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.

The Good Shepherd

The Good Shepherd
I watched this Matt Damon film tonight, and was thorougly impressed with the film all the way around. There are few movies that would be worth a 2 hour, 40 minute commitment, but this one is well worth the investment. Matt Damon plays a stolid Skull & Bones Yalie turned CIA officer who dispassionately does his duty for King and Country. The movie successfully demonstrates the breadth of characters Damon can masterfully play. His character, Edward Wilson, is a almost a direct opposite of Damon's character Jason Bourne from Bourne Identity.
Wilson is confronted, throughout the film, with a series of what most people would consider "ethical dilemmas," but he handles them as they come, with an ever so slight hesitation coupled with a strong compulsion to duty, although it is never spoken.

Wilson's interactions with his wife, Margaret (Angelina Jolie) are predictably cold and distant, as are his interactions with his son. Because of the way the story unfolds, however, it shows that it is perhaps not so much that the Intelligence field turns people into cold, distant, introverts, but that instead maybe it attracts them. It is the first spy film that I can remember seeing that overtly draws parallels between the secrecy demanded of Skull & Bones and the secrecy demanded at CIA, and makes a particularly strong connection between the two organizations, and why the former became such a breeding ground for the latter.

Much unlike other films about spying and espionage, this movie probably draws a relatively accurate picture of the lives of Intelligence officers. Rather than being an action-packed adventure movie of intrigue and sex like James Bond or Spy Game, The Good Shepherd shows the immense personal and emotional hardships of the profession, and all that it robs from those who play that game with so little in return. In fact, there is a scene in the movie where Michael Gambon's character, Dr. Fredericks, suggests that Damon's character should get a new pair of shoes made by the King's shoe maker. He notes something to the effect that "but aren't we all just shoemakers for the king in our own way?"

DeNiro further proves his worth as a Director with this film. It was extremely well-cast, and the scenes flow with a progression that makes intuitive sense, even though the scenes are not chronological. There were only a couple of instances where I found myself questioning what exactly was going on. Yet, the secret hints and foreshadowing in the film was quite subtle, though still memorable. A couple of the twists in the plot were relatively predictable, but others were not.

I would highly recommend this movie to anybody looking for a quality viewing experience. This film is thoughtful and thought-provoking, and leaves the viewer with a sense of satisfaction at the end.

Writing to Yourself

I just endeavored to do something I've never done before: write a letter to myself. I have journaled for years, and in a certain sense it is like writing a letter to myself, but there is a difference. I have always written my journal entries in first person. "I this" and "I that," but I wrote this letter in second person (the only permissible time to write in second person). I found that I was quite harsh on myself, taking myself to task for all of my unmet expectations of 2006 and how I have reacted to my perceived failures.

It was one of the most fruitful and beneficial activities in which I have ever engaged. I gained more from that than hours of counseling sessions with an overpaid psychologist. It helped me crystalize in my own mind the things that have been troubling me for the past month or so, as I have approached my one year anniversary in Dallas, at my new company, in my new relationship, etc. There are a certain number of frustrations that accompany anniversaries of this sort, but I have a better idea about why I have had such a struggle in coping with this one year mile marker.

What I learned in the end was that I have much more to be thankful for than not, and I need to do less fixating on those things I wish were different and rather rejoicing for those things that are so wonderful. I'm pretty thick-headed, and this very thing has been suggested to me before, and I sadly dismissed it out of hand. I'm a fixater by nature. But no longer will that excuse suffice. Excuses in general do nobody any good.

"I'm like this" or "I'm like that and therefore that's why I engage in X stupid behavior" doesn't cut it. The status quo cannot be an acceptable choice for those who believe that progress is essential to fulfilled human existence. We cannot make excuses for the way we behave, whether it is in regard to things we do or in regard to things we don't do. I won't say I've learned my lesson, but I am making progress. That's something, at least. It means I'm still alive, which is better than nothing, eh?

Genuine Freedom

Having been involved in politics in the past, and being a rather avid spectator in the political arena, I have heard a lot of opinions about what constitutes freedom. Those on the Right have one view, those on the Left another. The religious sectarians have yet another view about freedom, and that differs from one faith to next, with almost no two demonination or religion having the same one.

For example, people of a libertarian philosophy argue that freedom means freedom from government involvement and government regulation. I am free insofar as there are no political restraints to my behavior. The socialist would argue that quite the contrary, freedom means freedom from economic need, and one cannot be free unless he has all of his basic necessities provided.

The Fundamentalist Christian would say that freedom means freedom from fleshly desires of certain kinds, mostly those that are sexual and involve alcohol. Buddhists would argue that freedom is freedom from all desires completely.

The Philosopher would argue that freedom is the power to exercise choice and make decisions (as opposed to being bound by determinism). The street definition of freedom is probably something to the effect of "doing what I want whenever I want," which is awfully vague and entails perhaps all of the other definitions provided above.

I'm not certain that any of these definitions adequately provides an explanation of what genuine freedom truly is.

Perhaps the religious definitions come closest to reality, in the sense that I believe Freedom is ultimately a Spiritual Condition. Yet I do not believe that it entails the freedom from one particular thing. Rather, it seems that genuine Freedom stems from the ability to exist and co-exist in a world of conflict without being a party to that conflict. Among other things, it is a liberation from our biological condition to first preserve the self, it is failure to be commanded by the desire to see the individual elevated above other individuals and above the rest of humanity. Nothing could better express liberation and freedom than this.

