Who Can Win, Who Can't: Republicans Start the Fight

In a dashing timeline, one would always suggest that the fight for the White House is always in the battlefield. Yet, for many, it is not and it is subjugated to the four-year cycle of primaries and party nominations. We have ourselves a unique (for the second time) Presidential Election beginning in about May of 2012.

May is the primary season and it is where many of the Republican party hopefuls will attempt to attain the magic number for the Republican National Convention nomination (see CNN 2008 Election Delegate Count). While all of these statistics are thrilling, the major issue here for Republicans, is the leading candidates. Following are my classifications of who can win the nomination, who cannot, and the who could if they run.

This is the list of those running: Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachman, John Huntsman, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Gary Johnson.

So let's begin:

The Losers

1. Ron Paul: with a strategic plan for being the absolute favorite of stark libertarians and a rising glory with the Tea Party Movement (TPM), this man has truth behind him. With his son Dr. Rand Paul (R-KY) as a freshman Senator, he could sweep something in that state, yet party establishment dominated another TPM favorite and he was defeated. Like this motif, Ron Paul will undoubtedly fail at getting the nomination. His repertoire is extensive, but does it compete with the more social conservatives? No, his leanings to social liberalism will give him due pressure from such elements and will prevent him from solidifying the TPM voters.
2. Herman Cain: as a businessman, he knows very little on public policy and political underpinnings. Much like his other businessman counterpart who "officially" decided to not go for a bid--Donald Trump--he will not garner much more that 10 minutes of political intrigue. While he is a businessman, he could potentially alleviate our economic issues, but yet, it isn't just this. While the economy is the top domestic issue, it won't help him garner more than just "ok so you can run a business....tell me about the foreign relations with the Asian markets and the interest in Iran to Chinese and Russian weapons sales." 
3. Michele Bachman: A colleague of mine defines the likelihood of her rise as such "[s]he is charismatic, very conservative, and seems to hold sway over Tea Partiers and social conservatives. That’s not likely to be enough to beat Romney though- her numbers aren't high enough.  Also, Congresswoman Bachman is seen as polarizing by many on the left (sadly that doesn’t take much these days). She’s a three-term Representative who is largely on the outside of the establishment, which also hurts her." (Continue reading) While his analysis is somewhat respectable, it leaves out the following motives: charisma isn't a good indicator of Party Nomination, being a "very conservative" isn't always a good thing either, it leads to such a small fringe related group of voters. Could she sway the more moderate Republicans such as those like John McCain and or the members of the Log Cabin Republicans who aided Bush-43? Not likely, nor is her likelihood to gain much more popularity. While she would have third place in a recent poll against other contenders if Sarah Palin stays out, she still has so much ground to cover.
4. Newt Gingrich: Former glorious member of the House of Reps Speaker, fell from his revere when he could not capitalize on his plan. What does he have to offer this electorate now? Not much, except the adage of lower government, fiscal responsibility, etc, etc. Gingrich has too much personal baggage as well as the mass exodus of his campaign team. In a race against any Republican contender, he would not fare well, just like the others in this category and would lose greatly to President Obama, who under the auspices of the incumbency theory would win again. His woes in his finance exodus also mask his ability to effectively hone his speaking and influence.
5. Gary Johnson: Need I say more? There's no plausibility of his campaign ever gaining enough momentum to actually be a promising candidate.
6. Rick Santorum: Besides being a Senator in Penn. there is still much ground Santorum would need cover. It is unlikely that his bid, albeit like all the others, will encompass the "true conservative." Santorum has the most probable chance here to exit this column and move into the more glorious column of "Wish I Could Get More Votes." 

The Winner's:

