Skip to comments.The Conservative Hand - A Manifesto to Achieve Conservative Political Goals
Posted on 11/08/2012 7:07:34 AM PST by Brookhaven
It has been thrilling to be part of the Tea Party movement, and see power move away from the political elite and back to the grass-roots. The sleeping giant has awakened and slowed the liberal freight train, but slowing the train isn't enough. We must reverse its direction and set it on a conservative track. To do that we need more than protests and signs; we need a strategy to achieve conservative goals. This manifesto lays out a set of rules, procedures, and a new political structure that if implemented will do just that.
We'll look at how we got here and what hasn't worked in the past, then make a commitment to stop doing those things (if you get nothing else from this book, please take away the idea that we must stop doing the things that don't achieve our goals).
Then we'll create a new systemusing some insights from economics and the free market systemthat will achieve our political goals.
Redefining ourselves and the other political players we interact with from our perspective will allow us to quit interacting with them based upon their definition of who they are, and start interacting with them based on our definition.
We're going to create a new political organization. Not a primary party (like the Republican Party) or an independent third-party (like the Reform Party). It will be located in between those two entities, being part primary party and part third-partya second-party. This party will operate unlike any existing political organization.
We'll define a new standard for politicians: productivity. Rather than accept vague campaign promises, politicians will commit to accomplishing our goals.
Borrowing some tools from the business world will enable us to create those goals and measure a politician's productivity.
We are going to formulate incentives for politicians that reward them for achieving our goals, and punish them for failing.
Finally, we're going to define a set of rulessomething to guide us in our daily activities.
The result will be a new political framework that will allow us to achieve our political goalenacting conservative legislation. Expect to hear frequent negative comments about this strategy (even from steadfast conservatives). After you've listened to their negative comments, listen to their solutions. Odds are they will just be rehashing the same old haven't-worked-in-the-past ideas. It's time we do something differentsomething that works.
Establishment Republicans and Republican politicians both jealously guard their positions and power. Sadly, many are anything but conservative. The term Rockefeller Republican is decades older than the term RINO (Republican in name only), but both stand for the same thing: a liberal leaning Republican. The current systemthe Republican Party drifting to the left and no one closely examining their actionsworks great for them. They aren't going to be any happier with us than they are with the Tea Party movement.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't get involved in politics for fun, as a hobby, or because I have too much time on my hands. I became involved to achieve a set of goalsgoals I know will create a better country for my family, children, and grandchildren. I'm sacrificing part of my life to achieve those goals. I don't need good intentions or a strong effort from politicians, I need results. A politician that tries hard and fails needs to be replaced with a politician that tries hard and succeeds.
It's time to unleash our conservative hand, leave our fingerprints on the political system, and put our country back on the right track.
If you're frustrated with the recent election and thinking it may be time to blow everything up and either create a third party or just give up, I urge you to read this. If nothing else it may give you some new ideas.
The entire book is online at the website.
So does this book have anything about American jobs in it?
THAT is the critical point all our philosophy has lost sight of.
Jobs. Jobs. Jobs.
It’s a much more fundamental change to our political approach than simply saying we focused on the wrong issue.
I’ll go and take a read at the Conservative Hand.
Before I do, I want you to both know I’m 60-years old Republican, a never-dem, and have been interested in politics since the JFK-Nixon election. That is a long time ago - over 50-years now - and I firmly believe liberty and the rule of law trumps socialism every time. The problem for conservatives is that they have constituents that cannot see the “Big Picture”, and instead are single issue voters. By “Big Picture” I mean the U.S.Constitution and how we no longer are governed according to its amendments.
Problem is I think demographics have outshifted us. True Conservatism has none of the young vote, and more and more of the older vote is shifting away from our message as well. Maybe we need to abandon any thoughts of social conservatism, as this is a very polarizing issue, and stick to our guns with fiscal conservatism which more people seem able to bend on.
Your “concern” is noted, newbie.
When's the last time you heard a conservative discuss tax policy beyond "we need to lower taxes to boost the economy?" The left talks about the philosophy of why we should have progressive system with high rates (fairness, etc...) Until we start defending the why--the philosophy--of our positions we won't pick up support with the young.