For what is it that can constrain me if I am not bound by some biological and psychological need to acquire things from other people and at the expense of other people. In a world of limited resources, I am constantly in a competition for the consumption of those resources, whether they are physical, emotional, or psychological. If I am freed from the need to fill those obligations to myself, then I am free to love and help all of those around me. What could be more liberating than this? Certainly not the fulfillment of basic physical needs, for one will only be unsatisfied and want more. Certainly not the fulfillment of emotional needs, for the same circumstance will result.

The Marxist is wrong--you cannot eliminate need by trying to fulfill it. It takes the elimination of the root, the Ego. This flies in the face ultimately of the Marxist and Capitalist alike, for the Marxist seeks a political solution and the Capitalist an economic one. The psychologist is incorrect for she argues for the establishment of the self. I want to be freed from the self. For if I am free from looking out for my own needs and instead am concerned only with the needs of others, then I am perfectly fulfilled at all times, for others will always be in need.

A Reflection on the Unspoken

Thou goest and returnest to His leeps
Like lightning: thou dost ever brood above
The silence of all hearts, unutterable Love.
--Alfred Lord Tennyson

An important lesson in business as in life is recognizing the power of the things left unsaid and excluded. In a negotiation, it is more valuable to consider what has been left out of the deal than the jots and tittles that have been so meticulously written into it. I frequently hear people say "what is wrong with this picture?" and most often the answer to that question is that this or that thing is missing.

Yet, sometimes a thing needn't be uttered or written or illustrated in order for it to have an effect. Indeed, sometimes that which is left unsaid is the most powerful. I said to one of my business partners today "give me some credit," laughingly, to which he replied "I give you a lot more credit than you think, I just don't always tell you about it." It made me think seriously about this subject of the unuttered and unspoken.

Tennyson's term "unutterable love" takes the notion even further. Beyond just that which isn't spoken, it is that thing that cannot be spoken at all. The early 12th Century monk Bernard of Clairvaux wrote the hymn "O Sacred Head, Now Wounded," in which he says this "What language can I borrow, to thank Thee, dearest friend, for this Thy dying sorrow, Thy pity without end." Bernard illustrates the difficulty of finding words for those things one considers to be of the highest level of love or gratitude.

It can be easier if we are consantly affirmed and re-affirmed in ourselves through the verbal expressions of others. This is not only unnecessary, but sometimes even counterproductive. For we in certain cases cannot put accurately into words the way we feel about others. It is not so much a matter of magnitude, for we certainly have words to express magnitude. We have words like "tremendous" and "grand" and even "infinite." Instead, it is that there can be so much complexity and subtlety, that truly makes the emotion special and unique, that we do not have enough shades of words in which to formulate the fullest expression of how we feel.

I am personally a verbal person. The fact that I blog on a regular basis in large quantities is perhaps proof enough of this. I have always prided myself in my ability to provoke a range of emotional responses from people using both the written and spoken word. I am finding, however, as I mature, that this is not always sufficient or even preferrable.

There is something beyond the word, beyond even the thought, that only some intangible energy can communicate. It is something of the Spirit, something genuinely metaphysical. It is that feeling, the overwhelming touch that one gets when walking away from the kind words or the bright smile or the twinkle in the eye. Sometimes it is felt from across the room, or across the span of oceans.

This intangible expression flows from the most genuine of love, the most real emotion, and the most verifiable of compassions. I also desire most intensely to more joyfully recognize and receive this kind of affection, for it is that kind that is given without ill motive to manipulate or hurt or to achieve any other hidden agenda. Perhaps all of this is why H.L. Mencken so brilliantly quipped "Love is the triumph of imagination over intelligence."

I am thankful for those in my life who communicate these things to me, and I hope I communicate them back.

Patience vs. Progress

It takes patience to appreciate domestic bliss; volatile spirits prefer unhappiness."
--George Santayana

I write a lot about the notion of patience. It is one of the virtues espoused by Paul when he talks of the fruit of the Spirit, "Love, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control." Of those eight, I have problems with seven on an almost daily basis, but patience is by far my greatest difficulty.

I ran upon this quote by Santayana and it struck me. I recently had the displeasure of seeing an employee of my company self destruct, and I think Santayana's insight is quite applicable to that situation. I find a lot of people really do prefer unhappiness and drama. There have been people in my life over the last few weeks who are utterly miserable, and they are so because they want to be so. It's easy for me to fall into this trap too, because of my lack of patience. I'm impatient with so many things in my life.

Yet at the same time, patience is not a panacea, and frequently can merely be dressed up complacence. Thomas Edison, in fact, notes that "Restlessness and discontent are the first necessities of progress." Patience, then, is not so much a contentedness with the way things are, but an acceptance that they will not instantly be as one desires. Consequently, the ideal environment for progress is one that balances discontent with the status quo with an understanding that there is a trail that must first be traversed before the finish line is reached.

There is a great danger, in the patience-pushers, that they are not properly motivated enough to change things that really aren't working. This could either be because they do not recognize that what they are doing isn't working, they ignore that fact, or they are just resigned to thinking that nothing can be done about it.

