party

While the RNC continues to stand pat instead of giving young voters a legitimate role in the future of the Party — or even simply establishing its own Young Voter Outreach Arm to compete with the Democratic National Committee’s Youth Council — the Democrats continue to find new and innovative ways to involve young voters in the Democratic Party.

Michael Connery at Future Majority notes that the DNC Youth Council, along with College Democrats, is holding a joint fundraiser, presumably to “show the party committees that young people can help [Democrats] raise money.” You can view the entire event for the “Celebrating Youth Fundraiser” on Facebook, but the highlight is this:

Come meet Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH), DNC Vice Chair Raymond Buckley, DNC Political Director Clyde Williams, Organizing for America Political Director Addisu Demissie, former Obama for America Youth Vote Director Leigh Arsenault, and young staffers from the Obama administration to learn about the amazing career opportunities available in Democratic politics.

For a party that sits squarely in the filibuster-less minority status, I would think that the RNC would be eager to find innovative ways like this to involve young voters and recruit new young faces to help rebuild the party.

After all, when Michael Steele took over as Chairman of the RNC, we were promised that things would change. So when will the RNC start fighting to win young voters and to involve new leaders in the party’s future?

In my last installment of “No Risk, No Reward,” I suggested 5 risky policy changes for the GOP. Remember, you’re not selling plausibility of passage in Congress. You’re selling bold ideas and, by contrast, setting up the party-in-power as sclerotic, bloated, elitist and bureaucratic (all of which is true). Perhaps one of these reforms, like entitlement reform in the 1990s, will even take. Here are 5 more, as promised.

6. Healthcare “1,2,3”

1-Medical savings accounts for every American –  Give every American the option to divert part or all of their Medicare portion of payroll taxes to a medical savings account (aka HSA). These interest-gaining accounts can be used for out-of-pocket medical care and high deductibles. Mitigates the expense account effect running up the costs of healthcare and pulls us back from the cliff (See Singapore).

2-Refundable Tax Credits for the poor (straight into your MSA). Perhaps we can “afford” to help the poor, but not the way we’re doing it. Means-test people and give poor folks refundable tax credits on a sliding scale. They put these resources into their HSAs and choose where their healthcare dollars go.

3-Kill State Monopolies - Let people buy less expensive insurance across state lines. If I can cut my insurance premium in half by buying in Idaho, I should be able to. The only thing that prevents me from doing so is government. Let’s end that bullshit.

7. Dollar-for-Dollar Schools – Create the conditions for the emergence of creative new private, non-profit schools by allowing people to deduct a portion of the tuition to place their kids in these innovative schools. (Then, perhaps this will happen.)  If you’re taking a full pupil out of the DMV-style school but leaving a large portion of the tax money for said pupil, no one can credibly argue that it “takes resources from the public schools.”  Add refundable tax credits for the very poor and you’ve got a viable alternative to the mediocre-at-best public schools system. Universal primary school is maintained. Competition and iterative innovation radically improves our kids’ education. Everybody’s happy (except the teachers’ cartel, uh, union).

8. Congressional Crowdsourcing - Public solutions for public problems means big-dollar contests and public suggestion-box-type efforts can get the best ideas out of the American people. Bureaucrats have terrible incentives. And seriously, there are no Steve Jobs(s) in Congress. Congresspeople and their staffers should find ways to let the "wisdom of crowds" – even ideas futures markets - solve genuine public problems. Who ever heard of an innovative populist meritocracy? Well, now you have.

9. 1% Rule – For every dollar a federal department saves taxpayers relative to a reasonable budget baseline, those employees get 1 percent of that savings directly in their paychecks (according to pay grade). This would encourage bottom-up departmental efforts to tighten up. To prevent artificially bloating budgets the following years in order falsely to reward these functionaries, you’d have to set up the baseline to avoid political gaming of the system. Such may only be possible with a TABOR-like provision. I agree that the devil would be in the details. Just tossin' it out there.

10. Toleration – I have written elsewhere that the GOP should replace the social conservative policy leg of their tripod with a leg of toleration. Toleration is the cultural institution that means conservatives have their own private social conservatism and let others have their own lifestyles, religious beliefs, or whatever as they see fit. The kids today are much more tolerant and you won’t get anywhere with them unless you let go of all the stuff that smacks of theocracy or social engineering a la Falwell. Persuasion and privacy on social issues is preferable to power.(Here are 1-5)

(Note re: this post by Yglesias. Technology contests for CO2 sequestration would cost Americans this much-$. Carbon taxes would cost this much--$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Yes, subsidizing carbon sequestration technologies requires tax money. But there are differences of degree and differences of kind. I’m afraid Yglesias's criticism conflates the two. Spending this much ($) versus orders of magnitude more means throwing alarmists a bone, while not continuing to bankrupt the country. Clearly, the case of anthropogenic climate change is losing ground rapidly. But even if it weren't, not one person yet has made the case that these taxes, subsidies and green boondoggles would have any appreciable effect on emissions (or mitigation). Though they are clearly corporate welfare opportunities, which the Obama Administration looooooves.)

