We are in the middle of a long fight with our elected officials over the issue of universal health coverage. It seems to me that we, the people, are winning this fight, for now we are hearing prominent Democrats waver on the universal option, which drew the most ire from constituents. They are now putting forward modified forms of the same plan, and are even turning their attention to a health care provider that is one of the largest employers in my state: Group Health Cooperative.
GHC is a patient owned health care facility, along the lines of a credit union. Anyone can become a voting member, which will give you a say in setting policies for Group Health. It is renowned for it's quality of medical care, and for pioneering medical innovations you don't find much of anywhere else. The doctors are generally on salary, instead of being paid per patient, which give them less of an incentive to see as many as possible. They also extensively use Electronic Medical Records, which the Obama Administration would like to see enacted in it's health care reform bill. It also allows the ability to fill prescriptions online and then they can mail it to you. Another feature you are given is the ability to securely email your doctors and nurses.
The New York Times last month ran this article on Group Health, and tells how it is being looked at as a model for health care reform. Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/health/policy/07coop.html?_r=1
I don't see why we can't use a similar model as this on a nationwide basis.
Until next time, this is Statesman.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Voters Are Angry Over Government
This morning I read this commentary by a member of the Ripon Society, a centrist Republican group, and to me it reflects in words why people are angry. He states the very reason when he mentions Senator Specter's town hall meeting, when he referred to the questioners not by a name but by a number. We are just a number to him. How impersonal.
Government loses the consent of the governed when it ignores our desires. The Democrats think all this opposition is manufactured. If they ignore it, then it could come back to bite them.
IMO, this year's health care debate looks very much like the health care debate of 1993-94. And if this year's Dems continue in this path, next year's elections could be a boon again for Republicans. I think some of them know this, which is why we are now hearing from key Democrats that the public option will not be in the final draft. Support for a public option bit them before, and, judging from public reaction now, it could bite them again.
Here's the text of the CNN article.
Editor's note: Lou Zickar is the editor of the Ripon Forum, a centrist Republican journal of political thought published by the Ripon Society. He is a former aide to Rep. Mac Thornberry, a Republican from Texas.
(CNN) -- The biggest political story of the month so far is clearly the populist rage on display at town halls across the country. Democrats say this rage is manufactured; Republicans say it is real.
What can't be debated is that it is drawing a lot of attention, perhaps none more so than the town hall that Sen. Arlen Specter held in Lebanon, Pennsylvania, on Tuesday of this past week.
I know something about that part of the state. I used to work for Bob Walker, who represented that area for 20 years in the House of Representatives. In 1988, I was a member of the advance team that coordinated a Bush-Quayle bus caravan that traveled throughout the region.
To this day, I still have vivid memories of Dan Quayle throwing a perfect spiral in the gymnasium of Lebanon High School. The ball was caught, no words were misspelled, and all was right in that little corner of the Republican world.
The other thing I remember from that time were the people of Lebanon. They were, and I assume they still are, like the other Pennsylvanians I met and got to know -- decent, hardworking Americans who loved their families, cared about their communities and believed in the future of our nation.
In the few years I spent working on Bob Walker's staff, I have to admit that I never saw anything like the anger that was directed at Specter the other day. That said, I can't say that I'm all that surprised at the level of intensity. Lebanon is a very conservative town, and its residents are clearly concerned about some of the plans being proposed by Specter and his newfound Democratic allies in Washington, D.C.
Still, what surprised me the most was not the attitude that area residents displayed toward Specter. It was, rather, the attitude he displayed toward them.
I've been to many political events over the years -- from rallies in Pennsylvania to town halls in Texas. But I've never been to one where a politician addressed people by a number and not their name. And yet that is exactly what Specter did. People had to take a number if they wanted to ask a question. When their turn was up, he called out the number instead of recognizing them by name.
At a time when many Americans are concerned that the federal government is going to take over the nation's health care system and turn it into one big DMV where people have to stand in line to see a doctor, Specter unwittingly played right into their fears. In doing so, he also gave his Democratic opponent a ready-made tag line in the primary next year: "I'm Joe Sestak -- you'll never be a number to me."
