America's Most Powerful Voting Block

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

Both men cut taxes and Bush continues to proclaim cutting taxes as his centerpiece. Reagan was committed to keeping America safe...and Bush has continued his policies of expanding and strengthening the military. Most Conservatives decry Bush's support of No Child Left Behind Act but fail to mention the deplorable conditions of the public school system and that forcing schools to improve academic performance is a positive step given the fact that it is the states who are being forced to reform their massive bureaucratic structures without much help from federal funds. Neat trick Bush pulled forcing the states (mostly the blue ones) to reform or go bankrupt.

Moreover, Bush surpasses Reagan in another respect. While Reagan only paid lip service to conservative social issues Bush boldly states his positions on them.

What good is a balanced budget amendment if the budget keeps skyrocketing. What is needed is the right leadership to get the federal government back in its cage. I do not see that happening. The cattle prod that will force more accountability to the government is ridding us of the confounded income tax. A more desireable alternative is a national sales tax. That will put a tight leash on the beast. We shall see...or not.

"What is needed is the right leadership to get the federal government back in its cage. I do not see that happening. The cattle prod that will force more accountability to the government is ridding us of the confounded income tax. A more desireable alternative is a national sales tax. That will put a tight leash on the beast. We shall see...or not."

Read the entire series for the Reagan Renaissance archived here.
Join the Reagan Renaissance effort whose goals are exactly as you have outlined. The Reagan Renaissance is about making it happen instead of talking about it and wringing our hands over it.

Most Conservatives decry Bush's support of No Child Left Behind Act but fail to mention the deplorable conditions of the public school system and that forcing schools to improve academic performance is a positive step given the fact that it is the states who are being forced to reform their massive bureaucratic structures without much help from federal funds. Neat trick Bush pulled forcing the states (mostly the blue ones) to reform or go bankrupt.

I can appreciate that, but still find a substantial difference in philosophy. Using the federal government to force the states to reform their bureaucracies is a quite different thing than reforming the federal bureaucracy, and one should not be considered a suitable substitute for the other., IMHO.

Moreover, Bush surpasses Reagan in another respect. While Reagan only paid lip service to conservative social issues Bush boldly states his positions on them.

Personally I'm more concerned about politically conservative substance than socially conservative style.

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.

Unfortunately, too many professing "conservatives" think George W. Bush is this century's answer to Ronald Reagan. Michael Medved once said on his radio show that he thinks Bush is just as conservative as Reagan--perhaps even more conservative. As long as Bush is seen as the new standard of conservatism, I don't see anything changing for the better in the near future. The GOP is already poised to forge ahead with more liberal legislation like the New Freedom Initiative and spending increases on socialist programs like the National Endowment for the Humanities and global AIDS relief.

Unfortunately, too many professing "conservatives" think George W. Bush is this century's answer to Ronald Reagan. Michael Medved once said on his radio show that he thinks Bush is just as conservative as Reagan--perhaps even more conservative. As long as Bush is seen as the new standard of conservatism, I don't see anything changing for the better in the near future. The GOP is already poised to forge ahead with more liberal legislation like the New Freedom Initiative and spending increases on socialist programs like the National Endowment for the Humanities and global AIDS relief.

I think that to some degree, the fact that George Bush is considered the standard of conservativism is a testament to the degree that Bill Clinton advanced liberalism.

I think that to some degree, the fact that George Bush is considered the standard of conservativism is a testament to the degree that Bill Clinton advanced liberalism.

You have a point, but I believe it was Clinton's liberal agenda, especially in the area of health care, that prompted conservatives to take action. I fear that with Republicans in control of the White House and both houses of Congress, the complacency among conservatives may be worse than it was after the "revolution" of '94. The fact that government grew more in the last four years than it did in the previous eight is cause for concern.

Without out saying it precisely, but what you both are getting at, is that Reagan was a statesman and Bush is politician. Reagan would not compromise what he would say about his principles even if he was willing to compromise with Democrats to achive a legislative political deal. Reagan was willing to say what he believed regardless of how it would affect his electability and he was not willing to say things that he did not believe even if he knew it would help him win elections. That is not true for Bush. And there is not a single conservative who frequents this website that is not holding their breath and wishing against hope that Bush is going to turn out to be a real conservative in this term. Most conservatives are, in fact, hoping that Bush was simply being a clever, but slightly deceitful politician doing exactly the opposite of Bill Clinton. Clinton campaigned as a moderate and governed as the liberal that everyone knew him to be. Bush campaigned as a moderate (compassionate conservative that supported and signed the largest expansion of Medicare in history) and everybody, including me, is holding their breath hoping that now that he has been elected that he will govern as we believe Reagan would have in his second term were it not for the possibilities created for dealing with the Soviet Union by the changing of the old guard to Gorbachev.

The Reagan Renaissance effort is precisely about convincing the leaders and elected representatives of the Republican Party that they must be true to the Constitution and conservative values. Socialism must be ended and as quickly and as fairly as possible. The Reagan Renaissance effort is about replacing elected Republicans or Republican leaders that will not support this effort. The Reagan Renaissance effort outlines the proof that it is possible to take our country back and that it can be done quickly, efficiently, and at minimal economic cost. And it can be done without firing a shot.

You can open the door to the Reagan Renaissance by simply reading the series archived here.

The author states, "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."

It sure sounds to me as if the author may have drawn the line between the nouveau Conservatives, yearning for a Reagan Renaissance and the "boomers", as if "boomers" were the enemy.

The "boomers" consist of both liberals and conservatives and of course the great group in the middle, but if the writer thinks he can return us to strict constitutional conservatism without the support of the "boomers" then he/she is really sadly mistaken.

If he/she realizes the current geriatric bloc is extremely powerful surely he/she realizes that in just two years from now the largest group of the "boomers" will be 60 to 61 and the powerful geriatric bloc of voters will be larger than ever.

Some form of Medicare is always going to be with us and the nouveau conservatives better grasp that fact and work with the traditional conservatives within the boomer generation to come up with real workable alternatives.

To cast "boomers" as the enemy is to do so at the peril of the objective.

"It sure sounds to me as if the author may have drawn the line between the nouveau Conservatives, yearning for a Reagan Renaissance and the "boomers", as if "boomers" were the enemy.

The "boomers" consist of both liberals and conservatives and of course the great group in the middle, but if the writer thinks he can return us to strict constitutional conservatism without the support of the "boomers" then he/she is really sadly mistaken.

If he/she realizes the current geriatric bloc is extremely powerful surely he/she realizes that in just two years from now the largest group of the "boomers" will be 60 to 61 and the powerful geriatric bloc of voters will be larger than ever.

Some form of Medicare is always going to be with us and the nouveau conservatives better grasp that fact and work with the traditional conservatives within the boomer generation to come up with real workable alternatives.

To cast "boomers" as the enemy is to do so at the peril of the objective."

I think, not being the author, that the writer is simply stating the liberal boomer mindset that landed us in this predicament to begin with. No, not all boomers are liberal, but it is that era that changed American politics in the 20th century. Unfortunately, the boomers are the ones that got labeled with Social Security, when in reality, it was liberalism that created it.

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.

Strengthening the military should not be equated with expanding government. Expanding the expenditures on one facet of Government, to meet an ongoing crisis, which is within the sphere of that Government, is one thing. What is unconscionable, today, is the expansion of Government into areas that are not the proper function of our Constitutional Government--indeed into areas where Reagan sought to reduce, and eventually eliminate Government.

And the long term ideals might have been deferred. They were certainly not sacrificed.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

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.