I extend my hand, but the former New Mexico Governor reaches his arms around for a hug instead.  I have known for some time that Gary Johnson is no cookie-cutter politician, but that fact becomes increasingly clear as we chat near a Starbucks in the lobby of Sacramento International Airport.  The Governor is energetic and personable, even in the midst of his sleep-depriving schedule (he is flying out to Chicago for meetings, only to fly right back to California the next evening).  Johnson’s son, Erik, the spitting image of his father, is in an infectiously good mood as he helps manage his father’s schedule over his cell phone and laptop.

Gary is disarmingly normal.  Nothing about him conveys the wooden, over-rehearsed, pre-packaged archetype of a regular politician.  He is dressed comfortably, he has a very humble manner about him, and he speaks in strikingly honest terms.  If you saw him on the street, you’d never know he is a former two term Governor who might soon be a major presidential candidate.

As we talk, I can’t help but draw comparisons between him and the presumed frontrunner for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.  Both started out as successful business executives: Romney’s an investment firm, Johnson’s a construction company.  Both were Republican Governors in Democrat-dominated states.  Both appear to be placing their presidential bets on the independent-minded areas of New Hampshire and the Mountain West.

Yet, as many convergences as there are between Johnson and Romney, they are the exact opposite.  Mitt Romney came from an affluent, well-known background and graduated from Harvard.  Gary Johnson is a University of New Mexico grad who pulled himself up by his boot-straps, creating a multi-million dollar company literally from scratch.  Gov. Romney strove to be a moderate Republican, crafting a universal health care bill with state Democrats.  Gov. Johnson strove to be a principled libertarian Republican, vetoing about as many bills as all the vetoes of the other 49 Governors combined.

“What is your opinion of Mitt Romney?” I can’t help but ask.

Gary makes it clear that he doesn’t want to attack Mitt Romney.  After all, I’m talking to the man who refused to run a single negative ad during either of his gubernatorial campaigns.  “I will say that he did a wonderful job managing the Olympics, but I think others will be looking at the similarities between his health care legislation and the national health care legislation that was just passed,” Gary offers.

I start in on some major issues of the day.  Mitt Romney believes the proper response to North Korea’s aggression is to increase the isolation of that country.  Gary Johnson, on the other hand, is more cautious.  “It’s a complicated issue,” he admits.  “I wouldn’t want to presume to make military decisions without knowing all the details.  I am concerned that South Korea’s options in dealing with North Korea might be hampered due to our military’s presence in the region.  Perhaps we need to look at removing some of our troops from that situation.”

In 2007, Mitt Romney ripped ABC News for publishing a leak exposing the CIA’s plans to create instability in Iran.  I ask Gary what his thoughts are on the recent Wikileaks revelations.  He strongly recommends that the freedom of the press not be abridged and that Wikileaks not be prosecuted (though he does express his wish that the names of Afghan and Iraqi informants be protected, so as not to make them targets).  “Always state the truth,” he declares.  “In my administration in New Mexico, we didn’t keep secrets.  Transparency is so important.”

Mitt Romney recently joined Sen. Jim DeMint in pressing for a ban on earmarks in the legislature.  An earmark ban “will curb wasteful spending and restore accountability,” says Romney.  Gary shrugs.  “They’re inconsequential.  They’re miniscule.  A ban on earmarks would just be nibbling around the edges.  I support the ban on earmarks because they’ve become so symbolic of the wasteful spending in government, but we can do so much more.”  Gary suggests, “Why not offer to repeal the prescription drug entitlement that Republicans passed, in return for the Democrats agreeing to repeal President Obama’s health care plan?  We give up our turkey, you give up yours.”

“I wish there were an easy way to sell that to the American people,” I chuckle.

He counters, “I think we underestimate how much the American people respect and appreciate hearing the truth.”

The contrast soon becomes apparent on economic issues as well.  Mitt Romney describes himself as a “Reaganomics” guy, who likes tax cuts, but is willing to intervene in the free market to stop Wall Street firms from failing or keep housing prices from dropping.  Gary Johnson smiles and proudly states, “I’m an Austrian at heart.”  He is of course referring to the Austrian School of economics, as popularized by economists like Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises.  “By that, I mean that markets should be free.  That we should have a strong Dollar.  That saving, and not spending, makes the economy grow.”

