Daily Archives: 5 March 2015

A Conservative’s View of American Domestic Policy: Some Thoughts

Posted on by
Reply

It’s out.

This is the first of a pair of publications on American policy; the other is concerned with National Policy, which consists of foreign and defense policy.

Domestic Policy both is necessary in its own right and must come before National Policy since a sound policy domestically is absolutely required both for the health of the nation within our borders and to facilitate—indeed, to enable—any form of outward-facing policy at the national level.

Domestic Policy is a combination of social and economic policies. Social Policy consists of these things: the concept of the American nation; American citizenship; the role of faith in our society; the role of immigration and its importance to our society; the importance of consensus; and the role of education.

Economic Policy consists of these things: the nature of a free market and its condition as the most moral system and the one most conducive to generating prosperity for all (even though there always will be some more or less prosperous than others), the role of the Federal government in protecting and enhancing our economy, and the role of Federal regulation in facilitating our economy.

Of course, these two major divisions of Domestic Policy are not truly separate from each other any more than biology, chemistry, and physics are separate from each other within science. Just as we divide scientific disciplines from each other to facilitate inquiry and discussion, I’m separating domestic policy into these divisions to facilitate a similar inquiry and discussion—while remaining fully aware and making occasional use of their very large areas of overlap.

The book is available in eBook form from amazon.com () and

Who Should Run For What?

Posted on by
Reply

Of the Republican candidates, likely and unlikely, for President, who should run for what (I’m ignoring term limits in this little exercise)? I’m also doubling up on some positions because, primaries. Here’s my thumb nailed early list, alphabetically sorted.

Jeb Bush—President

Effective conservative governor. Regardless of his views on Common Core, the race should not be about one issue. Regardless of his views on legalization of illegal immigrants, immigration is a thing that needs to be settled—all three legs. Bush reduced taxes, while balancing Florida’s budgets, by some $19 billion over his time in office. That ain’t peanuts.

Ben Carson—US Senate

Strong Conservative, but he’s not ready for the White House. He wants political seasoning first—as our current President is demonstrating, in spades.

Chris Christie—Governor

Effective governor. He’s not suited for national level politics, though. He, and New Jersey, are better off if he stays home and finishes fixing New Jersey.

Ted Cruz—US Senator

Too polarizing, too much his way or the highway. He’s good for keeping Senate balanced and debating, though.

Carly Fiorina—Vice President

Not ready for the top of the White House; however, she understands and communicates effectively Conservative principles.

Mike Huckabee—Governor

Effective governor, not so effective on the national level. Alternatively, he can go back to being a vocal private citizen commenting on Conservative principles.

Bobby Jindal—President

Effective conservative policies, unafraid of a fight, vastly improved communicator since 2012. He may well not be fully checked out on national level politics, but he’s close enough to take very seriously.

Sarah Palin—US Senate

Strong Conservative, and she would be excellent Senator. She tried for Vice President once; she’s too damaged by McCain’s dysfunctional campaign to have a serious shot at either White House position.

Rand Paul—US Senator

Too polarizing, and his foreign policies views are evolving suspiciously (to my paranoid pea brain). Like Cruz, though, he’s good for keeping Senate balanced and debating.

Rick Perry—Vice President

Effective Conservative governor. I could not love Perry less, loved I not Walker, Jindal, and Bush more. He would be good President, but a President needs a strong Vice President, too. In fact, of these four, any would be good President, any of the other three would be a good Vice President.

Marco Rubio—Vice President

Not ready for the top of the White House, but he knows the Senate; he could elevate the Vice President’s role there very effectively.

Rick Santorum—US Senator

Too socially conservative, occasionally too shrill for national level success.

Donald Trump—Chairman, Sit Down and Shut Up Committee

Country needs an effective man/woman, not an egotistical blowhard. Considering egotistical blowhards, Trump is indistinguishable from Barack Obama.

Scott Walker—President

Strong Conservative, successful Conservative governor. Not afraid of a fight with the Left, knows how to win those fights.

National Security and Terrorists

Posted on by
Reply

More than a dozen Islamic State fighters from Iraq and Syria—some with direct ties to the group’s leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—are now in Libya, according to US and European sources.

And the US has no authority to take them out.

And

The nation’s most senior intelligence officer, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, recently testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that Libya is not only a safe haven for ISIS but at least six other terror groups, including Ansar al-Sharia, which paraded police vehicles through Benghazi last month.

State’s Deputy Spokeswoman Marie Harf repeated State’s (and so President Barack Obama’s) position on the matter, insisting that this is not the fault of our foreign policy.

Are we happy with the situation in Libya from a governance and security perspective? No. Absolutely not. At the end of the day, though, this is not just a line, it’s true. This is ultimately up to the Libyan people, leaders in Libya to take the security of their country into their own hands and try to move it in a better direction with our help, the UN and others’ help as well.

This is a misreading of the situation. These Daesh members (and with direct ties to…Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, they’re Daesh leaders themselves) also are threats to our own national security, as are those other terrorist groups present—and not only to us, but to our friends and allies, also. From that, two consequences result directly.

The first is that, most assuredly, the situation in Libya is Libya’s to answer first, and we should do all we can to help Libya in that regard if they ask.

The second consequence, and from our national safety perspective the more important one, is that if Libya is unable or unwilling to handle the situation to our satisfaction—that is to the satisfaction of our own national security interest—then we have an obligation to ourselves, to American security, to enter and to handle the situation ourselves.

A foreign policy that is in the way of that, whether actively so or passively, very definitely is at fault, and it’s at odds with our national security.