Since the election I’m sad to say I have written only two posts. My absence was not pouting or being a “sore loser.” It was simply a time for me to refocus on new ideas and catch up on work that I had overlooked for so many weeks in the run-up to the election.

As some of you know, I’m the founder and president of Shopping-Bargains.com and, given the huge impact of Christmas shopping on sales in November and December, it has been very hard to find time to step away from work to write. I have no shortage of ideas though and am chomping at the bit to write again.

What I hope to write about in the future includes the following topics:

• How to win elections (almost) all the time
• What should conservatives do under the shadow of Obama?
• Should conservatives show they care and express feelings?
• The power of ideological persuasion over just “getting votes”
• A vision for the future – a positive alternative to liberalism

I invite you to ask questions of me using the comments section below. I won’t promise to reply with a post to all questions but then again I might. You’ll never know if you don’t at least ask.

So, in closing, I thank each of you for your patience during my absence. I appreciate your support and your loyalty over the past few months. I look forward to helping form a logical and compassionate response to the liberal ideas around us. I also seek to convince people on the merits of conservatism instead of simply touting the party line.

In Federalist No. 10 James Madison warned that “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.” This leadership status has been true throughout much of our history. Sadly, it will be true in our future as well since our nation did not elect an enlightened statesman yesterday. Instead, as a nation, we chose a politician committed to expanding a radical agenda that includes abortion, socialism, immorality and national weakness.

Now that I’ve had a few more hours to analyze this dramatic leadership shift, I offer the following five thoughts on the state of our nation in general and the conservative movement in particular.

1. Things are worse than they appear.

Public policy will be incredibly more dangerous for unborn babies, the military, businesses, the institution of marriage, our courts, law-abiding gun owners, the size of the national debt and even our very individual freedoms. The Left will have little restraint in pushing through a liberal agenda.

2. Things are not as bad as they appear.

In the future, there will be no question which Party is to blame and what policies to oppose. There will be unity on the Right which will provide a chance for real conservative leaders to emerge. The Left promised much more than they can ever deliver. Swing voters will become disenchanted and look for reasonable alternatives.

3. Republicans got a reboot and will soon be forgiven for their past transgressions.

Voters punished the Republican Party (which deserved it) but will soon grow to distrust the even more expansive Democratic Party and their near lock on power. In such an unrestrained environment, I predict the Democratic Party’s spending excesses and scandals will dwarf those perpetrated by Republicans over the past eight years. During this time the Republican Party will be forced to rebuild and retool but is likely to come back stronger and (hopefully) smarter as was the case in 1980 with Ronald Reagan and 1994 with the Contract with America.

4. Conservatives need to focus on changing hearts and not merely getting votes.

Conservatives cannot look at just winning elections but must focus on converting hearts and minds. That is harder to do and means more work up front by building trust and convincing people on the merits of conservative principles. However, the rewards are far greater and produce potentially life-long supporters.

5. There is no substitute for the values of morality and basic decency.

We’re at a crossroads as a nation. Moral issues like the right to life, the very definition of marriage, the rule of law and private property ownership are under attack. If enough voters don’t believe in these values then there will be no attempt to protect them in our government of the people. In our nation leaders are only as strong as their base of support. If moral and decent people do not make up a voting majority then our nation’s politics will reflect that shift.

So, take courage, Americans, and enlist for the journey ahead. It’s a wearisome road and one that includes setbacks and defeats along the way. I’m convinced, however, that we will finish the journey if we set our hearts firmly on this important task and take things one step at a time. The result will be worth it, and will be not just one, but a series of enlightened statesmen and women at the helm.

As I write this I’m distressed to say it looks like there is no path to victory for John McCain. But since I prefer to see the glass as half full, I’m searching for something positive to write about tonight’s election. Is there anything positive to consider right now?

After careful thought I think so. I think there is still reason for conservatives to hope.

This 2008 election cycle has a remarkable number of parallels to 1976 when Democrat Jimmy Carter beat Republican Gerald Ford. As you may recall, Ford became President following the resignation of scandal-plagued President Richard Nixon. With the Republican brand tarnished by Watergate and the messy war in Vietnam fresh on voters’ minds, Carter eked out a 50.1% popular vote and a 297 to 240 electoral win.

