The Gingrich Strategy

As a sign that Newt Gingrich might know what he's doing, he is actively avoiding officially announcing that he is going to run for the Presidency, and is consequently staying out of the media spotlight. For most of the narcissists who both run for office and run other people's campaigns, this would not merely seem counterintuitive, but utterly unfathomable. But the old conventional wisdom that used to govern politics is beginning to finally die away, and it is about time.

Gingrich has publicly stated that the candidates who have gotten into the '08 Presidential Campaign already are going to die of overexposure, which apparently in his opinion is a greater evil to be feared than lack of name ID. Obviously, the stealth candidacy wouldn't work for everybody. Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) has almost no name recognition amongst rank and file voters; neither does Gov. Tom Vilsak (D-IA), Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR), Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS). Yet for candidates with the real star power like John McCain, Rudy Guliani, Hillary Clinton, and Barrack Obama, the name ID game really doesn't even need to be played.

It is quite possible that the voters are going to get candidate and campaign fatigue very quickly in the '08 cycle. I think this will be the longest campaign season that has ever been, and ever will be. 2008 will also likely be the least substantive campaign we have ever seen, and ever will see again. But it might just be that the only substantive candidate might win it for once. This is what is integral to Newt's strategy. He is going to talk about the issues facing the country, but not the candidates running for office. This keeps him out of the limelight, out of the mudslinging, and gives him opportunity to get his message out to the truly attentive voters who are already interested in the race without annoying the voters who aren't.

He's been honest and said "I'm going to decide if no front-runner has emerged by Labor Day," rather than the disingenuous garbage that has tended to flow from the lips of Presidential hopefuls, such as Hillary's favorite "I'm busy representing the people of New York in the United States Senate," and the countless Governors who have echoed similar rhetoric.

It will be interesting to see if Newt's strategy is effective. It will at least be different. And we all know America is clamoring for something different.

Agape

I have been intending to write about the call to Agape love, and my recent experiences of it for sometime. However, after reflecting on it, I have decided instead just to post one of the most moving and meaningful prayers I have ever read. For those of you who have been the givers of Agape love to me recently, you will know who you are--the estranged who have been reconciled, the closest ones who have endured with me the difficulties of the previous year, and so on. For all of us, I hope it is a meaningful reminder of our distinctive obligation as human persons to seek peace and love in all that we do.

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace,
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
where there is sadness, joy;

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

-Saint Francis of Assisi

Common Sense for the 21st Century

It is remarkable that several centuries after Thomas Paine wrote his most famous pamphlet, Common Sense his words now apply not to Her Majesty's Government, but to the very government that Paine was instrumental in establishing. Without I shall merely quote a small portion of Paine's great essay.

"I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected, is granted. When the world was over run with tyranny the least remove therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convolusions, and incapable of producing whati t seems to promise, is easily demonstrated. Absolute governments have this advantage with them, that they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs, know likewise the remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover which part the fault lies, some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine."


This passage applies to the United States and its Constitution today. How tragic it is that history has repeated itself.

A Virtual Republic

If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost.
-Aristotle

I spent a couple hours on YouTube last night, perusing the now South Park-devoid (thanks, MTV) video sharing site to see how the political spin doctors of our day are attempting to be trendy and harness the Internet for electoral gain. Sure enough, User-Generated political commercials have already populated Google's latest addition to its empire. There was this little gem:



That of course is nothing but the same staged political nonsense of the last fifty years of media-driven elections. The Obama campaign may know how to propagate a YouTube link, but they don't get what the Web 2.0 movement is all about: engagement. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, gets it a little better:



She talks about "starting a conversation." That's closer, but it's not quite there. Do a search on any of the major candidates, Hillary Clinton, Obama, Rudy, McCain, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, Bill Richardson. There's something for everybody. But none of them get it.

Web 2.0 is not about taking the same staged productions that have disillusioned America's voting population for the last half century, turned them away from politics, instilled abject cynicism, and implanted apathy at the heart of our nation's electoral process. Web 2.0 is about active participation, collaboration, and engagement from the masses. And that is the future of the American Republic as well, if it is to survive.

