ON “AFGHANISTAN”: CONGRESS MUST NOW LEAD, NOT FOLLOW

For all the long deliberations of a conflicted President, supposedly drawn out so that he could decide what is best for us, we’re confronted with a decision that is in the political self-interest of Barack Obama.  Thus, it now falls to Congress to be the institution that, constitutionally, it is supposed to be; namely:

1      A truly deliberative body representing “We the People“, and

2      The only body charged with declaring war.

Why do we need a fresh declaration of war? -- Because Obama has already shifted away from the “war on terror” that Congress authorized in the fall of 2002. By shifting the trials of the KSM gang of terrorists to Federal Court in Manhattan, for example, he has chosen to redefine the “war” as a non-war. Terrorism is now viewed as a criminal offense. The quantum leap in blood and treasure called for by the President in Afghanistan thus calls for a deliberative process at least as “drawn out” as that of the President. It also calls for a new, Congressional declaration of war according to the Constitution.

For what we are seeing now from Obama is Bush-lite. Or, seen from the street, SSDY: “Same Sh--, Different Year“. Remember Bush’s West Point speech in October of 2002? Recall Congress’ War Resolution? It’s déjà vu, confusing the presidency with royalty. Congress followed Bush’s vainglorious lead like lemmings over a cliff. Congress failed its Constitutional responsibility to be deliberative and representative. Will we let this happen again?   

The Congressional debate now beginning over the President’s declaration must be long, deep and extensive. There is much to challenge and too much at stake. The really serious focus of terrorist threats in the “AfPak Theater” is less “Af” than “Pak.” Yet we are spending 30 times more in Afghanistan than in Pakistan. The President, moreover, did not mention the danger of our country being drawn into  a potential civil war in Afghanistan -- a discredited government vs. the powerful Pashtun tribe. Perhaps the repeated extensions of a deadline for completion of presidential-student homework didn’t allow time to understand Pashtun culture? And what about “nation building”? We never voted for it, yet the dictates of Bush promoted it in Iraq. Now Obama would have us continue the policy. How much blood and treasure must we sacrifice to move feudal-tribal cultures into the 21^st century?

For the final point at issue is, indeed, “sacrifice.” Remarkably, for all his high-flown rhetoric about the country pulling together now around the fight in Afghanistan as they did after 9/11, the President made no call for national sacrifice. Thus, he’s about to repeat one of the basic mistakes of Vietnam: LBJ acted as if the country could manage to have both guns and butter. The country’s economy is in far worse shape now than in the late ‘60‘s. In addition to human lives, we need to count the costs of war in terms of time and money. Obama’s policy is short on both accounts. It seems as if his homework also lacked arithmetic.

Congress has already shown that it is not up to honoring its Constitutional responsibilities vis a vis the Executive Branch with respect to all major challenges it has faced thus far -- with respect to Bailout, Stimulus, Cap’n’Trade and Health Care Reform legislation. Another default of Congress on the Afghanistan issue could lead to default of our country in more ways than just financial.

So, the stage is set for 2010 even though Obama is betting on 2012. Will voters vote for real change for a change? -- for candidates who would work to change the way Congress does We the People’s business?  Or will they for the same go-along/get-along folks who took us down the path to Iraq, huge deficits both domestic and foreign, bailouts to big boys, high unemployment, and a  so-called “stimulus” that fails to create jobs? Changes in Congressional name- and party-plates or underwear mean no real change at all.

                PETER BEARSE, Ph.D., International Consulting Economist and Independent Republican Candidate for Congress, NH CD 1



Ward 7 Election Results

One of the backstage (backroom?) stories of the election in Manchester is how the candidacy of a new, first-rate candidate, Lisa Gravel, was done in -- not by voters-not-insiders unaware of what was going on behind the scenes, but by a stab-in-the-back by the city’s newly elected Mayor, Ted Gatsas, without any significant countervailing influence of the current Mayor, now Congressional Candidate, Frank Guinta. 

Guinta and Gatsas are both Republicans. Gatsas endorsed a Democrat, Mr. Shea, for the Alderman’s seat in Ward 7. Guinta endorsed Gravel. Shea won.