As things now stand, Obama appears to be headed for a similarly narrow victory over McCain. As in 1976, the 2008 Republican brand is deeply tarnished by six years of squandered opportunities, wasteful spending, an unpopular Republican President and war that seems to drag on and on. Add in a candidate who had difficulties mobilizing his base and energizing people with a clear vision and you have a recipe for Republican electoral disaster. For Democrats, though, these factors created the perfect storm to sweep into power.

Rewind to 1976. Carter, like Obama was very inexperienced. Little was known about Carter just as little is known about Obama. Contrasting these Democrats were Republicans Ford and McCain who were both tested and experienced leaders. They were, however, dragged down by sweeping calls for change and widespread desire to put a new face and political party in Washington.

That was the setting in 1976 and again in 2008. As history shows us, though, the four years after 1976 were not pretty. Carter was tested with an international crisis by Iran and he failed miserably. Instead of acting decisively, he focused on talks and cut the military. Furthermore, the economy grew worse as inflation, unemployment and interest rates rapidly climbed.

Ironically, in 2008, Iran is again at the forefront of the international agenda and the economy is extremely weak. Like Carter, Obama puts a huge amount of trust in the power of talks to resolve aggressive conflicts with unreasonable people like Islamic extremists and dictators. Honestly, I fear for our future as a nation.

As Joe Biden warned, the next President will be tested with an international crisis within a short period of time. The response of that unavoidable test remains to be seen. Will Obama continue to look and sound like Carter or will he prove my analogy wrong and lead wisely?

That’s the dark side of my analogy. Is there a silver lining you might ask? Is there anything to give conservatives reason to hope? I think so and here’s why.

After four years of failure under Carter, the nation was fed up with international weakness, unemployment, inflation and failed Democratic leadership. In 1980 the nation was ready to elect a new leader who was proud of America and willing to tackle the problems instead of just talk about the symptoms. In short, the nation was ready to embrace conservatism and his name was Ronald Reagan.

So my question tonight is who will be our Ronald Reagan in 2012? Who will step forward and lead this nation out of the mess that liberalism and socialism inevitably bring? Who will be or next Ronald Reagan? Will it be you?

I just read something powerful from a pamphlet by William J. H. Boetcker (1873-1962) and entitled The Ten Cannots. It was originally published in 1916 but I feel its message is very fitting to us today and especially now during the 2008 Presidential election cycle. Here are the “10 cannots”:

1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
3. You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
4. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
5. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
6. You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
7. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
8. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
9. You cannot build character and courage by destroying men’s initiative and independence.
10. And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

I wish all in government and those aspiring to positions in government would take these simple yet powerful concepts to heart. Voters would be wise to do the same.

Please note: The above quote is often wrongly attributed to Abraham Lincoln.

I regularly read Obama 2.0 and just learned of some very interesting commentary by the talented founder of Macho Sauce Productions Alfonzo (Zo) Rachel. In his own words, Zo is a “musician, martial artist, amateure movie makin’, Christian conservative republican.”

His latest video is entitled 1 More B4 11 04 and builds a strong case for electing a conservative as President. He also describes very well the differences between liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, and Obama and McCain in ways that are very compelling. His logic is tight (I would dispute his dinosaur comment given some historic and scientific evidence that may suggest otherwise) and his reasons for supporting conservatives and John McCain in particular are some of the best I’ve heard. He is passionate about freedom and excessive government involvement in our lives. It’s well worth watching.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Recently somebody suggested that Presidential preferences are like this: “The ‘right’ wants a President they can have a beer with. The ‘left’ just wants someone really smarter than them.” My reply was something like the following:

I think its deeper than the “beer and smarts” analogy suggested above. The right wants to know confidently that their key principles (the “3 pillars” of free markets, national security and social conservatism) are held at a core level by the President and they (the President) won’t waver on them. They don’t care much about physical appearance, TV image, speaking ability, etc. as long as these core principles are not abandoned. Delegation as a leadership style is fine and a “hands off” approach by government preferred for most issues. In a nutshell, government is not to do much more than safeguard these principles and protect us from evil nations.

The left, on the other hand, wants somebody who feels their pain and is smart enough to fix everything that is wrong. That means somebody with an Ivy League education is preferred since only they are smart enough to hold such power. They must look good on TV and be respected by other players on the world stage so they don’t embarrass us. They also have to speak well to soothe us and make us feel comfortable after convincing us that they feel our pain and want to help us enjoy life.  Image and perception are everything as long as the economy is good and we are safe from all harms including natural disasters like hurricanes and dirty water. Risks are to be eliminated and the federal government is the ultimate safety net for everybody. Everybody should be equally happy.

