Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

America's Most Powerful Voting Block
Financial Sense University ^ | 12/02/2004 | Reagan Renaissance

Posted on 12/03/2004 6:55:38 AM PST by writer33

Last time we discussed some methods for creating political power. Today we are going to focus on exercising political power. Next week, our three part trilogy will culminate with an article specifically detailing how conservatives can create and exercise enough political power to restore the Constitution as the governing law of the land. In spite of the fact that socialism and its erosion of our property rights have been steadily escalating for more than seventy years, the trilogy details how we can rapidly recover our lost freedoms and end socialism quickly. Assuming the accuracy of the Gokhale-Smetters projections, we can safely accomplish this within the next decade before the oncoming tidal wave of socialism's unfunded liabilities can drown our economy or torpedo the American Dream.

After he understood the lessons of Ronald Reagan's two landslide elections (the majority of Americans are truly conservative and they will go to the polls to vote for trustworthy like-minded candidates), Newt conceived the idea of the Contract with America in hopes that conservatives would pull together and vote as a block. It worked. Whenever athletic teams or businesses are lucky enough or sufficiently skilled to develop the equivalent of an unstoppable play or a winning strategy, they keep running it over and over until it stops working. Not Republicans, so far the Contract with America has proved to be a "run once and throw it away" disposable. Carl Rove's strategy for Bush in 2004 bears only a superficial resemblance in that Bush and the Republicans grasped victory by making a definite appeal to the conservative base of the Republican Party, but there was not an itemized list of carefully defined issues accompanied by a pledge to enact them. Asking the right questions, is the proper starting point to finding the right answers.

Why aren't Republicans rerunning a clearly proven strategy to win every election? In some circles, Republicans are referred to as the "stupid party" and by others as the party of perpetual foot-shooters. Has Newt Gingrich been the only Republican to recognize the truth? Unlikely. Could it be that Republicans are simply too independent to commit to another contract? Possibly, but I suspect the truth actually lies behind the scenes of the Contract with America's staggering success and the carefully crafted failures of its two most important parts. When Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, expectations were high that Republicans would be able to deliver on a number of the Contract's ten items, but almost no one had any expectation that Republicans could deliver on all ten, particularly the Balanced Budget and Term Limits Amendments. It was natural for Republicans to defer the most difficult items to be the last votes to be taken. There were precious few Americans who were not amazed when the first eight parts of the Contract were not only passed, but passed surprisingly easily. Members of Congress were in a state of shock approaching outright panic as the roll call came to Mark Hatfield who was obviously feeling enormous pressure as he prepared to cast his Senate vote that could send the Balanced Budget Amendment to the States for ratification.

Having to balance future budgets would have been distasteful enough for the 1995 Congressional incumbents who were members of the "professional" political class (most members that were not newly elected in the 1995 Republican sweep). But if the Balanced Budget Amendment passed, that would leave the vote on Term Limits as the only remaining item on the Contract with America. "Professional" politicians were confronted with the stark realization that they were about to be faced with having successfully passed the first nine items on the list. Defeating Term Limits after successfully passing every other part of the Contract could only be seen as purely self-serving. It would not only be embarrassing beyond belief, but it would also invite almost certain voter retaliation and defeat in subsequent elections since polls at the time showed that more than 80% of Americans wanted Term Limits to pass. We the people had finally come to terms with Congress. Career Congressmen saw themselves as being forced to commit hara-kiri with regard to their chosen careers. If eighty percent of Americans wanted Term Limits, at least that many Congressmen saw themselves as being within one vote of their own personal Faustian Bargain. The overwhelming success of the Contract brought the Republicans the power they sought, but now it was on the verge of being at the expense of their political souls. Faust would have been envious of the escape contrived by Dole and Hatfield et al.

We the people were turned away from what would have been the greatest victory for freedom in more than a century. The Balanced Budget Amendment went down to defeat one vote short of passing. After the Balanced Budget Amendment failed to pass, it made it easy for "professional" politicians to let Term Limits, the last item of the Contract, die a silent death for "lack of support". "Professional" politicians saved themselves from entering the politician's personal hell (being out of office) by votes that left the people of the United States effectively trapped in socialism. "Professional" politicians in the Republican Party made a clear choice; better that We the people rot in hell than they.

