Conservative Values

A (Temporarily) Lost Debate

Mark Noonan52 Comments

We certainly haven’t convinced a majority of our fellow Americans on this basic issue:

…Sixty percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll support raising taxes on incomes more than $250,000 a year, long a popular option overall, but also a divisive one: While 73 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents are in favor, far fewer Republicans, 39 percent, agree…

…Sixty-seven percent in this poll…oppose another suggestion, raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67.  And on this idea, strong opposition surpasses strong support by more than 3-1, 49 to 14 percent…

So, at the end of the day, a solid majority are in favor of raising taxes on “the rich” while an even more solid majority are opposed to the basic, common-sense idea of raising the age of Medicare eligibility in order to preserve the Medicare system.  People are in favor of something which won’t help and opposed to something which would.  Whatever else we did in 2012, we utterly failed to make a dent on the issue of fiscal reform of the United States government.

I think our failure on taxes is that our absolute opposition to all tax increases has painted us in to a corner where Democrats (aided by the by-lined Democrats in the MSM) can label us as extreme.  To be sure, opposing tax increases has been, is and will remain a key GOP principal because we know that you can never feed the Big Government beast enough.  No matter how much money you give to it, it will be blown through and more demanded.  We’d have a $6 trillion a year budget if we hadn’t held the line on taxes all these years.  But one must not allow rigidity to overcome good sense – we should have seen four or more years ago that as long as there are people with more money than they know what to do with the Democrats would be able to successfully campaign on an “make the rich pay their fair share” slogan.  That most of these super-rich are liberals and that Democrat tax proposals will hit the super-rich lightly, if at all, is irrelevant: we handed them an issue and ideological rigidity against tax increases prevented us from a counter-offensive which can preserve low marginal rates (vital, as we know, for economic growth).  This is the genesis of my “wealth tax” proposal – a tax aimed at the very richest and not at productive capital, but at money just squirreled away in tax shelters of various types.  Had we come out with a wealth tax for the 2012 campaign it would have been us attacking Democrats and deflecting their attack on us – at worst, it would have been a wash and it may have worked out to our credit…and we’d be in a much stronger position right now to fight for lower marginal rates to be maintained.

Our failure on entitlement reform stems from the failure on taxes – as a party which has been successfully painted as defending low taxes for the rich, any and all reasonable reforms of entitlements can be (and have been) cast by the Democrats as a callous disregard for the poor and middle class by a party which is only interested in defending low taxes for the rich.  Yes, I know this isn’t true, at all – but it is how we’ve been painted and it is something we must change if we are to succeed.  Remember, Obama won’t be President forever – eventually we will be back in power.  When we get there if we haven’t convinced a majority of Americans to back us on entitlement reform then there’s no point in winning.  If we don’t reform entitlements then even if we some how manage to avoid fiscal collapse in the next five years or so then we are still absolutely stuck with the fact that entitlements will soon eat up almost all government revenues.  That is unsustainable.  But we can’t offer ourselves as reformers of entitlements until the people trust us as defenders of the poor and the middle class.  That we already are (no greater enemy of the poor and middle class than a tax hiking, entitlement expanding liberal who pretends there is no crisis), but the people don’t know it – don’t understand it; don’t buy it.

To get the people firmly on our side we have to be seen as firmly on their side.  To be sure, it is almost certain that things will just get worse and worse as Obama’s 2nd term unfolds.  Nothing which was wrong in 2008 has been fixed and nothing will be fixed as long as Obama is President – he’s apparently unaware of the problems or just doesn’t care about them.  Whatever the case, the problems won’t be solved.  But it won’t be enough for us to just be “not the Democrats”…we have to be seen as something which will change the course from the Democrats and in a manner which is easily understood as helping the poor and middle class.  This, in turn, requires a ruthless turning away from big business, from those who have, and a relentless pointing out of the plight of the poor and the middle class and a relentless education of the same that it is the Democrats who have, on purpose, done all this to them.  My “wealth tax” proposal is one method.  Another is to go gangbusters, once again, for school choice.  Yet another is to point out that Uncle Sam can use Medicare money to help people take care of their old folks rather than shoving them off – at twice the cost – to sub-standard nursing homes (and telling oldsters and their kids that we’re going to keep them at home will resonate as more and more people get old).  On and on like that – show them that we are not for the rich, that we are for the poor and the middle class…that we will get them better results without taking anything away (do not campaign against “free stuff” – in time, with rational economic policies, less and less free stuff will be needed until we reach a tipping point where only a tiny minority is getting free stuff…but if you go out there and complain about the free stuff then all you do is automatically alienate everyone who is getting free stuff…including those who would rather not but just don’t see any other way: really, we have to stop being the Stupid Party and learn how to play a long game).

