The Republican Manifesto: 2010, 2012 & Beyond
February 2, 2010 at 11:33 pm 11 comments
Political Columnist
WordPress
After the House Republican Conference in Baltimore last week, republican leadership continues to maintain the same strategy – at least in message. The republican strategy has not caught ground with Middle America; it has been a consistent policy of no, no, no and that’s not far enough! This is neither suitable nor sustainable. The republicans have to stand for something the middle class can relate to which encompasses the spirit of our founding as well as dominates the social perspective on living. The democrats cannot monopolize the social argument, nor should Americans have to turn to the Tea Party to ensure founding principles and values of the Republican Party are represented. Republicans must devise a new manifesto.
The platform the Republican Party should consider is the family. The family, as a subject, entails protecting marriage, decreasing abortions, family planning [adoption], jobs, health, moral society and education. These subjects Americans, for the most part, can find compromise and agreement. They do not necessarily want the perfect solution, but an effort - a practical common-sense approach that does not limit their personal liberties.
Lincoln, the father of the Republican Party, wanted America’s institutions and way-of-life to encourage and inspire progress, promote equality, and in no way limit individual freedom and success. He wanted every American to have the tools – and if they did not possess the tools, be able to attain the tools – for success. This was his nature; this was why he did what he did, said what he said, and so famously fought, for what he fought.
Saying ‘no’ to homosexual marriage would hence become proponents of strong families. A pro-life stance would represent prenatal care, the promotion of good adoption policies and programs, abstinence, health care, education and opportunity. Fewer taxes would mean better representatives, efficient government and prohibiting illegal immigration.
Those issues along with the discipline to devise tangible, conservative, alternatives that represent the people as both consumers and entrepreneurs, uphold family, and promote life, liberty and happiness, should be the focus of the Republican Party.
Today presents a great opportunity for republicans to be themselves. The “no” strategy has not produced results neither has it gained any significant support. It has made Americans angry and frustrated in a time government should exhibit leadership. It is time for something new – rather a return to our youth, our founding, and the constitution, as viewed by our father, Lincoln.
If you enjoyed the read, please subscribe or sign up for email notifications from my blog and never have to check for a new post again. If not, please check my blog at least three times a week for new posts and updates. All comments are welcomed; please keep them clean and civil. I thank you for your readership.
For more information on the House Republican Conference visit my press release:
1.
notapopulist | February 3, 2010 at 3:46 am
If the Republican party wants to regain its lost supporters that have turned to the Tea Party for support, it needs to get back to the Fed vs. State argument and start advocating restricting the powers of the Federal government. In my opinion, an emphasis on ‘family values’ is not going to cut it, at least not for that purpose.
I don’t see the evidence for declaring the Republicans the ‘party of no,’ personally. I only see Democratic snipes claiming that. From what I can see, the Democrats in Congress and in the Executive branch have simply sat on Republican proposals, so that they receive little media attention, and have then started on this whole ‘party of no’ business. I think it’s a manufactured slur.
We know that we have quite different elements of the Republican Party that we need to bring together to be successful. We have the social conservatives, and the fiscal conservatives, as one big distinction. We also know that the independents, whom we also need, tend to side more with the fiscal conservatives. So my strategy would be to include enough rhetoric to get the social conservatives out to the booths. I would put a greater emphasis on fiscal responsibility and limiting the Fed’s power to get both the independents and the fiscal conservatives out to vote.
2.
keiron Jackman | February 3, 2010 at 5:33 am
Good point, but they have said no to most of the important legislation — that they benefit from. Like Obama siad, how many of those representatives went to ribbon cuttings. It’s just funny. If I don’t like the soup, I am not going to drink it simply because its free.
3.
notapopulist | February 3, 2010 at 8:26 am
Hello again, Mr. Jackman. Enjoy your columns, as always!
I can’t respond well to your point here, maybe you could clarify who ‘they’ are, just so I don’t step on my own feet.
My post wasn’t some kind of defense of incumbent Republicans…in fact I think they’ve gone way too far down that populist (ie ‘handout’ for votes) road these days. I’d like to see a
move towards personal responsibility and a general acceptance of the fact that one’s wheels down the road of life are under one’s own two feet. I think it’s pretty clear where the rejection of this philosophy has been taking us.
4.
