Andre's Executive Order

So I digress... sort-of... I had a discussion on Facebook over the last 2-3 days dealing with gun control, and interestingly enough, it shed some light on topic of socialism, capitalism, and the economic expectations of Americans when it comes to politics. So how did a discussion about gun control shift to economics? Well first let me briefly state the nature of the argument. My position on the issue is that owning guns is a fundamental right, but one that must, like all rights, be balanced against society's overall interest in safety and maintaining order. To this degree, I am in favor of gun control that limits ownership of certain kinds of firearms to the military or police forces, and I am in favor of reasonable laws that measure the judgment and fitness of a gun owner before they are allowed to purchase one. I am aware that our attempts to create laws to do both have been less than perfect, but I think the bottom line is that we need to try to keep guns from those too stupid,

This is another one of my multi-day explorations of some ideas we find filtering through the political topics of the day when we're not busy trying to argue about church placement. Socialism : An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. What ... does this have to do with any party in the United States? The answer really is "it doesn't" but the use of the word Socialist as an attack on Obama during 2008 has proven viral and now tends to crop up in any discussion where the government seeks to manage economic affairs. For the next few entries I want to explore one of the core differences between true conservatives and progressives: The level to which the government should be involved in economic systems. To start, let's put the other two biggies out there: Capitalism : An economic and pol

Let's do a little exercise: "President Obama is wrong for this country because..." - You finish the sentence, paragraph, or paper. The rules of this game are only three and very simple. First, If you decide to answer, you must address the policies and decisions actually made by the President. You may not talk about wildly generalized or speculative concepts such as Socialism, his birth date, his place of birth, or any other distraction issue not related to what he is DOING (or not doing) for America as President of the United States. Second, be specific. No generalities. I don't want people repeating the favorite pundit's catch-phrases from media playbooks used against every Democrat from Carter on forward and calling it good. "He spends too much","He hates business","He's ruining our military." These wildly generalized claims all beg for support. Address specific uses of executive power by the president related to his term so far

When did it become a sin to be wrong? In today's media, employment and even social environment, we have adopted a policy of never admitting to any wrong. We avoid being wrong in ways that suggest that should be discovered that we lacked the requisite 'rightness' we might be fired, ostracized or humiliated in a way from which we might never recover. Just watching the discussions between otherwise sane and reasonable people about important topics and you see a wide variety of 'wrongness avoidance'. What do I mean? You all should recognize these: If the facts start to prove your position untenable, change the subject to something related. “But John, there was no meeting in your yard and we have film to prove it.” “See, this is what you people do, you invade privacy and think because you got some secret film you can invalidate my cause!” If evidence runs against you, attack the speaker, and reference generic 'experts'. “There were no weapons of mass destruction.

The American people have it right. Newt Gingrich's made the ridiculous to the point of comical statement on the issue of a 'ground zero' mosque saying it would be okay 'when Saudi Arabia allows churches'. Never mind the entire controversy is one grounded in the Constitution that applies only to sovereign territory of the US. This was like saying we'll allow you to speak freely when they can speak freely in China. No, you'll do it now, because I'm an American and here we have rights. Meanwhile the 'professional left' framed the issue as purely one of fundamental rights and ignored the issue of common sense, common decency and emotions entirely. But despite both sides' stupidity, it seems Americans have figured it out. The polls on the subject say about 70% of Americans are against the construction of the Islamic cultural center in lower Manhattan. However nearly 90% of Americans agree they have the right to do so. If you read my article 'M

So have you been following the primaries at all? If you're like most of America, the answer is no. If you aren't a candidate, working for a candidate, or a political junkie like me, watching either party play the game of deciding who they will put up in the general election is about as exciting as watching mold develop on those bananas your kids swore they'd eat if you bought them. However this primary season is a little different, particularly for me and my interest in the long term health of Conservative politics in America*. This season, we are seeing the disintegration of the ability of the Republican National Convention to control the kind of candidates that get nominated. Throughout the nation, the RNC has supported the kind of candidates they normally do, but the voters, ever more rightest these days, have instead nominated an entirely different breed of Conservative. Marco Rubio, Ron Paul, and Sharon Angle are just a few examples of Republican nominations that prese

I try to write every day. Today, however, I'm not feeling so well. However despite missing today's entry for the most part, I have done some work on what will be tomorrows. I hope tomorrow is to talk about voting particular in regards to the 2010 elections. I want to talk about not voting, about how to vote, and about how much work any patriotic voter really should do before November. Of course I won't be telling you who to vote for. If I did, you'd ignore me anyway. However I do hope to get folks thinking about what they really want out of the 2010 elections and what makes the most sense for the long term health of their political views and the country. Now for an unabashed call for free marketing. We ALL know people who are sick and tired of the false war waged between the right and left. Give them this site to read. Encourage them to come, follow the blog, and comment. I'm very certain that the best politics of our country have happened in the places where differ

I'm listening to Rush Limbaugh. I'm not listening to him to get mad. I'm certainly not listening to him to learn anything about conservative politics. Instead I'm listening to him because I consider the right wing media, particularly Rush, to be the genesis for the modern hate we feel between right and left. It's a hate grounded in how he structures his claims and information and then presents them to his listeners. All in all, this is part of my ongoing effort to dissect the increasing wedge driven between conservatives and liberals that keeps us from talking to each other and in many cases encourages us to hate each other. When did it become wrong to disagree? When did the desire for a certain economic approach or spending plan or foreign policy become reason to turn a fellow American into a conspirator against the American dream and an enemy? Rush doesn't lie per se. Rush interprets. But he interprets in a way that encourages the average listener to carry con