I quoted Aristotle at the top of this page, and it's clear that he understood, millennia ago, what it would take for genuine equality and liberty: participation from all. The American Republic was established to accomplish this very thing. It has taken generations for it to advance toward that goal, but it has had a good start. Because of the constraints of technology, States-Rights Federalism was engrained into the Constitution in order to protect the rights of minorities and the disenfranchised. Refusing to give the federal government complete and unbridled authority was the most effective way to protect liberty in 1787 It continues to have an effect today, but not to the same extent, thanks to the New Deal and a half century of government largesse being extracted from the people and re-distributed to meet out certain political ends.

The future of the American Republic is not in a return to Federalism, though without doubt, something could be gained from such a move. Rather, the future of the American Republic is in the Internet. Imagine a political party whose entire primary and nominating convention process were done online, where the candidates debated each other on YouTube, posted weekly (or even daily) video blogs, responded to the comments and questions of voters, etc. Imagine if, once elected, the new Internet-based Party's Congressman went to Washington and governed the same way. Instead of a staff of 10 people helping him sift through the monstrous amount of legislation, he had a staff a 10,000, through the (fictitious) website WikiBills.gov. These are the sorts of things that Web 2.0 is going to enable. The politicians who succeed in the next ten years will get it. Everybody else will be left behind.

The Partisan Identity Crisis

I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.
-Will Rogers

Intellectually I'm probably a Republican.
-Sting

I recently blogged about the shifting tectonics within the Republican Party. It is likely to cost them the 2008 election. But today, I would like to discuss in greater length the identity crisis in both political parties, and the general malaise that is growing across the country with the Two Party System.

Having spent the vast majority of my conscious life involved in politics, it is a subject that inevitably comes up in the course of normal conversation. When I first meet somebody, the introducer generally notes my political past, and the first question then arises: Are you a Republican or a Democrat? This question is increasingly difficult to answer. When speaking of the 2006 Midterm elections, I frequently say "Well, I am elated that the Republicans lost, but am devastated that the Democrats won."

If you polled 100 people on the questions "What does it mean to be a Republican?" and "What does it mean to be a Democrat?" you would get as many answers. For today, the Democrat raison d'etre is opposition to the War in Iraq. Yet there are numerous Republicans in Congress and out in society who hold the same position, so certainly that isn't the defining issue.

There are Republicans who are Pro-Choice, Democrats who are Pro-Life, Republicans who support Gay Marriage, Democrats who oppose it. There are tax-hiking Republicans and tax-cutting Democrats; Republicans who favor massive federal spending and Democrat deficit hawks. There are pacifists on both sides of the aisle and war-mongers just the same. There are Green Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats. Partisan identity is increasingly more a function of geography than ideology. Candidates in both parties are forced to deal with the inertia of the aging population and simultaneously confront the disaffection of Generation Y. Gen X is apathetic, Gen Y would care if somebody cared about them. The Baby Boomers just want to make sure they get their Social Security when they retire, and the World War II generation just wants to die in peace. The Millennial Kids, the children of Gen X, are fat and lazy and who knows what their politics will be like in 5-10 years.

If there is any Climate Change, there is definitely a Political Climate Change brewing in the United States. The country cannot continue to endure the chaotic and sporadic, pseudo-ideological all-over-the-map style of policy making. There has not been a concerted effort at a national political agenda since Newt Gingrich in 1994, but it didn't last beyond the '96 election. Prior to that, there hadn't been one since Ronald Reagan in 1980--but it didn't carry through his administration. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and FDR's New Deal were the only other two of the 20th Century.

Not only is there no agenda driving the nation today, there is not even an agenda driving the political parties that hold power Congress and the White House. Each is purely reacting to the other. There is no such thing as national policy in 2007. Everybody is looking to the Presidential Contenders of 2008 to provide that leadership and that direction--yet none of them are fulfilling such an obligation. And even if they were, it would be insufficient. There needs to be a massive engagement of the populous in the policy-making process, but it is going to require electoral reform and constitutional change. The abilities of modern technology must be embraced to enhance the national debate, and create national policy. Releasing a campaign video on YouTube isn't quite what I'm talking about here. Politics 2.0, Policy 2.0, will only come about through engagement. Politicians aren't there yet. American Politicians are trying to use 21st Century methods with 20th Century mindsets, and it isn't going to work.

The ultimate result of Politics 2.0, when it finally takes hold, will be the most disruptive force seen in U.S. politics since the Great Depression. The institutions of today will be badly damaged and perhaps even destroyed by the hurricane-force winds of creative destruction. What is rebuilt in the aftermath will define American destiny for the next hundred years.