Well, it seems at least some one has listened to my web structure ideas. I would have to go back to my records to find out just when I first posted The National Online Party, but it has been up for well over a year now.  It seems Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty is following my precinct structure suggestion.  So it would be rather easy for the Republican Party to adopt such a web structure, if they actually intend to have a 21st Century web-structure presence.

However, considerable more coding would have to be undertaken to get the deliberative groupware and inter-party networking processes working together, but the basics are there to start collecting precinct leaders from the party's various SNSs efforts, hopefully

           ex animo

 Operation Rednet  

           davidfarrar

Promoted. -Patrick

Let me begin by thanking Patrick, Soren, Jon, and the guys at the Next Right for understanding the importance that the internet can play in shaping the future of our party. As Republicans, we should be using forums such as blogs to shape and mold policy.

I have had a front-row seat to the Republican Party over the past several years. I've been a volunteer, a grass-roots candidate for governor, a lieutenant-governor nominee, chaired Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign in Iowa and was an elected delegate to this year's National Convention.

This has provided me a unique perspective of the status of the Republican Party. Paraphrasing Jerry McGuire, "I've been to the puppet show, and I've seen the strings.

There are many fingers being pointed and many excuses being offered in the Republican locker room after the staggering 2008 losses. As a result, we are searching for leaders in the Iowa Senate, the Iowa House and for Iowa's Republican Party. In addition, nonelected leaders are giving explanations for the party's demise and offering prescriptions for the future. So, please permit me to offer mine.

Jesus Christ, whom many Republicans claim to follow, summoned his followers to be either hot or cold toward Him, because a "lukewarm" commitment makes Him want to vomit. I believe this accurately reflects the mood of voters in the past several elections where Republicans have witnessed consecutive defeats.

We have followed the misguided advice of "experts" to abandon our principles and move to the middle so we can supposedly win. In essence, we have become "lukewarm" on life, on marriage, on the Second Amendment, on limited government, on balanced budgets, on lower taxes, on parental rights in educating and raising children, on faith, on family and on freedom. The net result is that voters have spit us out of their mouths.

Republicans are losing because the voters don't trust them. The first key to any leadership position is trust. No one cares how competent someone is if they can't be trusted. The last thing any state or entity needs is a competent liar.

The party's platform is clearly pro-life, but we fill out surveys and use focus-tested words to validate our overriding interest in winning versus a sincere commitment to core principles. Republicans rev up their base by declaring marriage to be between one man and one woman only to walk away from the issue when it poses a threat to personal ambition. The result is no trust ... no vote.

Republicans promise to balance budgets, but citizens are strapped with the largest deficit in history. Republicans passionately discuss limited government but deliver Medicare D, No Child Left Behind, stimulus plans and state value funds. The result is no trust ... no vote.

Some in the GOP are bold enough to refer to their party as "God's Own Party," indicating unswerving commitment to faith, family and freedom. Even so, voters witness disgusting text messages to young pages, solicitation of prostitutes, adulterous affairs, improper advances in airport restrooms and acceptance of money in exchange for power. The result is no trust ... no vote.

The "elite" politicos and Iowa's dwindling Republican establishment are now convening committees and strategy sessions to advise their "flock" to abandon the party's principles and move even further to the middle if they hope to win again. The voter sees and tastes the "lukewarm" and compromising attempts to gain positions and power. The result is no trust, and the voter, like Christ, wants to throw up.

If Republicans are to win again, they must authentically embrace their core principles and effectively communicate a compelling message of bold-color conservatism that inspires faith, family and freedom.

Each year, we hear more and more praise for President Ronald Reagan. So, let's embrace the unyielding words of our party's icon when he said, "Let us raise our bold colors high." And, for those who are willing to exchange their values for shallow victories, as Reagan said, "let them go their way!"

The Republican Party lost the election because They Allowed people like Governor Charlie Crisp to pick who the presidential candidate would be.  They Removed the rights of the voter to go to the polls and vote for who they wanted to support.  If the voters had been able to have their vote count in the primary then John McCain (sorry Mr. McCain) would not had been allowed through the front door.  The Republican Party had Hillary Clinton already picked, she was the demo They Wanted to run against.  They Thought, that the "Most of the Time Liberal, sometime conservative" McCain was the Decorated Grandpa they needed to run against her.  They Took away his rocking chair and they pushed him to go forward into the Abyss of Lies...McCain smiled all the way while calling everyone, “My Friend.”  I don’t want a friend in the White House who is going to take names, then kick bottoms.  I WANT A PRESIDENT WHO WILL KICK BOTTOMS FIRST THEN TAKE NAMES.  And by the way, I would had voted for Colin L. Powell if he had run for president...but I had doubts about him when he said his wife was afraid for him to run.  Now I think, I don’t  know for sure, but I wonder if the black panthers would had murdered him.  Powell showed his true color (true color has nothing to do with his skin color) by supporting a man who lies.  Powell is a raciest and a traitor and I wouldn’t pour water on his behind if it was on fire.