The story plot thickened, however, when the Manchester Republican City Committee (MRCC) leafleted the city for Republican candidates. Yet, it neglected to include Ward 7 in its coverage under the (specious) pretexts that (1) the Committee ran out of material and (2) Ward 7 was too small to bother with. So, the Gravel campaign put out a red alert to myself and other grass-roots activists to help do a “lit drop” in Ward 7 on the Sunday just before election day. Only a select subset of voters, however, could be covered in so little time. 

There is no evidence that Guinta’s endorsement carried any weight.  There is even less indication that he said or did anything to try to dissuade Gatsas from endorsing Shea, or to urge the MRCC to do a lit drop in support of the Gravel candidacy in Ward 7.

Since the Mayor has been playing the same-old/same-old political game in his campaign for Congress -- of dialing for dollars, seeking endorsements from the GOP establishment and talking a conventional Republican line -- it should be no surprise that he would not go out of his way to support a bottom-up, grass-roots, outspoken, people-based, “shake up City Hall” candidacy of a fine candidate like Lisa Gravel.

Nice campaign, Lisa! Try again!

      PETER BEARSE, Ph.D., Danville and North Hampton, Candidate for Congress and volunteer in the Gravel campaign, 11/4/09

 

More Light, Less Heat

By Maynard Thomson

The health care mudfest has brought home how much we all—right, left and ‘tweens--need to raise the level of policy debate.  Some suggestions:

1.  Ignore the messenger.

Much that’s rhetorically dysfunctional falls under this rubric.

Example:  who cares if Obama’s the last living Red (well, excepting college professors and most of Hollywood), or was born on Pluto?   Only his policies matter, and labels won’t change them, while turning off those who gave up “he’s a poo-poo head” argumentation in grade school. 

Likewise impugning motives:  our adversaries are far more likely wrong than evil, and ascribing malign purpose to them more likely absurd than persuasive (viz. Cong. Grayson’s “Republican’s want you to die.”)

Another example:  calling national health care opponents insurance company “dupes” hardly answers the objections—suggesting they’re well taken.  Only losers expect labels to do reason’s work.

Then there’s the argument that reduces, in essence, to a schoolyard “You’re one too!”

This has become as predictable as talk show rants.   Example:  NYT columnist Tom Friedman writes that anti-Obama rhetoric is dangerously provocative.  The righties reply:  “Oh, yeah?  And where were you when libs were likening Bush to Hitler?”

 While almost irresistible, such tit-for-tat doesn’t address the substance of the other party’s claim; it charges inconsistency, rather than error.  The proper response is on the merits; in the case of Friedman’s vapid pontificating, for instance, it’s that the barbs aimed at Obama are mild by historical standards, as ILLUSTRATED by those leveled at Bush and his predecessors, back to Jefferson. 

2.  No slack for allies.

Those people in the other party are drooling sociopaths, right?  Whereas your team defines virtue.  So insist those representing your party be toilet-trained.

This means, for instance, no GOP excuses for creepy Gov. Sanford.   No “but he had a point” for Cong. Wilson, interrupting Obama’s speech.   And for the Dems?  Call out crooks like Rangel, and tell Obama to get class—the time for blaming Bush ended Jan. 20, the time for denigrating America never started.  And unless he wants to out-lout Rep. Wilson, tell him to stop calling nay-sayers “liars”.

3.  Leave straw men to the lightweights.

A favorite, and increasingly hollow, Obama device is to position himself as the man cutting through the underbrush of stale thought:  “Some say we must choose between X or Y; I reject this false choice.”

Well, it IS a false choice, since no one is actually arguing for “Y,” which is some fantasy Obama has confected solely for the purpose of setting up this bogus antithesis.  What the people he purports to be thus confronting are actually arguing is something else entirely, something Obama prefers not to address—or can’t.  Phony third-wayism, delivered in portentous tones, may have impressed the kids at Harvard smokers, but it’s a sophomoric trick that insults the listener. 

Another example is a recurring feature of abortion debate.  THIS neanderthal believes abortion will, and should, remain broadly legal even if we manage to rid ourselves of the execrable Roe v. Wade.  Nonetheless, I’m amazed that abortion supporters routinely trivialize this morally fraught issue with the claim that their opponents “want to control women’s bodies.”

