Getting Republicans Back on Track

By: Randall Thompson

Former Republican House Majority Leader, Dick Armey, wrote in his book, Armey’s Axioms, “When we act like us, we win. When we act like them, we lose.” Such words seem appropriate after the 2008 general election. However, there is so much more to those words today than when they were written.

I cannot tell you how many times during the Bush Administration political staffers at the state and federal level would seemingly say the same thing, ‘I didn’t sign up for this.’ From the ill-executed war in Iraq to the prescription drug plan to the recent government bailout, many republicans – both grassroots and professionals alike – were caught off-guard by the brand of conservatism and, thus, the brand of republicanism being executed at the highest levels of our government. Worse yet, it was for the world to see. Nevertheless, in his defense, President Bush didn’t do it alone. He had a lot of help.

President Bush’s proclamation of “compassionate conservatism” when he ran for office in 2000 was great rhetoric and a wonderful mission statement. However, republicans failed to understand that it actually meant something. Compassionate conservatism meant spending – a lot of spending on government programs. It meant deficits and increased debt. It meant foreign policy that focused on American Exceptionalism and a Wilsonian offense spreading democracy around the world rather than a peace through strength national defense policy. In short, it was a brand of conservatism with which many Republicans were uncomfortable. It was not the brand of conservatism that built a center right America. However, he was “our guy” and they kept their lips sealed.

Now, in the wake of the recent elections, both grassroots and professional Republicans are asking, “Where do we go from here?” Pundits are busy today arguing whether Republicans and conservatives should revert back to their principles and become more partisan, thus, playing the role of loyal opposition? Or, should they acquiesce and work with the increased majorities of the House, Senate and new President-Elect Obama. Oddly, the answer can be and should be – both.

For years, conservatives have tried to indicate their political leanings by expressing themselves as Paleo-Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives. These designations spoke to the type of conservatism they believed in. As described by Wikipedia, Neo-Conservatives were/are, “a modern form of conservatism that supports a more assertive foreign policy, aimed at supporting American business interests abroad.” Paleo-Conservatives were/ are described as, “arising in the 1980s in reaction to Neo-Conservatism, stresses tradition, especially Christian tradition and the importance to society of the traditional family.”

As President-elect Obama plainly put it, “Change has come to America.” This must be with the Republican Party and conservative movement, too. We can revert back to our most fundamental traditions, principles, and philosophies; be a loyal opposition when warranted and work with the new majorities in the House and Senate at the same time. How? It won’t be because of re-branding an image or reinventing the wheel. It will be by returning to our roots; a center right roots of thinkers and philosophers that ushered us into a time of peace and prosperity. We need to look to the past writings of Russell Kirk, Edmund Burke, Richard Weaver, Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises.

In these writings we will find a stark contrast with modern conservatism most recently on display. We will find a place in the very first chapter of Russell Kirk’s book, The Politics of Prudence, a proclamation that conservatism is, in fact, the lack of ideology. It is not partisan but reasoned. It is not argumentative or “gotcha” but measured. It is a far cry from the conservatism contemporaries have come to know. Further, we will find a reason for a just and moral order in our society for the sake of shared interest and partnership toward a shared future – not to force dogmatic practices on an unwilling citizenry.

In other writings from Hayek and Mises we will find a proven direction to build prosperity without taking from the rich and giving to the poor. In Burke, we will find a role for regulation without over-regulating to the point where we choke a small business’ or individual’s opportunity to make a profit. In Weaver, we find that ideas have consequences. Every decision carries with it levels of impact. As Weaver notes, “All work is a bringing of the ideal from potentiality into actuality.” We work together.

As a collection, we find a place where minorities have a home through public policies that directly benefit them and a place where they are not only welcome but are relied upon. We find a proper role for government while not intruding into peoples’ personal lives or asking them to give up their liberties in the name of national security. We find a place for achieving peace through strength without active nation building or misdirecting aggression; not confusing offense with defense . We find a place for a limited social safety net while still relying on the hard work and individual responsibility of every able citizen because the greater we limit the fall, conversely, the greater we must limit the success. And, we find a place where we are truly “our brother’s keeper” but a keeper by choice – not by government force.

In this time, we can begin anew to read understand and share what traditional conservatism is and what it was meant to be. We need our state and federal leaders to do the same and be able to practice and articulate it. In this, we will be able to work with President Obama when he has it right and serve as a loyal opposition when he has it wrong. Rather than a partisan approach – we show what a reasoned, measured and prudent approach to public policy looks like. More importantly, we will show our citizens and the rest of the world what we were supposed to be; what our movement was built to be and what our party quit trying to be. At the very least, we will most certainly find a brand of conservatism that most of America agrees with – they just haven’t seen it in a quite a while.

Randall Thompson is the President of the Peace and Prosperity Project.

Word on the Street: Holiday Edition

By: Seth Beifel

Happy holidays or merry Christmas? This ongoing debate brings up many questions within an infinite number of communities throughout America. So, how do the students of Michigan State feel on this issue?

Of the people polled, just fewer than 70% favored the ‘Happy Holidays’ moniker. This overwhelming majority is an understatement to the religious breakdown of the nation. 78.5% of Americans consider themselves Christian, 1.7% Jewish, 0.6% Muslim, 12.1% religiously unaffiliated, while the remaining 7.1% are a mix of the other world religions.

With this unequal balance, it does not explain why such a larger percentage of Michigan state university students support the phrase ‘Happy holidays’. A family community services freshman, Becky Hummel has an interesting out look on that statistic.

“I think we live in a world that cares too much what other people will think,“
Hummel said.

This debate provides an intriguing conversation amongst the widest spectrum of the school’s population. Michigan State sophomore Brennan Cavanagh has a different take on the issue.

“Basically, I think people say ‘Merry Christmas’ out of habit,” Cavanagh said. “I wouldn’t be offended if someone came up to me and said Happy Hanukkah.”

The belief stated by this student provides an interesting aspect with a reversal of situations. This opinion contrasts the settings around campus where there are many symbols on buildings such as holiday wreaths, sleighs, and reindeer. This is a message being put out by the university, but the students observe that there does seem to be a lack of equality.

Michigan state freshman Jackson Sherman supports the minority of students surveyed.

“People should not be offended when someone says merry Christmas because America is mostly Christian,” Sherman said.

This voice is opposite to most of the people polled as it shows that college students have a more liberal outlook on the world.

Another student, Sean Watkins, believes there should be a more generalized greeting across the nation.

“In a country as diverse as the United States of America, one should say ‘happy holidays,’ Watkins said. “Though the media usually says ‘happy holidays,’ most films are Christmas films, except Adam Sandler’s movies and the proud family’s Kwanzaa special.”

When contrasting this voice to the real world, it does provide a competing perspective. As people enter a store during the holiday season, they hear either one of the two greetings and usually, it is ‘merry Christmas.’ People have their views on this issue, but it is still a debate worth having. But even with the debate and the overwhelming numbers from the poll, the question is still left to the readers: Merry Christmas or happy holidays?