In the philosophical discipline, especially within the context of the field called "Practical Reason," two of the models of decision making are "utility maximizing" and "utility satisficing," where the latter represents those people who take things as being "good enough" rather than "optimal." There are many times and ways that we are benefited by going with what is "good enough." Choosing a toothbrush, picking something to eat, deciding on what to wear, etc. are times in which making the effort to maximize utility might be unnecessary.

But when it comes to important facets of life: spiritual issues, relationships, and career matters, it is imperative to maximize our utility, push the envelope, challenge ourselves, and in a sense "living beyond our means." Only when we actively step outside of our comfort zones will we ever grow, expand, and learn.

So few people are willing to live outside of their comfort zones, and so they will have intermittent spurts of progress. It is not that these people, ipso facto, cannot be or are not happy, for they certainly can be. In fact, people can be happy without ever experiencing progress. But happiness is not a light switch. It is not an on-off button. There are divergent gradations of happiness, and those higher gradations can only be achieved through the difficulties that accompany progress.

Perhaps this whole notion can be summed up with the last stanza of Longfellow's poem "A Psalm of Life,"

Let us then be up and doing,
With a heart for any fate,
Still achieving, still pursuing,
Learn to labor, and to wait.

Agendas and Pride

Jonathan answered, "David earnestly asked me for permission to go to Bethlehem. He said, 'Let me go, because our family is observing a sacrifice in the town and my brother has ordered me to be there. If I have found favor in your eyes, let me get away to see my brothers.' That is why he has not come to the king's table. Saul's anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don't I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you? As long as the son of Jesse lives on this earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he must die!" "Why should he be put to death? What has he done?" Jonathan asked his father. But Saul hurled his spear at him to kill him.

-1 Samuel 20:28-33

There is a problem that occurs amongst the Sons of Men when people take it upon themselves to extend their plans and agendas beyond the boundaries of their own self. It is one of the most tragic manifestations of human selfishness, and causes irrational, erratic, and sometimes psychotic behavior as the thwarting of a man's agenda is considered a personal affront. It is even worse when such an affront comes from the man's own son. After all, if anybody should pay homage and respect to an old man, shouldn't it be his son? That's at least what is often thought by those old men in those situations.

For Saul and Jonathan, it was a particular problem. Jonathan had developed a very close relationship with David, who was beginning to receive a lot of credit that Saul thought he himself deserved. Saul was jealous of the attention David was receiving from the Israelite people, and it enraged him that Jonathan too had formed a bond with the young and aspiring warrior. We are told elsewhere in the scriptures of the prophet Samuel that Jonathan and David loved each other, and when Jonathan was killed in battle, it is said that when David was told that Jonathan had died, he sang the following as part of his mourning song:
"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
you were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
more wonderful than that of women."

Such a bond between David and Jonathan was despicable to Saul, because Jonathan's bond with David seemed, in Saul's eyes to be a personal offense and betrayal. It went against Saul's plans for Jonathan--to succeed him on the throne (thought that was still less important to Saul than Saul's own glory and ego, as evidenced elsewhere).

The fact that Jonathan's loyalty to David would spark such rage in Saul is evidence of Saul's own narcissism and selfishness. It was tragic. Saul attempted to harm Jonathan's physical well-being...attempted to murder him even, all for what? Saul apparently did not have the wisdom Paul gave the Ephesian church "Fathers, provoke not your children to wrath, lest they become angry."

It is important that we never let such pride and our own agendas come in between people we love. We must elevate love above all perceived injuries and all perceived harms. Sometimes that means abiding by King Solomon's advice that "There is a time to speak and a time to remain silent," and we must recognize the importance of doing each when they are appropriate. We must organize our lives by the principle Paul set forth in his letter to the Galatian church "The fruit of the Spirit is first love, then peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such there is no law." Prior to that Paul advised that "For all of the law is fulfilled in one word, even this 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself.' But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another."

The tip of the spear belongs in its sheath, and only then can the sword of Love manifest its Divine power.

Brief Thoughts Before Boarding an Airplane

I've spent the last week in New York on business, and I could not help but put my experiences in the perspective of the wisdom of King Solomon.

"He who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves wealth with his income; this also is vanity. When goods increase, they increase who eat them, and what advantage has their owner but to see them with his eyes? Sweet is the sleep of a laborer, whether he eats little or much, but the full stomach of the rich will not let him sleep.

There is a grievous evil that I have seen under the sun: riches were kept by their owner to his hurt, and those riches were lost in a bad venture. And he is father of a son, but he has nothing in his hand. As he came from his mother's womb he shall go again, naked as he came, and shall take nothing for his toil that he may carry away in his hand. This also is a grievous evil: just as he came, so shall he go, and what gain is there to him who toils for the wind? Moreover, all his days he eats in darkness in much vexation and sickness and anger.

Behold, what I have seen to be good and fitting is to eat and drink and find enjoyment in all the toil with which one toils under the sun the few days of his life that God has given him, for this is his lot. Everyone also to whom God has given wealth and possessions and power to enjoy them, and to accept his lot and rejoice in his toil--this is the gift of God. For he will not much remember the days of his life because God keeps him occupied with joy in his heart."