Gary accuses the Federal Reserve, the chief enemy of Austrian economists who see fractional reserve central banking as the cause of the boom-bust cycle, of “gambling at the highest level,” by putting such risky assets on taxpayers’ backs.  He notes that he will soon be visiting the Chicago Federal Reserve bank to be present for the filming of an anti-Fed documentary.  He also recounts his recent visit to the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, where he brushed up on Austrian monetary theory.

We spend the latter part of the conversation talking about mountain climbing.  He climbed Mt. Everest while still healing after a broken leg, and had a close call with disaster during a white-out snow storm on Mt. Elbrus.  The thought comes to my mind: While Gary Johnson and his kids were climbing to the top of the world’s highest peaks, the blogosphere was going wild over Mitt Romney’s campaign video of his family sledding down a slope.

Yet, even though Gary Johnson has been on top of the world, he starts the 2012 presidential race as an underdog, while Mitt Romney is the assumed frontrunner.  This didn’t stop Gary before, when he began at two percent in the polls and went on to defeat a former Republican Governor in the gubernatorial primary, and then oust an incumbent Democratic Governor in the general election.  But Mitt Romney will be a formidable opponent.

When Johnson and Romney go head-to-head, most likely in the New Hampshire primary, which both Governors have good reason to be hopeful about, they will likely embody the arms of the GOP that got them there.  Johnson will represent the Tea Party, Goldwater-libertarian voice of the Republican Party, while Romney will represent the establishment, Reagan-Bush voice of the Republican Party.  “The voice of the Republican Party is up for grabs,” Gary notes.

He’s right.  While the polite and humble Gary Johnson may not seem like much of a threat to the powerful Mitt Romney at the moment, Romney would be wise not to underestimate Gary.  The American people are desperate for real change, and a President Johnson would give them just that.  Gary Johnson may just be the Tea Party’s answer to Mitt Romney.

Looks like Mitt Romney will be spending his upcoming Valentine’s Day in fabulous Las Vegas, addressing the 2,500 members of the International Franchise Association. The speech is an opportunity for Romney to showcase his business acumen in the 2012 Presidential caucus state of Nevada. As Eric McPike reports in a Real Clear Politics, the IFA’s 51st annual convention will take place in Las Vegas from Feb. 13 to 16th. The event will be held at the MGM Grand, with the theme “Building the Future Together.” The emphasis of the confab will be focused on how small business owners can position themselves “as the economy begins to improve.” Romney will have to strike the right balance of criticism of President Obama’s handling of the economy, while conditions may seem to be improving.

Additional focus is being centered on this event, since Romney is a leading contender for the GOP Nomination in 2012, should he decide to run. Nevada is now emerging as an important early voting state in the process. While Romney won the Nevada caucus quite handily in 2008, the delegates he won were non-binding, so there was little importance attached to his win. In 2012, all that will be changed:

“Last weekend, in hopes of preventing a repeat performance, Republican state party leaders changed the rules to make the 2012 caucus results binding, meaning that delegates attending the Republican National Convention in Florida the following summer must stick with the candidate choices determined by the caucus results.”

The Nevada caucus, which will be the third of four early nomination voting states in 2012, along with Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, will award its delegates on a proportional, as opposed to a winner-take-all basis. The hope of party leaders is to have a more energetic and active exchange among the candidates.

“Usually we’ve been the ugly stepchild that nobody cared about,” says Heidi Smith, a Nevada member of the Republican National Committee. “This time around it’s going to be important for the candidates to come here and prove themselves to the people of Nevada.”

Romney seems to have a decent head start in Nevada, thanks to his name recognition and his winning performance here in 2008:

“That’s one reason Republican leaders decided last month not to make Nevada’s February 2012 GOP caucuses a winner-take-all contest. They wanted to attract all GOP presidential comers to compete for delegates instead of potentially ceding the state to Romney if he jumps into the race.”

“I think everyone has to recognize that Mitt Romney will be the front-runner in the Nevada caucuses,” said Jack St. Martin, a GOP consultant based in the state. “The question will be how strongly he finishes and who finishes second, and how strong a second.”

So by deciding to award the caucus delegates proportionally, Nevada will see its status as an early decider in Republican Presidential politics raised significantly. For Romney it offers both a challenge and an opportunity. Romney will now have to work a little harder to ensure a victory in a state in which he will be favored in, much like New Hampshire. However, a victory in both states will provide him with the needed momentum to enter any proportional primaries to be held in March or Super Tuesday in early April.