1. Mitt Romney: This man has the highest rank of my column. Governor Romney probably has more clout among the nation to garner the treasured number of delegate votes at the RNC Convention. His poise in the last election cycle left him with a considerable amount of name recognition, along with his more religious views. While the nation still views Mormans and the people of weird practices, I doubt that it would make an impact. When pitted against Obama, who hasn't shown much of any religious leanings, the Morman could win. Now, some will argue that the "single-payer insurance" deal is going to reduce his likelihood among Republican voters.
2. Jon Huntsman: This man has the second highest ran in this column. Mr. Hunstman has a record of proven status from Utah. More so, the candidate has a diplomatic advantage over some of his opponents. A fault in this though is his reported stance on the mandate under a health law much like President Obama's (see here). Now, he has a good command to offer many fiscal responses to the economic and debt fallout and possible impending default. Yet, out of this, will it be enough for his more moderate approach to control a large portion of the primary votes needed? Yes, I do think he could manage it, it would be hard with other more moderate conservatives in the playing field
3. Tim Pawlenty: This man has the lowest rank in my winners column. While there is considerable amount of uphill battle Pawlenty would need to accrue to be able to make a statement against larger known candidates. In this respect, Pawlenty may have some small gains for Republican and independent voters. There really isn't enough substantive value to claim that he could lose or win, but because of some his more claims on how to reduce the negative effects of the economic decline and his defense policy projections it would grant him a large score with more hard line Republicans. 

Midterm Elections: Predictions, Pitfalls, and Ideology.

In the comings months, the US Midterm elections will occur and offer a glimpse of the future to the 2012 Presidential election. Moreover, it also provides us with an understanding of the political tendencies of Americans--or at least those who vote. Each midterm election cycle usually holds well for the Congressional party that is in control. Most of the success in midterm elections come from the Incumbency and Coattails Theory. Where the incumbent has a 90 percent chance of re-election. The Coattails Theory, which is similar, says that the a group--usually Congressional or Senate members during an election will ride on the skirts of the success of the President's win of an election. However, in two simple cases, that failed, the Republican control of Congress in 1994 and the Democratic control of Congress in 2006.

The political climate in America is a new breed of politics. With the rise of the "Tea Party Movement" and fall of Democratic trust, it has caused many voters to re-examine their priorities. When Barrack Obama won control of the Presidency, his likability and favor-ability were in an all time high for an incoming President. However, his troubles began with the continuation of the Bush Bailout program. So what is in store for the 2010 midterm elections?

It starts with the rise of the Tea Party candidates. These candidates, espousing themes of the Republican party, are attempting to rebrand the whole conservative movement. In essence, they are seemingly going to redefine the political ideology and possibly move one of the major parties into "third-party" status. Yet, philosophically, what are the majority of Tea Party constituents? The major claim, in political ideological spectrum, is that they tend to lean closer to Libertarian ideals and similar to anarchist and classical liberalism. As such, libertarianism is closely founded upon the non-statist and classical liberalist sense in that the father of said political ideal is Joseph Déjacque. Granted, philosophical ideology has changed since this began. Moreover, the nature of the Tea Party not only supplants themes of decrease of government, reduction of taxation, spurring the growth of middle class businesses, but to provide the certain restraints on the government itself; e.g. PATRIOT Act,

The political activists, and actors, such as Rand Paul of Kentucky and Sarah Palin of Alaska are somewhat bandwagoning. The US Sente race in Kentucky is a prime example of how the Tea Party movement will motivate the independent and somewhat righter-than-Republican electorate. In many aspects, the Tea Party is expected to gain much, but this may be short lived. The climate and organization of the Tea Party is thinly organized and loosely structured. Without such a control or mechanism to keep their operations moving, the Tea Party Movement will spiral into a self destructing machine.

Secondly, the fall of Democrats is the next issue. The Democratic control of Congress (2006-present) is seemingly faltering, with a Rasmussen Report stating that 2% margin, America wants Republicans to counter a Democratic President (Trust on Issues, 2010). In a more worrisome report by Rasmussen, an article shows that the partisan trend is now the smallest gap in five years, with Democrats holding 35% and Republicans holding 33.8%. In more effect, the major problem is several fold. The Presiential election garnered a higher-than-usual expectations. With the removal of Republican control and it's "Conservative Control" over the nation, the Democrats had a near perfect chance to maximize on it. They, as several people contend--one such is a good friend, that the Democrats began in the wrong direction. They chose to agitate the wrong crowd. If, as my friend suggested, the Democrats had picked issues that may not have been so controversial or poignant, the solidification of their base and leadership would still hold, leaving Republican establishment wondering when they will fall. So, their greatest problem in current American political culture, is themselves. They have backed themselves into a corner with no way for anyone, anything, not even God made, to get them out of the serious problem.

