Three Completely Anecdotal Suppositions

Despite the highly charged partisan rancor in the run up to the November election, it seems to me, from highly anecdotal evidence, that there is an still-in-development national consensus forming around three core issues.

Conservatives of all types should capitalize on the shared sentiment, help build/shape this consensus, and thus move the national conversation in our direction.

The points discussed below the fold may, at first glance, seem out of the ordinary comfort zone for a conservative to propose; if you have a heart problem, are pregnant, a partisan RINO hunter, or are on medication, please stop reading…

(1) The Social Safety Net – It’s wealth redistribution, plain and simple.

That’s right; the evil shibboleth of the Left has been de facto adopted by we conservatives. What else does “means testing” Social Security mean? People who earned more and have more get less while others who did less well get more. Even in the conservative reforms of the Gingrich-Clinton Co-Dominion which turned Welfare into Workfare, other people’s money was taken by the government and transferred to people that didn’t earn it.

Most Americans are simultaneously for the social safety net, are against its abuse, yet understand that its current structure is unsustainable. When we talk about how the social programs have created a huge debt and are putting our future in jeopardy we are 100% correct but we also succeed in convincing a huge portion of our country men that we are Chicken Little falsely claiming the sky is falling. We need to refocus and retool our communications and talk, as Congressman Paul Ryan does (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82ZW4ddHXCg), regarding how liberals are going to destroy these programs while conservatives have the solutions to make them sustainable for generations to come.

(2) “Free Trade” – Whether Tea Party or OWS, it seems almost everyone save for the political and economic elites has come to the realization that free trade isn’t free.

No other nation on the Earth has as many free trade agreement or markets open to imports as the USA. What has NAFTA and the WTO brought us? Dirt cheap electronics, clothing, and oh yeah the rise of China based on what we used to have – a manufacturing base. In Santorum’s now defunct quest to best Romney, he proved that the industrial question – whether our nation wants to have a working middle class and have an economic future or whether we want to feel good now and crash latter – has legs.

We are the philosophy of skepticism, the party of social, fiscal, and national security hawks but we must also include those who have been left behind by the failed neo-liberal international trade policy that allows us to pretend that we can all go to college, become paper pushers or number crunchers, and continue to ship manufacturing jobs lock, stock, and barrel overseas with no economic consequences. Liberals on the che’che’ Left love the term “Fair Trade;” they use it to mean all sorts of nonsensical economic activity that does little to help people but makes them feel all sorts of good.

We need to re-appropriate this term and point out that even our evolved European cousins use protective tariffs to encourage industry – that’s Fair Trade, using tariffs and common sense to grow the blue collar middle class jobs we once had and that other nations now enjoy.  

(3) Financialism/Home Loanership – We should not be surprised that one hand of the mega-financial institutions didn’t know what the other was doing for legally they could not work in tandem.

We may not be able to blame the banks for betting against the home loan bubble to whom they were a party, but we can learn and grow from it. A legal firewall between the two halves of the mega-banks whole kept them from communicating and Big Government pressure made them reduce standards. Though we can not be surprised when mega banks engage in rational economic behavior, we can channel the anger at them for good. Right or left and right or wrong, a huge majority of people are annoyed at the bank bailouts. The financial down turn may or may not have been the banks fault but they should not have been bailed out. The system of Big Government muscling Big Business into lowering lending standards for sub-primer borrowers, followed by Big Government bailing out Big Business with our tax money is not even a socialist’s wet dream.

We need to channel the anger many feel at big business to the businesses at the heart of the home lending meltdown; and we must focus the anger many others feel towards big government at the government agencies most responsible for encouraging this behavior – both of which are Freddie and Fannie Mac.

 

4 thoughts on “Three Completely Anecdotal Suppositions

  1. The post above is incomprehensible and basically meaningless. Here's another topic we all agree on: the sun will shine somewhere in the world tomorrow.

    Let me see if I can translate it into English.

    1. We all like the "social safety net" and all have a stake in making sure it isn't abused. . Hey Josh, if you have a point to make, then make it. Don't send me to some YouTube clip. I'm not sitting through a Paul Ryan clip. The dude's a dingbat.

    2. Free Trade. We all like free trade in theory but it has created significant unintended consequences. No problem there. I have no idea what you are trying to say in the sentence that includes the line about college and paper pushing.

    3. Blame Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae! In other words, while the housing crash and the financial meltdown happened for many reasons, it is just easier to blame Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Josh, news flash: mortgage lenders have, like, one job – accurately assess risk. They need to understand to whom they are lending money and whether the loans they are making are worth it. No matter how you slice it, sub-prime borrowers are risky because they are sub-prime! This is the same reason that you or I could go to TD Bank in Cherry Hill and get a personal loan for 7% while some poor person from Camden has to get a pay day loan from Montel Williams at 35%. That math works for Montel Williams but not Wells Fargo or Bank of America? What a joke.

  2. I would rather have you make your case than punt to Ryan. Obviously too much to ask.

    That's all you could pick out from my comments? I thought I deserved more. Then I assume that you agree with my points.

  3. BTW, nice little right-wing echo chamber you guys have here.

    I do admire what you have done but my goodness this place is so self-congratulatory it is like the Oscars. Maybe Kodaktheater.com will become available.

Comments are closed.