That's So Right, It's Left! >>

Whenever one party usurps another, the losing party tends to oppose everything put forth by the other. This is more common on the Left, but lately I see it on the Right as well. More so than ever, though, Republicans have been employing some of the same verbiage and charges used on the Left to attack the current White House. While some of it is justified, I urge caution to Republicans to not wrap their minds too heavily in the beliefs that typify the classist revolutionary, and not to disagree simply to disagree. And it is primarily fellow Republicans to whom I speak, as some of the things I shall mention may not necessarily rub Libertarians (with all sincere respects to kindred spirits, etc, etc).

The first example I see is in the healthcare debate and what has become an astonishing reversal by seniors against the Democrats. For me, as a Republican, it is delicious to watch the suffering of the DNC as they occupy the political firing lane that entitlement reform has become (entitlements that they themselves created). Throughout the decades, this hot-seat is historically occupied solely by Republicans accused by leftists of wanting to toss granny down the stairs, so it is practically eye-candy for me and thrilling to watch these liberals choke on the runoff of their own antiquated termite mounds. Consequently, the Republican Party has been silent to some degree, speaking through the town halls and grassroots anger. Really, they don’t have to say anything at all, and they probably shouldn’t. It would be better for the RNC to let the Democrats flail with attaining a coherent message than giving them a partisan banner to rally against. And it serves us better to allow John Q. to turn the channel, see a booing townhall protest, and then see a bunch of Democrats getting booed… rather than Republicans lobbed into the toxic mix as though we were just as bad. No. Let the gestalt congeal and dry with angry protesters and hiding Democrats, and let that be the freeze-frame in the American mind. Voters will turn to us after exhaustion with Democrats and GOP articulation of real alternatives, and Armageddon will come when it comes.

But this is the twist; Michael Steele, on his RNC youtube channel, declared the need for a Senior’s Bill of Rights (Kennedyesque?). Many of the points I agreed with, but one disturbed me, which prohibited cuts to Medicare. This seems like a tacit acknowledgement of Medicare as a permanent fixture in America, which I am against. I question not only the operating capacity of the program, but the validity of the program’s very existence altogether. Allowing a person to save their whole lives what they would have paid in taxes would cast them into a better lot, as would other private sector cost-cutters I have mentioned before. This futurity will inevitably be visited when the baby-boomers retire. And so it makes little sense for us as a party to give up any future “I told you so” claim by throwing in with that same system, however tempting it might be as a weapon to reverse on the party that smelted it. Mr. Steele should take pause before becoming the newly-elected "tribune of the geezers."

Beyond health and to the matters of defense, Democrats positioned themselves against President Bush by wailing about Iraq and ignoring its successes, while labeling Afghanistan as “the good war.” Now that the DNC is in the Oval Office, the antiwar sentiment that they spent 8 years ginning up is now destined to turn on them as 57% of America is opposed to involvement in Afghanistan. The screaming of the DNC throughout the Bush administration has continued echoing, and their party has created a general war-weariness for the very conflicts that they inherited. Could have rooted for America for a change, eh Crats? Now that you’re there, and that you’re on defense, you have a long, hard slog ahead of you. Bush’s Iraq surge was a success and that nation is now a parliamentary democracy (full of all of the nepotism and corruption that the European states own). Bush proved it a success, though hard-won. Now, do you Liberals have the cojones to do the same with Afghanistan after flaring the public against conflict for nearly a decade while setting yourself up to launch another? Have fun with the blowback!

Now as much as it pains me to say, I will support President Obama’s efforts in Afghanistan so long as they are aggressive, they target high-value Al Qaeda officers, and we give our men the tools and permission to reach victory and lasting stability. I supported the missions in both Iraq and Afghanistan when they were popular, and when they grew unpopular as well, because the specter of Radical Islam is too great a threat to Western Civilization to simply hope it will vanish with Bush’s big, scary War on Terror. With this in mind, I have seen many conservatives develop an isolationist streak - a more jingoistic and virulent form of nationalism - to counter President Obama. Agreeing with Obama (or rather Obama starting to agree with me) makes me want to hurl, so don’t think I take it lightly as I will seldom agree with Democrats in this side of life. The kibbles and bits I would blow into the sink while thinking about it…they seem more appealing to me than the trappings of overall Democrat philosophy. Yet hearing many Conservatives as of late, you would think that Afghanistan could deal without us. In truth, it can; but with no promise regarding with whom it will deal. If you oppose that foreign adventure, make sure it has more to do with true belief than simply distancing yourself from current leadership.