Furthermore, the Republican base and electorate is expected to gain seats from Democrats, in that, the Rasmussen Poll showed that the political leanings are slightly moving toward the Republican ere. Democrats, unlike the past, must move to the center, they must shy away from their far-left leaning constituents, just as Republicans must move away from far-right constituents. It would be imperative for both parties to maximize their strategic campaigns to mobilize and capture the Independent voter base.

Finally, the Republicans must also be watchful of issues that would inhibit them from succeeding well in the November midterm elections. Many of these issues tend to follow several mantra's that Republican's themselves fail to follow, such as, limited government or fiscal responsibility. What should Republican's look out for and keep an eye on? Specifically, they should look for and reinforce a small wall against the Democratic push for more expansive programs about "rebuilding and refortifying" the infrastructure or any works that may try attempt to recover an economy that is faltering. Another major problem that Republican's should watch is the classic mantra of "they will give breaks to the rich" from Democrats. Yes, while a majority of tax breaks are geared towards a greater group of upper middle class to upper class, the major theme that Republican's must harp is the middle class. They must also push for the "church" to give back to its community. Prosperity comes from a dual program of community outreach and extensions of tax cuts and reform for middle class families. Another pitfall of the Republican party may be the inclusion and exclusion of the Tea Party movement. (However, it is probable that the Tea Party may not be the best decision for either group.) One more problem is that the Republican leaders, may decide to foment and insulate their power, which would do no good for their continuance as a party or a probable leader in political policies that could better the country.

Conclusively, the Republican Party will most likely take the House of Representatives, yet it is improbable nor likely that they shall recapture the Senate. It would be a drastic miracle for the Republican Party to collectively take control of Congress like the 1994 Revolution. It would be more probable for a divided government by chamber, rather than a division by branch of government. The Democratic Party itself needs to do several fold, repeal the inflated and egregious health care law, that now is reported to be an account busting program than its proposed reductive program, they must also push a reform of tax codes that are simplified and a compromise from the selected few who push for the Fair Tax Plan. The Tea Party Movement must do several things: (1) they must remove all rhetoric that will impede their philosophy,(2) remove all of the candidates that exacerbate and reiterate mantra's that are consistent with Antebellum politics, and (3) they must make sure that the people running the movement are not a part of any philosophical or political fringe, such as "conservatives" (which promulgate a return to Colonization era) or reactionist ideology.

US Senate Race In Kentucky

I want to sit with you this night and talk about my adventure with a campaign of unique proportions. You guessed it! The US Senate race right in the unbridled Commonwealth of Kentucky. Normally, I do not talk of state politics, but today is a day I need to.

Dr. Rand Paul filed with the Secretary of State's Office for his Senate bid for the opening seat from Senator Jim Bunning (R). What is more appealing than filing with this office is practically watching an open splenectomy...again my sarcasm. The unique part of this day was that several members of society, protested Dr. Paul's filing and subsequently dressed in Guantanamo Bay detainee outfits. They held signs prodding at Candidate Paul's stance on the closure of Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. They followed him to the Republican Party of Kentucky headquarters where they stood outside continuing to protest.

So what does this really mean for us? Well, it seems that Dr. Paul previously stated that he is for the release of detainee's to their respective homes. Hmph. It was my opinion that Republican's and the like, did not want to release the detainees and subsequently allow them to return to their former lives and attempt to destroy us again! So why is it that a Republican candidate is smashing the stance and taking the Democratic stance? Easy, he's not really a Republican. Paul is running on both Libertarian and Republican tickets. Another thing is that our dear Dr. Paul seemed quite jittery as he did not even file himself. He sent a member of his group to finish filing for him. So how does this relate to my story? Well, this means that in some fashion he is allowing terrorists to come back and finish the job. I am sure that Dr. Paul, in all reality, has the interests if the Kentucky and American people in mind as he positions himself on this issue. In truth, he has changed his stance, to something that will garner the most votes. This political hapanstance is most desirable in a contest that could prove vital, now that Scott Brown has swept us to a fillibuster Congress.

While I do not agree with Dr. Paul's stance, I do have to naturally take a swipe at his constituency for their brazen and malefesance for having the undue voracity to start name calling and bullying. Is this what the Republican party comes down to in its constituency!? I hope not, because the more we play in our division, the Democrats will openly and secretly allow the dissolution of the Republican Party to continue to capitilize on our blunders.

