The Conservative Edge

This past Thursday marked the annual gathering of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CAPC). Apparently, the conference was not a typical meeting dominated by Republican themes. Rather, many previously small and insignificant groups became more vocal and influential during the day’s proceedings.

The backlash against the big-government machine being piloted by the Obama administration has given voice to smaller, grass-roots organizations that are less concerned with typical moral issues like abortion, and more focused on runaway government spending and tax increases. This is probably beneficial to the conservative movement as a whole, and should be part of the Republican Party’s overall vision. The idea of a smaller, efficient government that primarily concerns itself with protecting the country, the country’s currency, the American economy, and the rights of individuals should be embraced by the GOP.

But somehow, the Republicans have forgotten how to emphasize the goodness of those principles, and have chosen instead to hack away at certain pieces of Democratic legislation, or at certain members of the Democratic Party. They have presented themselves to the public as being just as partisan and dogmatic as their opponents.

Hopefully, the voices of the various organizations that participated in Thursday’s conference can help refocus the sight of the Republican Party. Ned Ryun, founder of an organization called American Majority, observed that “The conservative movement has been stuck for so long in this idea that good ideas will win out. But good ideas won’t implement themselves without effective organization. Bad ideas with good organization will always win out over good ideas with bad organization.”

This is the major failing of the Republican Party. They have many of the right ideas, but can’t communicate them to the American people. Ronald Reagan was the last great Republican speaker; he was able to associate himself, his ideas, and his party with the things we envisioned as good about America. That is what the Republicans need right now; someone that can eloquently present the virtue of their form of governing, not just some adolescent attack on a Democratic straw man. Maybe the CPAC gathering can be a new beginning for the Grand Old Party.

Today marks the anniversary of the World Trade Center attack on September 11, 2001. I watched some of the programs on the History Channel that chronicled both the events leading up to the attack, and the subsequent rescue and cleanup efforts. As I viewed the devastation, I thought that similar feelings must have gripped our nation after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. We were justified in reacting with full force against imperialist Japan; it seems that America should also be justified in retaliation against the terrorist regime responsible for attacking the Trade Center on two occasions.

But there are some who insist that the party responsible for flying two planes into the Trade Center buildings was none other than the United States government. The conspiracy theorists claim that the Bush administration contrived an elaborate plan to destroy the financial heart of America. This was supposedly done to allow the administration to enact surveillance laws that would enable the government to exert control over the American people, and also give cause for the invasion of Iraq.

But that theory is hard to accept. There are lots of folks who try to present evidence of flight number discrepancies, or suggest that undercover personnel planted explosives in the Trade Center. But it remains clear that terrorists wanted to destroy the symbols of American capitalism. The first attempt was in 1993, when a massive bomb was detonated underneath the Trade Center. Fortunately, the tower survived the blast, and the damage was quickly repaired. There have been no conspiracy theories developed to explain the first attack; why should we think it strange or unlikely that the same terrorist group would make a second strike to complete their mission of destruction?

Remember also that there is quite a difference in the way that Democratic and Republican administrations use force. Republican presidents have, generally, used military force against foreign regimes and countries. Ronald Reagan, for instance, invaded the island of Grenada to rescue American students who had been taken hostage. Reagan was also intent on standing up to Soviet aggression. The first George Bush built a coalition to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The second George Bush invaded Iraq to depose Saddam once and for all.

But Democratic presidents have been more forceful here at home. Bill Clinton blew the chance to apprehend Osama Bin Laden, and admitted as much in a television interview. Democrats always take a weak position of appeasement with foreign thugs. But domestically, Democrats turn into tigers when they get a chance to show off government’s power. The standoff at Waco, Texas in the early years of the Clinton administration was the most egregious and unlawful use of force ever exhibited by any occupant of the White House. Conspiracy theorists fret about Bush’s use of wiretaps, but he never sent tanks into an American city to kill American citizens the way that Clinton did at Waco.

