Topic: Politics
Advice for Sarah Palin and America This article discusses how Sarah Palin, the Tea Partiers, and the Republican Party can best spend their time.by Mark Vogl
(conservative)
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Coincidently I finished "Going Rogue" just days before Governor Palin was featured as the Key note speaker at the first Tea Party Convention in Nashville. So this column will reflect my views of the governor after having spent some time trying to get a handle on who she is.
Let me start by saying that if you are a serious student of American politics, or American history, you should read "Going Rogue." As cynical as American politics is today, it was refreshing to read a biography about an American who did not yearn for political power since infancy. Sarah did not go to school to become a lawyer on her way to a political career. In a nation dominated by lawyers in Congress, and the Courts, in boardrooms, and in all aspects of life, it was so nice to read about some one who is. just an American. Her views emanate from her life experience and common sense.
As I read I learned of a person, a citizen who entered politics for the right reason, to represent the people. And it seems she has not yet abandoned that reason. Her book is readable, funny, and interesting. Through her work as governor in dealing with the single most important issue of the state, the energy resources of Alaska, Sarah proved she could understand complex issues, adopt strategies which would meet her goals, assemble a team to make her agenda happen, and remain committed to goals even when it seemed impossible to win.
Palin is not only smart enough to be president, she is humble enough to understand that she is an instrument of God. She is a Christian. She is also a wife and mom. And Palin writes, "there is no greater service than mothering." For me a vital revelation about her character and values.
Sarah was, at least for me, and probably for many other conservatives, McCain's only saving grace. Had he selected almost any of the other choices, I would not have voted for him...as it was, it hurt to vote for him.
But, in my view, Sarah has alot to do in the coming months. For now, its good enough to block wacko Democrat initiatives. Socialism is not the answer. Turning from God, not an answer. Increased taxing and larger government, not an answer. But Republicans have to do some deep soul searching.
America is no longer the savior of the planet. We are a nation. We have problems...big ones. And we need to address home first. For starters, we need to get spending under control...programs will have to be cut.
To be honest, a whole new national economic strategy must be de.veloped. Growing business through finding new markets...must be replaced by other strategies. There are only so many markets...once you compete for them, growth can no longer come from selling more widgets. Instead we have to focus on quality, on consumer individuality, and product individuality. Mass production must be replaced by production for the consumer. Just as ESPN became a sports channel... there needs to be specialization, more craftsmanship in the creation of consumer goods. These strategies are not political strategies, or governing strategies. They are economic strategies and they must come from America's business community.
It may be that our open markets have been too infiltrated by investors and management only concerned with the bottom line. It may be that by allowing foreigners and foreign investment to flow into the American corporate world, that an economic business strategy intended to strengthen America is beyond our scope. If that is true, than who holds the White House is really irrelevant. Our days as a great people governing ourselves is over if American industry is no longer American.
Also, America must move away from college as the road to work and success. Do we need an endless supply of lawyers, accountants, and bureaucrats? What do they produce? Do we need endless college commencements each year? Or do we need more blue collar workers, capable of producing and maintaining goods?
America also needs to go back to basics in the family, one mother, one father, and kids. Diversity is not good; its confusing, chaotic, and immoral. We need to go back to God, the Bible, the Ten Commandments, and calling sin a sin. Whether it be adultery or abortion or homosexuality, wrong is wrong.
Much of what needs to be done in America can't and shouldn't be done by the government. But where the government has gone wrong, whether it be in state lotteries, or allowing stores to be open on Sunday, the government should reverse a half a century of wrong headed policies. Yes, stores should be closed on Sunday and bars should close at a reasonable hour.
Sarah, and to a greater degree America, needs to realize we need to go back to basics...American basics. The basics that built the nation, the basics that brought the first settlers, and than the pioneers.
We also need to realize that the world is just too big for us to watch over. Should we have friends, certainly. But should our friends dictate our foreign policy...absolutely not. American foreign policy should be determined here in America, by our leaders, reflecting our goals, aspirations and values.
Sarah and the Republican Party have a tough row to hoe. They can sit back, and probably win elections in 2010 by just allowing the Democrats to self-destruct. But once elected and the majority, then what?
No, I would rather see a clear and open discussion of America's future. I would rather see a real recognition of our problems, and a new course plotted based on conservative values. The liberals have had their chance...and the proof of their failure is what we have now.
Sarah Palin has time. She can prepare to be our next real leader, with a vision as American as Ronald Reagan. But to be that leader she needs to study the challenges and problems we have and develop answers to those issues using conservative ideology, but thinking out of the box.