Robin Hood is Back in Town

Presidential hopeful and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards announced this week (his first official week on the campaign trail) that he will raise taxes if elected. His supposed tax increases on the "rich" are to fund that euphemistically titled "universal health care," the successor to "socialized medicine," or my preferred moniker for it "Hillarycare." Let's take a closer look at this issue, and cut beneath the surface talking points and soundbites.

The Myth of the Wealthiest 1%

There is a pervasive myth in America that the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer" and that the so-called wealthiest of Americans do not pay enough in taxes. This is a pretext for Democrat politicians to offer "tax increases on the wealthy" in order to fund social spending programs for supposedly poorer Americans.

According to the Internal Revenue Service, in 2004 (after the Bush tax cuts), the top 1% of income-earners (those making $328,049 or more per year) paid 36.89% of all federal taxes. The top 5% (those making $137,056 or more per year) paid a full 57.13% of all federal taxes. The top 10% (those making $99,112 or more per year) supplied 68.19% of the funding for the federal government's largess, while the top 25% ($60,041 and up) rounds out 84.46%.

The top half of all income-earners in the U.S. pay 96.7% of all taxes, which means that the poorest 50% (those making less than $30,122) pay only 3.3% of all federal taxes. This means that so-called Middle Class America hardly pays taxes as it is. When 1% of the population pays more than a third of the tax bill, if there is to be a tax cut, it is going to be on the so-called "wealthy" because they are the only ones who pay any meaningful sum in taxes as it is.

While we shall not get into the merit of tax cuts from an economic perspective here, it is important to note that government receipts in the post-tax cut days of the Bush Administration have skyrocketed over the levels during the 1990s due to the massive economic growth that ensued as a result of the cuts.

The Looming Disaster of Transfer Payments

The second, and more egregious tragedy of Mr. Edwards' Robin Hood policy is the spending side of the equation. Raising federal income taxes will have a tremendously detrimental effect on the U.S. economy, but not as much as incurring even more future unfunded liabilities. The United States has already promised future beneficiaries of social spending programs far more than it can possibly deliver. According to a report issued in January of this year by the U.S. Government Accountability Office:

The federal government’s financial condition and fiscal outlook are worse than many may understand. Despite an increase in revenues in fiscal year 2006 of about $255 billion, the federal government reported that its costs exceeded its revenues by $450 billion (i.e., net operating cost) and that its cash outlays exceeded its cash receipts by $248 billion (i.e., unified budget deficit). Further, as of September 30, 2006, the U.S. government reported that it owed (i.e., liabilities) more than it owned (i.e., assets) by almost $9 trillion. In addition, the present value1 of the federal government’s major reported long-term “fiscal exposures”—liabilities (e.g., debt), contingencies (e.g., insurance), and social insurance and other commitments and promises (e.g., Social Security, Medicare)—rose from $20 trillion to about $50 trillion in the last 6 years.

Furthermore, according to the 2006 joint reports of the Boards of Trustees of Social Security and Medicare,

Both Social Security and Medicare are projected to be in poor fiscal shape, though Social Security poses a far more manageable problem-in analytic and dollar terms-than does Medicare. The fiscal problems of both programs are driven by inexorable demographics and, in the case of Medicare, inexorable health care cost inflation, and are not likely to be ameliorated by economic growth or mere tinkering with program financing.

The U.S. already owes future creditors $50 Trillion, and those creditors are the promisees of Medicare and Social Security, which are the existing "universal health care" ponzi schemes that have been thrust upon Generations X and Y to fund. With dwindling birth rates, low education levels among immigrants, and the Baby Boomers set to begin retirement in 2011, fiscal disaster is coming to a boil in the U.S. Treasury and John Edwards wants to turn up the heat.

Let’s look at the magnitude of this problem on a more personal level. The total household net worth in the United States is $53.3 trillion, and yet the government has made future promises of $50 trillion in transfer payments. This means that every man, woman, and child in the United States has a $170,000 burden to make good these future liabilities, but when examined on a full-time worker basis, that number skyrockets to $400,000.

By 2040, spending Medicare, Social Security, and interest on the National Debt will consume 30% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, with all other spending raising the number above 40%.