Its either become the party of the people, or perish. Our choice.  We’ll see what we decide.

Teach The Principles

Cluster103 Comments

The contortions that many conservatives and GOPers have gone through over the last couple of weeks trying to make sense of the election has been amusing, frustrating, and a little disconcerting. I get the sense that some seem to believe that it was simply a function of the base not showing up, or that Romney was weak candidate, and/or that the 47% comment did us in, and that we need to stop denigrating the American voting public, which was George Will’s comment. Some of this I can agree with, but if denigrating the American voting public was the reason for our loss, then how did that same tactic result in Obama’s win? I find Will’s comment to be completely off base and simply a pandering comment to make sure he is invited to the next cocktail party.

This was an election of big choices, and our side lost. Romney clearly laid out stark differences between his approach and that of Obama’s. Romney was the first candidate that I can remember to courageously put Medicare reform on the table; he was the first candidate to speak to the need of tax reform and put forth a plan, and he was the first candidate to suggest real cuts in the budget, not just a slow down of growth rates. So in my opinion Romney was not weak – he had the right plan, and the American people chose to continue down the irresponsible path we are on. They made that decision based partly on the lies told to them by Obama, the Democrats and the liberal media (think: taxes on the rich and outlawing abortion), but more on their own historical and financial ignorance having been educated in failing schools steeped in liberal philosophy. A philosophy of which blames others for personal failure, and teaches that a large centralized state can, and will, take care of their needs.

We, as conservatives, should certainly plan our attack for 2014 and 2016, by articulating a message that resonates with the growing constituencies of single women and minorities,  but if we are to preserve the ideals of this great nation in the long term, we need to begin a strategy of teaching conservative principles to our children, starting at the elementary levels. It’s much like raising a child as we all have done, and proving to them that conservative philosophy is the most compassionate towards others and offers the most rewarding personal life they will ever know. Those principles include, but not limited to:

1.      Live within your financial means – large debt restricts personal freedom and destroys relationships and lives. Be responsible with your money, and if money is important to you, then pursue education and set goals.

2.      Personal responsibility – bad decisions have consequences and you need to, and will, live with those consequences. Don’t blame others, and don’t repeat your mistakes. Good things happen to those who do their best everyday and make good decisions.

3.      Learn how to fail – no person has ever won all the time. Learning how to fail builds personal strength and character and makes winning that much more rewarding.

4.      Abstinence – abstain from drugs and excessive alcohol use. There has never been one successful alcoholic or drug user, and by engaging in this activity you can assure yourself of future health problems. Abstain from treating your body like an amusement park, whether that be sexually, or by putting ink and bolts into yourself. Treat your mind and body with respect – you only get one.

I am sure other conservative posters here can add to this list, and I hope they do, but these are four principles that I have taught my kids, and all three of them have turned out to be responsible, functioning adults. I desperately want to see this country get back to a shared sense of responsibility for moving our country forward. I look around me anymore and much of what I see is very disheartening – entitlement minded, financially illiterate, selfish, drug addicted, pierced and bolted ignorant masses, more interested in the latest brain dead Jay Z CD, or what the Kardashian’s are doing, and I suspect much of you see the same. The problem is, this is a growing constituency, so if we are to have long-term success, we need to begin building a more solid foundation of responsible, better educated children.

A Republican Class War

Mark Noonan57 Comments

As most of you know, I ceased being a supporter of Capitalism a few years back and switched over to being a Distributist.  The genesis of the shift was my growing realization that Big Corporation and Big Government were two sides of the same coin while the very rich – for all their being demonized in liberal rhetoric – are for the most part liberal Democrats.  I cannot perceive a way for us to finally win – win where we can amend the constitution and thus undo the liberalism which is destroying us – unless we take out the whole of the enemy arrayed against us.  Since I figured that the Capitalist system was actually in alliance with the socialist system, I easily found myself slipping in to Distributist beliefs – which, to boil it down, are that nothing “too big to fail” should be allowed to live.  That a man, working hard and living frugally, should be able to by himself support his wife and children.  That almost all political decisions which affect the day-to-day lives of citizens must be made at the lowest level possible.