Truth be told, it's a tag line that would also work for his probable opponent in the general election, Republican Pat Toomey, should both of them make it that far. For the fact of the matter is, even though the American people have strikingly different views on what government should do, most, if not all, Americans believe that government should be on their side.
Bill Clinton believed this. "We need a new government for a new century," he stated in his Second Inaugural, "humble enough not to try to solve all our problems for us, but strong enough to give us the tools to solve our problems for ourselves."
Even Ronald Reagan believed this. In his First Inaugural Address -- the same speech in which he famously stated that, "Government is not a solution to our problem; government is the problem" -- he also expressed his core belief that limited government has a role to play and has a basic obligation to the American people. "It is not my intention to do away with government," he stated. "It is, rather, to make it work."
Unfortunately, the potential for government to play a positive role seems to have been forgotten in recent years. From the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina under George W. Bush to the massive growth of the federal bureaucracy under President Obama, Americans are left to wonder: Whatever happened to the concept of making government work?
And yet, this question is more important now than perhaps ever before. Times are tough. Budgets are tight. Families are seeing a good chunk of their paychecks being used to fund government at all levels.
In Pennsylvania alone, the average resident pays more than $10,000 each year in federal, state and local taxes combined, according to the Tax Foundation. What are taxpayers getting for their investment in return? If they were in Lebanon this past week, it would have earned them the privilege of being recognized by their senator as a number, instead of their name.
Which leads to a final question: Is it any wonder that people are angry?
Until next time, this is Statesman.
Government loses the consent of the governed when it ignores our desires. The Democrats think all this opposition is manufactured. If they ignore it, then it could come back to bite them.
IMO, this year's health care debate looks very much like the health care debate of 1993-94. And if this year's Dems continue in this path, next year's elections could be a boon again for Republicans. I think some of them know this, which is why we are now hearing from key Democrats that the public option will not be in the final draft. Support for a public option bit them before, and, judging from public reaction now, it could bite them again.
Here's the text of the CNN article.
Editor's note: Lou Zickar is the editor of the Ripon Forum, a centrist Republican journal of political thought published by the Ripon Society. He is a former aide to Rep. Mac Thornberry, a Republican from Texas.
(CNN) -- The biggest political story of the month so far is clearly the populist rage on display at town halls across the country. Democrats say this rage is manufactured; Republicans say it is real.
What can't be debated is that it is drawing a lot of attention, perhaps none more so than the town hall that Sen. Arlen Specter held in Lebanon, Pennsylvania, on Tuesday of this past week.
I know something about that part of the state. I used to work for Bob Walker, who represented that area for 20 years in the House of Representatives. In 1988, I was a member of the advance team that coordinated a Bush-Quayle bus caravan that traveled throughout the region.
To this day, I still have vivid memories of Dan Quayle throwing a perfect spiral in the gymnasium of Lebanon High School. The ball was caught, no words were misspelled, and all was right in that little corner of the Republican world.
The other thing I remember from that time were the people of Lebanon. They were, and I assume they still are, like the other Pennsylvanians I met and got to know -- decent, hardworking Americans who loved their families, cared about their communities and believed in the future of our nation.
In the few years I spent working on Bob Walker's staff, I have to admit that I never saw anything like the anger that was directed at Specter the other day. That said, I can't say that I'm all that surprised at the level of intensity. Lebanon is a very conservative town, and its residents are clearly concerned about some of the plans being proposed by Specter and his newfound Democratic allies in Washington, D.C.
Still, what surprised me the most was not the attitude that area residents displayed toward Specter. It was, rather, the attitude he displayed toward them.
I've been to many political events over the years -- from rallies in Pennsylvania to town halls in Texas. But I've never been to one where a politician addressed people by a number and not their name. And yet that is exactly what Specter did. People had to take a number if they wanted to ask a question. When their turn was up, he called out the number instead of recognizing them by name.