My support therefore, must go to Secretary of State Trey Grayson. Why? Because he proves to be the more amenable and better fit. Dr. Paul, would--as one would hope--do well, but I fear that his constitunecy and supports only demean and plow the overal Conservatist movement into the flicker of hope.

Good Luck Trey!

In The Name of Genocide and Its Horror

For my Political Science 325 class I wrote a brief paper on the theme of genocide and of course its horror. The basis of my paper was to highlight the actual concept of "genocide"--which I will use quotes for the moment--and the creators possible intention of the word. My theory, came from Raphael Lemkin, who used the Greek word genos meaning clan, group, etc and the Latin cide meaning to kill. In Lemkin's papers, I concluded that the actual term is not what the UN General Assembly gave it in the convention on the prevention of genocide; in fact, the term itself calls for the near annihilation of said group. My paper discussed these issues, yet for the purpose of this article, I am now goind to redirect it in a different manner.

In my POL352, we were asked to in about 45 minutes to come up with a plan on intervening in the Darfur region. At first, the group I was in contemplated the UN coalition Ideal, or the UNCI as I will call it. After a brief recap on the Darfur "crisis", we concluded that the UNCI could not be attained due to the Chinese and Russian opposition to intervention. With this background, we followed the USCI, the United State's Coalition Ideal where we discussed it in terms of an American political standpoint. During this discussion, a member stated that the Darfur region could not be classified as a genocide per the reason that both the rebels and the Sudanese Government was committing these acts.

Normally, in this instance all of us would be rallying for his humiliation. Yet, this member may have a point of inquiry. At what point do we conclude that state's right of sovereignty is accepted and we could not intervene? In this case, both sides are committing the "genocidal" acts; yet, is it certainly "genocidal" or even "genocide?" According to the Bush Administration it is a genocide and that we are obligated to protect the innocent victims by certain rules of intervention and by the UN Convention on Genocide. Notwithstanding, we have an "obligation" to stop or deter the Sudanese government or other actors from continuing. The real question is whether or not there is any classifiable difference to acts of war that mingle with elements of genocide. Is genocide, in its used term now, only classifiable for a single group and not for a multi-clash of others? This is the primary and of course a secondary question we must ask ourselves. War in its own is horrible yes; inevitable? In some cases a good rationale could conclude so. In this case now? Maybe.

So how do we now classify it? I'm not sure a considerable argument could be conclusively be met to understand the issues of sovereignty--the linchpin of all international law and recognition of states as dealing with their own domestic issues without interference from other powers, small or large.

What thoughts are there for your consideration to classify Darfur as a "genocide" or "civil-war"? Could you make a good distinction from the facts above in 45 minutes to make a good plan and option?

Conservatism Failing or On the Rise?

Recently, I have neglected to follow the news and understand its most important subject: conservatism. What is conservatism? Many conclude it is a typology from the Republican Party. Is it? Probably not as much, since there are many "Republicans" who are single-issue Republicans. However, the real conservative probably is best defined by Jonathan Krohn's four principles of conservatism: "respect for the Constitution, respect for Life, less government, and personal responsibility."

These, in Krohn's view, are the constants of Conservatism. Are they valid? While I will admit fully I have not read his book, I should conclude from his synopsis that this is very much valid. So the real question you are asking is how does this pertain to the rising or falling of conservatism? I will give an example:

In the past few weeks, two friends of mine M and L--as I respect their identity--were in a store shopping for some essential food items. I commented to M that I found it funny that we spent 10 minutes discussing which brand of water to buy. Naturally, M responded with a remark that went like, "well you gotta get the biggest bang for your buck." Of course, he is correct! How could one, in an economic times such as this not look at the value of what your buying and not get the most out of it. After that, I sat down in my dorm and pondered something: if only people learned this responsibility and factored it into their life could they make a great impact on life and the community. Being frugal, as my dad taught me, is better. Use coupons when they come about and splurge rarely when you get the chance.

Now you may be wondering why I am talking about my personal beliefs and how it really connects to conservatism's failure or rise, right? Well here it is: if we could put the frugality back into government, we could easily run with less bureaucracy and less governmental oversight; especially in the free-market capitalist economy we so live in, or what's left of it. So what does this really mean for those "die hard conservatives?" It literally means we must continue to serve as an example of conservatives and implore that others will follow our example and see how each time you truly pay be the means in which you live can benefit you in the long run.