In the 2012 election we got a bit of confirmation of my views – 8 of the 10 richest counties in America were carried by Obama.  The rich like Obama.  They voted for him.  They donated to his campaign.  Do you think they actually believe that Obama’s “tax the rich” rhetoric is directed at them?  It isn’t.  And they know it.  You see, as I’ve been saying for years, “tax the rich” is a mere propaganda phrase for the Democrats.  They portray themselves as being on the side of the poor and the middle class and their most effective argument in this portrayal is their repeatedly announced determination to “tax the rich”.  But here’s the thing – they never, ever tax the rich.  They tax the middle class and dress it up as a tax on the rich.  They say they want “millionaires and billionaires” to pay their fair share….but a “billionaire” in the tax code starts at $200,000.00 a year.

Continue reading →

A Campaign for 70 Million Votes

Mark Noonan71 Comments

As I’m sure most people have figured out by now, turnout in 2012 was massively off from 2008.  As it turns out, Obama got fewer votes in 2012 than Bush got in 2004.  My prediction of a Romney victory was predicated upon taking the 2008 turnout and re-figuring it for both a loss in Obama voters and a return of Bush voters.  The Obama voters were, indeed, lost – I got that right (though, for full disclosure, Obama lost fewer votes than I projected he would).  The problem for us Republicans is that the Bush voters McCain lost were also lost by Romney – and then some; it seems that Romney got about a million fewer voters than McCain.  Had the 5 million or so missing Bush voters showed up on November 6th, Romney would have won…and we probably would have won a Senate majority, in to the bargain.

The big question is just why did these five million voters not vote?  They voted for Bush.  They are clearly ok with a socially conservative man of financially rich background – they should have had no particular problem with voting for Romney.  But, they didn’t.  Why?  Several reasons:

Continue reading →

If Democrats Cared

Cluster18 Comments

I am tired of this pervasive notion that conservative Republicans are uncompassionate, unfeeling, and detached people while liberal Democrats are believed to be compassionate, and care so much about the well being of the individual. Well that notion simply couldn’t be further from the truth. If Democrats cared so much, wouldn’t they hold up the ideal as something to aspire to? Something to reward? Something to encourage people to realize? The ideal being a life of sobriety, a life of working hard to achieve dreams, a life of personal responsibility, and a life beginning in a two parent household comprised of a mother and father. Substance abuse has destroyed more lives than any war could ever possibly do, yet drugs and certainly alcohol are considered “recreational” in our society, and alcohol is completely accepted, if not encouraged in our society. Very few people have realized their dreams without struggle, yet in this day and age of instant gratification, that concept eludes many of our younger generation. Personal responsibility is also a concept lost on too many people. Decisions have consequences and taking away those consequences denies the individual personal growth and the opportunity to learn how to fail. But most importantly, is helping  ensure that as many people as possible have the opportunity to be raised in a family with a mother and father.

There is no substitute for that family dynamic and any one that tries to convince you otherwise, is either ignorant, agenda driven, or not overly concerned about the well being of the human condition. A child needs the nurturing and love of a mother, and the love and guidance of  a father, and single parent households, or same sex households can not offer that very important dynamic. Male and females are not only anatomically different, we differ greatly in the way we react with people and certainly our children. Where a mother will wince and cry out for the child to be careful when playing sports, or simply riding a bike, a father will push them, and encourage them to play harder, or take a few risks. When the child is very young, a mother will hold them tight to the bosom and nurture them while a father will tickle their belly and toss them in the air, and these acts of parenting are crucial to a child’s development and well being in life.

Now I as a conservative fully understand the human condition, and the difficulty it is to reach the ideal. Therefore, I understand single parent households, same sex households, substance addiction, and those who fall short of their dreams and want to help them in any way possible. But that doesn’t mean that we as a society shouldn’t hold up the ideal as the standard, and that of which we should all strive for. Striving for the ideal is not a vice, and falling short isn’t a crime, but unless we all know what the ideal is, how will we ever get there? If Democrats truly cared, they would speak to this issue, yet they don’t, and seem to champion policies that reward falling short, and today we have more children born out of wedlock than ever before, more people in poverty than ever before, and more substance abuses than any time in our history. Conservatives champion policies that encourage people to reach their ideal, and that is where true compassion lies.

