Republicans After McCain

Well it looks like even John McCain thinks he's going to lose. How did we get here? How can Republicans go forward?

One thing that stands out to me is the contrast between Obama and McCain in the debates. Barack Obama exudes confidence. He knows he can fix our problems. Obama is the epitome of the modern socialist. Just give us control of the government, and we will make everything better. He is a charismatic salesman for the further destruction of capitalism in America. This is easy for him because socialists have an appealing message that is based on a set of solid principles. They're fundamentally flawed, but it's a story that sells.

Compare John McCain. He's lost. He keeps trying new answers to the latest news and nothing works. He is the opposite of charisma. If you look back to Nixon vs. Kennedy, you see the same contrast - Obama looks good. McCain looks old. 72? He looks ten years older.

The problem for Republicans is that we've lost our way as a party. The Democrats have that consistent socialist message. Our party ditched capitalism a while ago, all the more so once we got into power. Does anyone remember when Republicans stood for small government? That was before the earmark explosion, the bridge to nowhere, Jack Abramoff, and No Child Left Behind. Fiscal conservatives? In Bill Clinton's last budget (2001) the feds spent about $1.9 trillion. 2009 is Bush's last budget and we're going to $3.1 trillion - not counting the bailouts. So Republicans have managed to increase spending by well over 60% in just 8 years.

I hope the GOP can find its way forward in the next few years. We have to get back to our roots. We're supposed to spend less money, remember? Cutting taxes while increasing spending is phony. Ronald Reagan didn't deliver on this, but he faked it a lot better than McCain is doing. At least he stayed on message about capitalism. We need our own charismatic leader who can sell the message of capitalism and smaller government, and who sticks to the story after getting elected. Right now it looks like it's going to be a long eight years.

Ron Paul Republicans

Now that Ron Paul is essentially out of the presidential race, what will happen to the moment? One sentiment I've seen repeatedly is that Ron Paul supporters will leave the Republican Party and do something else - the libertarians, some other 3rd party, or just withdrawing from politics entirely.

I hope, instead, that most will stay with the Republican Party. This "Revolution" has created the potential for a Ron Paul faction within the GOP. If it's only 5% of the party, that's not huge but it can be meaningful. But if we do it right then maybe we can build the faction to maybe 25%, and that can not only be meaningful but in many cases controlling.

Please understand that I'm not a big fan of political parties, and I'm not alone. George Washington's farewell address was quite critical of partisanship as well, going on for several paragraphs. Consistent with those concerns, I am not suggesting that Ron Paul supporters become "rah-rah" Republicans who blindly support the GOP candidate in every race. A good Republican can work within the party to promote the kind of candidates he supports, and then vote for someone outside the party in the general election - and the same goes for Democrats.

Especially now where the establishment of the Republican Party has strayed so far from its moorings (as Ron Paul frequently points out), a Republican voting for "other" is perfectly sensible. Republicans used to be against big government. Under the current President Bush, and especially when Republicans controlled Congress, spending went through the roof. A Ron Paul faction within the GOP can push for small government, lower spending, and so on. This is true not only in presidential elections, but at every level of government.

I understand dissatisfaction with the Republican Party. I have dabbled myself in the Libertarian Party. In the end, the third party or independent route is less likely to accomplish meaningful change. If we want to restore small government, respect for the Constitution, and avoid foolish wars like the current one in Iraq, our best odds of doing so are by building a Ron Paul wing of the GOP.

Something wrong with liberals and Democrats (Republicans too)

Paul Krugman wrote a column in the New York Times on May 28th that stands out as something that bothers me about liberals and Democrats, though I have similar gripes about conservatives and Republicans.

In his op-ed piece (which non-subscribers can read at the Free Democracy blog), Krugman thoroughly criticizes President Bush for the war in Iraq. He goes further and attacks the three principal GOP candidates for statements they have made about 9/11, Osama, and Iraq.

I agree wholeheartedly with Krugman's criticisms of Bush, Giuliani, Romney and McCain. What irks me is his failure to hold Democrats responsible for going along with the war. In other columns he has been somewhat critical of Hillary for not admitting error in voting for the war. He seems positive about John Edwards for admitting he was wrong.

All of the most prominent leading Democrats share responsibility for the war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and John Kerry voted for it. Why do so many liberals and Democrats turn a blind eye to this? Why do they get off the hook just because they're Democrats? Even our local congressman, Michael McNulty, voted for the war. He continued to support the war for a long time. Local Democrats and the local media completely excused this.

Most striking is how liberals like Krugman ignore Republicans who opposed the war from the beginning. I take this personally in that I ran for Congress opposing the war against a Democrat (McNulty) who persistently supported the war, yet there was absolutely no support for me from liberals, and no criticism of him for his position from them or the media.

And in the current presidential race, there is a Republican who opposed the war from the beginning. Ron Paul should be the choice of everyone who opposes the war. But Krugman, who represents both liberals and the media, steadfastly ignores Ron Paul.

This behavior shows that liberals use the war as a tool for partisanship. They don't care about the war itself, but rather they care about it as a means to attack Republicans. Of course I think conservatives and Republicans do the same. That's what's refreshing about people like Ron Paul. He says what he believes, votes the way he thinks is right, and never (in my experience) makes it about labels like liberal Democrat or conservative Republican.