Whether they agree or not, all but the terminally stupid know that opposition to abortion bottoms on the conviction that the fetus is a human, with a human’s right not to be murdered.  I’ve met no abortion opponents wanting to keep women from, say, piercing their noses or getting liposuction.  If you think we’ve no business telling people what they can do with their own bodies—my view—then let’s legalize prostitution and drugs, and abolish wage and hour laws.  People meeting profound moral concerns with bumper-sticker reductionism like “keep your laws off my body” debase civil discourse.

4.  Honesty, anyone?

Reason concedes the defects in its desires.  If  Obama had intellectual integrity, he’d acknowledge that of course insuring millions more will increase costs, thereby requiring price controls, rationing, and higher taxes on the middle class.  He’d then argue that the plusses outweigh these negatives (if he even views them as negatives, other than as marketing problems), and he’d have the credibility of an honest man, instead of  a carnie barker.

Likewise, a GOP serious about smaller government has to come clean:  the scam of promising to balance the budget by cutting “waste, fraud and abuse,” is played out.  Proposing to eliminate corporate and agricultural subsidies, and to means-test soon-to-be bankrupt Medicare and Social Security, would be a start.  If that kills us with the middle class, tough.  Governments that attempt to (mis)lead the electorate where it wouldn’t knowingly go have no place in a democratic republic.

5.  “You’re an idiot.  Now, let’s have a drink.”

Political differences in a democratic republic needn’t occasion personal differences.  Let the combatants battle joyfully and then, win or lose, retire without rancor, to fight another day.

In this spirit, the county GOP challenged our Dem counterparts to meet us in public debate, the subject to be decided—a raucous, good-natured clash of titans, to amuse and edify our fellow citizens.  Alas, our lefty neighbors haven’t replied; perhaps they’re too busy saving mankind to have time for manners.  The offer remains open.

Meantime, I’ve written two local critics, suggesting our insult swaps needn’t preclude friendly relations.  Regrettably, both responded churlishly. This bespeaks a lack of confidence, or a destructive conflating of personal and political. 

It need not be.  Abraham Lincoln, speaking with the clouds of war dark upon him, said:

 “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.”

Let us fight the good fight, battle joyfully for our causes, skewer each other with savage wit.  Then shake hands and celebrate together the fortuity that we live in a country in which politics need not be blood sport.  Let our common cause be that it remain so, and that other peoples may come to be so fortunate. 

We must not be enemies.

Listen to Your Mother!

By Robert J. Giuda,

It is interesting that the Obama administration refers to citizens who assemble to speak out publicly against the explosion of unsustainable government spending and the intrusion of government into our lives as “mobs” incited by Republicans, and Speaker Pelosi implies that they are Nazis. If you tell a lie often enough, you’ll start to believe it. And if you keep on telling it, others will start to believe it.

Why are the Democrats spending millions on TV advertising attempting to marginalize groups of citizens who are exercising their constitutional rights of lawful assembly and free speech?

Simple. The Democrat elitists in Washington believe they know what’s best for us, despite overwhelming opposition by a majority of Americans to, for example, the bailouts of GM, AIG and the banks. Those supporting this “never waste a good crisis” rush to socialism don’t care what we have to say. They are, however, worried about the groundswell of political anger from the citizens upon whose backs will fall the monstrous burden of paying for their failed Keynesian policies.

When it comes to making huge changes to national policies such as health care and energy, one would think that prudence and caution would prevail. Yet this President and his Democrats are trying to ram universal health care and Cap-and-Trade down our collective national throats without allowing time for careful and proper review. Members of Congress are voting on life-changing legislation without even reading the bills. Why are they working so hard to deny us the time to study these issues?

My mother used to say, “Act in haste, repent at leisure.” She also used to say, “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”

In the case of Obama-care and Cap-and-Trade, no truer words were ever spoken.