You can view the IFA convention flier here.

Spkr. Gingrich begins discussing 2012 at the 8:10 minute mark:



Hat-tip: Bosman

PPP (D) Montana 2012 GOP Primary

• Sarah Palin 23%
• Mike Huckabee 22%
• Newt Gingrich 16%
• Mitt Romney 12%
• Ron Paul 9%
• John Thune 3%
• Tim Pawlenty 3%
• Mitch Daniels 2%
• Someone else/Undecided 10%

(more…)

The Fix is out with the most up-to-date PAC fundraising numbers. Here, for your viewing enjoyment, is all the data presented in the article in easy to read tables (my specialty, for those of you who were around in the R4’08 days .

First, we see all the income and expenditures for the latest reporting period, October 14 – November 22:

As Cillizza points out, it is quite normal for PAC’s to go in the red at this time of year as Presidential campaigns begin gearing up and staff is hired, infrastructure built, etc. (Also note this doesn’t mean the PAC’s are in the red overall, these are just the numbers for this specific reporting period.)

Next is the total amount of money each PAC donated to candidates in the 2010 midterm campaign:

Obviously, this bodes well for Romney and not so well for Huckabee. Gingrich and Barbour look pretty impressive in the middle of that list as well.

And finally, the big final number everybody’s been waiting for (okay, the number all the political nerds like me have been waiting for, anyway) — the grand total of money raised for this entire election cycle:

Romney displays his fundraising prowess. Pawlenty seriously impresses with a third place finish considering his low name recognition. And Huckabee continues to disappoint in the fundraising department, just like 2007-08.

Lots of fodder here for everybody… so have at

With 2010 coming to a close the field for 2012 has begun to take shape.

Mitt Romney has maintained his top position mostly because of his consistency.  Unlike other potential candidates, Romney has not saturated the media with his presence, choosing instead to build up his campaign by helping Republicans around the country and raising large amounts of money through his creative manipulation of the PAC system.  Romney also benefits the most from the damaging news surrounding Governor Tim Pawlenty’s pardon problem.  With the lesser known Pawlenty now carrying his very own ‘Willie Horton’ burden, one of Romney’s biggest rivals for establishment support may have been vanquished before the campaign even begins.   Romney has continued to collect chits all over the country and to date has the best organization-in-waiting of any of the potential candidates while also leading President Barack Obama in multiple polls.

Sarah Palin continues to build herself up into the ultimate anti-establishment candidate and has been aided in this endeavor, ironically, by the very people who hope to stop her nomination.  Palin continues to dig in as the anti-establishment favorite, heading out on another successful book tour while her show, Sarah Palin’s Alaska, continues to act as a weekly advertisement for the Governor’s outsider credentials.  Palin showed off her potential as a candidate by bringing in nearly $500,000 in less then 4 weeks, almost all by small donors and online contributions.  This grassroots network, so far, is unrivaled by the other candidates in the field, who rely on big donor contributions to their state PACs.  With Beltway insiders lining up to take shots at her, Palin is well positioned to claim the Tea Party mantle and crusade against establishment Republicans who are trying to cut her down before the campaign starts.

Mike Huckabee continues to post solid national polling numbers, so solid in fact that Huck has begun drawing some interest from old establishment hands like David Frum.  However, even with even greater media attention recently then in prior months on top of his TV and radio shows, the former Arkansas governor continues to perform dreadfully in fundraising and organization.  On top of this is the elephant in the room, which is Gov. Huckabee’s very own ‘Willie Horton’ problem.  With Gov. Tim Pawlenty now being stung by the pardon bug, it’s only a matter of time before Maurice Clemmons becomes an issue for Huckabee once again.  The attention that is likely to be paid to these severe mistakes on the part of Pawlenty and Huckabee will leave others, like Mike Pence and John Thune, with clear openings to improve their own standings.  However, unlike Pawlenty, Gov. Huckabee has been able to establish himself as a brand and is better known around the country, which would put him in a better position to potentially recover then the Minnesota governor.