The Lessons of Failure

Cluster34 Comments

In moments of solitude, which are few these days, I often contemplate the state of our union and where we find ourselves not just politically, but socially and morally as well. And one over arching concept keeps coming to mind, and that is, we as a society, particularly our younger generation, have forgotten how to fail. Failure is a very important part of a successful life. It builds character, it strengthens resolve, it teaches caution, and most importantly it builds self reliance. Throughout history, failure has been instrumental in not only shaping the lives of great people, but in shaping the direction of this great country. General Washington lost many a battle in the early days of the revolution before honing his strategic skills and ultimately winning the war. It would have been very easy for Washington to simply give up, after all it was bone chilling cold in many of those of important battles and many men died, yet Washington learned from his mistakes and his failures and pressed forward. But maybe above them all was President Lincoln, whose resolve was only steeled by his failure. In fact I have the following list of Lincoln’s failures posted in my office:

  • 1831 – Lost his job
  • 1832 – Defeated in run for Illinois State Legislature
  • 1833 – Failed in business
  • 1834 – Elected to Illinois State Legislature (success)
  • 1835 – Sweetheart died
  • 1836 – Had nervous breakdown
  • 1838 – Defeated in run for Illinois House Speaker
  • 1843 – Defeated in run for nomination for U.S. Congress
  • 1846 – Elected to Congress (success)
  • 1848 – Lost re-nomination
  • 1849 – Rejected for land officer position
  • 1854 – Defeated in run for U.S. Senate
  • 1856 – Defeated in run for nomination for Vice President
  • 1858 – Again defeated in run for U.S. Senate
  • 1860 – Elected President (success)

How many of us can honestly say we would have kept going? Yet President Lincoln is to this day regarded as one of, if not the greatest President this country has ever elected. Americans need to learn how to fail again, but our politicians win elections by promising to not let anyone fail. Corporations receive bail outs, farmers receive subsidies, and the poor receive an ever growing list of entitlements to the point that failure is becoming a lost concept. We all need to learn that failure is not the end of the world, in fact, it is often times a new beginning. There are many great historical quotes on failure, one of course is “Failure is not falling down, it is not getting back up”, but two of my favorites have always been:

– “Good people are good because they’ve come to wisdom through failure”  – William Saroyan.

– “Many of life’s failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up”  – Thomas A Edison

I posted this under the category of “Conservative Values” because in my opinion, the concept of failure is lost on most liberals. They are aghast when conservatives suggest that failure is the best option when speaking of auto companies, financial industries, and those individuals who over reach financially. It’s not that we want them to be down and out, it’s that we know what promise failure can bring.

Common Sense

Cluster64 Comments

In honor of Thomas Paine, “these are the times that try men’s souls”, I can honestly say that my soul has been tried. The political climate we find ourselves in is surreal, and born of partisan hackery and ignorance. Last week, Harry Reid stated probably the most despicable  statement ever uttered on the Senate Floor, yet the media and ignorant liberals let it go by without question due to their hyper partisanship and ignorance. I say ignorance because of the fact that we do have an IRS and Justice Department charged with vetting and validating tax returns, and if you think someone of Romney’s prominence escaped the eye of those two government watchdogs, you’re sorely lacking in common sense. Combine that with the fact that Romney does not prepare his own taxes, he has highly paid and highly qualified CPA firms compile his returns. CPA firms who are also audited frequently, so to suggest that this highly moral man not only evaded taxes for a number of years but also avoided the scrutiny of the IRS, is just insane. Yet, it goes largely unquestioned, and the burden of proof becomes Romney’s . Let’s also throw in our dear President, who has lectured all of us on several occasions on the importance of civility, and you can imagine why many of our souls have been tried over the last three years. The disingenuous and arrogance emanating from our current crop of liberals is distasteful to say the least.