At a time when many Americans are concerned that the federal government is going to take over the nation's health care system and turn it into one big DMV where people have to stand in line to see a doctor, Specter unwittingly played right into their fears. In doing so, he also gave his Democratic opponent a ready-made tag line in the primary next year: "I'm Joe Sestak -- you'll never be a number to me."
Truth be told, it's a tag line that would also work for his probable opponent in the general election, Republican Pat Toomey, should both of them make it that far. For the fact of the matter is, even though the American people have strikingly different views on what government should do, most, if not all, Americans believe that government should be on their side.
Bill Clinton believed this. "We need a new government for a new century," he stated in his Second Inaugural, "humble enough not to try to solve all our problems for us, but strong enough to give us the tools to solve our problems for ourselves."
Even Ronald Reagan believed this. In his First Inaugural Address -- the same speech in which he famously stated that, "Government is not a solution to our problem; government is the problem" -- he also expressed his core belief that limited government has a role to play and has a basic obligation to the American people. "It is not my intention to do away with government," he stated. "It is, rather, to make it work."
Unfortunately, the potential for government to play a positive role seems to have been forgotten in recent years. From the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina under George W. Bush to the massive growth of the federal bureaucracy under President Obama, Americans are left to wonder: Whatever happened to the concept of making government work?
And yet, this question is more important now than perhaps ever before. Times are tough. Budgets are tight. Families are seeing a good chunk of their paychecks being used to fund government at all levels.
In Pennsylvania alone, the average resident pays more than $10,000 each year in federal, state and local taxes combined, according to the Tax Foundation. What are taxpayers getting for their investment in return? If they were in Lebanon this past week, it would have earned them the privilege of being recognized by their senator as a number, instead of their name.
Which leads to a final question: Is it any wonder that people are angry?
Until next time, this is Statesman.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Seattle Times: Myths, Truths About Canada Care
So in the midst of the national debate on a government option for health care, attention inevitably turns to our neighbor to the north. Canada has been a model both for the Right and Left to prove their points on government run health care. And as usual certain disinformation has been spread by both sides as to what actually goes on.
This morning's Seattle Times had an article stating the truths and the myths of CanadaCare. It was remarkably balanced and acknowledged that it had it's shortcomings, while showing just what it costs to maintain this. What struck me in the article was when they said that the average Canadian pays twice what the average American pays in sales taxes to maintain the health care system. However, I have also known people from Alberta who tell me that they don't pay taxes on the health care system: it is shouldered by the oil taxes.
I also thought it was interesting that the average Canadian still has private insurance to pay for such things as eye exams and dental visits. But the benefit they feel for having such a health care system is that you won't go broke as most here do because they aren't faced with a crippling medical bill. That is an advantage.
While I am against the public option that the president is proposing, I am not opposed to the government streamlining the system and possibly adding a public option. I am more in favor of the Swiss system and the Canadian system, where doctors work for themselves, unlike in England where they work for the government.
Switzerland in particular has an interesting system. It combines public and private options together. You are required to purchase health insurance, but for emergencies to the hospital you are not required to pay for it. Maternity and childbirth are free as well, you just pay for the hospital bed. But for routine visits you must have insurance before you visit with your physician. To me that makes sense, for it mixes the free market and a public option together, and makes them work.
I think what we need, and this is what is cited in the article, is a single payer agency that coordinates paperwork. Doctors say that most of their time and their staff's time is spent on paperwork for the appropriate insurance company. I think we should at least adopt an idea where there is a single medical clearing house, perhaps a quasi government corporation which would require all HMOs and insurance providers be registered with it, and the physicians just refer the paperwork to the agency. This could possibly be better done on the state level then at the federal level. Hmmm... have to give that one more thought.
Anyway, here is the link to the article: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2009506926_canahealth21.html.
Until next time, this is Statesman.
