Ted Cruz and what the GOP establishment can learn from Osama Bin Laden...

In 1975 & 76 the United States was experiencing a crisis of confidence. Unemployment was at 8.5%, our allies in South Vietnam, who 58,000 American servicemen gave their lives to defend, had just been overrun and the reverberations of an OPEC embargo were sending oil prices from $15 a barrel to $100. At the same time Paul Ehrlich was warning about overpopulation and starvation, Newsweek was telling of a coming ice age and many thought we were conceding Eastern Europe to the Soviets.

It was into this emotional and economic morass stepped Ronald Wilson Reagan with a message of hope. He took clear aim at Gerald Ford and fought him all the way to the convention floor. He did so against the wishes of GOP party barons. He did so despite warnings that he would irreparably damage Gerald Ford and give the election to the Democrats. Reagan held firm, and indeed Ford lost to Jimmy Carter, who took an economic malaise and turned it into a full blown economic disaster. Interestingly, after Reagan’s speech at the convention many delegates left wondering if they had made the wrong choice…

If that’s where the story ended, it would indeed be a cautionary tale. But as we all know, the story didn’t end there. In 1980 Ronald Reagan picked up where he left off and eventually beat Carter in a landslide, taking 44 states and the Senate with him, the first GOP Senate majority in a quarter century.

At the end of the day, the 1980 election had something the Ford Carter contest four year before didn’t – a clear cut contest of ideas, with Carter suggesting the solution to the nation’s problems could be found in government action while Reagan felt government was the problem. The American people were faced with the starkest contrast since LBJ beat Barry Goldwater in 1964. Faced with that contrast and with conservative principals clearly articulated by Reagan the contest wasn’t even close.

The point to be drawn from 1976 & 1980 is not that one shouldn’t buck the establishment, but rather that when Americans are presented with a clearly articulated conservative candidate, conservatism wins and the establishment will eventually get on board… if only to avoid being left out in the cold. The Goldwater loss was unique in that it occurred in the shadow of JFK’s assassination.

Today we are faced with a somewhat similar scenario, where a number of “Wacko Bird” conservatives, with Ted Cruz leading the pack, are bucking the GOP establishment. While it’s not in a presidential campaign (yet) the lines are just as stark as they were a quarter century ago and the stakes just as high. Cruz, along with Mike Lee and few friends are suggesting that a government shutdown is preferable – although not necessary – to the American people getting the hook of Obamacare subsidies set in their wallets, because everyone knows that once an entitlement is in place it’s next to impossible to repeal. The barons of the party, from Boehner and McConnell to Rove and Krauthammer, suggest that the backlash from a stoppage will come back to bite the GOP at the polls in 2014. That isn’t a compelling argument in the first place, but it’s particularly feeble given the recent dire warnings – albeit from the president – but little actual blowback for the GOP from the sequester kicking in.

Cruz and co. have also come out strongly against Marco Rubio’s wretched immigration bill. Seemingly the entire GOP establishment is braying that if the House doesn’t pass this monstrosity that the GOP will go the way of the Whigs. The reality is that this bill will not only not accomplish what the establishment Pooh-Bahs claim, but it may well bring about the very outcome they claim fear, eviscerating support for the GOP, only in this case from conservatives fed up with a party that plays pander politics just like the Democrats. Indeed, conservatives constantly harangue liberals for their ignoring the facts in favor of fanciful claims that never come true. In this case the GOP barons need only look back to Ronald Reagan’s faulty 1986 immigration reform to recognize what failure looks like and understand that the Gang of Eight’s abomination is simply a replay that will have even worse results.

The bottom line is that Cruz should not only carry on, but he should draw bright lines in the sand or on the Capitol Hill steps or anywhere else he can get an audience. The Obama agenda in general and these two pieces of legislation in particular are going to be keys to the destruction of the GOP and the nation. At some point creating a national majority of dependant voters will have permanent negative consequences for a party that claims to champion freedom and opportunity. If Ronald Reagan demonstrated anything in 1980 it is that Americans respond to clear lines. In 2008 & 2012 the GOP establishment produced highly flawed candidates whose lack of conservative bona fides caused millions of voters to simply stay home rather than actually go to the polls… and this is despite the fact that the opponent was Barack Obama, and they hate that guy!