I know that’s a light-hearted, broad-brushed view of things; however, I feel it does point out many core differences between liberals and conservatives. What do you think?

A liberal friend asked me to read an article entitled “Insanity” by DarkSyde at The Daily Kos and pointed out that he thinks it pretty much sums up how most liberals feel about the past 8 years and what this election is about.  I found the article cleverly written and coming from an unusual angle.  It made me stop and think because on a foundational level I actually agree with a some of the broad assessments made in this article even though many of them are grossly exaggerated.

Republicans are often blamed for all the nation’s problems of the past 8 years. I concur that the GOP has been part of the problem for 4 of the past 8 years; however, remember, the Senate was evenly divided when Bush was elected and then 1 GOP member switched to Independent and caucassed with the Democrats so the GOP didn’t control both houses until 2003 and then lost in 2007 after the 2006 election cycle. In fairness to Republicans though, during the 4 years of complete GOP control, Democrats have blocked and/or watered-down virtually all Republican proposed solutions to the problems this article blames them for.

However, in spite of the problems, the overall issue is bigger than simply who controls Washington. The underlying problem in Washington, as I see it, is systemic and part of human nature. It’s something our Founding Fathers were aware of and repeatedly divided government in an attempt to mitigate. It’s simply this: Power corrupts. It doesn’t take a rocket scientists to see that both parties are now corrupt. That doesn’t mean that all members in both parties are corrupt but that the system is corrupt with power. There’s a creeping loss of individual rights and personal liberty every year regardless of which party is in power.

So that brings me to my next point. Since both parties are corrupt and there’s no third party that stands a chance at winning this election cycle, what am I to do as a voter?  I feel I must take the path of less damage and that’s why I am going with the Republican Party.  Most everything listed in the “Insanity” article would have occurred regardless of who was in power — 9/11, the mortgage crisis, a weak economy, Wall Street corruption, etc.; however, each party responds to these problems differently. While both parties continue to pass legislation that reduces my individual liberties and erodes my rights, I feel the Democrats are more restrictive and erode them faster.  For example, I’m a business owner and employer. Democrats want to tell me how to hire and fire and what kind of pay and benefits I have to offer my employees. Republicans restrict my ownership rights in these areas also but not as much. Democrats go so far as to try to require faith-based organizations like churches to hire people who hold beliefs contrary to the positions the church espouses (imagine being forced to hire an atheist for a church outreach program).

Both parties take huge amounts of taxes, but Democrats are more greedy with my money than Republicans.  Both parties create ridiculous “entitlement” programs but Democrats create more and bigger ones.  And on issues of national security, do you really think the defense-cutting Democrats would do a better job protecting us from the “fundamentalist Sunni Monarchs and the communist Chinese” as the “Insanity” article blames Republicans for turning our national economic future over to? (I have an answer for dealing with the Sunni Monarchs: Drill Here! Drill Now! but that’s for another article.)

The shipping of jobs oversees has been going on for decades and didn’t slow down under Democratic Presidents Carter or Clinton.  If the Democrats succeed in taxing corporations for “excessive profits” that will force them to leave our borders — it’s like killing the goose who lays the golden egg. The result would be reduced overall tax revenues and a weaker economy as more jobs are lost.

The article concludes with “Conservatives are worried that Democrats might do the same astonishingly lousy job Republicans have done for the last eight years.”  Actually, I’m concerned that the Democrats’ overall job performance would be far worse than the poor one performed by recent Republicans. This constant concern is one reason why I actually have some excitement about the McCain/Palin ticket since both have proven records of taking on corrupt government and private interests including ones in their own party.  Can the Obama/Biden ticket demonstrate taking on their own party ever for anything?

I think there will be less government growth under a McCain administration than an Obama administration. We don’t need more and bigger government and so I will vote against its expansion whenever I can.

Note: In this post I’m ignoring a host of social issues that also put me more in line with the Republican Party. That’s for another article and another day.

In this latest election cycle I’ve been frustrated by the lack of talk about core principles.  It seems that window dressing is king right now and a few buzzwords about change are shaping the political debate.  That’s bad news for people who think critically — especially for those of us who know that change for the sake of change is not necessarily a good thing. We could change from bad to worse, for example, so I want to know why we need change and where (and how) the change agent wants to change things.

