America’s “New” Direction

Deborah Venable

11/12/06

Conservatives all over the world are waking up to a new drink. The strong, black coffee of conservatism has been replaced by a syrupy latte laced with the addicting drug of change. That’s what the Democrats are saying, so don’t call my comments “sour grapes.”

They announced that the election of 2006 came down to a single word - “change.”

That fits pretty well if you consider that for the first time in American history, American voters handed a polling place victory to our enemies while we are at war. You can rest assured that the Democrat victory is being celebrated in all socialist strongholds in the world today. You can also bet that terrorists and their sponsors are giddy with the thought that their efforts to win the hearts and minds of the American voting public paid off handsomely. After all, none of them really understand American politics.

One very interesting thing comes to light as we look at the election results. Republicans’ use of scare tactics to convince voters not to put Democrats in power didn’t work – no matter how true the warnings were. Americans decided they wanted change more than they wanted security, more of their own money, and a better economy. Interesting – but not surprising. I was always worried that the truth would not be enough to win this election. The “hate Bush first” crowd has never been willing to accept or deal with truth anyway, so what else is new? They were not successful in defeating him in election two years ago, but they surely were determined to hobble him now.

So Congress has been delivered into the hands of socialism. Whether or not conservatives can take it back in two years is anybody’s guess at this point. Our enemies do not understand American politics enough to know just what all this means. Oh, they think they do – but trust me, they do not. Actually, they do not understand conservatives, and for that matter, neither do American liberals.

The reason conservatives lost is precisely because those in power and seeking power are NOT guilty of everything the liberals accuse them of. If they were, conservatives would have enjoyed a sweeping victory this year. But within the heart of true conservatism is the commanding rhythm of cooperation – not confrontation. Americans like confrontation far more than they appreciate intelligence, integrity, and common sense. In other words, they THRIVE on CHANGE!

This war on terror that we’ve been fighting since we were attacked has been fought with conservatism’s rhythm – not the American preference of confrontational liberalism. Slow and steady – not the dive-bombing, get in and get out strategy of Democrat Hawks, nor the give and capitulate strategy of the Democrat appeasers.

I’ve got to hand it to the Democrats – they have it exactly right. Change drove the election this time – just as it drove the election of 1994 when the Republicans grabbed the power away from the Democrats with a written contract of change.

The problem, of course, is what change are we talking about here? Well, the main thing we can expect is that the reporting of the “state” of American actions, culture, and progress will be portrayed in a more positive way, since the political philosophy of the media and academia has once again grabbed some of the power of governance. In much more straightforward language, the liberal media will be more benevolent to a government that is legislatively headed by Democrats. And for any obviously “bad” news that comes along, they still have the Republican president to beat up on and blame. It will be the best of both worlds for the media, no matter what happens for the next two years.

Rush Limbaugh had it right when he said that the election was somewhat liberating for him, (and we who publicly “carry the water” for Republican politicians.) They need to start carrying their own water. The attitude of going along to get along with Democrat liberals in politics will not serve America well.

We don’t have to guess at what direction they want to point America in – we KNOW - down and to the left.

The appalling thing is that Republican politicians have paved the way for Democrats to direct this country in this “new” old direction once again. Compassionate conservatism does not work. Cooperating with liberals does not work. Liberalism is anything but compassionate and everything that is bad for the success of this country. True conservatism IS compassionate – it does not need the modifier. Modified conservatism is weak.

This is who and what President Bush has decided to get along with:

"Two thirds of the public have absolutely no idea who I am," Pelosi tells NEWSWEEK. "I see that as a strength. This isn't about me. It's about Democrats."

-- Future Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi Source

She states it quite well, doesn’t she? Democrats DO NOT want you know who and what they are. That is their strength!

The freshly installed pavement provided by the president and all Republicans who first consider themselves politicians will lead to scores of bad decisions. If they get thirsty along the way, they’d better be carrying.

With two such notable casualties of the election as Donald Rumsfeld and John Bolten, you can bet things will get a lot worse. All who would gleefully celebrate the fall of such admirable examples of American leaders surely have NO clue.

Bear one thing in mind as we struggle through the next two years. America will be living with the results of voters refusing to elect the lesser of the evils.

I’ve heard a lot of talk lately bemoaning the McCain-Feingold legislation signed into law in March of 2002. It usually happens when we get this close to an election. While many conservatives with a head on their shoulders fought that awful breach of first Amendment rights when is was argued through Congress, it still managed to pass a Republican Congress and be signed into law by a Republican president. Many influential liberal voices sang the same tune against the legislation, albeit a bit off-key. It wasn’t the first time that law was aimed at restrictions on the financing of campaigns. Just look at what happened after Watergate - the Federal Election Commission and before that, the Federal Election Campaign Act.

The Campaign Finance Reform Act, as it was erroneously named, put monetary restrictions on who could say what about whom, when and where no matter why.

Almost immediately the law was challenged for Constitutionality and upheld by the Supreme Court with a 5-4 decision in December of 2003.

This and all other legislation that seeks to limit the effects of the wallet on elections in this country will probably always pass muster in the court of public opinion, and then continue to be shot full of holes and repaired time and again regardless of how much of the Constitution gets shredded in the process. It is hard to imagine at this time how we can ever fixed the flawed system of paying for the exorbitant expense of political campaigns. Publicly funded campaigns are heavily touted as the permanent fix for financing campaigns without the influence of wealthy individuals and corporations. This one smells to me simply because funding comes in the form of confiscated tax payer dollars and doled out through government bureaucracy.