Congressman Mike Pence continues to be a much buzzed about potential candidate.  Recently it seemed as if Pence would aim for the Indiana governorship, but now many rumors indicate he will run for president instead.  Pence’s combination of fiscal and social conservatism mixed with his natural communication skills have many conservatives believing he could be the real dark horse of 2012.  Pence’s challenge seems to be name recognition and fundraising, but so far he has proven to be very popular with the Tea Party, the Religious Right, and with the Club for Growth crowd.  This ability to unify different branches of the conservative coalition could make Pence a top tier candidate if he can raise the $30 million plus needed to be taken seriously.  With many in the establishment fearing a Palin bid and also loathing Mike Huckabee, Rep. Pence could emerge as the compromise candidate should Gov. Mitt Romney falter.

Tim Pawlenty was already facing an uphill climb for the nomination, running against far better known candidates in a party that tends to nominate people who have run before.  Now Gov. Pawlenty has come under intense criticism for a pardon he and 2 others issued for Jeremy Giefer, a man convicted of the statutory rape of a 14-year-old girl.  The victim was the then 19-year-old Giefer’s girlfriend, and would go on to become his wife.  Giefer was pardoned after already serving his time in prison.  However, Mr. Giefer now faces new charges of sexually abusing his own daughter over 240 times, both before and after his pardon.  For many people, this will be the first thing they learn about Gov. Pawlenty.  For a candidate who was already struggling to gain traction despite his obvious interest in running, this pardon will likely make his long shot bid almost a no shot. Pawlenty’s fall due to this controversy will likely benefit other establishment candidates, solidifying Mitt Romney as the frontrunner and moving Sen. John Thune, Gov. Haley Barbour, and Rep. Mike Pence up the ladder of alternatives.

As for other candidates, Newt Gingrich had a fundraising month nearly as impressive as Sarah Palin’s.  The Speaker is clearly making moves more seriously then ever before to run.  Former New York governor George Pataki is exploring a run and has been championing the anti-ObamaCare cause through his Revere America group.  Ambassador John Bolton’s potential bid received a boost, in my view, due to the major Wikileaks scandal that has brought foreign affairs back into the discussion.  In a field devoid of any foreign policy heavyweights, Bolton would clearly be the national security standout.  The leaks, revealing the higher level of concern that exists over Iran, the contempt in which Obama officials hold many world leaders, and the weakness many world leaders see in America, combined with the heightening tension between North and South Korea and the likely extension of a deadline for Afghanistan withdrawal, make clear that foreign policy will become a much larger issue in 2012 then it was in 2010, and that could create an opening for a Bolton bid.

On to the rankings:

1. Mitt Romney

2. Sarah Palin

3. Mike Huckabee

4. Mike Pence

5. John Thune

6. Haley Barbour

7. Newt Gingrich

8. Mitch Daniels

9. John Bolton

10. Tim Pawlenty

Honorable Mention: Jeb Bush, George Pataki, Jim DeMint, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Rick Santorum, Gary Johnson

The final installment of my blueprint for conservatism going forward deals with foreign policy, and urges conservatives to take a principled, yet reality-based, stance in favor of freedom abroad, while also supporting a strong national defense to protect the nation and her interests.

3) Strong National Defense and Reality-Based Support for Freedom Abroad (International Self-Determination)

Each nation-state exists to protect the natural rights of the individual citizens of that nation-state.  Governments that do not operate according to this philosophy are inherently oppressive

As Goldwater noted in Conscience, the proper role of government is to establish order, as order is necessary to protect one man from enslavement by another.  Classical liberal observers have long noted that man emanates from nature with certain inalienable rights.  Nature has given men the ability to act and react, and the state’s role is to ensure that one man’s actions aren’t limited by another, because no man has the authority in nature to place any other man in bondage.

Throughout most of human history, however, societies have failed to organize governments according to the principles of natural law.  Instead, governments have been formed in order to control, coerce, and limit individuals.  The state does not exist as the guardian of the rights of men, nor as the servant of the people, but as their ruler.  Even if these governments are valid in accordance with national and international law, these types of governments are inherently illegitimate based on natural law.

America should support the spread of freedom by use of the bully pulpit, and aid the proponents of freedom, while giving no sanctuary to its opponents

America occupies a special role in the world as a nation that was founded upon the principles of natural law, and as one that possesses the economic and geopolitical prowess to play a leadership role in the world.  It is America’s responsibility then to use the power of the bully pulpit and the influence that comes along with America’s position in the world to veer the many nations across the globe towards a greater degree of human freedom and self-determination.