This morning's Seattle Times had an article stating the truths and the myths of CanadaCare. It was remarkably balanced and acknowledged that it had it's shortcomings, while showing just what it costs to maintain this. What struck me in the article was when they said that the average Canadian pays twice what the average American pays in sales taxes to maintain the health care system. However, I have also known people from Alberta who tell me that they don't pay taxes on the health care system: it is shouldered by the oil taxes.
I also thought it was interesting that the average Canadian still has private insurance to pay for such things as eye exams and dental visits. But the benefit they feel for having such a health care system is that you won't go broke as most here do because they aren't faced with a crippling medical bill. That is an advantage.
While I am against the public option that the president is proposing, I am not opposed to the government streamlining the system and possibly adding a public option. I am more in favor of the Swiss system and the Canadian system, where doctors work for themselves, unlike in England where they work for the government.
Switzerland in particular has an interesting system. It combines public and private options together. You are required to purchase health insurance, but for emergencies to the hospital you are not required to pay for it. Maternity and childbirth are free as well, you just pay for the hospital bed. But for routine visits you must have insurance before you visit with your physician. To me that makes sense, for it mixes the free market and a public option together, and makes them work.
I think what we need, and this is what is cited in the article, is a single payer agency that coordinates paperwork. Doctors say that most of their time and their staff's time is spent on paperwork for the appropriate insurance company. I think we should at least adopt an idea where there is a single medical clearing house, perhaps a quasi government corporation which would require all HMOs and insurance providers be registered with it, and the physicians just refer the paperwork to the agency. This could possibly be better done on the state level then at the federal level. Hmmm... have to give that one more thought.
Anyway, here is the link to the article: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2009506926_canahealth21.html.
Until next time, this is Statesman.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Fourth of July Reflections
So the Fourth of July is upon us again- and once more our thoughts turn to celebrations. Although to many of us it is an excuse to party, in the back of our minds we still remember what the day is all about.
Most of us know the story if we paid attention in History class: a band of brave men who didn’t like how the King of England was treating them decided they wanted to have their own country and so they signed a document called the Declaration of Independence and our nation was born. Or something like that.
But kidding aside, it is a day we all take pride in. We celebrate in our own ways the liberties we have in this country. And sometimes we love this country and it’s liberties like we do a relative: we love them yet take them for granted.
It is a day that is not about politics or our government, but about freedom and America and the flag. It is a day that even the most jaded of us are unashamedly American. It is a day when we wave and wear our team’s colors of Red, White, and Blue. It is a day in which differences aside, we celebrate one thing together: that we are Americans.
I know that since I was kid I have always associated the Fourth of July with certain activities and foods. You know, perhaps a picnic would be in order or a barbecue. Certainly watermelon or fried chicken would be involved and definitely potato salad. And sometimes we would be invited out to a friend’s house on the lake, and we would spend the entire afternoon swimming. Fireworks would then be planned as the grand finale to a fabulous day.
And often a thought would float through my mind as I eat the special food and swim and have fun- I think of the many sacrifices we make to keep our liberties vibrant. Each of us serve our country and make our mark on liberty in our own ways, some of us choose to pay the ultimate sacrifice. Even in the little things we can serve our country: working our farms that feed the world, manufacturing the goods that the world wants, or it could be when we inform ourselves as citizens or defend our rights in our courts of law. Some of our fellow countrymen chose to serve in places such as the Argonne Forest, Iwo Jima, Vietnam, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Every day we choose to live our lives and serve we tell the story of freedom.
We have had well over 200 Fourth of Julys since our independence was declared. Yet the day never seems to grow old for us, for we know deep down we are celebrating something special. Yes, we may look forward to being with friends and family and plan a large fireworks display, but we also know that we are commemorating the deeds of 55 brave men, whose deeds that day changed not just America, but the world.
Most of us know the story if we paid attention in History class: a band of brave men who didn’t like how the King of England was treating them decided they wanted to have their own country and so they signed a document called the Declaration of Independence and our nation was born. Or something like that.
But kidding aside, it is a day we all take pride in. We celebrate in our own ways the liberties we have in this country. And sometimes we love this country and it’s liberties like we do a relative: we love them yet take them for granted.