Another area I see a shift is in that of domestic surveillance. I do, and always have, supported the ability of agencies to keep tabs Saudi-funded mosques and suspicious wire transfers from foreign accounts. Provided that the program itself would be heavily monitored and (this next part is key) undirected at domestic political opposition, such programs are needed, and have been used throughout the 20th century to bust mob bosses and drug kingpins. So the presence of domestic surveillance is not new, per se. I differ with the current administration more so than the last for the fact that unlike President Bush, President Obama’s surveillance calls for targeting specific groups of people on the basis of domestic policy dissent, a defense not from terrorism but from differing ideas (flag@whitehouse.gov). But to allege that the government and the CIA – and any government for that matter -- should never, ever spy under any circumstance is dangerously naïve. And to adamantly refuse torture in a Jack Bauer scenario is perilously frivolous with thousands of American lives. I am a firm believer in the right to bust balls from time to time when our back is against the wall, as we would permit self-defense as a rebuttal to homicide. But in so many of the Right’s newfangled protestations about Obama’s misguided cloak and dagger aspects, I hear some blanket statements from many conservatives given about espionage, surveillance, and security which do not seem to discern between conservatives’ own long-held stances on when such is appropriate, versus the other more radical acts of targeting political opposition within the general citizenry. In short, some conservatives seem to have resorted to saying all espionage is bad in order to throw it all at Obama, regardless of when they actually have and do agree with it.

Democrats decried torture, but Obama is purportedly leaving open its use now that he is in power, all while unleashing Atty. General Eric Holder on a CIA sting to satisfy the Left. And although Democrats once said Afghanistan was a just war, many Liberals are now seeking a way out. Democrats opposed the Iraq surge, but continue extending pullout deadlines now that they are in power. This means that none of these partisan outrages were principled stands against bad policy, but simply a way to oppose President Bush. It was ever ammo, nothing more. The only consistency yet unperished from the inauguration seems to be the Left’s inimical hatred of the CIA, and Obama’s periodic willingness to allow the fringe an opening to attack it. Whether it is mere gesture or a genuine inquiry, neither is a comfort to our intelligentsia.

I see some odd reversals on the right when, in some discussion over Dwight D. Eisenhower’s caveat against a “military industrial complex,” isolationist Republicans (not just Libertarians) have taken a newer tone decidedly contrary to the innovative power that keeps malicious forces at bay so that we rarely have to use this power. As the GOP Party isolationists have emerged to out-left Obama, I even overheard a nutball conservative shriek at an Atlanta rally that “Israel is a terrorist state!” Really? So now Palestine and every other state around Israel are morally equivalent? And the President now stands for the liberty that Manuel Zelaya would approve? Nowadays that Barack Obama is President, I have even seen a conservative post on a ballistics website beneath a photo of a civilian AR-15 rifle “This is why we could abolish the Army!” What!? Since when did we become anti-military like Columbia University? I know many of us (myself included) fear the thudding propellers of black helicopters, but given that 75% of the military identifies as conservative, Liberal enforcement with such an army could prove impossible. If the butchery at Tiananmen Square could divide the Communist Party, then you could safely bet that many of the doughboys would side with liberty…should that God-forbidden day ever come. Conservative mistrust should not be directed at a military asked to carry out commands, but rather to the inept Democrats commanding them.