The GAO report goes on to conclude,

The “fiscal gap” is a quantitative measure of long-term fiscal imbalance. Under GAO’s more realistic simulation, even if the federal government continued to borrow money from the public at the current share of the economy (i.e., GDP), closing the fiscal gap would require spending cuts or tax increases equal to 8 percent of the entire economy each year over the next 75 years, or a total of about $61 trillion in present value terms. To put this in perspective, closing the gap would require an immediate and permanent increase in federal tax revenues of more than 40 percent or an equivalent reduction in federal program spending (i.e., in all spending except for interest on the debt held by the public, which cannot be directly controlled).

Conclusion

John Edwards and the other "populist" candidates for the White House who will be singing that old familiar tune of steal from the rich and give to the poor will soon be humming taps on behalf of the U.S. Economy and the Federal Treasury. To couple stagnating GDP growth (the result of the tax hikes) with explosive spending ("universla health care") will move more rapidly towards the edge of the cliff that we are inexorably approaching already. Not only should Edwards and his ilk be patently rejected for their mission of economic suicide, but proactive steps must be taken within the next decade if we are to stave off the 2nd Great Depression. China's rise in the East, and the economic upturn of Asia in general evidences that there is a country ready to fill the gap of the world economic superpower if we falter. Let us hope we do not make that mistake.

The Tectonic Plates of the Republican Party

For years Republican spin doctors and national political commentators have talked compared the Republican Party monolith to the Democratic Party's rampant fragmentation. It has been argued that the GOP maintains a strong coalition of Evangelical Social Conservaties and ardent Fiscal Conservative/Libertarian-leaning Free Marketers, while the Democrats have relied on often opposing constituencies to for their electoral success: Latinos, African-Americans, Gays, Women, Unions, Jews, and others.

Indeed, if elections were held only amongst white males, or even amongst whites, the Republicans would have a permanent and sustainable electoral majority. The converse of this reality is a phenomenon Dick Morris frequently refers to as the "browning of America," which he says indicates the Republican Party's long-term inability to win national elections. However, I would contend that there is a great underlying rift brewing within the Republican Party. The Bush Administration has brought to a boil the waters of discord between the factions of the GOP, and Bush Policy coupled with the emerging hot-button issues of the day, are about to set off a massive earthquake in Republican politics.

In order to understand the dynamics of the upcoming 2008 presidential election, and what is likely to ensue in its aftermath, we must first look at three factors: the existing GOP factions and their divergent ideologies, the policies of the George W. Bush Administration and how they relate to the constituencies who elected him, and the emergent issues of the day and how they create factional rifts within the GOP. Once we have looked at these three topics, we can better understand the future of the Republican Party and of two party system in the United States as a whole.

Dogmatics vs. Dollars
Without doubt, there are overlaps between the two primary factions of the American Republican Party, those being the Social Conservative wing and the Fiscal Conservative/Pseudo-Libertarian wing. And, of course, there are gradations of beliefs across the factions, and people who sit idly moderate on all of the issues as well, but we will not focus so much on those individuals since the Democratic Party has its equivalents, they end up cancelling each other out and merely serve as a limiting influence on the more fervent of the primary factions. In fact, many Social Conservatives are also Fiscal Conservatives, at least on certain issues, and in many cases, there are Fiscal Conservatives who are also Social Conservatives, again, on certain issues. The media, and the TV talking heads, frequently oversimplify the dichtomy of the intra-party politics of Republicans by talking about the "far right" and the "moderates." The divisions go far deeper than that.

The M.O. of the Social Conservative (in most cases) is to champion policies that are in line with his set of overarching religious and moral convictions. Laws against abortion and gay rights are not, to them, an imposition of their morality on somebody else, but an enforcement of the only morality on people who are grievously in error. To not legislate such morality would be to allow, and even promote, "moral decline," which is a particularly frightening notion for the Evangelical as it inheres in the concept a coming judgment from God. For the non-Evangelical social conservative, there is still a sense that the country cannot survive without the maintenance of centuries-old status quo on everything from the traditional role of women to gay rights. Because their primary motivation is fear, they find themselves unable to make policy concessions and compromises on any subject at any time. This has positioned them to be the squeaky wheel of the Republican Party, and Bush-Cheney-Rove has made sure to oil it frequently.