It is a day that is not about politics or our government, but about freedom and America and the flag. It is a day that even the most jaded of us are unashamedly American. It is a day when we wave and wear our team’s colors of Red, White, and Blue. It is a day in which differences aside, we celebrate one thing together: that we are Americans.
I know that since I was kid I have always associated the Fourth of July with certain activities and foods. You know, perhaps a picnic would be in order or a barbecue. Certainly watermelon or fried chicken would be involved and definitely potato salad. And sometimes we would be invited out to a friend’s house on the lake, and we would spend the entire afternoon swimming. Fireworks would then be planned as the grand finale to a fabulous day.
And often a thought would float through my mind as I eat the special food and swim and have fun- I think of the many sacrifices we make to keep our liberties vibrant. Each of us serve our country and make our mark on liberty in our own ways, some of us choose to pay the ultimate sacrifice. Even in the little things we can serve our country: working our farms that feed the world, manufacturing the goods that the world wants, or it could be when we inform ourselves as citizens or defend our rights in our courts of law. Some of our fellow countrymen chose to serve in places such as the Argonne Forest, Iwo Jima, Vietnam, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Every day we choose to live our lives and serve we tell the story of freedom.
We have had well over 200 Fourth of Julys since our independence was declared. Yet the day never seems to grow old for us, for we know deep down we are celebrating something special. Yes, we may look forward to being with friends and family and plan a large fireworks display, but we also know that we are commemorating the deeds of 55 brave men, whose deeds that day changed not just America, but the world.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
A Short Term Energy Solution
Well, today the price of crude oil crept back above $70 a barrel for the first time this year, and gas prices are slowly following it. While it was very nice to have had low fuel prices these last nine months, one downside to it was that it seemed to have cooled the debate and sense of urgency over finding alternative sources of fuel.
The problem we have is that no one source of fuel is as plentiful or cheap as petroleum is. We hear much of converting cars to ethanol, but for the amounts we are talking about it would take tons more more corn than we are growing right now. And while I like the idea of electric cars, there is not an infrastructure available nationwide to accommodate the mass of drivers. As it stands, it is not practical to convert our oil based economy to an alternative, and expect the level of our standard of living to remain the same. I do think we should expand our reliance on alternative sources of fuel, but I do not think we can expect it to replace petroleum entirely.
Some economists and analysts believe that most of the world's main oil fields have played out, and the world is running out of oil. This is used as the impetus to find alternatives. But their are those-like me- who are pushing for expanding our offshore drilling off our coasts. And oil fields such as the one in North Dakota and Montana look promising for the future.
But will it all be enough for our needs?
I do not think so, and that is why I have become an advocate of the Pickens Plan, named after it's creator, oil magnate T. Boone Pickens. He states that the US possesses the largest natural gas reserves in the world, most of which has not been tapped. We're talking an estimated trillions of cubic feet. His plan is to develop more pipelines (similar to what Gov. Palin is doing in Alaska), and to convert our diesel trucks, trains, and cars to run on natural gas. He states that nearly a third of our surface vehicles rely on diesel engines, and converting them could take up to three years. But it would drastically reduce our dependence on foreign oil by a third, and would employ thousands of Americans as they help tap this clean burning fuel.
I first heard Mr. Pickens explain this concept on talk radio just before the elections last year, and it made the most sense of all the plans I've heard so far. He also stated practically that with all the twenty year plans and so on, no one has stated in a practical way what we are to do in the meantime. People want tangible results, and his plan could give us real results in the foreseeable future.
What do you think, is this a viable option?
Until next time, this is Statesman.
The problem we have is that no one source of fuel is as plentiful or cheap as petroleum is. We hear much of converting cars to ethanol, but for the amounts we are talking about it would take tons more more corn than we are growing right now. And while I like the idea of electric cars, there is not an infrastructure available nationwide to accommodate the mass of drivers. As it stands, it is not practical to convert our oil based economy to an alternative, and expect the level of our standard of living to remain the same. I do think we should expand our reliance on alternative sources of fuel, but I do not think we can expect it to replace petroleum entirely.
