by Lance Thompson
Many people I respect believe that conservatives cannot appeal to a majority of voters simply by saying “no” to the socialist agenda now guiding our government. They say we must have an alternate positive plan, rather than simply obstructing the rush to totalitarianism. I disagree.
A train headed for a washed-out bridge benefits immensely from anything that safely halts its headlong rush toward destruction. If the passengers realize the danger, they would also perceive the value of halting forward progress.
But for those who require a positive plan, one is available and easily understood. As so many profound ideas these days, it comes from the source of much modern wisdom–half-hour network comedy classics. In the NBC series Seinfeld, the character of George Castanza suffered week after week from the results of his chronically poor judgment–lost jobs, broken relationships, public humiliation and personal embarrassment. In one episode, George realizes that the source of his troubles is his own warped instinct to always make the wrong decision. He further decides that he will, from that moment on, always do exactly the opposite what his instincts tell him to do. Instantly, he finds success and happiness — all because he decided to “do the opposite.”
This is the positive alternative conservatives have been looking for. Obama spends trillions of dollars we don’t have, and plunges the nation into debt we can never repay. Saying no to this is certainly sane and responsible, but doing the opposite would be even better. Instead of increasing spending, how about reducing it? Would reducing spending play well with the electorate? In a recent poll, Californians faced with a massive state deficit preferred the solution of reducing spending to raising taxes by a 3 to 1 margin.
Obama has abandoned long-time allies to their fates by canceling defense programs and dismissing vital relationships, gone hat in hand to our sworn enemies to apologize for America’s foreign policy, and demonstrated tolerance for outrages committed by rogue regimes. Certainly ceasing these self-defeating behaviors would be a positive step. But how much better to do the opposite–install missile defense systems in Poland because it strengthens a stalwart ally, support Israel in defending itself against terrorists on all sides and a nuclear-ready Iran, acknowledge and strengthen our special relationship with the United Kingdom, and show pride in and demand respect for the sacrifices generations of Americans have made to defend freedom and liberty throughout the world.
Obama has vastly increased government control of private industry. The current executive branch is now in the executive suites of banks and lending institutions, automobile manufacturers, and soon health care providers. Obama has bought a majority share of Chrysler with taxpayer money, then handed it over to union bosses. Clearly, simply saying no to all of this Marxist nationalization of private industry would be a demonstration of sanity. But doing the opposite would qualify as insightful and visionary. Allow the ruthlessly fair free market to pick winners and losers rather than government bureaucrats. If companies cannot compete, then they must fail and make room for those that offer what the public wants. Artificially propping up inefficient companies rewards incompetence and punishes competitors who are actually doing things correctly. Taking government out of private industry energizes, enables and encourages investment, innovation and success.
Obama promises to raise taxes on the rich, on businesses, on the most successful entities in our society and economy. This is a policy that, again, punishes success. Not punishing success, and refusing to raise taxes, is a definite improvement. But doing the opposite–reducing taxes on successful individuals and enterprises–is infinitely better. Encourage and reward success with lower taxes, and we shall certainly have more of it. Our economy will expand, employment will grow, revenues will increase, just as it did under Ronald Reagan, and in response to George W. Bush’s tax cuts.
I do not agree with those who say conservatives cannot simply be the Party of No. A few administrations ago, “Just say no” was First Lady Nancy Reagan’s advice to kids to avoid drugs. It was widely ridiculed by the Left and the media. Yet drug abuse undeniably begins voluntarily, which requires an affirmative response, not to mention a substantial investment. Just saying “no” when drugs are offered effectively eliminates the problem.
But for those who believe conservatives need a specific plan to counter the tide of socialism sweeping across the country, the solution is clear and simple. Take any policy of the current administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress and just do the opposite. In every case, such a course will result in greater success, expanded liberty, and a brighter future for Americans.
On the other hand, continuing in the current direction will result in America becoming a pitiful minor character in a show about nothing.