What else does this do for our fine country? It also reaches to those to preserve this ideology and its productive behavior that will instill--or hopefully--a larger perspective of our ultimate teachings.

So it is my hope you take this lesson and put in your life and show those spending losers just how much their "way" is total crap!

Pyongyang's Defiance Leads Allies to Tough Decision

In recent news, Pyongyang indicated that it would be launching a "satelite." Nations around the communist country believe differently. They feel that it is a reach for its claim to use long-range missles capable of targeting the Alaskan coast and possible the Western Coast. This poses a direct problem for the American Allies in the Asia sector.

How does this do so? In 2006, the United Nation's Security Council imposed sanctions on Pyongyang (S/RES/1695) :

Acting under its special responsibility for the maintenance of international
peace and security,
1. Condemns the multiple launches by the DPRK of ballistic missiles on
5 July 2006 local time;
2. Demands that the DPRK suspend all activities related to its ballistic
missile programme, and in this context re-establish its pre-existing commitments to
a moratorium on missile launching;
3. Requires all Member States, in accordance with their national legal
authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, to exercise
vigilance and prevent missile and missile-related items, materials, goods and
technology being transferred to DPRK’s missile or WMD programmes;
4. Requires all Member States, in accordance with their national legal
authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, to exercise
vigilance and prevent the procurement of missiles or missile related-items,
materials, goods and technology from the DPRK, and the transfer of any financial
resources in relation to DPRK’s missile or WMD programmes;
5. Underlines, in particular to the DPRK, the need to show restraint and
refrain from any action that might aggravate tension, and to continue to work on the
resolution of non-proliferation concerns through political and diplomatic efforts;
6. Strongly urges the DPRK to return immediately to the Six-Party Talks
without precondition, to work towards the expeditious implementation of
19 September 2005 Joint Statement, in particular to abandon all nuclear weapons
and existing nuclear programmes, and to return at an early date to the Treaty on
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and International Atomic Energy Agency
safeguards;
7. Supports the six-party talks, calls for their early resumption, and urges all
the participants to intensify their efforts on the full implementation of the
19 September 2005 Joint Statement with a view to achieving the verifiable
denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner and to maintaining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in north-east Asia;

In circumspect, the Security Council's decision on these matters were highly prevalent in society and tended to carry significant weight, yet the problem remains that because of diverging ideologies and politics, the whole of the Security Council has diminished in popularity and overall power. Noting that any resolution passed by the Council has weight and carry significant penalties for a sanction, is in the best interest of the world countries fighting for democratic values (a later discussion on democratic regiems). Neverthless, Pyongyang's defiance is a complicated issue for the allies. This problem stems from Pyongyang's wish to gain dominance in nuclear technology, just like Iran, and only pushes the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) signees and advocats spinning. The conceptualization of dominance in nuclear proliferation is easily understood. If a boy is constantly bullied, there are two options (1) do nothing and resent it later or (2) defy everything and everyone and become a person not to be challenged.

Japan already issued a military order to shoot on sight if any materials fall into Japanese airspace. The overarching goal is to shoot down the entire launch program, since it completely violates the UN S/RES/1695 to begin with. Pyongyang, under the leadership of Kim Jong Il, has masterfully propelled the world into a defensive position, one in which the United States cannot afford to do. The problem the Allies will have is to get other partners to push Pyongyang to seeking peace and return to the NPT. Moreover, it will be inheriently difficult to allow Pyongyang's move to go unpunished and may cause serious backlashes on the Obama Administration's stance on meeting with leader without preconditions.

Progressive Conservatism

Recently, a friend of mine created a note, that defined a "progressive conservative." In it, he gave his view on specific issues and I feel it needs to be pushed to the conservative base:

As I was flipping through the news channels a few weeks following Barack Obama’s election to the Presidency, I came across a very interesting discussion. The host, a prominent conservative voice, was arguing against the message of an article he read by another conservative. The article suggested that the Republican Party lost because it had moved too far to the right, and needed to move its platform left to the center in order to survive. Lampooning this argument, the host of the program desired the opposite. He said the Republicans lost because they lost their way, giving into the same types of deficit spending and corruption they accused the Democrats of when they came to power. The host advocated that the party should merely adhere to the conservative principles of Ronald Reagan to survive.

Who was wrong? To put it quite bluntly, they both were.