The GOP establishment can whine as much as they want about Cruz et. al scaring away middle class voters and minorities by digging in against pandering legislation, but the reality is that since 1992 the establishment has delivered five popular vote defeats and one modest victory. In the Electoral College they’ve delivered more than half the states just twice. Compare that to Ronald Reagan’s three victories (as Bush I’s first campaign was a referendum on Reagan’s policies) where the he delivered popular vote victories of 10%, 18% and 8% and Electoral advantages of 38, 48 and 30 states.

The lesson to be learned is not that the GOP should seek to out pander Democrats, but rather, they should make a strong stand for conservative principals and give the voters a clear choice rather than forcing them to choose between the lesser of two evils. In what is no doubt the only time in my life I’ll ever quote Osama Bin Laden in a positive context, he was unquestionably right when he said: “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.” Ted Cruz is just such a strong horse and he should continue to buck the GOP establishment and in the process demonstrate exactly what it means to stand for something. If he does that, my guess is that voters will respond positively to a 2016 run. The question is, are there enough “Wacko Birds” in and out of Congress willing to pick up their shields and emulate him in order to make 2014 look more like 2010 than 2006? For the country and the GOP’s sake, let’s hope so.

An uninspiring Mitt Romney will impale the GOP and give Barack Obama 4 more years...

What is Mitt Romney doing in the Republican Party? (Although a better question might by why has the Republican Party strayed so far to the left that a guy like Mitt Romney could be its standard bearer…)

Everyone knows the story of Mitt Romney. He ran Bain Capital and financed a number of new businesses and helped rescue others. True, he and Bain failed a few times, but Bain Capital did what it was supposed to do, which is make money for its shareholders. At the end of the day Bain Capital was a net plus in that it actually produced prosperity (and jobs) for a significant number of people, and that accomplishment cannot be obviated simply because they could not rescue every firm they took a position in.

In 1994 Romney sought to unseat Ted Kennedy from the US Senate but lost as Kennedy pilloried him for lacking core (political) convictions. The fact that he had difficulty establishing a coherent message didn’t help. He lost badly. In 2002 he headed west to manage the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. By all accounts he did a tremendous job and accomplished the financial equivalent of a perfect game, making the Olympics profitable for the host city.

Then of course there was his stint as governor of one of the bluest states in the union, Massachusetts. Like Scott Brown, a Republican in Teddy Kennedy’s neighborhood can be expected to be a RINO, and Romney certainly fit the bill. On a variety of issues both social and economic Romney was… shall we say purple in his approach. But at the end of the day he was more conservative than his predecessor in one of America’s most liberal states.

Add to that the fact that he’s a good looking guy with a great family and he seems like a poster child for putting Barack Obama in the unemployment line. It’s claimed he’s the Republican who can deliver Massachusetts and other key states like as Pennsylvania, Florida and probably Ohio and Nevada.

The problem is, he won’t.

When conservatives stand by conservative ideals, when conservatives clearly and coherently articulate the conservative principles of limited government, fiscal restraint and low taxes, they win. Not sure? In the three Reagan elections (counting Bush-41 in ’88 as an extension of Reagan’s policies) the GOP garnered 54% of the popular vote and beat the Democrats by an average of 11.9%. Contrast that with the elections since Reagan, beginning with Bush 41’s second run. Over the course of those five elections, the GOP has garnered an average of 44.4% of the vote while the Democrats earned an average of 48.3%. The GOP went from an average of 11.9% ahead to an average deficit of 4.4%. That is a 15 point swing in the wrong direction. What’s the difference? Solid conservative vs. milquetoast moderate. Unfortunately Mittens Romney is an extension of that milquetoast strategy.