I created a sample second party--the ALT2P--around the idea of returning our tax system to its original goal. Here's the opening statement from the website. This is the kind of specificity I'm talking about.
This was one of the most debated lines during the 1787 constitutional convention and subsequent ratification process, because it gave the federal government the authority to impose a domestic tax (a tax upon its own citizens). Something the federal government had been prohibited from doing under the Articles of Confederation.
Those supporting ratification of the new constitution were known as federalist, and included men such as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. The anti-federalist (who opposed ratification) included figures such as: George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, and Patrick Henry. Both groups wrote numerous essays in support of their position, which included their interpretation of the federal domestic taxing authority, its proper use, and its limits under the proposed Constitution.
When you sum up the federalist writings, they gave one (and only one) reason to support a federal domestic taxing authority: it was needed to raise the revenue required for the operation of the federal government.
The anti-federalist feared a federal domestic taxing authority would be used for more than merely raising revenue.
1) Large landowners (the mega corporations of the day) would use their influence to reduce their tax burden, while imprudent and designing men would mold the tax code for their own benefit.
2) A federal tax system would be used to reign in free men with burdensome penalties and an army of federal tax collectors, placing citizens in fear their own government.
3)The federal tax code would disrupt free trade; it would result in intrusive licensing, regulation, and federal oversight of businesses simply to ensure they comply with the tax codeextending the federal governments authority beyond its proper bounds.
4) A federal tax code would be used to influence and control every part of private life; citizens would be unable to make purchases, go through their daily activities, or make plans for the future without concern for the tax code.
The anti-federalist argued that none of these were legitimate uses of the federal tax code. The federalist agreed. They never argued that any of these were legitimate uses of the tax code. Instead, they argued that the anti-federalist fears were baseless; that these abuses of the federal tax system would never come to pass under an open, representative government; and citizens had nothing to fear from a federal taxing authority.
And, for the next 80 years, the federalist seemed to be right. The federal domestic taxing authority was used sparingly. During Thomas Jeffersons administration, the few domestic taxes that had been implemented were repealed. They were reinstated to raise revenue to pay the debt from the War of 1812 ( and then quickly repealed once that debt was paid). In fact, from 1818 to 1861 the United States had no domestic federal taxes at allnone. The federal taxing authority was placed in the Constitution as a necessary evil. Necessary to raise the revenue required to operate the government, but if that revenue could be raised elsewhere (from tariffs, import duties, land sales, etc ) then it was a necessary evil that Americans of all political persuasions preferred to leave on the shelf.
Today, the federal tax code is over 90,000 pages long; it is full of loopholes and tax breaks for the politically connected; and it has become the federal governments primary tool for social and economic engineering. This is not what the founders of our country intendednot the federalist; not the anti-federalist; and not by the states that ratified the Constitution. Its time we return (and limit) our federal domestic tax system to its original, intended purpose: to raise revenue for the operation of the government.
The American Legitimate Tax Second Party is being founded to do just thatreturn the federal tax code to its original purpose. No more social engineering via the tax code; no more economic engineering via the tax code; no more using the tax coded to grant political favors; no more manipulation of the tax code by imprudent and designing men; no more illegitimate usage of the tax codeperiod.
The goal of The American Legitimate Tax Second Party: re-establish that the only legitimate purpose for a federal domestic tax is to raise revenue for the operation of the government, and restore the federal tax system to its legitimate purpose.
A journey of 1,000 miles start from where you are standing right now.
republican party line huh? sorry. i will never, never agree to fund abortion mills (like planned parenthood) with tax payer money. that is non-negotiable. let the blood be on the hands of those who will willingly pay for it. if someone wants an abortion and does it with private money, well that is a disaster and i am as sorry for them as i can be, but that is the law of the land (roe v. wade), and i must accept that. it is liberals who require that consciensious individual behavior be enforced against some standard of social behavior. true conservatives want freedom for the individual to follow his or her conscious.