Some economists and analysts believe that most of the world's main oil fields have played out, and the world is running out of oil. This is used as the impetus to find alternatives. But their are those-like me- who are pushing for expanding our offshore drilling off our coasts. And oil fields such as the one in North Dakota and Montana look promising for the future.
But will it all be enough for our needs?
I do not think so, and that is why I have become an advocate of the Pickens Plan, named after it's creator, oil magnate T. Boone Pickens. He states that the US possesses the largest natural gas reserves in the world, most of which has not been tapped. We're talking an estimated trillions of cubic feet. His plan is to develop more pipelines (similar to what Gov. Palin is doing in Alaska), and to convert our diesel trucks, trains, and cars to run on natural gas. He states that nearly a third of our surface vehicles rely on diesel engines, and converting them could take up to three years. But it would drastically reduce our dependence on foreign oil by a third, and would employ thousands of Americans as they help tap this clean burning fuel.
I first heard Mr. Pickens explain this concept on talk radio just before the elections last year, and it made the most sense of all the plans I've heard so far. He also stated practically that with all the twenty year plans and so on, no one has stated in a practical way what we are to do in the meantime. People want tangible results, and his plan could give us real results in the foreseeable future.
What do you think, is this a viable option?
Until next time, this is Statesman.
Monday, May 25, 2009
The North Korean Menace
This morning another piece of disturbing news surfaced. North Korea reported it's second nuclear test in as many months, this time under ground. Indeed, the US Geological Survey confirmed a magnitude 4.7 seismic activity in the area reported. This is a grave development in our ongoing and uneasy peace efforts for the Korean Peninsula.
Since the Korean ended with the cease fire in 1953, an uneasy and highly armed peace has been enforced rigorously. Indeed, the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) is one of the most militarized sectors in the world, and has one of the largest concentrations of American forces anywhere. We are committed to helping maintain the independence and freedom of South Korea, even as it's northern communist neighbor claims the two should be one. North Korea also is reported to have one of the largest armies in the world, supposedly in the millions. And it's testing of nuclear weapons makes the ongoing Six Party talks more perilous, and the peace situation more grave.
There is somewhat of a status when a foreign power acquires a nuclear weapon. It increases (supposedly) their negotiating standing, and they like to think that it would make the world take them more seriously. I think that this was a partial reason why India tested a bomb in 1974, and why Pakistan acquired it. Possessing the world's deadliest weapons is a psychological shot in the arm for authoritarian regimes, and it solidifies the hold on power of authoritarians. It has made negotiating with India and Pakistan over Kashmir more perilous as both had threatened to use their nuclear force in their last conflict.
Now, with North Korea entering the arena as a nuclear power and Iran set to test their first missile, we face a new set of challenges. We can not attack North Korea, and it would make it dangerous to the tenuous peace if we attempted air strikes on their nuclear installations. They could retaliate by invading across the DMZ, and/or shelling Seoul. And in a conflict we do not want to get bogged down in another fight like what happened in 1951.
But we also can not allow North Korea to develop a bomb that could reach Seoul or Alaska or even Japan. So I am afraid our only option here is continued sanctions and diplomacy. But sanctions haven't seemed to work, as their government still is maintaining a tight grip on power even as their people starve. Trouble is, North Korea is such a closed society that it is hard I think even for us to gather enough intel to help us in negotiations. We are truly between Iraq and a hard place (no pun intended).
So, what do you all think we should do to get North Korea back to the negotiating table? Is there a way we can get them to cease testing their missiles, or is that a pipe dream? You tell me.
Until next time, this is Statesman.
Since the Korean ended with the cease fire in 1953, an uneasy and highly armed peace has been enforced rigorously. Indeed, the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) is one of the most militarized sectors in the world, and has one of the largest concentrations of American forces anywhere. We are committed to helping maintain the independence and freedom of South Korea, even as it's northern communist neighbor claims the two should be one. North Korea also is reported to have one of the largest armies in the world, supposedly in the millions. And it's testing of nuclear weapons makes the ongoing Six Party talks more perilous, and the peace situation more grave.
