Posted by
Michael J Thibodeaux on Saturday, November 28, 2009 10:12:42 PM
Reagan’s Unity Principles
A draft resolution proposed for adoption by the RNC is being circulated by James Bopp, Jr., a RNC committeeman from Indiana. The draft lists ten statements styled “Reagan’s Unity Principles” and proposes that candidates subscribe to at least eight of the ten to receive RNC support. The list is intended only for the 2010 campaign season, which affects the analysis of it.
The “principles” are as follows:
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership;
First impressions: It seems obvious that the list is a reaction to the embarrassment that ensued from the congressional race in New York’s 23rd congressional district, where the RNC gave official support, and substantial funding, to Dede Scozzafava, a candidate appointed by local officials. Ms. Scozzafava would have been much more at ease caucusing with the Democrats, as she demonstrated by endorsing the Democratic candidate when her support collapsed after Doug Hoffman, an actual conservative candidate, entered the race. The debacle cost Republicans the seat.
The first five are much too negative in tone, even for use in a single season, and the first six are not so much statements of conservative principles as a list of Obama policies that Republicans oppose. Reagan, of course, never opposed any Obama proposal, but he certainly would have if a precocious young Obama had made any while Reagan was alive. It is not enough to oppose bad policy, you must propose effective alternatives. Number six is too deferential to the military as a general proposition and most likely will not be an issue in 2010. Seven is too vague; does it mean military action? Against North Korea? We may want to consult with the residents of Seoul before we loose the cruise missiles. What is the Constitutional basis for the Defense of Marriage Act? Nine is incoherent. What does it mean to oppose health care rationing and denial of health care? As for ten, not even the NRA opposes all government restrictions on gun ownership.
In general, most of the positions taken are merely statements in opposition to specific Democrat proposals that will be moot or irrelevant in 2010.
Taking the statements in order:
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
Of course we do, but by the summer of 2010 the “stimulus bill,” whatever that is, will be a distant memory, if it is not forgotten completely. The Democrats will be talking up “fiscal responsibility” and “lowering the deficit” and Republican adherence to this statement will simply fall on air or be seen as just another instance of Republican “me tooism.”
Instead, Republicans should emphasize cutting taxes across the board to stimulate job creation and growth, since unemployment will still be high in mid to late 2010. An emphasis on cutting taxes will draw a sharp distinction between Republicans and Democrats and provide an opportunity to remind voters of the abject failure of the Democrats massive spending sprees.
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
By mid 2010 government-run health care will either be a fact or dead. If it failed, there is no point taking a stand against it. Interstate competition and tort reform would certainly be improvements, but the people are not clamoring for health care reform in any form. If it passed, there will be no appetite among a weary public to continue the debate until later in the decade when they have had some experience of the system’s shortcomings.
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
It is not at all clear what “market-based energy reforms” are or what they might be intended to reform. If cap-and-trade is still an issue in 2010, it surely must be opposed, but that seems an unlikely prospect.
Tension with Iran and Venezuela is certain to increase in the coming year, so a more coherent energy position would be to emphasize the national security implications of dependence on foreign oil and the economic catastrophe that would result from a significant interruption in energy supplies. Any aggressive action by the U.S. or Israel against Iran would almost certainly result in an embargo of oil from both Iran and Venezuela and possibly others. Shipping through the Straits of Hormuz would be interrupted for an indeterminate period of time and it is possible that even shipping through the Red Sea and Suez Canal could be interrupted. It is absolutely imperative that we immediately open the continental shelf on all four coasts to exploration and production and immediately begin a rationalization of our nuclear power plant approval process. It would be a joke that France can build nuclear power plants in half the time we can, except it isn’t true. We can’t build them at all due to impossible regulatory hurdles.
I think this is the most serious national security threat facing our country today; imagine our energy supply suddenly and indefinitely cut in half.
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
Of course we do, but without more this is letting SEIU set our agenda for us.
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
That’s it? No amnesty? What about the fence? What about a guest worker program with a fine and reentry requirement? How about an accelerated path to citizenship based on a specified term of military service? Economic turmoil has turned a tide of immigration into one of emigration. Now is the time to strike with constructive ideas that mitigate the inflow that is sure to come when the economy turns and accommodate the real demand for cheap labor that sponsors the flow.
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
Victory in Iraq has been achieved. Hopefully it will continue to hold through 2010 as Iraq’s security forces continue to improve, its people grow accustomed to the benefits of democracy and our forces continue to withdraw. Afghanistan is less developed culturally, economically, and in terms of infrastructure, but victory is still achievable there with suitably aggressive suppression of the Taliban and al Qaida accompanied by a strengthening of the Afghani army under a unified command.
While recommendations of experienced field commanders ought to be given great weight in deliberations, a blanket statement of support for unspecified recommendations is overly deferential. Whatever you think of Obama’s decision-making capacity, we are still a nation of civilian control of the military.
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
With the possible exceptions of Russia, China, and Venezuela, the entire world would like to see North Korea and Iran contained and their nuclear threats eliminated. The differences lie in the details of timing and methods. Climbing on that bandwagon doesn’t serve to distinguish Republicans from the Japanese, much less the Democrats.
