New habits for the GOP

(Denver Post, Nov. 9) “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” Did I hear that from Hallmark, my mom, or in Sunday school? Turns out the words are from Stephen R. Covey’s self-help classic on good habits. They hit me on election night. My Republican party needs self-help if anyone ever did. Some of our gripe sessions about this year’s Democratic sweep feel like a sales meeting where everyone blames the customer. There are echoes of the East German party boss who said if the people didn’t like his regime, they needed to be straightened out. I mean serious denial. Having been a highly ineffective party since 2004 in Colorado, and since 2006 nationally, drunk on excuses and worse yet in 2008, maybe the GOP should check into detox. Supervising our rehab could be the stern Dr. Covey with his Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Bad habits such as credit card binging, entitlement, victimhood, and not practicing what you preach can entrap groups as well as individuals. Republicans better do an intervention on ourselves after Obama’s blowout of McCain and state Dems’ pickup of two US Senate seats and three congressmen in four years. What would the Covey cure involve?

To maximize effectiveness, according to his 1989 bestseller, one should be proactive, begin with the end in mind, put first things first, think win-win, seek first to understand and then to be understood, synergize, and “sharpen the saw.” Let’s talk about how these might apply to the party of Lincoln and Reagan. Eavesdroppers from other parties can snicker all you want. We’re too desperate to care.

To be proactive, we’ll quit whining about Bush’s blunders, the Messiah’s millions, media bias, or anything else in the rearview mirror. GOP congressional leaders will roll out a 2009-2010 Contract with America before the new president names his cabinet. Colorado conservatives will forge a cash-rich, hydra-headed counterpart to the progressives’ amazing Democracy Alliance.

To begin with the end in mind, we’ll write a Republican president’s 2013 inaugural address and post it on the Web this coming January 1. We’ll map the states our ticket must carry to make Obama a one-termer, then target the issues to win those states. Next write a game plan for taking back Congress in 2010, as we did in 1994.

Putting first things first means a laser-focus at all levels of the party on economic recovery, abundant energy, healthy families, fiscal integrity, and national security, period. The American dream was co-opted this year by a smooth talker with a European agenda. We can unmask that ruse. Retake the high ground, team.

Win-win thinking isn’t easy for Republican individualists, the so-called “leave us alone coalition.” But without it we’re toast. Our ethic of responsibility and opportunity has much to offer women and youth, blacks and Hispanics. Get better at communicating that or prepare to be a permanent minority.

Seeking first to understand, then to be understood, is crucial as a habit-breaker for the refusal to listen that undid both the Bush presidency and the McCain campaign. This doesn’t just mean polling. It means listening with the heart. Millions more “felt heard” in 2008 by their side than ours – and voted accordingly.

Synergizing sounds like Oprah babble, but we’ll be uncompetitive until we catch up with the Dems in using social networking and Facebook to make one plus one equal three. Sharpening the saw sounds like Huckabee cornpone, but we’ll be perennial losers until we commit to habitual self-improvement and the endless campaign ala the other Man from Hope, Bill Clinton.

The political pendulum has swung left. The right can either wait for it to swing back, or we can form new habits and pull it back. I’m for the Covey cure.

Bush fatigue

I noted yesterday in a post on my blog entitled "The Morning After" that I believe Obama's victory on Tuesday was as much a product of the public's "Bush fatigue"as it was any ringing affirmation of the liberal policies that Obama will pursue as president. I argue this because Obama ran primarily as a centrist, coopting the Republican tax-cut mantra by promising his tax reduction for "95% of working Americans" and talking up his desire in general for middle class tax relief. It was a great strategy and proved extremely effective -- particularly given McCain's ineptness in arguing that the Obama plan amounts to another entitlement program. In the end, of course, we all know that with the Democratic robber barons in Congress leading the way, tax increases are coming for everyone -- and not just the "rich" folks making in excess of $250k per year. In my view there is no fundamental "realignment" in this election -- the country remains a center-right nation that wants small government and low taxes. In today's Wall Street Journal, Pat Toomey makes a very compelling argument to this effect:

"A poll commissioned by the Club for Growth in 12 swing congressional districts over the past weekend shows that the voters who made the difference in this election still prefer less government -- lower taxes, less spending and less regulation -- to Sen. Obama's economic liberalism. Turns out, Americans didn't vote for Mr. Obama and Democratic congressional candidates because they support their redistributionist agenda, but because they are fed up with the Republican politicians in office. This was a classic "throw the bums out" election, rather than an embrace of the policy views of those who will replace them."

This is exactly the point I've been making: the 2008 election -- like in 2006 -- was a referendum on George W. Bush and the Republican "bums" that the public associates with failure. It was not a ringing endorsement of "spreading the wealth around" and doesn't amount to an affirmation that wanting to keep more of your hard earned money is "selfish". This was not a realignment toward socialism. It was a rejection of Bush, pure and simple.

The poll results cited by Toomey clearly back up this position:

"Consider the most salient aspects of Mr. Obama's economic agenda: the redistribution of wealth through higher taxes on America's top earners; the revival of the death tax; raising the tax on capital gains and dividend income; increased government spending; increased government involvement in the housing crisis; a restriction on offshore drilling and oil exploration in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR); and "card check" legislation stripping workers of their right to a secret ballot in union elections.