There is somewhat of a status when a foreign power acquires a nuclear weapon. It increases (supposedly) their negotiating standing, and they like to think that it would make the world take them more seriously. I think that this was a partial reason why India tested a bomb in 1974, and why Pakistan acquired it. Possessing the world's deadliest weapons is a psychological shot in the arm for authoritarian regimes, and it solidifies the hold on power of authoritarians. It has made negotiating with India and Pakistan over Kashmir more perilous as both had threatened to use their nuclear force in their last conflict.
Now, with North Korea entering the arena as a nuclear power and Iran set to test their first missile, we face a new set of challenges. We can not attack North Korea, and it would make it dangerous to the tenuous peace if we attempted air strikes on their nuclear installations. They could retaliate by invading across the DMZ, and/or shelling Seoul. And in a conflict we do not want to get bogged down in another fight like what happened in 1951.
But we also can not allow North Korea to develop a bomb that could reach Seoul or Alaska or even Japan. So I am afraid our only option here is continued sanctions and diplomacy. But sanctions haven't seemed to work, as their government still is maintaining a tight grip on power even as their people starve. Trouble is, North Korea is such a closed society that it is hard I think even for us to gather enough intel to help us in negotiations. We are truly between Iraq and a hard place (no pun intended).
So, what do you all think we should do to get North Korea back to the negotiating table? Is there a way we can get them to cease testing their missiles, or is that a pipe dream? You tell me.
Until next time, this is Statesman.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Helping To Change The GOP
Well, there has been much talk since the election last year of changing the Republican Party's image. In fact, they have even gone so far as to have sent out their self proclaimed 'leaders' out on the speaking circuit to help in this "image makeover." For their sakes, I hope it works; but I'm not as sanguine as they seem to be. I think that the GOP needs more than just an image makeover, I think they need a makeover, period.
Let me explain.
Until the mid 1970s, the GOP was relatively moderate in their politics, and generally fielded moderate candidates. These people, tagged with the names of Eisenhower or Teddy Roosevelt Republicans, contributed to modern America and the quality of life we take for granted today. They especially left a legacy of conservation and environmentalism that was made possible by a prominent Republican president: Theodore Roosevelt. He helped dedicate millions of acres of our most precious resources as public parks and monuments, to be safe from reckless exploitation and for the enjoyment of future Americans. He used the powers of the presidency to not only advance the cause of conservation, but also to use the influence and power of government to help make right social injustices. He was not afraid to set himself against powerful elements of his own party arrayed to stop him. His vision for America's system of parks and forests is still around today, and treasured by many.
Unfortunately, as the GOP has strayed to a radical course, it has abandoned it's legacy of conservation and environmentalism in favor of so called "unfettered free markets." This perception, that the GOP was in the pockets of Big Business, was cemented when some GOP legislators stated that global warming is a hoax, and is based on junk science. Despite the environmental accomplishments of the Bush Administration, the GOP was still perceived to be anti environment. That, among other things coming to a head in 2008, helped cement the perception that the GOP is out of touch with reality.
Now, there are some of us proud Republicans who do think that the party needs more than an image makeover. All the leaders are doing in this public relations stunt is putting lipstick on a pig. But what I and many others believe is that we need to reclaim our roots, not as the party of Reagan- he was a part of it. We need to reclaim our place as the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, men of vision and grit who led with determination. Their vision was large, inclusive, and daring. Both were men who hated extremes, and didn't try to govern as puppets of interest groups. They are admired and loved today because their vision was larger than themselves, and would outlast their presidencies and their lifetimes.
The only way the Republican Party can regain credibility among American voters and become competitive once again is to find, somehow, a vision greater than itself. It should be inclusive, bold, and worthy of the American people. It should excite their imagination. We need to remember why one of our greatest vote getters in the 20th century, President Reagan, was so beloved. Because he appealed to the better angels of our nature, not try to incite culture warfare. And when we try to make right the wrongs of our society, we need to remember the patience that President Lincoln had when he helped to abolish slavery. He took it a step at a time, and sometimes stepped backward and compromised, instead of insisting on winning the whole issue of emancipation.