The last issue is that of economics where the roles of many conservatives and liberals seem to have slightly blurred. I am a capitalist, straight up and unapologetic… and people know that about me. But as of late, I see many conservatives joining in the popular outcry against corporation. We as conservatives (and I as a Republican also) feel that corporation is a good thing, and it should not be undermined, intimidated, bullied, or heavily taxed. And if government keeps its hands off of it, corporation tends to reciprocate and feels less of a need to steer government in response. Unfortunately, even the McCain/Palin ticket decried the greed on Wall Street, and not Fannie Mae, the Community Reinvestment Act, and the incompetent regulators who ignited this catastrophe. I heard one such individual closer to my end of the spectrum use the phrase “corporate empire.” While such a man is correct to disagree with General Electric and its thick umbilical to the White House (and other situations like it), how much of this invective contributes to the anti-business wind-tunnel that forces companies offshore? How much of what this conservative says could be shuffled over Zack de a Rocha’s Marxist musical critique of America?

On that same token, many conservatives still complain about NAFTA after all these years, and while standards for safety and national security interests need to be improved periodically, stoppage of free trade does not protect the American worker; it sedates him from market realities, protracts his difficulties, and spurs no adaptation to renew his desirability. To prove this, one needs to look no further than the protections we placed on Detroit and the long-term efficacy of tariffs. So many conservatives have taken the same stance as Liberals on trade; one party for labor considerations and one for sovereignty. But the Republican Party, which stands for capitalism, should cope with globalism by calling for innovations, the leading-edge technical education that we often shun in order to minor in Drama, and the fundamentals of creativity that invented jazz, blues, rock, Coca-Cola, and blue jeans. That same spirit will result in outright superiority to counter industrializing powers like China in this new century, not unilateral attempts at containing global tradewinds. With trade, we should “ask not” how to leave the playing field, but rather ascertain better ways of doing things and retrofit it to our nation; you know, the modular adaptability that made our nation great for two centuries! This is not an issue on which we should be attempting to move to the left of the Obama Administration. Fair Trade coffee beans are for hippies.

It is easy to criticize Obama as a corporatist and a socialist, as they are not far off in outcomes. But in so doing, I warn conservatives not to demonize enterprise for the quick thrill of simply taking down Obama. As campaign promises go, we have to cash the checks that our mouths write. Checks made out to:

•    Defending an enduring Medicare entitlement
•    Railing for the technological emasculation or even abolition of the US Military
•    Calling for pullout and dismissing success overseas
•    Bemoaning Wall Street “greed” and promising “payback”
•    Opposing all forms of domestic surveillance in order to oppose the new administration
•    Seeing Israel, Iran, and Palestine through a lens of moral equivalency
•    Blocking Free Trade as exploitative

Some folks seem so far right…that they’re almost left. Ever get that vibe?

My point in all this? Simple. Democrats took positions they did not agree with - or perhaps they did agree with them, but with only lackluster vehemence – and used them to cudgel an incumbent president. They are now learning that to ignore their contrarian dispositions once in power is costing them with the Marxists they spent so much time stoking. Now the temptation is in our court to do the same things, by taking up stances we either disbelieve in or will not waste our future majorities on, and then ramming them against the White House. We can take the cheap road and pretend like the Afghan War, surveillance against jihadis, toilet swirlies for terrorists, overhauling Medicare, and Wall Street profits are things that we despise, and then use them to counter Barack Obama. And we could likely do so with some success, wedging the president from his lunatic fringe by polarizing the dissatisfaction over his Liberal authenticity. To me, nothing seems more gratifying than watching a Liberal wheeze on the revolting bile of his own worthless and retrograde belief system. It is poetic justice to move to their left on an issue and trip them when they try to catch up (and it is the very least of which their ilk deserves).

However, riding to Republican victory solely on a GOP-stoked wave of leftist outrage (created only to oppose an incumbent) is dangerous, as it may ask us to deliver what the DNC could not. Our opposition to the president can manifest itself in critiques of his actions to drive wedges into his base, but not all of those critiques should themselves make it past the gates at our comeback. Because although such criticisms conveniently counter the administration, that does not mean that they automatically qualify as Republican or Conservative pillars. I would prefer to simply state who and what I am, disagree with the incumbent where I disagree, and agree in the seldom occasions it happens. I would let my “yes” mean “yes” and my “no” mean “no.” But if some of us absolutely feel the need to contort our psychologies to oppose the president, make sure to follow your mother’s advice that they don’t get stuck that way when someone slaps you on the back. >>