I am reminded of another one of Paine’s great quotes – “Time makes more converts than reason”, and that is a fact that Democrats bank on. Liberals know that a lie repeated often enough will resonate with the ignorant, and the liberal base is ignorant, make no mistake about that. But the quote from Paine that struck me the most was this:

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

This is an incredibly profound statement. Paine is speaking to the sense of community driven not by government, but by the individual, both in charity and accomplishment. We desperately need to get back to that place where government is administered at the most local level possible, as defined by our Constitution, where individual charity nurtures those in need, and where individual accomplishment is applauded, not scolded. The ever growing bureaucracy in Washington DC is not the solution to the problem, it is the problem. Can you guess which President stated that?

Jeb Bush and Ideology

Cluster10 Comments

Yesterday Jeb Bush strongly suggested that the GOP was too rigid ideologically and that the party needed to be more flexible to attract a larger block of voters, and while I disagree with Bush, I want to thank him for bringing this subject up because I believe it is a win for conversatives to have this conversation.

First of all, I agree with Amazona when she says that ideology is the foundation of any individual and/or party platform. Ideology drives policy, so if you understand their ideology, you will know and understand the policies they will promote. The ideology that is at the core of the tea party and most conservatives is that of a more constitutionally based government at both the federal and state level, and that is an ideological belief that should always be rIgid.

The decentralized outline for government that is found in the Constitution is, to parapharase Churchhill; “….is not the best form of government but it is the best so far”, and the same can be said about free enterprise. It may not be the best economic platform, but it is the best so far. Capitalism, for all it’s faults, is the most effective economical system ever, in terms of creating more wealth for more people and for creating a higher standard of living for everyone. And contrary to liberal thought, conservatives do want to provide safety nets for those in need, but we want it administered at a local level where it can be more effective, efficient, and help more people.

The good news is that I think the voters are starting to figure that out with the 2010 elections, and then again in Wisconsin.  So let’s continue this conversation, and if you are a liberal, please tell me where I am wrong.

UPDATE, by Matt Margolis: I would like to take this opportunity to go on the record saying that I think Jeb Bush was right.. to a degree.

Sorry Cluster, but I have to weigh in.

Yes, I agree with Jeb. But, I see this as a problem with both the major parties, and a problem that starts not with elected officials, but with the voters… Let’s be honest about what’s been happening in recent years. The internet has empowered the extremes on the left and the right by giving them a venue to build an audience and influence. This naturally will result in the ability for these groups to influence people in power.

In recent years we’ve seen elected Democrats and Republicans lose primary battles because they weren’t liberal or conservative enough. Joe Lieberman went from being his party’s Vice Presidential nominee to be booted out. In 2010, Christine O’Donnell beat the more moderate, but more electable Republican Mike Castle, only to lose a winnable U.S. Senate seat in the general election.

This past year, we saw every single candidate in the Republican presidential primary labeled a RINO by supporters of a different candidate. So, yes, I believe that Ronald Reagan would never have made it through this year’s primary, because he was a former Democrat.

Barack Obama, the most extreme left-winger to occupy the White House, isn’t considered liberal enough by left-wing bloggers, and hasn’t exactly won praises from them.

So, let’s be honest about what’s going on, and who’s to blame. We, as bloggers and activists, are criticizing our leaders for compromising or for merely for working with the other side just to get things done. We’ll dissect a voting record to find a few black marks just to feel justified in opposing a decent public servant of our party. Let’s wake up.

What is Fairness?

Retired Spook117 Comments

Arthur Brooks new book, The Road to Freedom, is causing quite a stir, and hearing an interview of Brooks this week reminded me of an essay last fall that was inspired by Brooks previous book.  The essay dwelled on the philosophical difference in the way the concept of fairness is viewed by Conservatives and Liberals.

There are basically two ways to define “fairness” in an economic sense where there is mal-distribution of income. One is “redistributive fairness” which President Obama and other liberals in and out of congress favor. The idea is through taxes or financial favoritism to take from wealthier Americans and give to less wealthy Americans and thereby to even out, to some degree, the income people have regardless of whether they have earned it.

The other definition is “meritocracy fairness” which holds that people should receive monetary compensation based on hard work, ingenuity, and innovation – i.e. the money that people make should come as a result of merit.

In his 2010 book, The Battle: The Fight Between Free Enterprise and Big Government Will Shape America’s Future, Arthur Brooks states that inequality is “fair” if it is based on merit and equality would be “unfair” if what someone has earned on merit is redistributed to others who have not earned it. There should be penalties, not rewards, for corruption, stupidity, laziness, and incompetence. Where does the public come down in this? According to a comprehensive survey, 89% of Americans believe in “meritocracy fairness” and only 11% opt for “redistributive fairness.” People in the past, our ancestors, came to the United States for economic opportunity, not for redistribution of wealth.