Clinton could have ordered the FBI to quietly nab David Koresh, the leader of the Branch Davidians, at some local coffee shop or gas station. But because the Branch Davidians had stockpiled some weapons in anticipation of the Apocalypse, Clinton decided that a show of force was necessary. Any individual or group of people that bear arms are seen by Democrats and liberals as a threat to government authority. Clinton was determined that he would show the Davidians who was boss. He sent tanks and other armed personnel to confront, and ultimately destroy, the Davidians and their compound. A situation that could have been defused peacefully turned into a tragedy. And without Waco, there might not have been a bombing in Oklahoma City.

If conspiracy theorists want to see a real abuse of power by the government, they should focus on the tragedy at Waco. Meanwhile, I will continue to mourn the loss of American lives on September 11, 2001, and remember that it was the obsessive hatred of a terrorist organization that destroyed those two gleaming towers.

Not too long ago, I wrote a post titled “The Big Picture.” In it, I tried to make it easier for people to understand that the actions taken now by the government result from ideas conceived a generation ago. I know I keep going on about events transpiring in the auto industry, the oil and energy industries, and our personal uses of tobacco and firearms. But, we need to comprehend just how serious the liberal movement is about removing the freedoms and products we now use and value as good and necessary.

In “The Big Picture” I made this statement: “The liberals have been planning their moves for a long time.” Now there are, I will admit, some short-term reactions to the various flaps and controversies that pop up in the media. For instance, it is amazing to watch Nancy Pelosi squirm about her obvious knowledge of interrogation techniques. She is Clinton-like in her ability to turn a lie into an accusation. But her crisis is only temporary, and will soon fall from the headlines. Meanwhile, the great social engineering of the 21st century marches onward, orchestrated by the liberal dictatorship. The liberals have gone from planning to enacting.

I wish there were some conservatives or Republicans who could articulate, or at least identify, this danger to our country and society. Instead of just being the guys who say “no” to Obama, the Republicans should be shouting from the rooftops about the rapid pace at which we’re headed off the cliff. Many Republicans are fond of invoking the name of Ronald Reagan, but they can’t portray America’s strength and purpose the way he could. Watching some Republicans make speeches is about as exciting as watching paint dry. They have no fire, no cause, no raison d’etre as the French would say.

Here is an example of how Ronald Reagan could identify and explain a liberal ideological threat. In 1980, when he campaigned for the presidency, Reagan spoke of the liberals’ desire to dismantle the American auto industry. He said, “It is fashionable in some Washington circles to be hostile to the automobile, especially the American automobile. After all, everything in Washington is close by, and even those without limousines or Volvos can get around in the taxpayer-funded Metro subway. But those who must get from one place to another in such locales as Texas, Kansas, or Los Angeles can’t afford the luxury of seeing cars taxed and regulated into oblivion.”

How prophetic Reagan’s words have become. He understood, way back in 1980, that the liberals desired to destroy the automobile and its use as personal transportation. Listen to his phrases: “hostile to the automobile,” and “cars taxed and regulated into oblivion.” He knew it, and identified it as a part of the liberals’ plan to reshape America, and not for the better. Twenty-nine years later, look at what is happening to the auto industry. Like I said, the liberals have been planning their moves for a long time.

Winston Churchill once said that “The farther backwards you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.” He meant, of course, that history is a great teacher. Even the Old Testament philosopher said that there is nothing new under the sun; everything we see now has happened before.

And so it is with the American auto industry. With GM’s bankruptcy now likely to occur, many people may be wondering if we will ever again have a vibrant auto manufacturing industry. There are thousands of people losing their jobs, not just with GM or Chrysler, but at the smaller factories where parts are made and then sent to the big auto plants. Everyone from machine operators to engineers, from electricians to toolmakers, are seeing their jobs disappear.

And now, here comes our government to the rescue. But it almost seems that the car companies are making deals with the devil. In exchange for government loans to continue operations, the companies are essentially giving up the right to make the kinds of cars to satisfy market demands. They are also being told that the government can fire their CEOs, and tell corporate officials how much money they can make. Maybe Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank will start sketching prototype cars on the backside of bar napkins, and then send them to GM for manufacture.