Social Conservatives, do not, however, limit their moral impositions to domestic social policy. They demand to meddle in foreign affairs as well. The Evangelical love affair with Israel is perhaps te most startling example of a completely non-pragmatic approach to foreign policy. To the social conservative, Israel can never be in the wrong, unless it pursues a policy of peace with Palestine, and Israel must be supported in all cases of military or diplomatic conflict regardless of its position on whatever matter is at-hand. This reality stems from the Evangelical's theological belief in the doctrine of Dispensationalist Pre-Millennialism, which tells of the imminent "rapture" of all Christian souls and an ensuing massive war of seven years amongst the nations of the earth before the ultimate War of Wars, the Apocalypse, catylized by the Anti-Christ, Jesus's physical return to Earth and reign from Jerusalem for a Thousand Years before God ultimately ends the Earth and starts all things anew. This fantasy interpretation of the Revelation of St. John is the intrinsic motivation of Evangelical foreign policy towards the Middle East, and is the ultimate root of the hatred of Muslims that has spiraled out of control in the conservative Christian community, exacerbated by 9/11.

The War on Terror is an outgrowth of the Evangelical view of Israel, and the threat American Evangelicals feel from Islam itself. Much like the great satan of the atheistic Soviet Union, Evangelicals have a common cause to rally against what they see as a challenge to Christendom, except that Islam's equivalent fundamentalism even more frightens the conservative Christian than the atheistic movement of Soviet Russia. The only thing worse than stamping out religion is promoting another one. Social Conservatives are amongst the most vitriolic warmongers of today, who, while spouting "pro-life" rhetoric on abortion out of one side of their mouths, promote full-scale wars on half the countries in the Middle East, and often going so far as to encourage bombing the entire region.

Conservative Evangelicals further desire interference in foreign policy on the subjects of immigration and trade. Because they view America as God's chosen people of today (resulting in quite un-Biblical notions of "America First"), Evangelicals oppose any measure that respects or accounts for the existence of competing cultural values, religious beliefs, or economic interests. Since all things to them are "black or white" and "right or wrong," they view all foreign matters through that dubious and narrow lense of the Zero Sum Game.

If Latino immigrants come to the United States, then the current people of the U.S. must lose something, jobs, seats in classrooms, etc. Like the Xenophobic racists of old who preached the impending doom of the country in the wake of massive Irish immigration and Italian immigration, the new xenophobes of the current Conservative Evangelical political movement use poor economics to justify their policies of hate. Similarly, when it comes to foreign trade, the leaders of the Social Conservative wing are skeptical of Free Trade Agreements and international trade organizations. Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo play Chicken Little with American Trade policies, excoriating massively beneficial trade accords like NAFTA, GATT (and its successor, the WTO), FTAA, Most Favored Nation Status for China, and others. They fail to see, or perhaps refuse to see, the tremendous economic benefits gained from such free trade policies that have been long-established by the economic profession since the Ricardian Model of Comparative Advantage.

The Social Conservative wing is to be contrasted with the Economic Conservative wing of the Republican party, which itself is broken down into two sub-categories: the Libertarian/Free Market Republicans and the pro-Big Business Republicans. Many people think these two are identical, but that is far from the truth. Amongst those within the GOP whose agenda is primarily economic, there are those (the Big Business folks) who advocate such anti-free market policies as corporate welfare, massive tax breaks for large businesses, economic regulations favoring those who already control the markets, industry-specific protectionism, etc. On the other side are the Free Market/libertarian Republicans who favor across-the-board tax cuts, elimination of the Internal Revenue Code with the intent of replacing it with either a flat tax or national sales tax, the streamlining of government bureaucracy, elimination of waste and excess spending of any kind, reduction of economic and trade regulations, etc.

The Big Business Republicans are those whose elections are owed to their large donors, the owners of the big businesses who benefit directly from the massive and convoluted regulatory policies that shut competition out of the marketplace. They are the ones most vulnerable, however, in elections, because their policies do not support a massive number of voters. This is why Big Business Republicans often adopt a strong tinge of Social Conservatism to motivate the masses to vote for them at the polls. The overlap is due not to agreement on those issues but political convenience and opportunism.

