship.
I wish the world were different. I wish that limited resources were unlimitied. I wish there was beachfront property for us all. But there isn’t and since there isn’t, I just ask for a government that allows me to reach for the golden ring (I was not born with, nor have reached that ring yet) and even if I fail trying at the end of my battle, I will have known that I had a fair shot at it.
You are a greater writer and a challenging and flexible thinker, I look forward to more debate.
-Matthew DiGeronimo
Matthew DiGeronimo
May 7, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Did you know there is a National Park site devoted to telling the story of the Homestead Act of 1862? To learn more about what may be the most influential piece of legislation this country has ever created go to http://www.nps.gov/home or visit Homestead National Monument of America. Located in Nebraska, the Monument includes one of the first 160 acres homestead claims but tells the story of homesteading throughout the United States. Nearly 4 million claims in 30 states were made under the Homestead Act and 1.6 million or 40 percent were successful. The Homestead Act was not repealed until 1976 and extended in Alaska until 1986. Homesteads could be claimed by “head of households” that were citizens or eligible for citizenship. New immigrants, African-Americans, women who were single, widowed or divorced all took advantage of the Homestead Act. It is estimated that as many as 93 million Americans are descendents of these homesteaders today. This is a story as big, fascinating, conflicted and contradictory as the United States itself. Learn more!
Ranger Doris
May 10, 2009 at 9:06 am