So let's be clear about the New York Islamic Cultural Center including a mosque being proposed for central New York. 1.The proposed site about 2 blocks away from ground zero. 2.There is at least one Jewish synagogue and one Christian church within that distance. 3.Over 650,000 Muslims live in New York State. 4.Muslims were killed in the 911 attacks. So a foreign radical fringe group of a religion widely practiced in the United States effectively attacks and kills thousands of Americans on US soil in 2001. The emotional impact of this attack cannot be overstated, nor should the grief of those who lost loved ones be underestimated. Now New York Muslims were no more a part of the 911 attacks then New York Christians were a part of the Northern Ireland terrorist bombings of the 80's and 90's. There simply is nothing to suggest that the religion of Islam is to blame for the violence that some of its radical members inflicted on our nation. However there is an argument to be made

It's a slow news day. Ed Shultz is complaining about a congressman's excessive golf, and Limbaugh seems preoccupied with the same 3 talking points that were old two years ago. Seems political talk on both sides is taking the day off. So I'm using the space to just shed light on what I'm doing here. As I hope my readers understand, a lot of what I do with this blog is to create honest dialogue between voters regardless of where you might sit on that left/right line. I want people to stop defending their political party and start thinking about the issues that face them and the people who claim to represent them in making decisions to face them. I tend to vote Democrat. But even if I agree with the Democratic platform, I am more than just a party member. My life is more complex than that. There are things about my world view that don't align with social idealism or worker politics that often permeate the Democratic agenda. It is unfair to me and my family to just vote

“For our opponents to say, as they have repeatedly, that there is no rational reason for limiting marriage to a man and a woman except for animus and bigotry is to spurn 7 million Californian voters, 70 of 108 judges, the vast majority of state legislatures and electorate after electorate who support marriage between a man and woman.” Andrew Pugno, the general counsel for Protectmarriage.com, released this as a press release just after closing arguments in the case that would overturn California's Proposition 8. This sentiment has been, more or less, a summary of the backlash against the decision that overturned that gay marriage ban. The outcry from social conservatives immediately lit up the airwaves and blogosphere, with comments about legislation from the bench, activist judges, and the anti-American nature of defying the will of the people, once again proven by a judiciary that went against a strong majority of voters who supported the law. But let's be clear. Marriage is

Many progressives don't exactly understand the gay marriage issue as it applies to Christian conservatives. I'm not going to make a lot of friends on my side of the isle by writing this article, but I think it's something particularly liberals need to wrap their minds around. Social and religious conservatives are in a tricky place when it comes to gay marriage. Now I'm not talking about the paranoid homophobic component of the anti-gay movement that borders on paranoia, I'm talking about the average conservative – particularly Christian – who gets caught between their religious morality and their sense of social conscience. Now to progressives, this issues seems incredibly obvious. Marriage is a bundle of benefits from the government and a means by which couples can form lasting relationships. However it started, homosexual relationships are happening and many are lasting. Therefore denying them the legitimacy provided to other lifetime bonds is pure discriminatio

What makes the Tea Party potentially dangerous to Republicans? Internal party fracturing is normal for a political party just after a series of severe losses such as the Republicans faced in 2008. However tracing events back to even before the election, we saw the first rumblings of what has started to look like a deeper set of cracks in the Republican party's membership. Sarah Palin highlighted a division within the ranks that was well underway before the loss. Sarah terrified the fiscal and moderate conservatives along with 'Reagan democrats' who voted Republican, but was borderline deified by the social conservatives whose special interests and single issue participation had become more and more important to the Republican voter base. The 'sanctification' of social conservatism at the expense of intellectualism symbolized by making Palin the VP candidate was in many ways the last straw for numerous moderate conservatives. After 2008, only roughly 21% of the US po

We're talking about a deep divide within the Republicans that I believe threatens the continued ability of that party to represent American conservatives. To sum up what's come before, the idea is that starting roughly in 1980, the Republicans became more and more the party of the new global trans-national corporation. These corporations, because they were not tied to any one economy or government, had no direct incentive to improve America. The US was just one market and opportunity among hundreds and its well being was secondary to maximizing revenue. The focus they wanted from their politicians was on the minuscule changes to tax law and regulation that would result in billions of dollars in additional profits for them but which had little to no effect on most Americans who simply didn't move enough money to benefit. This is where the Liberals get off calling the Republicans 'the party of the rich'. It's a simplistic statement, and somewhat misleading. The Re

Matt's comment reminded me to make a couple quick points. He made some good observations about Congress control among others, so I encourage you to read his contribution, but he also reminded me of a general practice I want to encourage in discussing politics. No matter what your political position on the left/right scale, we've been trained over the last ten years to meet critique of our party in particular with counterattacks: When a Democrat is accused of ethical violations, they answer instantly with comments about all the Republicans who have been scandalized. When a position comes under attack, the opposing position is mocked. When a mistake, error, or lie is exposed, often the response is: "Well both parties are crap. This is just more evidence of that." None of this actually authentically examines the behavior of either party or position. Realize that when I spend time dissecting the Republican party, I make NO claims about the Democrats. I am not doing it to

The point of yesterday's article was to chew a bit on what it is to be an American conservative. I was trying to achieve a couple things there. First, I wanted any conservative readers I have to really think about what it is that fuels their political stance. Second, I wanted my liberal readers to view a discussion, albeit brief, about conservative ideas without built-in judgment or condemnation. Now to be fair, readership of this nearly brand new blog is pretty low yet, so we didn't get a bunch of reviews and replies to my proposed outline. Tom, however, made a great comment noting that new conservatives are less concerned with class social conservatism than older conservatives are. We'll take that as a subtle, but important shift in the conservative voter base, but I will argue that at this time it is more an indicator of conservatism to come. As the movement stands, classic social conservative values are still very much at the center of most conservative minds. I'm a