While mulling over these notions, they triggered some thinking about my own core principles. I felt it was wise to put my core beliefs about government in writing (even if in a rough format) and provide some basic application of them regarding the federal government.  I am a strong believer in federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances. As such, I feel the Constitution clearly restricts the federal government from action — particularly in domestic issues.  Similarly, in the areas where federal action is authorized, it is often severely limited. In fact, the Tenth Amendment is very specific about this:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In a nutshell, this means the federal government is severely limited to a few (primarily national and interstate commerce) powers with the remainder left to the States and the people.  Thus, I advocate a very limited role for the federal government and argue against many social and spending programs currently found at the federal level. However, please note that I am not against all government social programs. While opposing federal programs, I will argue for more involvement at the state and local levels of governments. At these levels of government there are not the same Constitutional prohibitions. Similarly, I firmly believe that social programs are more effective from a practical and service-oriented point of view when administered at the lowest level of government possible (state, county, city, special district, etc.).

So, understanding the above, I will embark on drafting my “Key Principles of Government” as they relate to the federal government specifically, and to all governments in general. Please note that this is a work in progress — thus the short sentences, bullet format and limited explanation/supportive details.

1. Government exists to protect life and liberty and maintain an orderly society.

Government protects but does not create rights. Our government is a representative democracy (not a direct democracy). Minority rights are safeguarded from the “tyranny of the majority.” The federal government exists primarily to:

• provide national defense (foreign and domestic)
• promote national interests
• administer interstate commerce and conflicts

2. Government should be limited and restrained.

Power begins with the people and authority comes from God. Just because a problem exists doesn’t mean the government should try to solve it. A government that governs least tends to governs best. When possible, local solutions are preferred over national or state ones. The Constitution should be followed explicitly. If additional federal involvement is deemed needed then the Constitution should be amended to authorize such action.

3. Economic markets should be free.

The free enterprise system powers personal prosperity. Because government intervention disrupts the “invisible hand” (see Adam Smith) of the economy and encroaches on personal freedom, it should be rare. Also, to avoid creating special advantages and unintended consequences, government should limit its involvement in the economy as much as possible.

4. Taxes should be low.

It’s not the government’s money. Anything the government possesses it has had to first take from somebody.

5. Simple solutions are preferred over more complex alternatives.

The simplest working solution is usually the best one. The more complicated something is the more parts there are to break. Long-term costs and benefits should be considered above short-term impacts.

What do you think? Did I leave anything out? I invite your comments and suggestions.

On Tuesday voters in Mississippi’s first congressional district elected a Democrat in a special election. Given that this is the third straight loss for Republicans in special elections within “Republican-safe” districts, many political pundits are calling this a wake-up call for the party.

I agree this is a wakeup call for the Republican Party and I offer the following reasons why Republicans are in danger of much greater losses in November.

1. Republicans were swept into power in 1994 with a mandate to change Washington.

Remember the ten point “Contract with America” that brought Republicans to power in the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years? This was the first significant time in a generation when a majority of the country voted FOR Republicans. Republicans were entrusted with power because they promised specific change, not because they were Republicans.

2. Republicans were favored for a few years while they passed most of the “Contract with America” and held the line on spending.

With their successes, Republicans became more dominant and powerful — even convincing a weakened Bill Clinton to do the unthinkable and sign welfare reform and other significant conservative-leaning legislation.

3. Then a strange thing began to happen as Republicans became part of the Washington Establishment.

After about a decade in power, many Republicans had became overconfident incumbents who enjoyed power. They forgot who put them into positions of power and why they were there. Instead, they shifted their focus onto themselves and began to selfishly act like Democrats and spend like crazy. Ethics took a back seat as corruption and scandal emerged among several high-profile cases (however mild by the standards of some Democrats a decade or two earlier; but as a party of values, Republicans were held to a higher standard).

4. Some conservative-leaning Democrats saw an opportunity to run against fat-cat, do-little Republicans.

By 2006 Republicans were viewed by a majority as corrupt and lazy party in need of reform and in the pocket of lobbyists and special interests. A handful of less-liberal-than-usual Democrats ran on a more conservative agenda and found success in picking off enough Republicans to win back both chambers of Congress.