Ominously, while 2012 may be the most important American election in a century, the two candidates seeking the White House are not going to be particularly distinguishable to voters – if we assume Mittens gets the nomination. Everyone knows that Barack Obama is a statist with socialist & populist instincts. Romney, in slight contrast, may be a capitalist, but on government policy he’s not enormously different. He supported the government’s TARP bailouts of the banks, he regularly plays the populist card of middle class tax cuts while arguing for increasing taxes on the rich, and of course there is RomneyCare, his signature achievement in Massachusetts that was literally the blueprint for the thing he rails against at every whistle-stop event: ObamaCare. Then there is his 59 point tax plan which does little to streamline the tax code and of course penalizes those earning over $200,000 a year. Finally there is his bizarre suggestion last week that the minimum wage should be indexed to inflation, something even our Socialist in Chief has not suggested. (Is it possible that the financial genius Mitt has no clue about how actual economics work?)

At this critical time when the United States is so clearly heading down the road to perdition what the country needs is someone to stand up on the biggest soapbox he can find and sing the praises of the capitalist system and make a clear and articulate argument for small, constitutional, limited government. We need someone to inspire and challenge the American people to throw off the yoke of the nanny state and pick themselves up by their bootstraps and in doing so become the economic vanguard of the world once again. Unfortunately, what we get instead is a GOP candidate who is in many respects largely indistinguishable from his statist, redistributionist opponent.

There is an old saying that you can’t fight something with nothing. In the case of Mitt Romney the GOP is hoping to fight the omnipresent government type Obama with the slightly less onerous, big government type Romney. Conservatives despise Barack Obama and they would likely turn out to vote if the GOP were to trot out Mickey Mouse to run against him. They won’t require the GOP to light a fire under them to get them to the polls. The middle sea of “moderates” on the other hand won’t respond to nothing. If the mass of largely disengaged Americans who are not political junkies finds that there is little or nothing to distinguish the candidates from one another then they will likely remain on the sidelines and not bother to vote. In a tight race intensity is the key to success. As such, Romney is a losing candidate. As can be seen by the fervency of the not-Romney elements of the GOP, the anemic turnout in Florida and Romney’s canned speeches and uninspiring debate performances, Mitt Romney is incapable of stirring the animal spirits of the base, never mind the general public.

Barack Obama is salivating at the prospect of facing off against Mittens. Knowing that Romney is incapable of articulating or defending strong conservative principals or even inspiring his own party – never mind the muddling middle – Obama can do what he does best: demagogue Republicans (up and down the ticket) and inspire his base with populist platitudes that are like blood in the water to the left. The result will not only be another four years of Barack Obama, but it will likely mean something of a bloodbath in the down ticket races as well, from the House to the neighborhood dog catcher.

Mitt Romney may be the candidate who finally puts an end to a Republican Party that has outlived its usefulness and ushers in a truly conservative Tea Party driven party. One might wish that GOP good riddance. The only question is however, will the United States as we know it survive another four years of Barack Obama so that there’s something left for the Tea Party cavalry to come to the rescue of?

2011: A Republican Opportunity to Define the Debate

Republicans are poised to take control of the House in November and with a little luck may well pick up the Senate too. The last time this situation occurred was November 1994 when Newt Gingrich and the Republicans picked up 54 seats and took the House for the first time in 40 years. They also picked up 8 seats in the Senate, enough to take back that body as well. As a result of that shift, Bill Clinton was forced to pivot to the center, abandon some of his more liberal designs, and as a consequence he won a second term in office.

Many people expect a similar outcome from the 2010 elections. Conventional wisdom holds that when faced with a split or Republican legislature, President Obama will have no choice but to rein in some of his more ambitious attempts to “transform America”. In doing so he will set himself up for reelection as the forced moderation will lay the groundwork for a (relative) wave of prosperity that voters will attribute to him.

That might be plausible if 2010 were anything like 1994… but it’s not. On the most basic level, the last two years have been nothing short of an economic disaster. Not so much the continued meltdown of the housing market or even the two point increase in the unemployment rate. No, the disaster that has befallen the country is entirely manmade, and that man is Barack Obama. By passing ObamaCare, dramatically increasing federal regulation of – and intervention in – the economy, and by laying the groundwork for higher taxes, President Obama has removed the one element that businesses need to begin investing in the future, hiring and spurring economic growth: certainty of the playing field they are competing on. Without knowing what the future holds in terms of regulation or taxes, they can’t build a business, period.