--Ecclesiastes 5:10-20

It is easy to be pulled in certain directions by the promises of wealth and abundance, but it doesn't satisfy. John D. Rockefeller was asked how much money would be enough for him and he said "just another dollar." Houses and cars and clothes and jewelry are luxuries but they are potentially corrupting luxuries. The only way to approach them is to enjoy them but not cling to them. To recognize that they are not necessities. The real necessities in life are the people we love and who love us, and the impact we have in each other's lives. That is the meaning of genuine agape. All the rest is vanity, and striving after the wind. Instead, so often, these vain things drive wedges between us and our loved ones, they cause worry and strife. Why should we so strap ourselves to being beholden to possessions?

Let's keep our focus on Love, the greatest good, the manifestation of God in us, and when the luxuries of life follow (if indeed they do) then we can enjoy them with the proper perspective.

Monday Montage

Hillary on Health Care: "I'm baaaack!"

It looks like our favorite Horror Flick of the '90s is back: Hillarycare. Yes, that's the womb to the tomb, unfettered, unmitigated, Socialist promise of the would-be President Clinton #2. She warns that it "might be a bad dream for some." I wonder if she needs to be reminded that it was a bad dream for the Democrats most of all. The people of the United States soundly rejected socialized medicine in 1994, and they will do it again. There is no question that massive reform is needed in the health care and insurance industries, but a government take-over of 1/7 of the United States Economy is not the answer. If Hillary wants to quickly undo the fragile Democrat majority in Congress, this is a good first step.

Rudy Runs for President

In the first of what is likely to a litany of announcements of "exploratory committees," America's Mayor has announced that he has formed his own. With no President or Vice President running for the White House for the first time in 80 years, this is going to shape up to be one of the most fascinating presidential elections in history. The initial Republican field will look something like this: Rudy, Sen. John McCain (AZ), Fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee (AR), Fmr. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (TN), Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (MA), and Fmr. Gov. George Pataki. Not making my list of likelies are the following:

1) Condoleeza Rice. In spite of Dick Morris's almost orgasmic attitude over a Condi White House run, it just isn't going to happen, at least in 2008. Condi, like the entire Bush Administration, is damaged goods. She is too tied to the Neo-Cons and the Iraq War to have any credibility when the political winds are clearly blowing against the war. I'm not counting her out in the future. Churchill's political maxim is as prescient as ever "Politics is almost as exciting as war, and quite as dangerous. For in war you can die only once, in politics, many times."

2) George Allen. One of the rising stars of the National Republican scene, the now former Senator and Governor of Virginia bungled one of the safest seats in the country and cost the Republicans control of the Senate. Not only would I be ashamed to run for President if I were him, he'd promptly be sent packing by several million Republicans who will not soon forget the loss of the Senate.

3) Jeb Bush. The third time isn't a charm when it comes to Bush Presidencies. The public isn't going to go for it, now or....well, people might forget a few years down the way, but I seriously doubt it. Hillary Clinton has proved that it is possible to distance from the family, but Bill Clinton was never as unpopular as Bush is now...oh wait, he was...a fact conveniently forgotten by the mainstream media. Nevertheless, I think 2 Bush Presidents are enough, and I think a lot of people agree with me on that.

4) Rick Santorum. Any distant hopes the former Pennsylvania Senator may have had to run for the Presidency were dashed by his utter trouncing at the hands of Bob Casey, Jr. (60%-40%). His brand of conservatism, while perhaps popular with a certain sect of the Republican base, has no broad appeal, as evidenced by his rout in his home state.

5) Haley Barbour. There have been rumors circulating for a while that the Mississippi Governor and former Republican National Committee Chairman might take a shot at the Presidency. He just doesn't have the name ID to stand up to a McCain or a Rudy, so I think he'll bide his time and wait for the phone call to serve in a cabinet post.

6) Arnold Schwarzenegger. Unfortunately for the Governator and his supporters, the Constitution still won't let him be President. Maybe that will change, but I think for now he will focus on being Governor of Caleefornia and await the chance to run for an open seat in the Senate whenever Diane Feinstein retires.

7) David M.Walker. This one is my saddest entry. Most of you probably have no idea who David M. Walker is, but he is currently the U.S. Comptroller General, who heads up the Government Accountability Office (GAO, formerly General Accounting Office). The GAO "has earned a reputation for professional, objective, fact-based, nonpartisan, nonideological, fair and balanced reviews of government programs and operations." Walker is one of those lucky people in Washington who has a lengthy appointment (15 years) and still has 7 years left on his term. He has recently been traveling the country warning us of the dangers of an insolvent Medicare and Social Security, and the disastrous economic effects that will have if we do not remedy it soon. I hope he keeps it up, and maybe one of these days, we'll have the benefit of seeing his name on a ballot.

Has the Power already gone to Nancy's Head?

Giddy with power, Nancy Pelosi dove head-first into the heated race for House Majority Leader between Democrat Whip Steny Hoyer (Maryland) a Rabid Anti-War John Murtha (Pennsylvania). In one of the worst political calculations in Congressional history, she has decided to fervently back Murtha, which will both confirm every Republican accusation that she is a dove and simultaneously alienate many in the Democratic Caucus who ardently support Hoyer (including all but about 10 of the 40 incoming Freshman Democrats). In another move that reeks of political payback and completely lacks prudence, Pelosi has decided that Jane Harman will not get to Chair, or even serve on, the House Intelligence Committee, despite being the most senior and tenured member of that committee, and by far the Democrat with the best Intelligence credentials. But, Harman has crossed Nancy the Knife in the past, and to the detriment of National Security, this very reasonable Moderate Democrat is going to be replaced by the radical leftist Alcee Hastings....an impeached federal judge. That's who I want running the House Intelligence Committee....

