Where's the Instant Replay?

"The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program."
Ronald Reagan

Some of the most famous men in boxing-ring history weren't really "boxers" at all. They had real "knockout" punches that provided their victories as long as they could stay on their feet until they had the chance to use them. Babe Ruth's major league baseball career began as a pitcher, until someone realized how well he could hit. Golfers understandingly play to their strengths. Ben Crenshaw wants to get on the green; John Daly prefers the tee box. In sports, whenever a team or a competitor develops a winning play or a proven strategy for winning, they rerun it at every opportune chance they get as long as it keeps working. Even after it has apparently stopped working, they run it a few more times on different occasions or in different events just to be sure it doesn't really work anymore. In case anyone has any reservation or doubt, how often did Jim Brown run the ball for Cleveland or how many passes did Johnny Unitas throw in his career? How often did the Bulls work the ball to Michael Jordan?

In 1994, a conservative political genius devised a strategy of listing ten issues that were near and dear to the hearts of all conservative Americans. Republicans swept the elections gaining control of both houses of Congress for the first time in the lives of most of the conservatives that voted that year. It was no different for the candidates. Precious few of the incumbents in either house, whether defeated or re-elected had ever held office when Republicans controlled either house let alone both.

Was the election simply a backlash from Hillary's health care plan? Undoubtedly backlash was part of it, but the election could not have turned on the outcome of a pending health care vote because Hillary's plan had already been defeated in September before Congress adjourned to campaign for the November election. Americans are generally optimistic and forgiving; they normally prefer to vote for a candidate or an issue rather than voting for revenge. In choosing between the slate of Republican candidates or the Contract with America, who would be willing to dispute that more people voted for the Contract than were voting for the individual candidates?

Could the Contract with America have been the political equivalent of a knockout punch? The forward pass? Having a Jim Brown on third and one? Most people would be inclined to recognize the possibility except for one small detail. We have been more than ten years, five congressional election cycles, and Republicans have not even mentioned the Contract in conjunction with an election. In each and every one of those elections, Republicans held their collective breaths and Democrats were cautiously optimistic about regaining one or both houses of Congress. As the Chicago coach, in the fourth quarter of a close play-off game, would you keep Michael Jordan on the bench?

Why haven't the Republicans used another Contract with America to extend their margins in Congress or to simply advance our conservative agenda? Out of power for more than ten years, Democrats are now considering formulating their own version of a Contract with America. If repetition of winning plays by professional sports seems logical, I repeat, why haven't the Republicans had another Contract with America in a single election since 1994?

Answering the question of why "professional" politicians have behaved differently from professional athletes will be our first step toward understanding how to elect statesmen, patriots if you will, exactly analogous to the Founding Fathers.

"But, then they have to energize the American people with it. I don't think they could."

I don't disagree. America is in a period of transition and uncertainty. Most Americans understand that true socialism with complete control by the state is an unworkable way of life. A lot of people have, or are close to figuring out that limited socialism is almost as bad with the only difference being that it takes longer to go broke. But as for actually figuring out that a nation as rich as ours could go broke, you can still count the living Americans who actually know or believe that it is possible that the United States could go broke or come to an end on one or two hands at the most. The idea that our government is not better than Enron, and would deliberately conceal just how bad its true liability picture actually is, is completely alien to the natural inclination of most Americans whose natural inclination is to trust anybody and everybody until they prove they are untrustworthy.

After all, it is still true at the moment, that the government can borrow or print as much money as it currently needs. For practical purposes, it has always been that way for every living American and almost no living Americans can imagine that it could be any other way. There in lies the rub. As unthinkable as it may be, the government and everybody else are going to find out that there is a limit on both borrowing and printing. When these limits are reached, everybody is going to discover just how much government has over promised, but by then it will be too late to escape the suffering that will have to be endured because of our past mistakes.

"I read the article posted the other day about the unlikelihood of a congressional sea change like happened with Gingrich's revolution in 94(?). The thesis was that those congressional changes were natural.."

I am a bit confused about what you are trying to convey in the rest of your post. I am assuming that the implication is that the sea change that occurred in 1994 was natural and could have been predicted. That is pure unadulterated BS. With only rare exception, Democrats had controlled both houses of Congress since 1932 and almost no one really believed that it would be otherwise. Nixon's two victories showed the country might have been more conservative than some would have believed. Reagan's two landslide elections were stunning, but no one was actually sure that his victories were based on conservatism as opposed to Reagan's undisputed charisma and his good natured likeability. Newt and some of the inner circle of true conservative believers were cautiously optimistic and very hopeful about the 94 elections, especially after Hillary's healthcare fiasco, but nobody predicted or expected the Cat 5 conservative change that actually occurred.