Wendy Phillips | February 6, 2010 at 1:05 am
You can’t change the natural order of things. Democrats come into office and give money to people with programs. Republicans come into office and spend money on the rich and on war. It is just the Democrats’ turn now. Next, the Republicans will get a turn, and so on…and so on….http://wendygdphillips.wordpress.com
5.
Ed | February 10, 2010 at 5:50 am
Mr. Jackman,
I used to be a moderate repub, but left the party when Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter (VP Cheney, I believe said that). Actually, we both know they matter, but it became clear then, the Republican party had lost its way. They attracted the religious by making abortion a political issue which essentially gave poor people a reason to vote for big government/big business and divided the country.
I find your opinions refreshing and hope that more of your party follow your logic. I agree that the current “party of no” will not serve your cause in the long run. It is a policy whose sole intent is to inflict harm on our president, which harms us all.
As to the tea baggers which seem to be running your party, all I see are people holding signs disrespecting our president by comparing him to Hitler. Others hold signs saying he is a communist, socialist, marxist, stalinist, all at the same time. It is obvious they haven’t checked a dictionary to find out what any of those labels mean or if one man can be all of those at the same time. It also causes me to wonder if they can read. They are pushing your party so far to the right (or is that wrong) that the middle Americans you speak of will quit voting Republican.
I believe everyone has a right to oppose a sitting president or any politician for that matter, but find it reprehensible to insult any man or woman in such a manner, regardless of party affiliation.
I ask, how can anyone vote Republican when they are all the same. Virtually every one of them sounds like they are scripted by some puppet master.
I will continue voting mostly Democratic until the Republican Party finds its way. Maybe it’s time for a real third party. One which actually has the interests of the vast and so far silent Middle Class American at heart.
6.
Joe | February 13, 2010 at 2:46 am
All it takes is a Democrat president and two years of a liberal congress to remind us just how intrusive that party wants to be. I refer you to 1965-66 and 1993-94.
Now we have 2009-10 with the attempt to make even more people reliant on the federal government. I’ve thought long and hard on this. The Democrat message of “fairness” plays well with the young voters who are too young to realize the true objective of the progressives: control.
Ms. Phillips is correct. It is the natural order. Prepare yourself for at least ten years of Republican rule. I, for one, hope they act like fiscal conservatives this time around.
7.
DementedDC | February 16, 2010 at 8:52 pm
More and more I keep seeing comments lodged against president Reagan that are either false or half-truths. Republicans did not lose their way under his watch. If anything, they found their stride. It’s been a long time since our country was that united.
Everybody remembers Reagan running up the deficit, but nobody can seem to remember why. They remember trickle-down economics, but no longer remember what that means. So here is a refresher course:
Reagan was the 1st president in modern times to acknoledge that we a have consumer driven economy. The demand for goods is how both communites and Washington garners it’s revenue. With trickle-down economics, Reagan was attempting to spur the American economy into producing a big ticket item that had mass appeal.
As I it being explained, every know and then things are introduced to the economy that everyone needs to have (for example, the automobile). The sale of these products not only brings in revenue for the manufacturers, but often spurs the creation of jobs in several related areas (car dealerships, garages, auto parts stores, etc).
Reagan knew well enough that computers were going to be a big thing (what many don’t know is the government started developing the internet in ’67 as a means for miliatary bases to stay in contact with one another in the event of a attack on the mainland that left traditional communication methods unusable). His policies freed up a lot of money for Tech firms to do R & D (ask 3M how much it helped with the modem) and cut a lot of bureaucratic red tape, which allowed newer technologies to reach the marketplace sooner. Some of you might even remember his technology initiative.
Although things didn’t quite work out the way he planned, his actions led to the computer revolution of the 90′s, which was the real engine behind the economy at that time. It had little to do with Washington. If you research the actions taken by our government in the 90′s, it wasn’t enough to do balance the books alone. During the 90′s, most of america’s businesses became computerized. This led to revenue from PC manufacturers, as well as jobs being created across the country related to the computer (dealers, service technicians, computer supplies, schools offering computer courses, etc).
This created a huge stream of revenue that Washington was not expecting, and it was poorly handled. The so-called surplus was already dwindling while Clinton was still in office. It was a natural occurence. At first things spike really high, then dwindle, and finally normalize. Too bad Washington doesn’t understand that. They could’ve done much more good with the money than they did.