Iran an Agent of Peace, says Blair

Our good friend Tony Blair from across the pond is no doubt under substantial pressure by his foundering Labour Party to distance himself from President Bush and American Foreign Policy. What better way than to endorse Iran as an agent of peace. I happen to agree with part of Blair's argument, and that is that we need a new dialogue in the Middle East. The one we had during the Clinton years didn't work. The isolationism and hawkishness of the Bush years hasn't worked either. So maybe we need to talk, but talk tough. Something has got to be better than the way relations have been for he last 20 years. Better to fail at something new than at something old.

Dallas Fed President: They took our jobs? Puhhlease.

The President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Richard Fisher publicly complained today about a labor shortage in the United States, and especially in Texas. That's right, a shortage. I thought Tom Tancredo and his band of xenophobes had been telling us for the last five years that we were going to lose all of our jobs to low-paid immigrants from Mexico if we didn't shoot them as they came across the border. But no, in fact, wage rates are skyrocketing in skilled and semi-skilled industries, and there is no end in sight. Unemployment in the United States has fallen to 4.4% which is better than "full employment." The Bush recession indeed.

The Dangers of Drinking Your Own Kool-Aid

"Politicians are dealers in hope." --Napoleon Bonaparte

Since the beginning of time, Politicians have made their careers and their successes on selling their proverbial "kool-aid" to their constituencies and the masses at-large. There are two metrics for their success in these endeavors: 1) The amount of kool-aid sold, and 2) What they put in the kool-aid. Many politicians may be excellent salesmen, but not so good at mixing the kool-aid. Others have the reverse problem. But there is perhaps an even more dangerous trouble for politicians, and that is when they get tempted to start drinking the kool-aid themselves. During my campaign days, I always warned my colleagues (and candidates) against "believing our own spin." It can be disastrous; I've done it myself.

My guess is that Karl Rove, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Ken Mehlman, et al, have gotten out of detox this week and still have a kool-aid hangover from the last two years. Some would say the last six, but I would disagree. The Bush 43 Gang has been incredibly adept at taking another bit of Napoleon's advice, which is to control the scene of chaos on the battlefield. Taking advantage of the incompetence of Democrat leaders in 2000, 2002, and 2004, and maintaining an above 50% approval rating for the vast majority of that time (let's not forget that in the aftermath of 9/11 Bush's approval rating exceeded 80%), Bush and Rove had built what looked like an impenetrable Republican governing majority in the electorate. They were telling everybody about it. The trouble is they started believing it themselves. There's no such thing.

As soon as they started believing it, they became intensely careless, and far less calculating. Bush began to suffer from the same problem his Father suffered from in the waning days of First Term leading up to the 1992 election: aloofness. There was a distinctive turning point, an event that shouldn't have had nearly the political implications that it did, and that was Katrina. I am not willing to say that Katrina caused the turning point, but that is the time in the history of the last several years I can examine and say that after that incident, everything went downhill for the Bush Administration. The War in Iraq finally became Vietnam, Afghanistan began to fail, the Economy went down the tank, etc. Well, not at all. Those things didn't actually happen, but the public began to believe it. Enter Kool-Aid Mixers Part 2.

Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Rahm Emmanuel decided they had finally had it. Disgusted over the pathetic performance of the Democrats in 2004, and of John Kerry's laughable candidacy for the White House, they determined that they were going to get a coherent message and start pounding it. They remembered Clintonista Politics Rule #1: If you say something enough times, people will start to believe it. The Democrats, for the first time since Bill Clinton left office, got on the same page and said one thing with two parts: Bush is out of touch on 1) Iraq, 2) The Economy. They said other things too, about health care, and education, and so on, but it was irrelevant. What mattered was they kept a clear and consistent, though simplistic message on Iraq and the Economy.

Now that they've won, the Democrats better not make the mistake the Bush Administration made and start drinking their own kool-aid. The Democrat kool-aid tastes like this: Bush was a total failure on Iraq and the Economy and the Democrat plan is what everybody wants...after all, look at the election results, right? If they start drinking that kool-aid, they will suffer the same fate in 2008 as the Bush Administration and the Congressional Republicans suffered last Tuesday.

One final note on Kool-Aid Drinkers...I would be remiss in this particular blog if I did not make mention of the Election 2006 Kool-Aid Drinker of the Year, the man who should perhaps be poster-child of Kool-Aidaholics Anonymous, Virginia Senator George Allen. He made the worst mistake any politician can make: start running for President while trying to run for re-election to something else. Hillary Clinton hasn't been traveling to New Hampshire or Iowa, she solidified New York. After all, there's no way she would be elected President without New York. Bill Frist retired from the Senate, Mike Huckabee didn't run for the U.S. Senate in 2004, and Mitt Romney didn't seek re-election to the Mass. Governorship. Allen took his home state for granted, and they showed him the door. Aloof doesn't cut it in politics, especially in this day and age. So here is my tribute to the Kool-Aid drinkers of 2006 with their new poster child...