We have many things that need to be corrected if the GOP is to be competitive next year, or try to take on the president in 2012. And since the leadership still doesn't seem to be getting the message, it is time that we the grassroots make our voices heard. We want real change in the party, while not changing our core beliefs. And I'd like to contribute by calling to your attention an organization of moderate Republicans who are concerned about our nation's environment: Republicans For Environmental Protection. They are following in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, and attempting to revive the legacy of conservation. You can find them at: http://www.repamerica.org. Joining and supporting groups such as this can help send a message to our party leaders that we don't want change we can live with, not change that we settle for, but change that transforms.
Again, that's http://www.repamerica.org, or go to my blog roll and look for Republicans for Environmental Protection.
Until next time, this is Statesman.
Let me explain.
Until the mid 1970s, the GOP was relatively moderate in their politics, and generally fielded moderate candidates. These people, tagged with the names of Eisenhower or Teddy Roosevelt Republicans, contributed to modern America and the quality of life we take for granted today. They especially left a legacy of conservation and environmentalism that was made possible by a prominent Republican president: Theodore Roosevelt. He helped dedicate millions of acres of our most precious resources as public parks and monuments, to be safe from reckless exploitation and for the enjoyment of future Americans. He used the powers of the presidency to not only advance the cause of conservation, but also to use the influence and power of government to help make right social injustices. He was not afraid to set himself against powerful elements of his own party arrayed to stop him. His vision for America's system of parks and forests is still around today, and treasured by many.
Unfortunately, as the GOP has strayed to a radical course, it has abandoned it's legacy of conservation and environmentalism in favor of so called "unfettered free markets." This perception, that the GOP was in the pockets of Big Business, was cemented when some GOP legislators stated that global warming is a hoax, and is based on junk science. Despite the environmental accomplishments of the Bush Administration, the GOP was still perceived to be anti environment. That, among other things coming to a head in 2008, helped cement the perception that the GOP is out of touch with reality.
Now, there are some of us proud Republicans who do think that the party needs more than an image makeover. All the leaders are doing in this public relations stunt is putting lipstick on a pig. But what I and many others believe is that we need to reclaim our roots, not as the party of Reagan- he was a part of it. We need to reclaim our place as the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, men of vision and grit who led with determination. Their vision was large, inclusive, and daring. Both were men who hated extremes, and didn't try to govern as puppets of interest groups. They are admired and loved today because their vision was larger than themselves, and would outlast their presidencies and their lifetimes.
The only way the Republican Party can regain credibility among American voters and become competitive once again is to find, somehow, a vision greater than itself. It should be inclusive, bold, and worthy of the American people. It should excite their imagination. We need to remember why one of our greatest vote getters in the 20th century, President Reagan, was so beloved. Because he appealed to the better angels of our nature, not try to incite culture warfare. And when we try to make right the wrongs of our society, we need to remember the patience that President Lincoln had when he helped to abolish slavery. He took it a step at a time, and sometimes stepped backward and compromised, instead of insisting on winning the whole issue of emancipation.
We have many things that need to be corrected if the GOP is to be competitive next year, or try to take on the president in 2012. And since the leadership still doesn't seem to be getting the message, it is time that we the grassroots make our voices heard. We want real change in the party, while not changing our core beliefs. And I'd like to contribute by calling to your attention an organization of moderate Republicans who are concerned about our nation's environment: Republicans For Environmental Protection. They are following in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, and attempting to revive the legacy of conservation. You can find them at: http://www.repamerica.org. Joining and supporting groups such as this can help send a message to our party leaders that we don't want change we can live with, not change that we settle for, but change that transforms.
Again, that's http://www.repamerica.org, or go to my blog roll and look for Republicans for Environmental Protection.
Until next time, this is Statesman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