Some years ago, during another election cycle, I wrote a piece devoted to the subject of influence and money in politics. It fits today as well as it did then:

Let’s get big money out of politics! That seems to be the war cry of the campaign finance reform crowd. Sounds good, doesn’t it? Sounds real good if it wasn’t such total crock! What is “big money” anyway? Could we call Microsoft money “big money”? I mean Bill Gates is still the richest man in the world, isn’t he? Is his money “bigger” than, let’s say, Joe Blow’s down the street who owns a little barbershop and employs three other barbers? Are we all watching to see what and whom Bill gates spends his money on so we will know how to spend ours? Or, perhaps, would we be more inclined to the influence of our friendly barber, Joe, whom we speak with on a regular basis as he skillfully whacks away at those pesky nose hairs?

“So, Joe, who are you gonna vote for next month?” you ask in between the snip, snip, snip.

“Well, sir,” Joe begins as he pauses in mid-snip and laughs a nervous little laugh.

“There ain’t a darned one of ‘em worth a hill of beans, but I reckon that there Simon Feller’d probably be the best bet not to make things worse here in Californy.”

“How’s that, Joe?” you ask with a little sneeze.

“Just don’t trust none of ‘em much, so I pick the lesser of the evils,” he says.

As you give a nod of approval to that handsome face in the mirror, pay Joe and walk out the door, you realize that Joe just put into simple words the essence of politics.

How do you suppose Joe narrowed down his choices and came up with the “lesser of the evils?” Perhaps he is all the candidates’ favorite barber? Sure. That’s it. He knows all these guys personally – they all come to him and get that special snip, snip that only he can give them. They ask his opinion on world affairs and he tells them. Then they all tip him and leave. Maybe that “Simon feller’s” tip is a little bigger than the rest? Would that make him the “lesser of the evils?”

If we got THAT “big money” out of politics, old Joe wouldn’t know whom to vote for I guess, huh?

Well, you know what? I’ll bet Joe isn’t any of the candidates’ barber. I’ll bet they wouldn’t know him from Adam, nor would he know anything about them except for what he’s heard, read or seen in the media. Now, there’s your “big tipper,” folks! There is the real “big money” that everybody wants out of politics. Or do they really?

Back in the old horse and buggy days of real town meetings – not the kind conducted on stage by the local PBS station or the alphabet networks – the kind that folks hauled their well-behaved kids off to so they could learn first hand how government works, there was a two way street between the politicians and the people. Even the press of those days maintained the pavement in good working order on both sides of that street. Then, I guess, “big money” got involved and the pavement on the people’s side got potholed! Pretty soon, that big money bought “one way street” signs and proceeded to keep a constant flow of traffic coming AT the people – not FROM them, except in the form of hopped up polls that have been carefully formulated to “accurately” depict exactly what’s on our minds. Nice.

Oh, the politicians still get on the planes and trains and buses and go out stumping occasionally, so they can “take their message to the people” and “listen,” (AKA Hillary politics), to the people they are supposed to represent. But they “reach” a very small percentage of the people that way. Meanwhile, “big money” is hard at work fashioning a message based on whichever way the wind is blowing at the time, and getting it out in force – the force of the media.

Let’s get big money out of politics, folks!

Personally, I have always thought that we should get ALL money out of politics. That would sure make the profession a lot less attractive to charlatans, now wouldn’t it? It would also go a long way toward re-establishing a “free” press.

As long as there are both money and power in politics, the money will ALWAYS direct the power! If we want REAL campaign finance reform, we must stop making politics so lucrative. How do we do that? Well, we can start by making politics the part-time job it should be. If government were not the BIG BUSINESS that it has become, it would not need full time politicians making BIG MONEY to ram government down our throats. The consent of the governed has faded into a bad joke as we try to maintain a government made up of the “lesser of the evils.”

Okay, so that was my take a few years ago. Now, here we are again and I don’t see that much has changed. Big media remains the main conduit between the people and the politicians relying on their votes, and the road is little better than a one-way street – always heavily potholed on our side.

If you are a registered member of a political party, you still get hounded to “help” with monetary donations. The bulk of those donations are needed to buy commercial advertising – usually designed to smear the other guy and over-glamorize yours. Who makes out and benefits most from your donated dollars? Truth be told, a well informed electorate shouldn’t need to be blasted with condescending, expensive advertisements in the final weeks before an election, but most just don’t bother to pay attention or to go out of their way to research the candidates – so these ads DO matter. I’ll ask my standard old question once again – whose fault is that?

Campaign Finance Reform indeed!

The grand old sport of finger pointing is going on all over the media, (both the new and the old media), and every prediction is being made with little thought to anything but affecting the eventual outcome of this election. (No thought to the damage to national security, the economy, or our fragile culture.) We’ve heard every issue from the war to immigration to gas prices being touted as the ONE BIGGY that will drive the results.

Everybody is forgetting the only thing that has ever mattered for a very long time now. People are a lot less apt to vote FOR anyone or anything any more, choosing instead to vote AGAINST those they hate most. But the veteran voters have not forgotten the essence of politics, and that is what will carry this election. When the day after rolls around and precincts are still scrambling to count the “close” races, that final count will depend on what the majority of voters thought was the lesser of the evils. Those who stay home tend to cinch it for worst evil. It has been that way for a very long time.