In 2004, the Democrats were desperate. The Republican majority had increased yet again following the reelection of President Bush. What could they do? Some argued that they should move to the right. They knew from experience that moving left would only further alienate them from voters. So what did they do?

Under the leadership of Howard Dean, Chuck Schumer, and Rahm Emmanuel, the Democratic part regrouped in 2006. In an effort to be competitive in all states, they developed a very successful strategy. They branched out and expanded their caucus WHILE staying true to their principles. On the key differences between the parties (like abortion and labor) their platform remained the same. Yet in order to achieve a majority, they recruited candidates that could win. Just look at the so-called Blue Dog Democrats. Many are financially or socially conservative, and were elected in conservative districts.

More than this, the Democrats expanded their platform. For example, in 2008 Obama proposed new community service programs to make sure any person could attend college. He also stated a desire to expand faith-based initiative programs, drawing some evangelicals to the Democrats. On important issues like energy, Democrats put forth new solutions. Regardless of the viability of their programs, they put forth solutions when Republicans simply wanted to “adhere” to the old principles.

So how do Republicans return to power? The actual answer is more complex, but the strategy is simple. While not moving the party’s platform left, recruit moderate or left-leaning Republicans to run in left-leaning states. In 2010, what if Rudy Guiliani ran for the New York Senate seat formerly occupied by Clinton? While he is pro-choice and pro-gun control, he is also a semi-conservative Republican. Where a very conservative Republican would have no chance in New York, candidates like Guiliani might. This can only work if the Republican Party retains its key positions (like income tax-cuts and pro-life stances).

Second, the party MUST, MUST, MUST expand its platform. I wish I had a dollar for every time I head the name “Ronald Reagan” during the Republican Primaries. In one debate, I lost count of the number of times Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani must have each said the name one hundred times. Most of the time it seemed as if the Republicans were just arguing over “who was more like Ronald Reagan.” Republicans have to expand. While not changing the core, they must add to what they are.

I call this new approach “progressive conservatism.” Progressive is the word that Democrats have successfully chosen to replace liberal, so why am I heaping it with conservatism? Webster has the answer. The word “progressive” simply means to promote progress; in other words, advancing the future. Instead of simply being “traditional conservatives” that cling (pardon the use of the word cling, Pennsylvanians) to the status quo, Republicans must use their basic principles to advance their ideas into the future.

This means broadening our platform to take on new issues and new solutions to the problems facing the United States. Issues that still fit logically into the context of the Republican party. This is distinct from the “compassionate conservatism” attempted by Bush; that was only the first step in a new direction. If Republicans think they can simply rely on the same Ronald Reagan politics to succeed, they are wrong. Reagan had successful policies, to be sure, but there are new issues that the party must confront to survive. As we saw in this election, Americans are focused on things besides keeping their guns and maintaining low taxes. These things are important, but if they are the ONLY message (the old message) they will not pull the new faces in that the party so desperately needs.

Progressive conservatism means a healthy debate within the party itself. A few months ago, a friend and I had a vigorous debate over the issue of waterboarding. Our disagreement over one Republican tenant did not mean one of us was not a true conservative, it was just that- a disagreement. While the core issues must remain the same, there must be a dialogue between all factions of the party.

I will use the market as an example. Republicans have been traditionally associated with an almost laissez-faire approach to the market. While we should all agree that a free-market or mixed-market system is necessary, the insistence that the free-market should be unregulated by the far-right is ludicrous. Just as big government can become corrupt and dangerous, so can big business. Regulation, not overregulation, is an appropriate function of government. Being financially conservative should not mean total commitment to the free market, but it should entail some basic common sense. We don’t need to spend our grandchildren into so much debt they will suffer for it.

At the risk of digressing further, I will move on. And I know it is all too easy for me to proclaim these truths from my laptop without laying out complex alternatives in a step-by-step fashion. That is a good argument; it is not fair for me to call for “new” ideas without defining what must be “new.” So in a second, I’ll give it a whirl.

In order to look to the future, we have to analyze what went wrong in the past. Specifically, what went wrong in this year’s election. The primaries served to fracture the already fragile Republican base into three primary constituents. There were the social conservatives, the financial conservatives, and the national security conservatives. One might say, “Kyle, there are many more Republican issues than that!” And that would be correct. But instead of trying to broaden the conservative coalition to include these issues, the candidates focused exclusively on the very issues that divided the party. Issues like immigration, corporate welfare, and the war in Iraq were NOT what the American people were looking for answers to. Healthcare, education, and financial reforms were.