Free Market advocates, typified by organizations like the CATO Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Hoover Institute, Ludwig Von Mises Institute, the Institute for Humane Studies, the Independent Institute, and the Ayn Rand Institute, have the benefit of a substantial following in the grassroots, but without the same kind of financial support gained by the Social Conservatives (who tap their financing from churchgoers who think that a political donation is as morally important as their tithe) and the Big Business Republicans (who obviously draw their funds from mammoth corporations and their PACs). They base their political arguments in economic analysis that is often subsumed by the mantras and dogmatics of the Social Conservative on the Right, and the Populist/Socialist on the Left. Consequently, Free Market Republicans have been the ones most marginalized in the public discourse. They are the ones that have been most ignored by the Republican Party's leaders in Congress, and by the Reagan-Bush-Bush Administrations. Although Ronald Reagan was one the most Free Market Presidents of post-World War II era, his fiscal policy was driven primarily by his desire to bring an end to the Cold War, and consequently is known for massive deficits and military expenditure. Bush 41 and Bush 43 have even worse records with the Free Market/libertarian economic movement, the former raising taxes and the latter unwilling to control deficit spending (as well as enacting more social welfare spending than FDR and LBJ combined).

The enmity between these factions has been compounded by the policies of the Bush Administration, which brings us to our second topic.

George W. Bush and the End of Republican Dominance

One could quite successfully argue that in a certain sense, the Republican Agenda dominated the American political discourse from 1968 through 2006, nearly forty years. From the time of Richard Nixon, the Republican Ideal was established to challenge America's slide towards socialism. The purely Socialist policies of the Democrats in the post-World War II timeframe, combined with the rise of pacifism and appeasement in the Democratic Party beginning with George McGovern's 1972 Presidential Campaign against incumbent Richard Nixon. Although the Republicans went through brief periods of darkness (the aftermath of Watergate and Bill Clinton's first two years in office), and although they did not have an iron grip on the White House and Congress until 2000, the discourse has revolved around the question "The Republican Agenda or Not The Republican Agenda?"

The five most powerful and important elected personalities during this golden era of conservatism were Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Ronald Regan, Newt Gingrich, and George W. Bush. Goldwater was an ardent libertarian on economic policies and a hawk on foreign policy. Nixon was the archetype of pragmatism and diplomacy. Enough of a hawk to not seem weak, but the greatest diplomat to hold the White House in the 20th Century (it did not hurt that Henry Kissinger was his National Security Advisor and later Secretary of State). Reagan was part-free market, part-hawk, and supreme inspirer and communicator. Whether or not he knew of Napoleon's observation "a leader is a dealer in hope," he dealt in hope, and he sold a lot of it. It is no wonder that for this reasons he is ranked amongst Lincoln as the greatest and most admired President in American History. Newt Gingrich is by far the most brilliant of the bunch, and without doubt one of the best strategists in modern American politics. He is additionally the most articulate contemporary Conservative on policy issues, and engineered the most difficult electoral success the Republican Party has ever achieved. Finally, we have George W. Bush. It is likely that history will view him as the Czar Nicholas II of the Republican Party as we know it today.

The Bush Administration has not only divided the United States as a whole over issues like the Iraq War, but has also created deep chasms in the Republican Party concerning a series of policy decisions. The Farm Bill, an almost $200 Billion venture into failed agricultural socialism, No Child Left Behind, which further nationalizes the education bureaucracy and was co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy, the Prescription Drug Bill, a half-trillion dollar expenditure on socialized medicine, the 2002 Steel Tariffs, his response to Hurricane Katrina, Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants, and many other policies, have driven sizeable wedges between the factions of the Republican Party. His cavalier approach, and lack of diplomatic acumen have further compounded the problem.

In 2006, for the first time since 1964, the national debate ceased to be around the Republican Agenda and became purely a referendum on the Bush Administration and in favor of the undefined Democrat Agenda, centered around a withdrawl from the Iraq War. This was caused in part by President Bush's division of the Republican Party faithful. Republicans stayed home en masse, Independent and Moderate voters broke heavily for Democratic candidates, and Karl Rove's grand strategy failed miserably for the first in his career. The President had relied to heavily on the faithfulness of the Christian Right and Evangelical movement to carry the day. No matter how loudly Republicans screamed about gay marriage, they simply could not get enough people to the polls to stop Rahm Emmanuel's juggernaut. Now, with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, Harry Reid as Majority Leader of the Senate, and the likes of Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, and Al Gore in the spotlight of the national political scene, President Bush is scrambling to play defense for the first time of his tenure. If he had played a little defense 2 years ago, he might not be having to play it so heavily today.