The U.S. should continue to build alliances with like-minded nations that also strive to make individual self-determination one of the organizing principles of their societies.  Alliances with many of the former Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe are especially important, as many of these nations are only a couple of decades into the long, hard slog away from statism and towards liberty.  Support for Israel, a beacon of freedom in a sea of despotism, also remains a necessary component of U.S. international relations despite the complications that may arise in America’s dealings with the remainder of the Middle East.

The world is not perfect and the U.S. can and will often have to engage in economic and political relationships with nations that are far from free.  Our economic relationship with China is an example, as is our relationship with Saudi Arabia, which is a necessary relationship given the complicated politics of the Middle East.  However, these relationships should not be construed as validation of the oppressive governments sported by these nations.

The U.S. military exists to defend America and her interests from foreign aggression

The primary role of the United States Armed Forces is to protect the nation from the aggression of foreign actors.  The military, then, is a necessary extension of a society organized to protect the rights of the individual, as the military serves as a defense against international forces that attempt to take away the rights of American citizens.

In order to fulfill its role, the military must continue to be strong enough to defend America against all likely threats.  However, the military should spend taxpayers’ money as smartly as possible in order to avoid excess that will lead to greater confiscation of wealth from the populace, or the borrowing of funds from potentially unfriendly foreign sources.  It is the role of our elected officials to appropriate funds to the military in a rational manner.

Use of the U.S. military to attempt to overthrow foreign governments, even those that are oppressive, has proven to be costly, ineffective, and should be limited to those situations where an ally specifically requests our assistance (e.g., a popular rebellion in Iran occurs and the leadership of the pro-freedom forces expressly asks the U.S. for military assistance)

Many well-meaning, freedom-oriented observers have flirted with the idea of popular uprisings against autocratic governments with the assistance of the U.S. military.  But as the current military struggles in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate, use of the U.S. military to overthrow oppressive governments tends to result in the loss of much American blood and treasure and often leads to one oppressive government being replaced by another.

It is true that the human spirit yearns for self-determination.  But it is equally true that every human is subject to a thousand different influences that may cause what appears to be irrational action.  To some men, the yoke of oppression may seem to deliver security, while freedom provides only uncertainty.  To others, freedom means the ability to resume a multi-millennia blood feud against a rival ethnic group.  The impact of culture on the psyche of any human must not be discounted, even as the forces of liberty attempt to make the world anew.

As such, it is prudent for America to refrain from using its military to attempt to overthrow oppressive regimes.  In the event, however, that a popular revolution does take place against such a regime, the U.S. can and should support the pro-freedom revolutionary forces, vocally, financially, and, if expressly asked to do so, militarily.

This post is the second in a three-part series on my blueprint for conservatism going forward. A few days ago, I laid out my economic blueprint for conservatism. Today’s post deals with cultural issues, and the need for conservatives to enable cultural self-determination via federalism, localism, and a judiciary that understands its proper role.

2) Federalism and Localism (Cultural Self-Determination)

Courts exist to protect individuals’ constitutional rights and must otherwise respect constitutional limits on judicial power

The judiciary is one of the most misunderstood branches of the American government, largely because judges, for the past few decades, have taken for themselves extra-constitutional authority and have elevated themselves to the role of policy-maker. But judges were never intended to be policy-makers, as the judiciary, at least at the federal level, is free from the check of popular will. Federal judges enjoy lifetime tenure and cannot be voted out of office by the electorate. This is because judges are not meant to be representatives of any electorate, but defenders of the Constitution. In today’s America, many judges are neither of those things.

The job of a court that is charged with deciding a constitutional issue is to apply the words of the Constitution to the facts of the case before the court. Because the republic is designed with a specific method by which the Constitution can be amended, we know that judges do not have the authority to change the Constitution, or to re-interpret it in order to reach a desired policy result. The sole role of a judge hearing a constitutional issue is to determine whether the Constitution empowers the state to take a specific action, or whether the Constitution provides a citizen with specific rights that are being violated by the state.

States and localities are free to make policy decisions via democratic process

While an individual’s constitutional and civil rights must certainly be protected, a judiciary that understands its proper role will result in states and localities having a great deal of latitude over the policies that they choose to implement via the democratic process. This will be far more reflective of the pluralistic society that a nation like America, given both its geographic span and population size, will inevitably be at any given time. As such, one state will be free to re-define marriage as it sees fit, while another will have the ability to prohibit most abortions from taking place. One community may choose to ban alcohol, while another might decide to legalize all hard drugs.