With the right leadership and agenda, the American people would give up socialism completely. The Constitution can be restored and the Democratic Party relegated to the Ash-heap of History where it belongs. Virtually everything that Democrats believe is demonstrably wrong and almost everybody knows it; they are just not ready to admit it, even to themselves.

As I see it, the problem is now with Republicans. Congressional Republicans are becoming accustomed to power. They have forgotten they achieved power by rocking the boat. And they now believe they are better poised to retain power by keeping the status quo, in other words not rocking the boat. Republicans were afraid to run on a solidly conservative agenda. Worse, Bush and the Congressional Republican leadership now believe they won re-election in 2004 based on a mild to moderately socialistic agenda, Campaign Finance Reform and Medicare Prescription Drugs. It is human nature to resist change until it is forced on people or it becomes absolutely clear to enough people that change is necessary to avoid catastrophe.

To an extent, we are all in the same boat. Our boat is off course and it is picking up speed at what is a reckless pace. There are plenty of deck chairs on our boat, enough to accomodate the 78 million boomers relishing their relaxation and resting on their laurels. The Captain and crew are aware of the potential dangers on their course, but noboy actually believes it is every going to happen to them and besides our boat is unsinkable with lots of water tight doors and compartments that can flood without endangering the ship itself. No one has realized yet that those water tight compartment walls have shared passageways that can sequentially flood everthing below deck where the problems can't be seen until it is too late. The passengers aren't aware that too many of our jobs have been exported leaving our ship without enough lifeboats to accomodate all of the passengers. Everything will seem ok as long as the music keeps playing.

If we don't change course before 2012, there is a colision with reality in our future. And by 2016 there are going to be a lot of Americans who will begin to think about and realize just how cold the water is going to be.

I have not read enough of your articles to make specific comments. I just glanced at the linked article and saw this comment:

"On the other hand, the art of politics is in large measure the art of controlling which issues people discuss. The candidate should not try to hide his beliefs, but he certainly should not emphasize those beliefs which will not resonate well with his constituency."

My general observation is that you appear to be more focused on specific issues. In general our approach is focused on bringing the US back within the Constitution. We believe that recruiting and electing leaders commited to the Constitution is the winning electoral approach. If the elected leaders are true to their committments to the Constituion, then the separate issues will get sorted out by our elected officials.

Socialism, for example is unconstitutional, and we believe that with the single exception of Social Security, that all forms of socialism should be ended as quickly as the laws should be changed. We believe that Social Security is only slightly different because a case can be made that people who have paid into SS for years have an implied contract to receive benefits. We believe that some form of the Cato plan to completely privatize SS is both the conservative and the right way to end SS.

I would suggest that you read the article, rather than quote a statement of obvious common sense, out of context. The article advises any candidate to read both the Constitution and Declaration of Independence in context--not by taking snatches that suit a preconceived attitude out of context, as is the usual error in today's discussions.

The first Chapter in the Conservative Debate Handbook, at my web site, is a "Constitutional Overview," which points out some of the obvious errors in today's popular misconceptions. The issue that I am most concerned with has always been bringing the Federal Government back within the confines of the Constitution.

The essay, however, is what it purports to be "Tactical Tips For Conservative Candidates." It is not written to convince the ignorant, who like the present dependence on Government, but to help Conservatives defeat candidates who hold that view in the coming Primaries. (Tactical Tips.)

William Flax

My apologies, not even a hint of criticism was intended nor did I mean for there to be any that was implied. I am sorry for whatever offense you perceived. And I did a poor job of clarifying our intentions or objectives which I thought might be, but not necessarily slightly different from your own.

It is our contention, that some current Republican office holders have become part of the problem. We are certain that virtually all Democrats are part of the problem, but by recruiting conservatives committed to the Constitution, we can target selected Republicans and Democrats and by so doing shift the entire political landscape progressively to the right toward the Constitution.

It is also our opinion that most elected officials interested in making politics a career should not be indiscriminately trusted. But as they begin to realize and recognize how our targeting works, they will begin shifting toward the right. This will have the net effect of making more Republican office holders "more trustworthy".

While all of us are interested in the issues, what we believe sets our effort apart, is that we believe it is going to take some changes in our elected leaders before most politicians recognize that the political landscape has changed right under their feet and most haven't recognized it or else they haven't believed it. When we make enough changes that it registers 7.0 on their political Richter scales, there will be a lot more elected leaders willing to adhere to the Constitution. By changing leaders we expect results instead of lip service.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.