Nothing Washington does alone will be capable of repeating those events. At least not on that scale. If our politicians were smart, they would be researching emerging technologies and investing in the firms behind them. Yes, that means investing in the “rich.” Whether you like it or not, the average joe is just not capable of producing the kind of volume necessary to spur that kind of economic event. Even if a “normal” guy does come up with something we all want, they either sell it to a company or set up their own to produce it and become the “rich” guy you all keep knocking.
Letting people have a perception that is the opposite of the truth is the Republicans biggest mistake. Clinton gets credit for something he didn’t do and Democrats appear to be great on the economy when that is completely false.
8.
keiron Jackman | February 16, 2010 at 10:03 pm
What do you think cap and trade and Obama getting loans for nuclear power plants is all about I suggest you take a look at my post on global warming and you will see that we agree on more points, its just that the facts don’t fit the the rhetoric, Obama is investing in new emerging technologies
http://keironjackman.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/global-warming-much-ado-about-nothing/
9.
world schedule 2012 | February 24, 2010 at 7:07 pm
Survival group against God?? LOL. Good luck with that. Truth is, no one knows the exact time this will happen except the man upstairs, however, I firmly believe that there are people placed here by God that post the warning signs and it’s up to you to take heed.
eschatology 2012
– some truth about 2012
10.
AJM | April 18, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Mr. Jackman,
I’m a new subscriber and have enjoyed many of your posts. I’m a little curious about your individual thoughts on the Lincoln ideas of equality and personal freedom (really invoking the 14th Amendment) and how a republican can come to terms with trying to limit the rights of homosexuals when it pertains to marriage?
Obviously the marriage stance comes from a religious philosophy and not a political one. Also, republicans in the past have tried to move for more federal power over states rights to define marriage which really is an oxymoronic effect. It seems to me that republicans only want limited federal gov’t when it suits their agenda.
Also, to say that no homosexual marriage equals strong families is not a rational conclusion. Especially by the mounting evidence proving otherwise. It is a completely emotional response to a lifetime of religious instruction only. If anything, allowing homosexual marriage (and in turn homosexual adoption) would actually help the pro-life effort as well!
This, I feel, is one of the biggest issues with the republican party. It has allowed itself to be hijacked by a religious right that has its own agenda of trying to turn our country into a theocracy. The religious right has done way more damage to the Lincoln Republican party of old than the Tea Partiers have (though they are proudly running a close second).
11.
keiron Jackman | April 18, 2010 at 10:47 pm
I will post something on homosexual marriage. I am tempted to tell you how I think about it, but it will spoil my post. But here is a starter. You have to look at marriage from a standpoint of an institution, a system by which we organize or categorize something. Furthermore, you have to migrate away from marriage as a religious ceremony and look at it from the standpoint of government or law, absent from religion. Marriage is really a license, but more of a contract between one man and one woman. When you view it from this perspective it would be easy to understand why banning gay marriage is not discrimination. Look when you think discrimination you are unequally applying a restriction to a person based on who they are. For instance a certain men could not marry certain women, one man could vote but another could not. This discrimination where based on color, when man is man equal under the law. Therefore you cannot say, for example black man Asian or fat man cannot…..must treat man equally.
With gay marriage, a gay man is not prohibited from marrying. Let me say it again, a gay man is not prohibited from marrying a woman. Let me say it once again, a gay man is not prohibited form entering a contract with a woman and receiving a license. Unlike a black or fat man being denied a right other men have. No man can enter into a contract with another man or gain a license that is equal to marriage. Therefore, there is no discrimination. If gay men, or rather declared gay men were denied the right to enter into a contract with another woman then it would be discrimination.
To expand. Men could have gone into restaurants or sit in front of the bus, but other men of same age or class could not on the basis of some physical attribute. So in those cases other men had rights denied to other men. That is discrimination.
So if you look at it that way you will understand also that the loving vs virginia ruling was in effect incorrect, because the ruling said you cannot discriminate based on color. Well that is right but it is not complete. Marriage discriminates based on age. But that discrimination is equally applied, no 2 year old regardless of sex or race cannot marry. But in the case of blacks they could not marry whites. it is really technical but I hope the post I do on this would make it more clear.