With Republicans now distancing themselves from the President, we see the charade of the GOP Monolith. The aftermath of 2006 has exposed to the blinding light of day the inherent divisions inside the Republican Party. The factions have symbiotically co-habitated for the better part of four decades, but will the trend continue? Were George Bush the only element at play, it might be a possibility, but there is more to the equation as we approach the 2008 elections.

The Emergent Issues of the 21st Century

There are several issues appearing on the national and global scenes that will define the future of partisan politics in the United States. They are issues that challenge the traditional fracture of political ideology in America, and test whether the coalitions of the last forty years can continue to hold. The primary issues at-hand are: Climate Change, Immigration, the Rise of China as a Superpower and America's loss of Hyperpower Status, the Economic Influence of Europe, and the coming Balance of Payments/Unfunded Liabilities Crisis caused by the bankruptcy of Medicare and Social Security.

These issues will drive a wedge inside the Republican Party. The Evangelical Republicans' Sinophobia is already emerging, and their longstanding opposition to Immigration will provide a continued xenophobic and racist bullwark for their positions, while ignoring the truly important problems of the day, such as the impending collapse of the U.S. monetary system absent massive action to decrease future unfunded liabilities, either through tax increases or substantial benefit reductions. Furthermore, the Evangelical wing of the Republican Party (the likes of Pat Robertson) have joined the radical Environmental Lobby on the issue of Climate Change, and they, like the Chicken Littles of the Left, are proclaiming that the earth will be flooded inside of a century, and the only way to stop it is radical reduction of carbon emissions. This will push the Evangelical Republicans farther and farther away from both the Big Business Republicans and the Free Market/libertarian Republicans.

The Future of the Republican party is pretty grim. The party is going to face increasing fracture as these emergent issues come to a head. The party will have to survive the 2008 primary without ripping itself apart, and if it loses, must somehow band together to defeat the legislative agenda of the Hillary Clinton juggernaut. It likely will not. I predict that within a decade the Republican Party will splinter...but it may not be the only one. It could be the greatest realignment in a hundred years, and hopefully it will not come too late for the sake of the US Economy.

The Dimming Vision of Socialism and the Third Way

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
-Karl Marx

I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.
-Adam Smith

A decade after Tony Blair and New Labour swept into power, supplanting more than twenty years of Tory rule in the United Kingdom, Blair can claim many policy and electoral victories in his quest to revive the Labour Party from its virtual non-existence in the wake if Margaret Thatcher's dominance. However, as Blair now begins making his less than graceful exit from No. 10, it appears he lost the most important battle, the battle of hearts and minds.

A recent report by the Henley Center shows that the newest generation to come of age now rejects the underlying principles of Blair's Third Way, as well as te European Socialist Ideal.

Michelle Harrison, director of HeadlightVision, part of the Henley Centre, said: “In 1997, when Tony Blair moved into No 10, almost 70% of our respondents opted for the ‘community-first’ approach.”

“This held steady for the first couple of Blair years but by 1999 individualism was on the rise. At face value, it seems that last year (when individualists outnumbered community-firsts) we formally fell out of love with the Blair project. Over the decade we have seen a fast-moving shift towards people feeling more individualistic.”

Today, 52% feel “looking after ourselves” will best improve the quality of life, according to the poll of more than 2,000 people.

The study indicates an ever widening chasm between the British and Europe, at a time when Gordon Brown, the archetypal Europhile of New Labour is poised to replace Blair at No. 10 before the next General Election. However, the study is strangely juxtaposed with David Cameron's version of Conservatism, one that is far less Thatcherite and much more Blairite in its nature. Cameron may be five years too late ideologically, but he has personality to spare, and will likely lead the Tories to a win in the next General Election.

This ebbing and flowing of public sentiment towards notions of "community" and "individualism" illustrates the ultimate trouble with all visionary reformers and their ultimate ends. The Thatcher Revolution was replaced by the Blair Revolution. Thatcher's government perhaps moved too rapidly toward privatization in an era when the political will did not exist to do it. Blair moved too rapidly towards governmental expansion in an era when the political will for such actions was waning.

Britain has had an on and off affair with Socialism for 50 years, and it appears that finally the people of the country want out of that abusive and one sided relationship. The people of America would do well to learn from Britain's experience. They likely will not.