On each of these issues, swing voters stand starkly against Mr. Obama. According to the Club's poll, 73% of voters prefer the federal government to focus on "creating economic conditions that give all people opportunities to create wealth through their own efforts" over "spreading wealth from higher income people to middle and lower income people." Two-thirds of respondents prefer to see the permanent elimination of the death tax, and 65% prefer to keep capital gains and dividend tax rates at their current lows."

These results read like a Conservatives dream: a focus on individual effort to create wealth, elimination of the death tax and low tax rates. Unfortunately, the voters -- in rejecting McCain as another vestige of the Bush Administration -- elected someone who stands in opposition to all of these positions. Obama is on record as supporting increases in the death tax, capital gains and dividend taxes, income taxes on the highest tax bracket, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and many other tax increases. One of the poll results that shocked me from Tuesday was that Obama won among tax payers in the $200,000 and above income category -- the very category that he was openly targeting for a tax increase. Voters seem to be against tax increases -- but they didn't vote that way on Tuesday.

This seeming contradiction is tough to explain. It is a given, of course, that many voters don't pay attention to the details, and vote on the basis of emotion and personality. On that score Obama won hands down. Many of the voters in swing states ended up voting against their stated interests and desires, by electing Obama and increasing Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. The emotional wave of "change" -- coupled by an incoherent Republican opposition and a total failure of leadership -- created a Democratic wave. Caveat emptor: they just bought something that was both defective and dangerous.

How long will it take before massive "buyer's remorse" sets in? That depends on how well Obama is able to manage the massive liberal forces that will now be pushing him hard to the left. Whether it be the far-left interest groups that poured massive money into his campaign, or the Democratic leadership in Congress that wants socialism on a grand scale, Obama faces some powerful groups that want precisely what most Americans do not. Whether he can (or will) resist this and govern more to the center is unclear. Nothing in Obama's past indicates a courage of conviction or a willingness to buck his party's power brokers. If Obama is unable (or unwilling) to control these forces, he will quickly find himself with a groundswell of opposition among those who decided (against logic) to vote for him. It won't be pretty.

In the end, this election amounted to a clear signal to conservatives that the issues that fueled the Reagan Revolution -- smaller government, less regulation and low taxes -- still resonate broadly with the American people. George W. Bush was never a leader of this movement, and his prolifigate spending and lack of fiscal discipline helped to ruin the Republican brand. Now, Conservatives need new leadership and new ideas that will take the Reagan-era philosophies and update them for a new generation of Americans. Barack Obama won the presidency but he hasn't changed America.

Discouragement isn't an option

For all of us who believe in liberty, yesterday’s ballot offerings all over the country were hardly inspiring. Predictably, the results this morning may be more than a little dispiriting. Just in case you might be feeling somewhat “down” at the moment, let me offer what I hope will be some cheerful thoughts. Eternal optimist though I am, I admit that when I looked at the morning papers the pessimist temptation briefly had me in its grip. Then I asked myself :What good purpose could a defeatist attitude possibly provide? Will it make me work harder for the causes I know are right? Is there anything about liberty that yesterday’s election disproves?

If I exude a pessimistic demeanor, will it help attract newcomers to the ideas I believe in? Is this the first time in history that believers in liberty have lost some battles? If we simply throw in the towel, will that enhance the prospects for future victories? Is our cause so menial as to justify deserting it because of some bad news or some new challenges? Do we turn back just because the hill we have to climb got a little steeper?

I think you know the answers to those questions.

This is NOT the time to abandon principles. I can’t speak for you but some day I want to go to my reward and be able to look back and say, “I never gave up. I never became part of the problem I tried to solve. I never gave the other side the luxury of winning anything without a fight. I never missed an opportunity to do my best for what I believed in, and it never mattered what the odds or the obstacles were.”

Let’s remember that we stand on the shoulders of many people who came before us and who persevered through far darker times. I think of the brave men and women behind the Iron Curtain who resisted the greatest tyranny of the modern age, and won. I think of those like Hayek and Mises who kept the flame of liberty flickering in the 1930s and ‘40s when the whole world must have seemed mad for statism in one form or another. I think of the heroes like Wilberforce and Clarkson who fought to end slavery and literally changed the conscience and character of a nation in the face of the most daunting of disadvantages.

I think of the patriots who shed their blood for American liberty and suffered through unspeakable hardships as they took on the world’s most powerful nation in 1776. I think of martyrs of the Reformation. And I think of the Scots who, 456 years before the Declaration of Independence, put their lives on the line to repel English invaders with these stirring words: “It is not for honor or glory or wealth that we fight, but for freedom alone, which no good man gives up except with his life.”

As I thought about what some of those great men and women faced, the obstacles before us today seemed rather puny. I’m ashamed that for a moment I let a little election get me down.