Those numbers, to me, are staggering, and just completely belie the notion by nearly every Liberal who has ever posted here that they are in the mainstream of American political thought, and it’s Conservatives who represent the kook fringe.  It’s generally accepted that Liberals account for about 20% of the U.S. population, so almost half of those who self-identify as Liberals don’t even agree with redistributive fairness.

I think almost everyone who is paying the slightest bit of attention to this election cycle agrees that it’s one of the most important elections in generations, perhaps, as some contend, the most important since 1860.  November 6th will, I believe, be a referendum on how we as a people view not only the concept of fairness but the overall role, size and scope of government.  We are at a fork in the road, and this election will, I also believe, determine whether we take the road to serfdom or the road to freedom.

The Ryan Budget and Catholic Social Teaching

Mark Noonan42 Comments

The American Catholic has an excellent round of commentary on the Ryan budget and the ensuing debate carried out on the question, “is the Ryan budget in accordance with Catholic social teaching, or not?”.  While this might seem an arcane debate for only Catholics to engage, the fact is that the debate is ultimately about what sort of America we will have.

There are two words everyone has to familiarize themselves with:

1.  Subsidiarity.

2.  Solidarity.

In a nutshell, “subsidiarity” is the Catholic teaching that all decisions should be made as far as possible at the lowest level.  This covers all sorts of decisions – political, economic and religious.  While the higher authorities play a vital role, their role is rather one of support and instruction rather than mixing in the day to day activities of life.  It is for you and me, dear reader, to take care of the poor in our midst – just as it is our duty to work and earn our own living; it is for the federal government to assist us in this – mostly by ensuring law and order, the execution of justice and our common defense against outside enemies; but, also, at times by directly aiding us when our own good, solid efforts are insufficient to secure what is necessary for the liberty, safety and dignity of ourselves and our fellows.

And that leads us in to “solidarity” – none of us is an island; we are not a law unto our selves.  We are part of a group and while we have absolute rights vis a vis the group, we also have absolute responsibilities to the group.  We do, indeed, have a right to our property and the fruits of our labor – but we also have a duty to ensure that our neighbor does not lack the necessities.

Liberals tend to concentrate on the “solidarity” aspect and use it as a justification for the welfare State.  Libertarians tend to concentrate on “subsidiarity” and use it as a justification for government so small as to be incapable of doing the genuine tasks of government (especially in terms of ensuring justice and the defense of the nation).  Paul Ryan’s plan is a judicious mix of subsidiarity and solidarity – as it should be, because while the laws of God are absolute, the actions of human beings within the parameters of those laws are subject to many varying pressures and needs and thus prudential judgement is needed in each particular instance in figuring out what is best.  Neither libertarianism nor statism is the answer – in some cases the State must take a strong stand, in others the State must butt out…in most cases it has to be a little of both.

Ryan is being furiously attacked, especially by liberal Catholics who see in the Ryan budget the moral justification for dismantling the welfare State.  They are attacking Ryan’s plan because they say it will harm the poor – but the fact is the plan wouldn’t do anything of the sort; it would, though, harm the vested interests of the welfare State who do little for the poor, but seem to make quite a lot of money ostensibly caring about the poor.  But do have a care – if Ryan’s budget is ever passed (say in January, 2013 and then signed in to law by President Romney) then the attacks will start to come from the other side – libertarians who will be upset that the State refuses to become morally neutral and still seeks to have a role in American affairs.

While Ryan’s plan has a great deal of Catholicism in it (no surprise given Ryan’s Catholicism), it really brings up and clarifies the real debate – super welfare State, libertarian anarchy, or a well reasoned approach which understands that things don’t resolve themselves in perfect, little boxes?  The whole of the American experiment – our whole Constitutional order (currently hibernating) –  is based upon the Founders’ realization that (a) no one has all the answers and (b) a wise system will leave great latitude for individual and local action while still retaining a government strong enough to act forcefully when necessary.

We’ll see how it comes out – but Ryan has earned the gratitude of all Americans who wish to see the Founders’ vision restored to America.