As an example, we don't need to relieve American business of their health care costs. But, in order to make them competitive with the rest of the world we need to reduce their tax burdens to offset the health care costs they carry, that foreign companies dont.
Shifting health care costs from business may be much worse for our nation than the current situation. Health care costs are rising because health care is raising them. The supply and demand system of restraining costs is almost non existent. Medicare and medicaid are government payers...can they say no to cost increases from the powerful health care industry (doctors, pharmaceuticals, assisted living homes)? No. Only American business provides a political balance in the economics of health care.
We need to alter our foreign policy so as to lessen the world's dependence on the American military. We need a foriegn policy based on American goals and values, not the needs or wants of our friends. We need a reasonable survey of national security threats.
On government, we need to move towards state's rights, and away from central control. For example, the Department of Education needs to be closed, and taxes reduced equal to the cost cutting. We must re-assert the "negative rights" of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We must interpret the Constitution as it was orignially written. Secession, as a right of the states, should be openly discussed as a means of restraining federal power.
We need to re-establish our national soveriegnty at the border.
Republicans can win in 2010 by allowing the Democrats to self destruct, but for the good of the nation we need a new vision of the future...a new America First approach.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 17 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Mark Vogl only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Mark Vogl is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
As I read your article I can't help but wonder why you support Sarah Palin? While your views on religion and social issues like adultery, abortion, and gay marriage seem to support Palin's (and Republican) views, your views on foreign policy, businesses and jobs seem to differ.
Re: business/jobs: your writing seems to hint of a need for 'fair' trade not 'free' trade- a notion Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs has long advocated. And, one of the very few things I've agreed with Obama on was the tariffs he put on Chinese tires-- but Palin actually went to the Chinese and _apologized_ to the Chinese ! I would imagine you would also have been against the TARP bailouts-- something Palin was for.
As for foreign policy, she is from the school of neoconservatism, which completely opposes what you seem to say. Here's a few notes written down from her speech at the Tea Party Convention:
Other then bumbling as she strained to read notes someone else apparently wrote for her, in addition to reading off her hand, here are some of my notes taken from Palin's speech:
1) she _strongly_ supports sanctions against Iran (which is an act of War).
2) war on "terror": She states we do not back down and we do all we can do to win! (whatever 'win' means)...
3) She railed against the underwear bomber but failed to mention that the reason he attempted to attack was because we killed hundreds of innocent villagers in yemen just alittle over a week before Christmas.
4) She stated the U.S. Constitution does not represent foreigners in our country: Glen Greenwald (libertarian) makes a good constitutional argument proving what she says is not true and that the U.S. Constitution does represent foreign citizens (which is why they should be given their miranda rights once they touch our soil). Here's a link: [link edited for length] The Founders didn't write the U.S. Constitution with the purpose that we would be happy applying all of its principles- but it should be the duty of our government to do so.
5) She stated she wants more religion in politics. Ms. Palin, in addition to a large portion of the founders being Deists, not Christians, the reason the original settlers came to America was to be _free_ from that so they could choose what they wanted, or didn't want, to believe.
6) She stated that when she was governor she refused the bailout funds that came to Alaska, but the republican congress in Alaska vetoed her decision. Ms. Palin, everything I've read states that you were not even governor of Alaska when the bailout funds came their way!
7) And after being paid $120k to rehash a Neocon party line of simplistic one-liners, the auditorium erupted with a standing ovation and a chorus of calls to: "Run Sarah Run" "Run Sarah Run" (in 2012).
You are right I do differ with Sarah and large parts of the Republican establishment on their foreign, trade and economic policies. But, ...those are things that can be changed, modified, corrected in steps. However, the moral issues are long over due for correction. I am hopeful that as Sarah progresses she will see that conventional GOP answers to certain issues are just plain failures, or wrong for America. That said, I see Sarah Palin as America's best hope.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2010-02-09 18:11:06
Hi Mark, I have a short response and a long one. First the short: Ideas that cannot be promoted on their merit certainly should not be cast into law.
Your support of government-backed religious oppression is exactly what sets liberals on fire with fear and what the 1st amendment was supposed to prevent. They use their fear to justify a similarly oppressive legislative oppression to prevent your religion from becoming the law of the land. This is a vicious cycle because now, religious voters can be made to fear the legislative oppression advocated by the left--the result is a self-reinforcing pursuit of big government as rationalized by two seemingly opposing faiths.