If you want my advice, we should not squander a second feeling bad for ourselves. This is a moment when our true character, the stuff we’re really made of, will show itself. If we retreat, that would tell me we were never really worthy of the battle in the first place. But if we resolve to let these tough times build character, teach us to be better and smarter at what we do, and rally our dispirited friends to new levels of dedication, we will look back on this occasion some day with pride at how we handled it. It’s already past 9 am. Have you made any calls to cheer anybody up yet?

Believe me, the folks who for the moment are basking in victory and salivating for the opportunities they may soon have to deploy more force and coercion in our lives are not divinely-inspired geniuses. They are not going to be the first bunch in the history of the planet to figure out how to make big government work. They are far more likely, in fact, to give those who believe in liberty some unique opportunities to drive home our arguments with more eloquence and effect than ever before. When they flop, will the right ideas be lying around, ready to go, to make change for the better? That depends on us. Will we rise to the occasion?

Use this time to think about how you can do more for liberty and do it better, reaching larger audiences in ways that turn lights on people’s minds. Support others who are working full-time on liberty’s behalf. INspire, don’t EXpire!

So in the course of a few hours, I’m happy to say I’ve traversed from a moment of despair to a smile and a sunny optimism, to an eagerness to accept the challenge and get down to work. To all those out there who are hoping people like you and me will go quietly into the night, just keep thinking that. You’re in for some unexpected surprises.

Onward and upward! Larry

Lawrence W. Reed is newly aboard as president of the Foundation for Economic Education in Irvington NY. He is also president emeritus of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan, which he founded two decades ago.

Straws in the wind from California

"Last night’s results give me encouragement that the next conservative resurgence is only one election away," writes Republican state assemblyman Chuck Devore from California, where I knew him as a Claremont Institute Lincoln Fellow. Devore's blog post on Wednesday morning highlighted the solid passage of Proposition 8, which annuls the recent state Supreme Court mandate for same-sex marriage; the likely passage of Proposition 11, which would set up competitive legislative districts in the Golden State after the next census for the first time in memory; the likely election to Congress of Tom McClintock, conservative hero who contested Schwarzenegger to the finish line in the 2003 recall election...

...and above all, the untenable contradiction between California voters' big margin for Obama, an apparent liberal affirmation, and the inherently conservative message sent by their approval of Prop 8.

Out there on the left coast, something clearly has to give.

Adam Smith, joke or no joke?

The war on terrorism, meltdown in the financial markets, and now the election of Obama are watershed events. We seem to be crossing a divide from old to new. It has been obvious for some time that we as a people have struggled with the implications of now being in the 21st century.The old labels of conservative vs liberal and Democrat vs Republican suddenly seem time-worn and intellectually hollow. What will replace them? Editor: Fran Miller of Parker and Ross Kaminsky of Nederland, cadres in the local conservative conspiracy, got into it today over my request for interpretations of the election. You're reading Miller's opening salvo, which continues below. See further down for Kaminsky's comeback and the ensuing crossfire.

I believe a renaissance in our core beliefs and approaches must take root. It is abundantly clear that there is much confusion over the pros and cons of a capitalistic and market driven system as opposed to more socialistic and communitarian approaches. Our education system has failed to impart the nuances of how a market system that produces I-pods may not work when it comes to health care.

The education of our populace is an existential requirement that has been neglected in favor of patriotic boosterism and mudslinging. I strongly believe that unless a moral ecology, independent of political party and religious denomination can be instilled in our citizenry, the ruthless, self-maximizing behavior of man and his corporate organizations will prove to be destructive.

Please know, I am a political agnostic and only concerned with pursuing truth in ideas. I have long since abandoned engaging in any endeavor that seeks to promote the cult of personality or to derive my identity from any political party, religious institution or corporate entity.

Above all, yesterday's election proves that the people of this country want things to change. None of us really knows what that entails, but there is some deeply held intuition that we have been on the wrong path and it is not leading us where we want to go. In the future, for any organized group to be relevant and make a positive contribution they will have to transcend personal power seeking and work for the common good of the people. I don't care to participate in any group that fails to measure up to the spirit of that intention.

Kaminsky mildly responds...

Adam Smith pointed out that "ruthless self-maximizing behavior" only works when someone is providing a benefit to someone else. Presuming someone is behaving in a way which does not trample on the rights of others, one can not behaving in a "self-maximizing" way without contributing to the maximization of others. Therefore, in my view, the demonization of corporations and of profit-seeking is completely misplaced.

Miller returns a Montana horselaugh:

Quoting Adam Smith is a joke. Just because two people both enjoy something does not ethically legitimize it. The world is full of financial intermediary parasites who could not grow their own food if they tried. Which, by the way, is exactly the kind of person I want to avoid being around during the 21st century.

Kaminsky, ever the rationalist, persists:

Huh? I'm pretty certain I could grow my own food if I tried (and we do grow a bit of stuff), and certain I could shoot my own food, but what is the inherent virtue in that? Should everybody be able to do everything? Ever hear of comparative advantage?

Fran Miller can be reached at francismiller@comcast.net. Ross Kaminsky can be reached at rossputin@aol.com. Kaminsky's own thoughts about the Nov. 4 results are on his blog here.