5. Republicans reacted with more of the same.

Instead of sensing the defeat as a rebuke on the party, Republicans largely explained it away as bad campaigns and negative trends. There were mild shakeups in leadership and token responses to cleaning up ethics. However, there were no really significant reform measures or strong efforts to address earmarks, border control or national security improvements in a way that appealed to a generally conservative majority. Other than unity on funding and supporting the War in Iraq, Republicans did essentially nothing to regain the voter’s trust. Instead, high-profile moves were made that alienated much of the Republican base — social and/or fiscal conservatives and proponents of a strong national defense.

6. Republicans mis-handled the Long War Against Radical Islam.

This War is essential and we must win it; however, Republicans, especially the President, have dropped the ball in communicating the case on why it is so important. Republicans, especially the President, have become weak in the face of the polls and not backed up the Bush Doctrine of going after all terrorists and those who harbor them (like those in Iran, for example). Thus short memories dominate the scene as Americans become increasingly impatient with growing war casualties and grim outlooks for a non-violent Middle East (at least in the short run). Additionally, no spokesperson is sufficiently warning of the long term consequences of failure to win this War. In my opinion, there should be something akin to Roosevelt’s “fireside chats” to keep Americans informed of what is going on and why this Long War is needed. I also argue that we need to be more aggressive militarily and less accommodating to Middle Eastern radicals who view anything democratic and humanitarian as weak.

7. Democrats have co-opted many formerly Republican issues and re-framed them in their favor.

The abandonment of traditional values and failure to adequately build a case for the Long War by the Republicans left Democrats free to swoop in and pick up these issues and frame them in liberal terms. Many voters don’t heavily analyze the issues and have not seen the subtle substitution that has taken place. They hear Democrats talking about conservative issues like traditional values, gun rights, patriotism, national defense and ending the war (notice I didn’t say winning it) and they carelessly think this candidate must be conservative like me. Since Republicans haven’t fixed what they were put into power to fix from 1994 through 2004 then voters are ready to try “new” Democrats who are talking like conservatives and arguing for change. This leads me to my final point.

8. The country remains largely conservative, but conservative doesn’t equate to Republican.

Republicans seemed to think that their election and subsequent reelection for 6 cycles amounted to a “realignment” of the voters from the old Democratic Party loyalties to them. Such was never the case, I argue. Instead, Republicans benefited from their conservative change message in 1994 but when they didn’t deliver, the voters were ready to send them back home and put a new batch of “change” talking Democrats into power. Republicans should have known better and stayed on message.

Conclusion

So what does all this mean for Republicans? It means danger and defeat at the polls this November if they don’t wake up and get back to work.

Is a massive Republican defeat a certainty? Absolutely not. There are incredible problems below the surface within the Democratic Party. Furthermore, many of the so-called “conservative Democrats” don’t have voting records to back up their rhetoric and could be easy pickings for a true conservative candidate.

So what is needed to take the wind out of the Democrats’ sails? A leader who is a communicator with a vision for real change like that promised in 1994. It has to be somebody people can trust. It also has to be somebody who will take the time to talk to them — or more likely convince with a serious “blood, sweat and tears” Churchill-like message — that conservative ideals are best for the long term success of the country.

The Party that reaches out and connects with the conservative majority in America will win in November. While the winner may not be Republican, I predict the message and candidates will at least be crafted in conservative language.

The other day a friend asked me about where I find political information related to news and politics in Mississippi. I pointed her to a few online sources that I use as starting points. Some I check daily.

National

For national and often international news (especially regarding the United Kindgom and Israel) I check the Drudge Report. It auto-refreshes about every 15 minutes to keep the headlines updated. In addition to headline-linked articles at major newspaper and media outlets worldwide, many news stories are first broken by editor Matt Drudge. In many ways Drudge now drives many of the stories that are later reported elsewhere. There is also a mobile device version at iDrudgeReport.com that I also use.

Mississippi

Like the Drudge Report is for national and international news headlines and breaking stories, the Magnolia Report is for Mississippi news and politics. This site seems to be updated once per day and has a lot of news and commentary on the Legislature and state government.

I also like the Red/Blue blog at The Clarion Ledger. It features commentary by Jere Nash (blue/liberal) and Andy Taggart (red/conservative). These gentlemen co-authored the 2006 book entitled Mississippi Politics: The Struggle for Power, 1976-2006. The Clarion Ledger is the state’s largest newspaper and also has a mobile device version of their website.

For think tank studies and analysis relating to Mississippi and coming from a limited government and family-values perspective, I refer to the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.

I know there are other sources of good information and commentary; however, these are the ones I currently use as starting points. Please share your suggestions in the comments section below.