Liberty is continuously crushed under the ever-escalating pursuit of "freedom from" anyone whose faith is different than one's own.
The fear that liberals embrace and thrive on is well founded because many Republicans leaders would love to use the force of law to impost their enlightenment and faith on others. By the same token, progressives, be they GOP, DEM or LP would not hesitate to use the force of law to impose a "freedom from" religion on others. Imposing national religious practice through constitutional amendment is exactly the opposite of the religious freedom supposedly at the core of our country's founding.
There is nothing remotely conservative in either of those oppressive behaviors. "Conservative" and "Progressive" are defined by behavior, not by a belief system. In my experience it is a rare religious man who is also a politically conservative man as defined below. An archetypical example of conservatism is embodied in the behavior of Dr. Ron Paul. Time and again he has demonstrated his ability to refrain from using the force of law to promote his faith. This is what distinguishes him as a conservative and the other recent candidates as progressives in my view. Today the GOP, while every last member is absolutely a Republican, most demonstrate their pursuit of "freedom from" through the force of legislation; this identifies them as the progressive enemy of liberty. They shouldn't be in control of a tool that conservatives are fully capable of running themselves.
All it takes to change this is the time commitment to ensure your local GOP is not being run by progressives. That's all. Yet most just can't do it. It doesn't require joining a movement or making signs. It takes attending meetings and asking potential candidates revealing questions. It take hard campaigning in party primary elections to ensure no progressive candidates remain in the candidate pipeline. You can't just take the next pretty face out of the pipe and expect her to be all new and improved. She is a product of the progressive-oppressive engine that the current leaders of the GOP have created. Mobs chanting "Run, Sarah, Run!" have far too much faith in the power of their own intentions. They truly believe they can will her into being some kind of Reagan-Rand-Gandhi with their emotions! Well, it sure beats attending meetings and standing up in a hostile crowd to ask a tough question. Especially compared to the rush that can be had to be surrounded by like-minded chanting friends.
"Republican" is defined by proclamation, "Conservative" is defined by demonstration. My goal is to see the former comprised of more of the latter. The struggle for the defense of liberty is eternal yet what else is worth the effort?
All are free to determine what behavior makes a "conservative" for themselves. My criteria are what I call the Conservative High-5. Conservatives promote and defend these 5 principles: 1. Rule of law 2. Individual Liberty 3. Limited Government 4. Free Enterprise 5. Freedom to defend these principles against all enemies both foreign and domestic.
Much more information about these principles can be found at our website: www.AlphavilleDecoder.org
I am responding to this article to take issue with one of your ideas, and to expand on another that you write about.
First, you wrote the following:
\"America also needs to go back to basics in the family, one mother, one father, and kids. Diversity is not good; its confusing, chaotic, and immoral. We need to go back to God, the Bible, the Ten Commandments, and calling sin a sin. Whether it be adultery or abortion or homosexuality, wrong is wrong.\"
The part of the paragraph with which I take issue is your statement about diversity being bad (confusing, chaotic, and immoral.). While I don\\\'t disagree with the part of the statement that claims diversity to be confusing and chaotic, (which I would agree it can be at times) I am not sure that I can agree that it is \\\"immoral.\\\" And exactly what do you mean , in this case, by \\\"diversity?\\\" Racial integration? Classless societies? Multi-religious? Different opinions? What?
Although I usually cringe at the typical usage of the term diversity, and how many people abuse this idea today, I would like to hear examples of how you can have an \\\"America\\\" or \\\"American society\\\" without it! Surely it would be pointless to remind you and other readers that the country was founded on the very idea of diversity.
The definition of diversity according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary is as follows:
1: the condition of being diverse:variety; especially: the inclusion of diverse people (as people of different races or cultures) in a group or organization 2: an instance of being diverse
Could you please explain more about how you are referencing this term in the article? Your view seems a bit xenophobic to me, but I don\'t want to second-guess your initial intention in condemning diversity as a whole without fully understanding your true meaning.
And to my other point. You write:
\"Secession, as a right of the states, should be openly discussed as a means of restraining federal power.\"
Can you provide concrete examples of how a state seceding from the US would solve the problems that you wrote about? And, if a state secedes, what happens to the people within that state who disagree with your politics, for example, atheists, agnostics, minorities, homosexuals, illegal aliens, etc.? Would a government of this type be open to a majority voice or is it a system of \"you are either with us or you\'re against us?\" If so, where would those \"against\" be sent?
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