1. The Social Liberal Barak Hussain Obama LIED, and, the Republican Party and McCain never pushed for him to keep his word at how he would raise money.  The Social Liberal Barak Hussain Obama’s Web Site contributions of who he Secretly Collected Money from is why a "liar, cheater, and thief" will be president.  The Republican Party, Governor Charlie Crisp and John McCain are no better than the Democrats because of how the party conducted business, or did not conduct business.

2. The Social Liberal Barak Hussain Obama and The Social Liberal Democrats was given the election on a Gold Platter given to them by the Republican Party, Governor Charlie Crisp and John McCain...In no way did Governor Sarah Palin have anything to do with it.

3. The 2008 SLIME Machine (Social Liberal Influential Media Election) Was a Historic Blessing in Disguise for all Patriot (red, yellow, black and white) Americans;  Because of the Republican Party, Governor Charlie Crisp and John McCain and McCain people, all of us Dull, Bible Carrying, Gun Owning, Game Hunter, Beer Drinking, Soda Drinking, High Class, Low Class, Middle Class, Rich, Poor and Always Helping Others, Loving Country, and Giving Thanks to GOD Patriots, discovered too late this time that the Social Liberal Barak Hussain Obama is a Liar and Social Liberal Raciest who wants to change America & the WORLD...he can have the world but he will never get America.  Patriots love America and they love Governor Sarah Palin.  Mr. Obama and other blacks and mulottos believe it is more important for them to be African than to be a plain dull American Patriot , Wow How Dull it is for him and other blacks and mulottos to be just a plain dull American.  He should be in the Melting Pot with all of us Colorful Dull American Patriots who loves God, Country, Guns, etc. and Governor Sarah Palin, and, don't forget we go by the plain old name of American.

From The Great State of Tennessee,
Dull American Patriot and Proud of It.
Oops,
American

Justice Is Blind and So Should Be the Color of Our Skin.  Red, Yellow, Black and White We Are Precious in His Sight, Jesus Loves the Children of the World.

P.S.  Warning Notice:  Don’t forget, the Angelic Cunning Lucifer Union hates Blessings.

 Last night my wife asked me a question: What's with the House Republicans? Aren't they a Wall Street party? Why aren't they doing along with the deal?

Which led me to do some thinking: Are the Democrats now the Wall Street party? Given the level of political donations, and the similarity in thinking (government subsidies, and regulation, which contrary to popular opinion, is a favorite activity of big finance), Wall Street and the Democrats are a natural match.

Which also led me to dig out a good book I read on Stephen Harper and the rise of the conservatives in Canada. It's a couple of years old, but well worth the read (Right Side Up, by Paul Wells, 2006).

There was a fascinating passage in it, which is probably obvious to most readers of this website, but hit me. It's a lengthy quote, but bear with it, as it's worth it.

Quote:

What was the alternative? [i.e. as Harper was trying to put together a conservative coalition] A mostly economic conservatism "a modern Canadian version of the Thatcher-Reagan phenomenon." The basis of Reform's message should be the private-sector urban middle-class, and the core of its message should be free markets and low taxes. The  party should "tailor its broader, 'social' agenda to gain a sizeable chunk of the urban working class and rural sector 'swing' vote, without alienating its urban private sector middle-class 'core.' The key is to emphasize moderate, conservative social values consistent with the traditional family, the market economy, and patriotism."

...The second interesting thing is Harper's insight into the nature of that core audience. Flanagan, paraphrasing Harper, says it would be stitched together from "those parts of the urban middle class, urban working class, and rural population that can agree on an agenda of market economics and traditional values." Compared to traditional conservatism, this version would be substantially down-market. (emphasis mine.)

"The older model of a conservative party based largely on the middle and upper classes is no longer viable," Flanagan writes, "because so much of the urban middle class (for example, teachers, nurses, social workers, public-sector administrators) is now part of the 'new class,' or 'knowledge class,' as it is sometimes called, and is thus a political class dependent on tax-supported government programs. Political coalitions now divide less along class lines than on the question of public-sector dependence."

All in all, an interesting take to me, though probably old hat to many on this site. And one that sheds a little light on where the GOP in this country should try going.

...But to a great extent the ends of his political action are already visible here: to build a broad coalition aimed not at swells, fat cats, and less-affluent voters who nonetheless depend on assorted grants and subsidies, but at a lunch-bucket crowd of cabbies, skilled tradesmen, young families, and modest entrepreneurs.

Thanks for having this website.

Tim Wright