The War Within: The Critical Choices Republicans Must Make Before 2008

"The GOP must return to efficient government, to appropriate spending priorities that are not out of line, that don't create deficits, that speak to a strong national defense without failing to understand the need for diplomacy, and the things that will keep this country strong."
-Michael Steele, Lt. Governor of Maryland

I couldn't believe it when I read it, a Republican who actually gets it. Not just that, but a Republican who gets it who has the chance of becoming the next leader of the Republican National Committee. Lt. Governor Steele may have lost his race for the United States Senate, but it was not because of his lack of political acumen. After all, he was the first Republican Lt. Governor of Maryland for the first time in 36 years, and he narrowly lost his bid to become the Senate's first black Republican from a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1, and in a political climate where the Republicans nationally were decimated by a wave of strong sentiment against the War in Iraq, the disastrous spending policies of the Republican Congress and President Bush, and overall dissatisfaction with the direction of the country. Whether these problems were real or perceived, the reality is that the Steele should have lost his race 60-40 like Rick Santorum lost his, but instead, he only barely lost. Under any other circumstances, and in virtually any other state, Mr. Steele would have won his race rather easily.

Ken Mehlman revolutionized the way the Republican Party operated; Mr. Steele stands ready to revolutionize the way the Republican Party thinks. There will be two camps conducting post mortems of the 2006 elections within the GOP, those who believe the Republican Party failed because it didn't do enough, and those who believe the Republican Party failed because it did too much. Mr. Steele is in the latter camp. James Dobson is in the former. Which side wins this debate will determine the success of the Republican Party for the next decade. There are three questions the GOP must ask itself in the coming months as White House hopefuls begin to start their exploratory committees.

1. Is the GOP going to be a party that can appeal to independents and moderates or is it going to continue to rely on the massive turnout of its "base" while continuing to alienate supporters of the party in the moderate-wing?

2. Is the GOP going to lay out a platform in line with the one that won it control of Congress in 1994 or is it going to continue down the path of the Bush ideology?

3. Is the GOP going to try to exploit certain radical segments within the Conservative Movement to capitalize on issues of the day, or is it going to be a party with a long-term vision for the country that consistently pursues that vision?

Let's be quite clear, there are powerful forces within the Republican Party who want to answer those questions incorrectly, those in the Religious Right who believe the focus of policymaking should be on abortion, gay marriage, and immigration. They have charismatic leaders with massive followings: James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tom Tancredo, Jerry Falwell, Howard Phillips, Richard Viguerie, and the leaders of countless fundamentalist churches and church associations across the country. In 2006, Evangelicals comprise 22% of all Americans, and 51% of them identify themselves as Republicans. There will be those who will argue that the Republicans cannot afford to drop 11% of the country who are a solid base of support. "Don't alienate your base," goes the mantra. This is clearly a ridiculous proposition predicated on the assumption that a party cannot shift its base.

If the elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004 are any lesson for the nation, it is that the country's independents and moderates wholesalely reject the radical socialism that now pervades the Howard Dean Democratic Party. If the 2006 elections are any lesson for the nation, it is that the country's independents and moderates wholesalely reject the religious extremism and arrogant foreign policy of the George W. Bush Republican Party. Both parties should be focused on pursuing sustained, long-term, governing majorities both nationally and in each of the 50 states. The key to doing this is to have a minimalistic agenda that focuses on economic growth, balanced budgets, low taxes, lower government spending, better education, a clean environment, a strong military but with an equally strong diplomacy, and a belief that social issues have their place of discussion in the home and in the church but not in the halls of Congress.

I'm placing my bets, and my hopes, on a forward-thinking, sensible Republican named Michael Steele.

Water and Faith

I had the pleasure of reading Masuru Emoto's book The Hidden Messages in Water on a flight yesterday from Dallas-Fort Worth to Fort Smith, Arkansas. I found the book moving, if not compelling, at least from the perspective of its underlying message promoting love and gratitude. Not being a physicist or a chemist myself, I cannot comment on the scientific validity or lack thereof of Dr. Emoto's more technical claims, specifically, if he conducted his experiments in accordance with the scientific method, etc. However, I don't even know that it's precisely relevant. The message of the book is that we shape our world and our reality by the words we speak, the noise we absorb, the attitudes we have, the way we treat our fellow human, the way we approach the natural world, etc. I not only wholly agree with and endorse this premise, but I believe that if we look, open-mindedly, at the world's major religions, we find that this is quite established over the course of thousands of years of faith and practice.

For example, Dr. Emoto argues about the energy transportation of water, the essential life force of water, and its vibrant ability to heal, cleanse, and empower. I do not think we should take lightly this claim, particularly those of us who adhere to the suppositions and tenets of one of the world's major religions. From the Christian perspective, it takes but a moment for me to reflect upon the thematic importance of water throughout the Old Testament Scriptures and the Gospels. A perfect illustration of this is that there are 620 different verses in the Bible that make reference to water. Beginning at the immediate opening of the Old Testament Creation Story we find Genesis 1:2 says "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." What a magnificent bit of imagery that is. The Spirit of the Universe's creator was hovering over water, as if the water were his empty canvass on which he was about to paint. In fact, subsequent verses describe this precise action--"And God said 'let there be an expanse between the waters, to separate water from water." Water, as the lifeblood of God's creation, though, would not produce life on its own. As one of the earliest paradoxes of the mythology of Man, there had to be an absence of lifeblood in order for there to be life. God enabled creation by limiting its inherent lifeblood. What a parallel to the Incarnation. In order for there to be Spiritual life, there had to be a limitation of God Himself--and that was manifested in the person of Christ, all man, all God, physically limited, just like the Water in the Beginning. God's first creation of life was in water, "Let the water teem with creatures..." And then, in order for there to be life in the Garden of Eden, it says that a stream flowed up, watering all of the Garden. It was only after this that God created man.