Let’s look back a number of years to find a similar crisis facing a car company. In 1979 and 1980, there was much anxiety over the fate of Chrysler. Lots of experts were wondering how Chrysler could get in such sorry condition. There seemed to be some agreement that Chrysler’s problems stemmed from a combination of poor management and excessive government regulation. Lee Iaccoca came to Chrysler in 1979, and brought along some talented people from Ford, which resolved much of the management problems. But the company needed capital to stay in business long enough to revamp its product line. The federal government agreed to guarantee Chrysler up to $1.5 billion in loans.

In September, 1980, Ed Lapham wrote in Car and Driver that as part of the agreement, Chrysler had to get more than $450 million in wage and salary concessions from its employees. Chrysler then had to arrange $650 million in concessions from 400 banks; that was hard to do in times of high inflation and interest rates, especially with Chrysler’s credit rating. But the company eventually met all of the requirements for government loans. Iaccoca also worked hard to get everything in order. But his biggest challenge was holding his tongue while certain government officials inspected his company and then made public sport of it. Sound familiar?

In December, 1979, Tony Hogg said in Road and Track that “As far as government regulation is concerned, meeting a bunch of ill-conceived regulations…(is) absolutely devastating as soon as a business takes a turn for the worse…” Hogg also quoted then-Senator Carl Levin as saying “This situation was caused in part by the government…I think the government has an obligation to get Chrysler out of its problems. This is not a bail-out, but government help to solve a problem government has created.”

In 1980, a couple of months before the election, Iaccoca said “I suggested that we’ve had so much regulation in this country, how about declaring an economic crisis for 24 months and freezing all regulations in place. Everything. The air won’t get dirty. More people won’t get killed because side beams or bumpers aren’t meeting the new requirement.” Indeed, this whole realization that government was regulating the life out of American industry is what helped propel Ronald Reagan to the presidency.

But the Obama administration is set to add MORE regulation and legislation against American industry. How many millions of dollars will corporations have to spend to meet new piles of regulations, and to protect themselves against litigation? When you add these new costs to the higher taxes being imposed, it’s no wonder the American manufacturing industry is in such disarray. The auto industry revived in the 1980s because of a cooperative government (remember the repeal of the 55-mph speed limit). The auto industry will be crushed in the years ahead by an oppressive, anti-business government.

Churchill was right. History is a great teacher.

I wrote in a previous post about the movement of political power. I said that power has a way of moving from the inactive, into the hands of those who are most active. We have seen the political sands wash from under the feet of the Republicans, as they abandoned their foundation of smaller government, low taxes, and personal freedom. Waves of liberal ideology are sweeping quickly across this country as the Democrats in power seek to destroy conservatism, and rule a socialist America.

A political party must eliminate any opposition that can influence society, in order to exert and maintain control. This is being done in America, less than two months after the inauguration of Barack Obama as President. It is happening first at the local level, but liberals have a much bigger target in mind. Rush Limbaugh is the ultimate voice that must be silenced. He is viewed as the person who represents those Americans who disagree with Obama and his national socialist agenda.

First, let me tell you about a situation here in Dayton, Ohio. A conservative talk show host named Mike Scinto has been dismissed by his radio station, WDAO-AM. Scinto worked at WDAO since 1999, but was so abruptly fired that he never got a chance to say goodbye to his listeners. Scinto said that he thinks his criticism of President Obama and the stimulus package played a role in his dismissal. On its Web site, WDAO is said to be a station that is “Targeted to the metro community” and is “specifically geared to their lifestyles.” With Obama’s focus on urban community organization, it seems likely that Scinto, and his conservative ideas, are to be shut out of urban affairs. It also seems likely that there is a master plan to shut down conservative expression altogether.

This is how Limbaugh will be silenced. One by one, urban and metropolitan radio stations will cease to carry Limbaugh’s program. More radio and TV networks may end up being purchased and operated by minority groups, and it wouldn’t be surprising if they get funding to do so from the stimulus package. It may take some time to bring Limbaugh down, but expect first to see your local conservative programming eliminated. Most major news outlets in the country have reported that Obama wants to repeal the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Silencing the conservative talk shows is the first step toward a dictatorship by the Democratic Party.