THE NEW GOP: BETTER ENABLER OF THE AMERICAN DREAM

Remember the great old line from Bob Dylan? -- “I’ll let me into your dream if you’ll let me into yours.” Do Americans have a shared dream? YES!; It’s the American dream, a vision unique among nations, that we are building a country to enable each individual to have an equal chance (opportunity) to fulfill the potential of his or her unique human nature -- one’s dream, as the old Army ad urged, to “be the best that you can be.”

The vision of a renewed Republican Party is to be the better-better-best enabler of this uniquely American Dream. It can be so and do so by finding new ways to honor traditional American values. Do we have to disown or compromise our values? NO! Do we need to be open, creative and imaginative to find new and better ways to honor them? YES!

For all the media focus on WHAT -- the usual set of headline issues like energy, housing, the economy, the environment, etc. -- it’s matters of HOW that truly distinguish Republicans from Democrats. Scan the major issues and you won’t find much difference between the major parties. We all want a cleaner environment, more and less expensive energy, strong national security, affordable housing, economic growth, job creation, etc. Statements of goals usually found under issue headings are practically the same. Ways of achieving these goals [HOW to] are substantially and practically different.

Note the major differences in ways/HOW:

•u GOP: Emphasizes ways to solve problems that rely more on individual or entrepreneurial initiative, competition, free enterprise, personal responsibility, self reliance, volunteerism, a market economy, small business, job creation, equal justice under law, limited and decentralized government, equal opportunity, less regulation, lower taxes, less government spending, balanced budgets, belief in God, family and community life ... And ways that adhere to our Constitution [especially: freedom and liberty, separation of powers, federalism, state and local more than central-federal, and the 1^st, 2^nd and 10^th Amendments]

•u DEMOCRATIC PARTY: Relies more on the powers of the federal government -- bigger, more centralized and ever more powerful government as the source of solutions to nearly every problem -- via bureaucratic rule- and decision-making, over-regulation [“command and control” mechanisms], taxing and spending, globalization, social engineering, and the politics of good intentions [we have them; you pay for them]. Democrats are more likely to tolerate ways adverse to life, marriage, family and religion in the public sphere, elitist means that rely more upon “the best and the brightest”, and ways that compromise the 1^st and 2^nd Amendments to the Constitution.

Bottom line? -- Democratic fetishes for big government and the politics of good intentions dishonor American values and diminish the American Dream!

This new focus on HOW over WHAT implies a major shift in candidate selections and campaign messages. What better opportunity to put the shift into effect than for the 2010 Congressionals! After all, Congress has been a major culprit in the crisis. Bailout and stimulus experience highlight HOW Congress fails to do the people’s business -- working for themselves and their big political donors rather than us. Note, for example:

•ý Fannie and Freddie, aided and abetted by Rep. Barney Frank; and

•ý AIG, aided and abetted by Senator Chris Dodd.

The risks of huge federal bets on poor policies have been placed on the backs of the American people for generations to come because Congress doesn’t know HOW to handle the WHAT for US.

Yet, for the GOP to play any significant role in reform of the Congress, the Party must first transform itself. With entrepreneurship and innovation as the prime drivers of the new economy, how can the GOP fail to be entrepreneurial and innovative -- unless the Party wants to go the way of the Whigs? Reorientation implies the GOP should:

•ü Recruit and support candidates who are entrepreneurs and innovators, who “think anew and act anew.”

•ü Take seriously and give responsibility to those in the party’s ranks who are renegades, whistleblowers, or who otherwise “think out of the box.”

•ü Encourage serious debate on differences within the party. Open up the party to rethinking and new ideas as to HOW we can honor old values in new ways.

•ü Rebuild the party from the bottom-up by following guidelines to be found in WE THE PEOPLE: A Conservative Populism and TAKE BACK YOUR GOVERNMENT: A Handbook for the Private Citizen Who Wants Democracy to Work.

•ü DO NOT support candidates for Congress who will not agree to run as “Change Congress” and “Downsize DC” candidates [see Change-Congress.org and DownsizeDC.com].

For the sake of the American Dream, it’s time to do or die. “Live Free or Die!”

PETER BEARSE, Ph.D., Independent-conservative candidate for Congress in ‘08 and former member of the NH GOP Platform Committee, June 21, 2009. Comments to democracyanddevelopment@msn.com would be welcome.