Yet, in spite of the more than 25 references to water in the creation story alone, the theme continues. The offering of water was a sign of love, compassion, and gratitude throughout the Old and New Testaments. We find that the scarcity of clean water in the early Middle East caused it to be one of the most valuable gifts one could offer another. Many of the Old Testament's most meaningful spiritual stories occur when somebody was "going out to draw water," either from a river or from a well. Moses, as a small boy, was saved by the flowing powers of the River, which carried him from his mother to safety and from whence he would gain his position of great power in the land of Egypt. One of the early signs God gave to Moses to help Moses prove that he was sent from God was to pour out water from the Nile on the ground and it would become blood, which eventually turned into one of the plagues God wrought upon Egypt, the turning of water to blood. How curious it is, that the blessings of water have the converse of the curse of its absence. Of the more famous stories of Moses, the parting of the Red Sea showed the tremendous power in he who is able to control the waters.

The importance of water throughout the Old Testament continues, with the centrality of the theme of the Jordan River, a parallel that is extended into the New Testament, as it relates to cleansing and healing. The ending of the droughts by the prophets, the story of Noah and the flood, and on and on indicate such importance in the scriptures of water. One of the more famous passages in the Prophetic Literature is Jeremiah 17:8 where it says that a man close to God is "like a tree planted by the water that sends its roots out to the stream, for it does not fear when heat comes, for it will always be green. It has no worries of a year of drought, and always bears fruit." Looking forward to the coming of the Messiah, the prophet Zechariah writes that "on that day, living water will flow out from Jerusalem."

In the New Testament, water is amongst the most central metaphors and themes. Its first mention in the Gospels is a quote by John the Baptizer who said "I baptize you with water for repentance." When Christ encountered the woman at the well, he promised her that if she partook of His "living water," that she would never again thirst. At Pentacost, the heavens opened when Christ came out of the water. The entire notion of Baptism itself is rooted, most literally, in water. Christ showed his power over the water when he walked on the Sea of Galilee, and at the Crucifixion, Christ's pierced side flowed with blood and water simultaneously.

Although I am less familiar with the sacred texts of the world's other major faiths, I somehow imagine that they too are replete with hydro-metaphors, water references, and intensely meaningful utilizations of water for spiritual and physical salvation. Dr. Emoto's experiments, if they are to be believed, illustrate the universality of positive and negative energy when directed toward water. "You Fool" spoken to water in English had the same essential effect as when spoken in Japanese. What an interesting connection, since in the New Testament writings, it is said that "he who says to his brother Raca, Raca, will be in danger of council, but he who says to his brother 'thou fool,' shall be in danger of hellfire." Perhaps the unifying theme of Dr. Emoto's work, however, is my longheld conception of Sin as being its own inherent judgment. If our attitudes lead us to be unloving towards our neighbor, that unlovingness is itself a punishment. The behavior's internal consequences are sufficient effect, and no "outside" punishment is really necessary. When I am hateful, it has a deteriorating effect internally. When I have a negative attitude, it affects myself and everybody around me. When I do not take the time to reflect and have gratitude, that is, when I am driving myself so hard to reach some sort of material end or goal, I am guilty of a sin of omission, rather than of comission. When I do not take the time to be grateful to those who I love the most, who contribute so much to my health and well-being, I have sinned against them, and consequently, against God.

I tend to endorse Dr. Emoto's belief in faith healing and homeopathy as a viable, and even preferrable alternative to modern Western medicine. A sick body and sick soul are inextricably linked. I have been most ill, physically, when I am most ill spiritually. When I am at enmity with my fellow humans, I am, ipso facto at enmity with myself, since we are all connected by unifying life forces and by our eternal relationship to God. The saying about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face is parallel to this. We frequently, in order to spite our fellow human, do something to harm him. But what we don't always recognize is that action hurts ourself as much if not more than it hurts the one for whom the spite was intended. This happens when we try to manipulate those around us to get what we want, when we engage in backstabbing and other ill behaviors.

So let us keep all of this in mind, and pursue love and gratitude. Let us keep our attitudes pure, our intentions clean, and we shall all be healthier for it, both physically and spiritually. Our metaphysical selves will thank us.

Politics 2.0

In the aftermath of the expected, but nevertheless brutal defeat of the Republicans in the 2006 midterm elections, I predict we are turning the corner in American politics, a trend that may influence the way campaigns are run, candidates are selected, policy is made, etc. for the next generation. In order to properly understand these changes, it is vital to have a bit of context on the 2006 race. It is my supposition that November 7 was not the endorsement of the Democrat agenda, Nancy Pelosi's leadership, or anything of that sort, but purely a rejection of the Bush administration and the ineptitude of the Republican Congress over the last 8 years (I trace it back to Dennis Hastert's ascension to Speaker).