The other thing that differentiates 2010 from 1994 is that Bill Clinton had the luxury of a multi billion dollar “Peace Dividend” and a nascent Internet that was beginning to transform much of the economy. That “Peace Dividend” allowed President Clinton to significantly reduce defense expenditures and shift much of the remainder into the domestic market as bases across Europe were shuttered and troops and equipment returned home, putting dollars to work in Ft. Lee, Virginia or Ft. Collins, Colorado rather than Heyford, UK or Berlin, Germany. Simultaneously the advent of the Internet was beginning to have a significant impact on American business and consumers, both in reality and in optimism. From communications to retail to the building of the Internet infrastructure, the Internet was beginning to spur the economy the way the railroads did 150 years before. At the end of the day the outlook in 2010 is far cloudier and darker than it was in 1994.

The yoke the President has placed around the necks of citizens and businesses is simply too heavy a burden for a slight adjustment of course to fix. A little moderation will not turn around the economy or the public’s state of mind. Dramatic change is necessary and the process could be wrenching. Not that voters will necessarily know where the blame should lay given the mainstream media’s vested interest in keeping the Democrats and Obama in power. Nonetheless if Republicans want to regain the White House in 2012 and build a working majority in Congress, they are going to have to demonstrate bold leadership and make a clear argument for what they want to accomplish.

They will get their chance starting in January. Rather than muddle through and just stop President Obama from doing further damage to the economy and the Nation, the Republicans should instead take advantage of the somewhat unprecedented attention that Americans are giving to governance in general and the economy in particular to clarify what they stand for. They should put forth bills as if a Republican were sitting in the Oval Office, fiscally responsible bills that clearly demonstrate their priorities. President Obama would no doubt veto them, but doing so would lead to a discussion of the merits of the policies. Republicans should welcome such a discussion… just ask Paul Ryan.

Republicans can make their case by borrowing from the Democratic playbook. Democrats are experts at the art of using numbers to define fairness: Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and many others used skewed data to demonstrate that banks provide home loans to blacks or low income borrowers at a lower frequency or higher interest rate than white or wealthy borrowers and therefore must be discriminating against blacks or the poor. Their remedy was, naturally, government intervention. Using that same model, Republicans should highlight the actual fact that federal employees earn on average twice what private sector employees do. The federal government must therefore be practicing discrimination against the private sector. The Republican remedy for this should be to cut by half the personnel budgets for all federal agencies (save Defense and Homeland Security) and they should pass a bill mandating such. Let President Obama take to the teleprompter and make the case that federal employees deserve to be paid twice as much as their civilian brethren when unemployment is at 10% for the nation, 16% for blacks and 20% for youth.

Fundamentally, Republicans should (regardless of whether they control one house or two) vow to only pass bills that demonstrate fiscal discipline and foster pro growth policies. Their budget bill should cut all discretionary funding back to 2004 or 2006 levels and refuse to pass anything that exceeds those levels. They should pass legislation rescinding ObamaCare and bills that explicitly limit the scope of agencies such as the EPA, the FCC and others, and they should slash the budgets of regulation heavy Departments such as Education and Energy. President Obama would no doubt veto virtually every one of those bills, and as the White House suggested on Saturday, that might result in a shut down of the government like 1995.

But 2011 is not 1995 and Americas will no longer allow themselves to be so easily hoodwinked. Whereas in 1995 the electorate looked askance at the government shutdown and largely blamed Newt Gingrich for it, in 2011 after two years in the death grip of the Democrats, Americans may indeed welcome a government shutdown as an opportunity to debate the very nature of government itself. That is a debate Republicans can win if they stand by their conservative principles and let men like Paul Ryan, Jim DeMint and Marco Rubio make the case to the American electorate. They may not win all of the battles, but by fighting the good fight they can demonstrate to the American electorate that when they go to the polls in 2012 there is a very clear alternative to a reheated “Hope and Change” agenda.