The circumstances of Iran and North Korea are in no way comparable and it is irrational to attempt to apply the same policy to both. An attack on North Korea risks the destruction of Seoul by North Korean nuclear retaliation and the intervention of, if not outright war with, China. On the other hand, North Korea will never be able to hurt us very badly, even if it develops a nuclear-tipped ICBM, and an attack by North Korea on the U.S. or any of our Asian allies would unite the world behind us and allow us to destroy her with impunity. The proper strategy is the one we have been pursuing; continue talks in whatever format while waiting for the Dear Leader to die. Time is on our side.
Prior to the construction of a deliverable warhead and missile system, an attack on Iran poses no comparable risks. The worst Iran could manage would be scud-like attacks on Israel and a disruption of shipping in the area through her relatively limited navy, air force and shore-to-ship coastal defenses. Iran’s air force and navy could be effectively suppressed, but her shore-to-ship and ballistic missile forces would be much more difficult to eliminate and traffic in the Hormuz Straits can be disrupted by ordinary artillery fire. If, however, Iran is allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and effective delivery system, she would bring Israel under threat of virtual annihilation. Our freedom of action in the Middle East would thereafter be subject to an Iranian veto, at the peril of a hostage Israel.
Unlike the situation in Korea, time is on Iran’s side. They haggle, negotiate, propose, counter, hide, reveal, cooperate, obstruct, agree then withdraw agreement, all in an effort to stall, to buy time, while they continue to perfect the means to build a weapon. The proper strategy, therefore, is to call for immediate and draconian sanctions, with or without allied support, in the hope that the economic disruption will incite regime change. When that fails, we must be prepared to strike unless Israel beats us to it. In the interim, we must begin immediately to prepare for the inevitable consequences (See the discussion of (3) above,)
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
As a matter of principle and sound public policy, it is important for anyone who cares about the future of our country to support the institution of monogamous heterosexual marriage. There are perfectly valid, non-religious reasons to limit marriage to one adult man and one adult woman. The principle public policy reason for marriage is the promotion of stable families. When the institution of marriage breaks down, children tend to get inadequately supervised, poorly educated, badly acculturated, and insufficiently cared for. A sad example of this in the US is in the black community where 2/3 of the babies are born out-of-wedlock and the crime and unemployment rates are horrible. The state, therefore, has a vital interest unrelated to any religious stricture in regulating marriage in a manner calculated to strengthen rather than weaken the institution.
The U.S. Constitution is silent with respect to marriage. It neither guarantees a right to marriage nor authorizes the federal government to regulate the institution. The Constitution permits, and even contemplates, that the states regulate virtually all aspects of life in ways deemed reasonable by them. Marriage is one of those aspects of life. The states get to define it and they get to regulate who may participate. In some states you can marry at 16, in others not until you are 18. The 16-year-olds in the latter state are not thereby denied their Constitutional rights.
If the object is to protect marriage, as it should be, rather than to suppress gay behavior, we have by far the better argument. Every reason I have ever heard offered in favor of homosexual marriage is disingenuous. Gays have a right to pursue happiness. Good, go, be happy. But no one has a right to do just as he pleases to be happy. I might find joy in robbing banks, but they won't let me anyway. Gays want to live together. Well, they live together now. Gays want to express their eternal love and commitment. Fine, do so. Write poems to one another; exchange golden chains; get matching tattoos. Gays want to own property in common. Nothing could be simpler. You merely have to both sign the car title or the deed. Gays want to control each other's medical treatment. Just give each other a medical power of attorney, or better yet, prepare a living will; you should do that anyway, it’s a lot cheaper than getting married and much more exact and likely to be honored than simply showing up in an emergency and saying you are married.
There is a wealth of sociological information demonstrating that children raised in a stable, heterosexual marriage are much more likely to be healthy, well-adjusted, well-educated, happy, productive adults. Drawing the marriage line at that point makes tremendous secular sense. Once that line is gone, there is no principled reason to redraw it anywhere. Marriage would not be expanded to include gays, it would be destroyed as an institution.
There is no principled reason to stop at homosexual marriage, once the monogamous, heterosexual line is broken. If marriage between two men is OK, why not three men? Three women? Two men and one woman? One man and 27 women. Two men, a girl and a goat? One man, three women and all their children (as sexual partners, not merely as a family)? Don't they all have a right to be happy, to express their undying love and commitment to one another? Should we permit our moral insecurities to interfere with that quest?
What non-religious argument would limit marriage to just couples? There are, in fact, religious arguments for polygamy. Mormons and Muslims both believe, for religious reasons, that polygamy is a good thing. Why not polyandry? Why not pedophilia? Arranged married? Why not bestiality?
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion;
Government funding of abortion ought to be opposed as a matter of conscience. As long as demand exceeds supply, however, it is impossible to avoid health care rationing or denial of health care. There are, for example, far more people who need liver transplants than there are livers available for transplant. When a suitable organ becomes available, someone or some system must decide who gets it and who has to wait, and maybe die waiting. Rationing in such circumstances, and in many similar situations, is inevitable, and no amount of opposition will change that. You might as well oppose flooding and tornados.
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership;
Not even the NRA opposes all government restrictions on gun ownership. Convicted felons and those with certain psychological disorders, for example, are rightly not permitted to own guns. The proper question is whether it is constitutionally permissible to deny law-abiding citizens the means to exercise their right of self defense.
An important omission from the list is any statement regarding education.
RNC members should reject the resolution, for the reasons given above.