The country is still split in half. The United States Senate will be 49-49-2 (with independent Joe Lieberman and socialist independent Bernie Sanders caucusing with the Democrats). It is hard to imagine a scenario more divided than that. The Democrats will hold a razor thin majority of fewer than 20 seats. Rigid party discipline will be required for the Democrats to accomplish anything in either House, and chances are, the Democratic leadership in both houses will find difficulty in maintaining such discipline in the wake of the Democrats' success. That is the funny thing about politics in its older iteration, though. Majority parties have much greater difficulty with party discipline than do minority parties. Minority parties understand that only by being the united Loyal Opposition can they have any influence over the making of policy. Members of Majority parties, on the other hand, know that they can play kingmaker, especially when things are close. It is nothing less than extortion. It is the kind of behavior pulled by the moderate Republicans in the Senate on a frequent basis in order to gain increased influence, committee chairmanships, etc. This is not likely to be any different for the Democrats.

So here we are, in the new era of Politics. I will be uninventive and call it Politics 2.0. Perhaps it should be called Democracy 1.0--because that is where we are headed: the first true manifestation of genuine participatory democracy in the United States from campaigns to policy. This progression will be uniquely enabled by the advent of new technologies on the web, shifting attitudes toward traditional media, and a shift of paradigm in the hearts and minds of Generation Y, who are coming of age and taking their stands. There is an unseen buildup of pressure under the surface of American politics that is about to blow its lid. Perhaps it will be in 2008, or perhaps later than that. This remarkable shift towards a more genuine democracy, a more pure ideal of governance will be predicated primarily upon two tipping points, and I believe the first will lead to the second: 1) The grassroots seize upon the advent of Web 2.0 technologies to create a new political dialogue and dynamic across the country and 2) The recognition by politicians and policymakers that they must embrace technology to better enact the principles of democracy.

I am going to be starting a spinoff blog just about Politics 2.0. It is time for the people of this country to fundamentally change the way the government is run, rather than swinging the pendulum constantly between two equally undesirable options. Gen Y and Web 2.0 will make this happen.

The Re-Emergence of City States

There is a great pendulum in world history, that swings to and fro between the extremes of centralization and decentralization. The cycle started in the ancient times, when local potentates fought regional wars to consolidate their power. Regardless of one's opinion on the veracity of the Old Testament historical narrative, we at least see that the writers of the time witnessed something to this effect: tribes being conquered by their neighbors, who eventually expanded into Empires. Sometimes consolidation in history occurred by treaty or mutual protection pact that ultimately gave way to greater centralization.

Then came the United States. The normal method of expansionism for would-be superpowers didn't quite work for the newly minted American Empire in-progress. Reeling from what the Revolutionaries considered overbearing Imperial oversight, the early Americans eschewed traditional consolidation of power, and birthed a new style of federalism. Because early America was overwhelmingly rural, and cities played a much reduced role in American social, political, and economic life, compared to Europe, the city-state model was incongruent, and so it was the arbitrary political sub-unit of the "states" that gained primacy. Furthermore, America expanded its borders not by conquering established cities, but by taking land from the semi-nomadic natives and claiming unoccupied lands.

Because of the geographical vastness of the what would eventually be the Manifest Destiny of the United States, and the complete lack of transportation and communication infrastructure of the time, decentralized power was thede facto political reality of the day. The Wild West could be Wild because it was nearly impossible to govern. Washington not only couldn't control the events on the frontier, but most of the time, they had little interest in doing so, until there was an economically substantive reason to be interested.

After the Civil War and the 14th Amendment, a century and a half of political centralization began in the United States. The de jurecentralization inherent in Reconstruction, the invention of the telegraph, the railroad, World War I, the economic centralization of the Depression and World War II, the popularization of radio and telephones, the advent of air travel, television, the Interstate Highway system, and ultimately the Internet were the series of technologically ground-breaking innovations and social circumstances that brought about our current state of affairs. Washington-centric governance became a logistical reality, but almost as soon as it had reached its paramount level of importance, things began to deteriorate. It is not that Washington became more corrupt, but that because it had more power (and money), its level of corruption began to have greater impact, and because of the greater influence of broadcast media, the corruption became more apparent.

Watergate seemed to have been the final blow against Washington, but almost as soon as it had happened, Ronald Reagan came along and began pushing the restoration of federalism. This was combined with the devolutionary decisions of the Rehnquist Court, and the Contract with America. For a short time, it appeared that the federal government was voluntarily abdicating part of its power. Few could have predicted the imapct, however, of the George Bush administration. Abandoning devolutionary federalism, embarking on imperialistic wars, and embracing more centralized entitlement and discretionary spending, George W. Bush wrecked the Reagan Revolution of decentralization. I do not want to make any normative claims about the Bush policies or the Reagan Revolution, but it is quite apparent that Bush has not been a Reagan-proponent in actual fact.

The national rebellion against the Imperial model will, in my view, lead to the re-emergence of the city-state. Federalism is a dying mode of governance, because of its basis in arbitrary geographic boundaries. These arbitrary boundaries will give way to more logical and flexible forms of governance, and diplomacy will take place between major cities and metropolitan areas rather than between nation-states and imperial states. New York could conduct much more appropriate diplomacy with Shanghai than the State Department can with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The scope of international relations is too complex on the nation-state level, and certainly too monolithic. Consequently, the city-state model provides for the opportunity for regions to capitalize on what unites them than what divides them.

This topic warrants further consideration, but is a viable point of discussion for now.