Against that backdrop, it is easy to understand the "run once and throw it away" attitude of Republicans toward the Contract. There were simply too many Republicans who had a too close encounter with a mandate that turned out be more mandate than they really wanted to bargain for. "Professional" politicians in the Republican Party preferred a second Clinton term and were willing to risk becoming a minority party again rather than risk another Contract with America. And they knew that any Second Contract would have to include Term Limits because of its overwhelming public approval.

That brings us full circle. For the immediate future, the Reagan Renaissance becomes a model that consists of a series of Contracts with Congress for every election that will meld the Reagan Wing of the Republican Party into the most reliable and powerful voting block in US history. There is no danger of a counter attack by Democrats, because everything that Democrats stand for or believe is based on socialism, the antithesis of freedom and free market capitalism. There is no danger from "moderate" Republicans because the model includes a carrot, the large block of votes, and a stick, running well-financed newly recruited conservative candidates against recalcitrant incumbent Republicans in the primaries or against incumbent Democrats in regular elections. Our stick superficially resembles Newt's GOPAC. Unlike GOPAC, our funding will come from members of the Reagan Wing and a large private source, not from the GOP or Republican controlled benefactors. And our candidates will be citizen-statesmen chosen by the Reagan Wing based on their support for the Contracts, not politicians chosen for their Republican allegiance. Since the leaders of the Republican Party have not presented us with another Contract with America, We can simply present them with a Contract with Congress. And the Reagan Wing can present it to them on terms that are going to be very difficult for them to refuse.

History tells us that only one third of Americans actively supported the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution. I have seen estimates that at least a third of registered Republicans claim to be conservative. The second American Revolution can be underway before the 2006 election; We can take our freedom back and this time we can do it without firing a shot. We can end socialism in the United States before the boomers become eligible for Medicare and avoid the bankruptcy or hyperinflation that Medicare is certain to produce. If the ball park numbers that I have cited above are even close to being correct, the potential power of the Reagan Wing can be reasonably estimated. With little more than a token appeal to the conservative base, Bush picked up an estimated 4.5 million votes, driving his total vote to almost 60 million. Could a Contract with Congress recruit 20 million voters to the Reagan Wing? You bet it can and with your help, it can be in place before the 2006 election. But the real impact of the Reagan Wing will be made in the 2008 election, the first election where the Reagan Wing can elect a Congress and a President committed to the next Contract with Congress.

Since the series began we have been offering proof that socialism is a flawed economic model that ends in failure every time it's tried. Reagan cautioned us on that memorable night in 1964, "Up to man's age-old dream-the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism." Ash-heap or Renaissance, "we have come to a time for choosing. Every Democracy in history has ended in bankruptcy or hyperinflation when the public learns to vote itself benefits from the public treasury. History's most respected economist, Ludwig von Mises and Ronald Reagan have repeatedly warned us that the United States will not be an exception. The United States has roughly one decade before it drowns under the tidal wave of the unfunded liabilities of Medicare and the other socialistic programs. The Titanic could have saved itself by simply changing course. Never underestimate the genius of Ronald Reagan or the power of the American people in the pursuit of freedom:

"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness." Ronald Reagan, 1964


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bushvictory; conservativevote; contractwithamerica; newtgingrich; termlimits; votingbloc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-59 next last

1 posted on 12/03/2004 6:55:38 AM PST by writer33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; steve50; JohnGalt; fporretto; George Frm Br00klyn Park; tacticalogic; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 12/03/2004 6:57:06 AM PST by writer33 (The U.S. Constitution defines a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: writer33

Learn to spell 'bloc'.


3 posted on 12/03/2004 6:58:05 AM PST by Nick Danger (Want some wood?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: international american

Ping!


4 posted on 12/03/2004 6:58:26 AM PST by writer33 (The U.S. Constitution defines a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger

Tell the author.


5 posted on 12/03/2004 6:59:06 AM PST by writer33 (The U.S. Constitution defines a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: writer33

"For the immediate future, the Reagan Renaissance becomes a model that consists of a series of Contracts with Congress for every election that will meld the Reagan Wing of the Republican Party into the most reliable and powerful voting block in US history. There is no danger of a counter attack by Democrats, because everything that Democrats stand for or believe is based on socialism, the antithesis of freedom and free market capitalism"

Oh how I miss Ronald Reagan!