Modern, highly mobile society will allow for a “cultural marketplace” where individuals can choose to live in communities that reflect their values

Rather than create a tyranny of the majority under which an unwilling minority finds itself oppressed by the moralist or the libertine, today’s dynamic, highly mobile society will ensure that essentially a free marketplace of culture comes into being, where citizens are able to move with their feet, from one state to another, and from one community to the next, in order to live in a place that reflects their values. So if detractors are right that the community that chooses to legalize hard drugs will be awash in crime, that community will soon find itself without a tax base. Similarly, if the community that decides that all commerce must cease on Sunday is too repressive for the everyman, then that community too will find itself barren. Moreover, none of these initiatives can be put into place without the assent of a majority of the population in any given state or community, meaning that most policies will be, by definition, mainstream. In that sense, the notion that states and localities are laboratories of democracy will again take its rightful place, pushing aside the insistence of statists that we must all be ruled from a distant capital.

Hot button “cultural issues” will become non-issues at the federal level once the proper role of the judiciary is maintained

A judiciary that exists within its constitutional parameters means a wide array of disparate social policies at the state and local level. And that means an end to the nationalization of almost every cultural issue. That’s because any action by Congress on a cultural issue would likely invalidate 50 state laws on the subject. The devolution of power to states and localities on cultural issues will end the culture war within the realm of national politics, and will also make cultural cues less important in national politics, as New Yorkers no longer fear that every West Texan secretly plans to impose his culture on them, and as West Texans no longer hold any such suspicions about New Yorkers.

This dynamic, of course, would be anathema to much of today’s national political industry, which uses the struggle over these cultural issues, and not the resolution of these issues, as a way of increasing campaign contributions, getting voters out to the phone banks, and upping the ratings of the most entertaining figures on cable news. Resolving these hot-button cultural issues via federalism would absolutely make national politics a lot less interesting. Which is good, because when government is boring, it becomes less oppressive.

This piece is the first of three installments of the blueprint for modern conservatism that I laid out yesterday.  This segment of the blueprint deals with economic issues, and attempts to foster economic self-determination and bring about a “growth society.”

1) A Growth Society (Economic Self-Determination)

Fund government via a flax tax, or quasi-flat tax, on all forms of income

Clearly government does have some necessary functions.  Even if one believes that government should be reduced to defending the liberty of individuals, that would entail funding law enforcement, the courts, as well as a military to prevent foreign aggressors from taking away our rights.  Given that the Constitution has established a democratic republic, and given that Congress can and does routinely find lots of other things to do, often with the assent of popular demand, it is apparent that the state is going to need a funding source other than indebtedness to other nations.

The current mechanism for funding the republic is taxation, which is a reasonable method provided that the system of taxation is fair, provided that the tax system doesn’t socially engineer, and provided that the system of taxation ensures the most efficient allocation of capital.  Naturally, our government has put into place a system that does none of these things.  Our current system is unfair.  Nearly half of Americans don’t pay into the federal pool of general revenue thanks to loopholes and deductions, which means that much of the government is essentially being paid for by only one out of every two citizens.  Our current system is not conducive to growth.  It punishes savings and investment.  And our current system is filled with attempts by legislators to encourage or discourage various types of behavior.

The solution is to replace the current tax code with a flat or near-flat tax on all income.  This flat tax would contain a very generous personal exemption but no deductions, and would apply to all income, including capital gains and estates above a certain dollar value.  While the number-crunchers would have to set the precise rates and exemptions, I am envisioning something along the lines of the following: all individual income above $10,000 annually gets taxed at a rate of 15%.  All income above $100,000 annually gets taxed at a rate of 25%.  That’s it.  That’s the tax code.

The only modifications that I would consider include additional exemptions for dependents, as well as variations of Milton Friedman’s negative income tax in the form of tax credits, provided those credits wouldn’t open the door to social engineering, loopholes, etc.  Refundable tax credits to act as school vouchers or to allow taxpayers to purchase health insurance could further conservative policy goals in other areas, which is why I am open to these credits as long as they do not begin the nation down a slippery slope back towards the current tax code.  Otherwise, things like school vouchers could be delivered via alternative means.

Repeal unnecessary regulation to foster innovation and entrepreneurship

The reality of the global economy has become increasingly apparent to most Americans.  The world of the 1950s is not returning.  Most Americans will never again spend multiple decades with one employer, drive the company car, and employer-based health insurance and private employee unions are becoming more and more rare.  The dynamism of the current economy is part of its strength, but only if America is willing to step up and compete in a world where a billion hungry Asians want the same things that we want.

America must become the world’s innovator again, and the best starting point for such an endeavor is for government to make it as easy as possible for Americans to do business.  Regulations that hold back small businesses, that extinguish entrepreneurial adventures before they even get started, and that prevent rapid advancements in science and technology must be rolled back so that America can take the lead in the world again.

Maintain a balanced budget to keep interest rates low and to avoid dependency on foreign creditors

Deficit spending is a destructive habit of the federal government that must end.  Running deficits and adding countless trillions to the national debt convinces Americans that the state can provide services without paying for them, creates yet more obligations for the taxpayers due to the interest on the national debt that must be serviced, and makes America dependent on nations that then become powerful creditors to the U.S., wielding an unhealthy influence over the nation’s policies.  America must cut spending across-the-board in order to bring balance to the nation’s books.

Allow real wages to rise

One of the greatest impediments to economic growth in modern America is the stagnant nature of real wages.  Middle class Americans have seen tepid wage growth over the last few years, if not decades.  This dynamic is due in no small part to the obsession of the Federal Reserve with heading off “irrational exuberance” in order to stem inflationary fears.  But keeping wages low keeps America’s standard of living from rising, hampers social mobility, and makes it that much harder for Americans to achieve the American Dream.

A low-wage America is an America where more and more members of the middle class will become dependent on government.  And dependency on government essentially means redistributing the pie.  But instead of redistributing the pie, it’s time for government to put the policies into place that will grow the pie.  Real wages must be allowed to rise, even if the Federal Reserve considers such rises to be “irrational.”  This will lead to the type of capital formation that Jack Kemp wanted back in the 1980s, that will secure the middle class and ensure that working class Americans, as well as the urban poor, have access to real economic opportunity.  This will make America a wealthier nation in a highly competitive global economy.

Enhance social mobility through equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes

One of the major themes of Goldwater’s Conscience is the unique nature of each individual human being.  While all members of the same species, we each have specific talents, skills, and bearings that make each of us better suited for some things than for others, good at this, but perhaps not so good at that.  The collectivist, however, doesn’t recognize the unique-ness of each individual, and has foolishly put into place scores of policies that require equal outcomes for each individual.

This is absurd.  A professional football star, a pop music icon, a world-renowned actor, the inventor of the next great medical advancement, and the founder of the company that creates a thousand new jobs are entirely different creatures.  If equality of outcomes are insisted upon, none of their talents are cultivated, and none of their contributions to the world come into being.  That is why one-size-fits-all policies must be resisted, and replaced with policies that foster equal opportunity for all to realize their own talents and achieve greatness.  It is in this area where inventive conservative policy-makers must try their hardest to insert market forces into existing edifices, such as by giving students greater choices via school vouchers, by normalizing online universities to increase low-cost options for students looking to attend college, and so forth.  But the most important factor that will yield social mobility is a growth society that will be achieved via the economic policies described above.

Tonight while I was perusing the shelves at Barnes and Noble, I came upon a copy of Barry Goldwater’s, The Conscience of a Conservative.  It has been awhile since I picked up this particular pillar of modern conservative thought, so I decided to re-familiarize myself with its contents.  In so doing, I was shocked at both the timelessness of the Goldwater message, and the eerie similarities between Goldwater’s age and the current age.

Goldwater’s masterpiece was penned a half-century ago, but had I not known better, I would have thought that much of the book was written as a parody of today’s politics.  Goldwater paints a picture of a Democratic Party overrun by socialist intellectuals, and a Republican Party that believes that slightly less statism, and not-quite-as-big-government as the Democrats would like, should be the nation’s preferred policy direction.  Goldwater even quotes Richard Nixon, who argued for a GOP that encompassed conservatism “with a heart,” in an eerily prescient warning against the advent of compassionate conservatism.

All of this leads me to believe that unless conservatism is able to re-establish its intellectual and philosophical foundation, it will be unable to bend the Republican Party to its will, and the GOP will once again drift into the muck of liberal Republicanism.  But as Goldwater himself states in Conscience, conservatism, while unchanging, can only be relevant if it is applied to the issues of the era.  As such, I have taken it upon myself to organize a blueprint that applies conservatism to today’s national and global political environment.  It’s a Goldwater-esque manifesto for a brave new world.

I do want to note, though, that this blueprint is just that — a blueprint, not an unwavering, shut-down-the-government-unless-we-get-what-we-want set of position papers.  I think it’s highly unlikely that anywhere near 100 percent of the policy goals that I intend to lay out will ever be realized.  I would be happy if 50 percent of them were at some point realized.  But I think that unless conservatives begin with a solid foundation, such as the one that Goldwater laid out 50 years ago, the inevitable compromise with non-conservatives gives the nation a much more leftist, much more statist endgame.  So when I lay out my blueprint for 21st Century conservatism, which I intend to do over the next few days, I am not saying that it’s these policies or bust for conservatives.  I’m saying that the GOP starts with these policies, and the Democrats start with their own policies, and the compromise ends up being a lot closer to what conservatives want than if the GOP starts with, say, George W. Bush’s policies.

Following is what amounts to a “Table of Contents” for my coming blueprint of conservatism going forward.  This will give everyone a rough idea of what I’m about to recommend.  Also note the theme — across the board, the philosophical bearings and policy goals of conservatism will amount to freeing individuals to determine their own destinies.  In the days ahead I will extrapolate on each issue area laid out below.

The Conscience of a Conservative, 2010

1) A Growth Society (Economic Self-Determination)
-Fund government via a flax tax, or quasi-flat tax, on all forms of income
-Repeal unnecessary regulation to foster innovation and entrepreneurship
-Maintain a balanced budget to keep interest rates low and to avoid dependency on foreign creditors
-Allow real wages to rise
-Enhance social mobility through equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes

2) Federalism and Localism (Cultural Self-Determination)
-Courts exist to protect individuals’ constitutional rights and must otherwise respect constitutional limits on judicial power
-States and localities are free to make policy decisions via democratic process
-Modern, highly mobile society will allow for a “cultural marketplace” where individuals can choose to live in communities that reflect their values
-Hot button “cultural issues” will become non-issues at the federal level once the proper role of the judiciary is maintained

3) Strong National Defense and Reality-Based Support for Freedom Abroad (International Self-Determination)
-Each nation-state exists to protect the natural rights of the individual citizens of that nation-state.  Governments that do not operate according to this philosophy are inherently oppressive
-America should support the spread of freedom by use of the bully pulpit, and aid the proponents of freedom, while giving no sanctuary to its opponents
-The U.S. military exists to defend America and her interests from foreign aggression
-Use of the U.S. military to attempt to overthrow foreign governments, even those that are oppressive, has proven to be costly, ineffective, and should be limited to those situations where an ally specifically requests our assistance (e.g., a popular rebellion in Iran occurs and the leadership of the pro-freedom forces expressly asks the U.S. for military assistance)

Later, I will attempt to hash out my economic platform.

PPP (D) Massachusetts 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 52%
• Mitt Romney 43%

• Barack Obama 57%
• Newt Gingrich 33%

• Barack Obama 57%
• Mike Huckabee 33%

• Barack Obama 61%
• Sarah Palin 32%

(more…)

It appears as if Senator Graham may have let the cat out of the bag.  You can listen to the just-aired interview here;

A Summary from The Hill:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Thursday he thinks outgoing Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) could challenge President Obama in the 2012 primaries.
Graham said Feingold, a reliably liberal senator who lost his bid for reelection this fall, could look to unseat Obama in the Democratic primaries.

“I like Russ, and he may run against Obama in 2012,” he said on conservative talker Laura Ingraham’s radio show.

Feingold’s office has said he has “no interest” in challenging Obama in two years, a statement that makes a primary challenge to a sitting president of the same party seem like a distant reality.

Any primary challenge to Obama would likely come from the president’s left. Groups like MoveOn.Org and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) have been critical of Obama’s compromises on issues like taxes and health reform.

Feingold enjoys good credit from liberals and even from his onetime campaign finance reform partner, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who paid tribute to the outgoing Wisconsin Democrat in a speech on the Senate floor earlier this week.