Unfortunately, in an attempt to appease free-market libertarians, many of the Republicans turned a blind eye to the economy. Only Mike Huckabee initially addressed the issue, stating that while the Wall Street was temporarily succeeding, the people on Main Street were not as successful. Instead of agreeing with this sentiment, most of the Republicans ignored the economy until it was far too late.

The environment. Education. Health-care. Alternative energies. Market reform. These are just a few of the major issues Republicans must modernize their platform to address. I have never understood why the right has resisted caring for the environment. Even if some Republicans do not believe in global warming (or even if it did not exist) what harm could come from protecting our earth? Do we not want to leave our lakes and air clean for our posterity?

Here are just a few issues Republicans can and must improve on:

Age:
Consider the youth vote. In 2008, Barack Obama dominated John McCain 66% to 32% in the 18-29 years of age demographic. He went on to carry each age group, save for the 65 and older section of the electorate. Part of this is to be expected, because President Obama was in his forties, whereas McCain’s age of 72 made him look dangerously old by comparison. This is one area in which Republicans could make significant inroads. Although the Constitution states that members of the US House of Representatives only have to be 25 and older, the average age for a representative in the 111th Congress is 57. In the Senate, with a requirement of 30, the average age in the 111th Congress is 63. This is nation’s oldest Congress in history. As signaled by the election of Obama, the youth of America are a growing section of the electorate, one which Republicans must recruit. New, younger Congressmen, might help this happen. Actually, this may already be starting to happen; at 27, Republican Aaron Shock is the youngest member of the House. With many Republican Senators retiring in 2010, primary voters should strongly consider younger proponents to champion their causes.

Diversity:
One of the most needed areas for party development comes in the form of ethnic diversification. When Republicans reach out (rather than putting up walls and borders, making them just as elite as the liberal establishment they rail against) they tend to win. Look at Anh “Joseph” Cao from Louisiana's 2nd Congressional District. Cao is the first U.S. House Representative of Vietnamese descent, and he won in one of the most heavily democratic areas of the country. (True, it was against accused Congressman Jefferson, but it was still a remarkable victory in any event.) Look at Sarah Palin, the much-maligned Governor of Alaska. Whatever one may think of her performance or abilities on the campaign trail, it is unquestionable that she sparked interest and brought more female voters to John McCain.

It is unquestionable that diversity is required if the Republican Party is to survive. With the Democrats having successfully elected the nation’s first African-American president, Republicans cannot sit by on the sidelines with an aging, static constituency. And then there is the Hispanic vote.

Immigration:
In 2004, George W. Bush won 44% of the Hispanic vote (compared to John Kerry’s 53%), a demographic that comprised 8% of the electoral vote. In 2008 however, Barack Obama won 67% percent of Hispanics to 31% for McCain. In four years, the Hispanic vote increased to 8% of the total vote. This massive shift in this important constituent was undoubtedly created by fierce (and oftentimes ugly) Republican opposition to comprehensive immigration reform. During the primaries, while the Democrats were focusing on ways to bring other into America, many Republicans were arguing over who could build the biggest fence.

I understand the importance of the immigration debate. In the age of global terrorism, it is true that terrorists could theoretically slip by the border. Yet when have we heard calls to build fences on (the several) vulnerable positions on our northwestern border? As several Republican contenders used increasingly harsh rhetoric (it is impossible to deport the over 12 million illegal immigrants already here), it is no wonder the Hispanic community turned away.

Was it not a Republican President who once said, “tear down this wall?” We can increase security at our borders without the tyrannical symbol of a fence to bar others from entering America, historically a land of immigrants. Ironically, John McCain was the champion of immigration reform. George Bush did many things to recruit Hispanics, including his guest worker program.


Progressive conservatism. Conservative principles used to advance and shape a better future. As an aside, it was Theodore Roosevelt (a Republican) in 1912 who founded the original version of the Progressive Party. We lost the label, and the mantra of the future. It is time to get it back.


http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:nquikEYC86cJ:www.blog.rockthevote.com/2009/01/fun-facts-on-111th-congress.html+average+age+of+representatives+in+the+111th+congress&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us