6 posted on 12/03/2004 7:04:48 AM PST by international american (Proudly posting without reading the article since 2003.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: international american

I completely agree.


7 posted on 12/03/2004 7:07:18 AM PST by writer33 (The U.S. Constitution defines a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223; HitmanNY; bitt; Stellar Dendrite; Glenn; Lokibob; kellynla; jobim; ...

Sorry. I couldn't help it. This was just too good. Ping!


8 posted on 12/03/2004 7:09:40 AM PST by writer33 (The U.S. Constitution defines a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: writer33

BTTT!!!!!!


9 posted on 12/03/2004 7:15:16 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: writer33; anymouse

Wow!


10 posted on 12/03/2004 7:16:54 AM PST by BellStar (Will you spend more on gifts this year than last year? Poll http://www.kemah.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: writer33
Unless the W administration and the GOP members of Congress start demanding that the borders be secured, the immigration laws be enforced and the exorbitant spending eliminated, the GOP rule in may be short lived...
11 posted on 12/03/2004 7:18:17 AM PST by kellynla (U.S.M.C. 1st Battalion,5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: writer33
The Titanic could have saved itself by simply changing course.

Personal life & the course of nations is nothing but a set of decisions & the ramifications...

Thank God for Reagan then & President Bush now.

Thanks for thread/ping writer33

12 posted on 12/03/2004 7:19:06 AM PST by DollyCali (We can never repay our veterans...NEVER. Thank you all who served our great country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger

Block works too as in 'blockheads'. Heehee...


13 posted on 12/03/2004 7:21:20 AM PST by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: writer33
Thanks for the ping. Senator Hatfield was not the only Senator to doom the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. Harry Reid of Nevada (yes, the guy who is now the mouthpiece for the Senate Dems) campaigned for election in support of the BBA. Two months after he got into office, he voted AGAINST the BBA. And then, too, it failed by one vote.

Since I've spent 26 years working on the subject of the BBA, I despise Harry Reid. He is equally the suck up and sell out to the unions, etc., as was Li'l Tommy Daschle. Fortunately, Reid is a poorer leader with fewer troops. For those reasons only, not his intent, Reid will do less damage to the United States than Daschle did.

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest, "Jennings on Jeopardy! -- Nice Guys Do Finish First"

14 posted on 12/03/2004 7:44:33 AM PST by Congressman Billybob (Visit: www.ArmorforCongress.com please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: writer33
bump! bump! bump!



15 posted on 12/03/2004 7:53:05 AM PST by MeekOneGOP (There is only one GOOD 'RAT: one that has been voted OUT of POWER !! Straight ticket GOP! )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

ping


16 posted on 12/03/2004 7:54:05 AM PST by Temple Owl (19064)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: writer33

If another man of Reagan's philosphy were to emerge, how would he be received today? He spoke of a smaller, more limited federal government and a return to original Constitutional principles regardless of who's ox gets gored in the process, and of libertarianism in positive, rather than pejorative terms.


17 posted on 12/03/2004 7:57:43 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; writer33

Yes, Reagan spoke of limited government in an ideal sense but the reality on the ground at the time did not allow him that luxury. His primary objective was of more immediate concern. This nation could not have brought the Soviet Communist empire to its knees without expanding government. Reagan was willing to sacrifice his long term ideals for that objective.

I, for one, am glad he did.


18 posted on 12/03/2004 9:28:07 AM PST by eleni121 (NO more reaching out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: writer33

Thanks for the ping!


19 posted on 12/03/2004 9:29:10 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
Yes, Reagan spoke of limited government in an ideal sense but the reality on the ground at the time did not allow him that luxury. His primary objective was of more immediate concern. This nation could not have brought the Soviet Communist empire to its knees without expanding government. Reagan was willing to sacrifice his long term ideals for that objective.

He did at least try and apply them to domestic policy and the bureaucratic culture of the beltway. That objective seems to have fallen by the wayside.

20 posted on 12/03/2004 9:31:31 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson