Redstate

By CastleMan Posted in User Blogs — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

As some of you may recall, I have been giving serious consideration to changing my political affiliation. One of the things that I have been looking at is the apparent direction of the Republican party. If I'm going to make this change, I want to feel confident that I am joining a party that, at least for the most part, is in sync with my basic points of view.One way to determine that is to get a handle on who are the major Presidential contenders for 2008. I am concerned with their stances on several big issues. What I want to do here is list those and ask those who are willing to tell me their impressions of how the candidates stand on those big issues.

As I understand it, prevailing wisdom has it that John McCain, Bill Frist, Mitt Romney, Rudolf Giuliani, and George Allen are the major contenders for 2008. Full disclosure: I worked for Senator McCain as an intern way back in 1986. When I lived in Arizona I voted for him in every election in which he was on the ballot. I admire and respect him greatly, in no small part due to the way he conducted himself before politics. But I also find myself respecting his independent streak and courage when it comes especially to fiscal matters.

Anyway, here goes.

1. Fiscal policy.

I believe that there should be a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and that the federal government should not run deficits. This is the only way to get a handle on the entitlement spending and earmarks/pork projects, as well as massive bureaucratic waste, that saps the economy. I think it is clear by now that tax cuts are not going to give the incentive to do that. Congress, even under GOP control, is content to keep spending and avoid the hard choices.

2. Foreign policy.

I believe that the institutionalization of international law and international institutions has been critical in maintaining the peace since World War II. I believe that one reason the United States has had the ability to serve as a guarantor of that peace is that much of the world respects this nation's reputation as a peaceful, just society that is genuinely concerned about human rights, democracy, and the economic and social well-being of people.

That said, I recognize that the United Nations has failed to effectively confront regimes intent on aggression, human rights violations, or the acquisition of nuclear weapons. I believe that the United Nations has some serious organizational and operational problems, and until they are confronted and fixed, the United States really has no choice but to be realistic about them when it determines how or whether to act in its national interest.

I also believe that the United States has recently slipped in its commitment to the humane conduct of foreign policy. I refer here to the incidents of torture documented at Abu Ghraib prison and at Guantanamo Bay. I am totally and unreservedly opposed to the use of any interrogation method that could be considered torture. I believe that any American administration should and must renounce it and do all it can to assure that it is not happening.

I believe that we cannot "cut and run" in Iraq. While I am concerned about the way in which the war was "sold" to the American public, I do believe that the elimination of Saddam Hussein's regime was in the best interests of Iraq, the United States, and the world as a whole. I think the Administration has simply failed to think through the consequences of his ouster, though, and that is the reason that we are all worried about whether civil war will happen in Iraq and/or whether enduring democratic institutions will take hold. But where does the U.S. go from here in Iraq? Our public will not support an endless deployment of troops. Some sort of vision about what is going to be needed to get us out, and what that will likely cost in terms of lives and money, is needed.

And I worry about the overextension of the Army. I believe that Iran poses a serious threat to our national security and cannot be permitted to have nuclear weapons. But given the current demands on the Armed Forces, how can we prevent it? Diplomacy, it seems to me, is very unlikely to work. And what about North Korea?

I am concerned about the India nuclear deal. I think it might violate the relevant treaty governing the spread of nukes. I also worry that it might further destabilize south Asia if Pakistan concludes that it must act to secure its perceived interests in the disputed region before India gets its nuke program further advanced.

And, finally, I do not favor continuation of the embargo on Cuba. I believe the best way to eliminate Castro's noxious government is to undermine it by giving the Cuban people a taste of what the free market can do for them. The embargo is nearly fifty years old now and it has done little or nothing to weaken Castro. Time for a new approach.

3. Environmental policy.

I do believe that global warming is happening and that human activities are contributing to it. I also think, however, that the Kyoto Protocol was not the best way to go about attacking the problem because it would allow developing nations to emit too much carbon dioxide down the road.  I think we need to be talking about the use of appropriate and effective economic incentives (e.g., use of the tax code, trading credits for emissions, etc.) to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and I think we need to be putting lots of pressure on China and India to do the same.

I think that environmental policy, in terms of pollutant control, must operate from the premise that pollution should be reduced or eliminated as much as human and ecological health require. However, I believe that we need to use more economic incentives to get there while preserving the government's ability to set caps and impose appropriate regulation in the interest of limiting pollutants.

In terms of natural resources conservation, I am an unabashed advocate of preserving more wilderness, more wildlife habitat, and healthy and vibrant wildlife and fish populations. I agree that the Endangered Species Act has some problems, but that law needs to be strengthened and recovery needs to be emphasized, as opposed to just getting a listed species off the list. To accomplish that, ecosystems need to be preserved. That means we have to talk about public land policy. I am against any kind of public land sell-off, I oppose any subsidies for extraction activities (on environmental and fiscal grounds), and I support roadless area protection for the national forests. I think the U.S. should ratify the Convention on Biodiversity, adopted at Rio in 1992 and now ratified by almost every other country in the world.

I do, however, agree that natural resources policy is more sustainable and achieves more enduring public support if the public is involved in the policymaking process early and often. So I would like to see a greater state and local role in executing policy. I am deeply concerned about Congress' recent pattern of listening, in most cases, pretty much exclusively to industries that profit from publicly-owned resources when it comes to making natural resources policy.

4. Campaign finance and lobbying.

I am sick and tired of the endless chase for money engaged in by our elected officials. It is sickening, it is corrupt, and it squeezes ordinary people out of the democratic process because their values and their opinions aren't worth anything unless accompanied by (large) checks. I believe that we should seriously consider a public financing system. I think our Congress is bought and sold, and has been for decades, and that both parties have amply and happily participated in the bribery festival. Even if it takes a Constitutional amendment to accomplish it, we must get away from the idea that somehow the bribery of politicians is part of the "freedom of speech."

We cannot get there without changing the way lobbyists corrupt the Congress and Administrations. No member of Congress, no President or Vice-President, no member of the Cabinet, no federal official of any rank or station, should be allowed to accept ANYTHING of value from any lobbyist. Every lobbyist should be registered and every lobbyist should be prohibited from meeting with any Congressman or administration official or other federal officer without that meeting being recorded. Deals done in private are all too often deals that are dishonest and bad for the public.

Former members of Congress should be flatly and permanently barred from lobbying Congress. High ranking members of an Administration (senior executive service and above) should be banned from lobbying the administration they served, and in the case of former cabinet secretaries, deputy secretaries, and assistant secretaries, as well as chiefs of staff, chief counsels to departments, and White House staff, any future administration as well.

I oppose gerrymandering of any kind, by any party, done for any reason. I believe that boundaries for Congressional and state legislative districts should be drawn by commissions staffed by an equal number of representatives of each major political party. Those commissions should be appointed through a check and balance system so that logrolling and political pay-offs through the system are reduced. This system is in use in Arizona and is working well.

I believe that we will not have a healthy democracy until and unless we return to the idea of a citizen politician. Thus I am concerned about the cushy pensions, health insurance, and other benefits provided Congressmen. I think that our political leaders are far too insulated from the public they represent. There should be much less money provided for Congressional staff, much less money provided for Presidential staff at the White House, and enactment of laws that make it much easier for any incumbent, of any party, to be challenged in a primary or general election. I support allowing third parties of all stripes to get on the ballot with much greater ease. I think we need to be talking about increasing the size of the House of Representatives, since each  representative is representing far more people than the founders ever could have anticipated.

5. Economic policy.

A balanced budget will be the best job-creation and innovation driver we could ever hope to have. It will help America continue to be the engine of discovery and growth for the world. But it's not all we need.

We need to continue being a force for freedom of trade. Trade helps keep the peace and, over time, makes everyone more prosperous.

We need to do something to fix the trainwreck called public education. There is too much money wasted on bureaucrats, our kids don't learn enough math and science, we neglect physical education, music and the arts, and there are too many schools that are under-funded, under-staffed by teachers, and falling apart physically. And we need to think again about whether the testing regimen imposed by No Child Left Behind is really helping students learn. It seems to me that its primary utility is instead in helping the feds figure out how to disburse money.

We need to reduce people's sense of entitlement. Social security is a good thing, but I think the retirement age should be raised and I think the system should be transformed into one that operates more like a defined contribution pension program.

As for health care, I think the problem is that the market is not allowed to work enough. People need to be given a direct economic incentive to take care of their own health, and healthcare providers need to be forced into competition with each other. The insurance/Medicare/Medicaid racket fails on both counts. First, no one should get public health insurance unless they are financially needy enough to qualify. You shouldn't be on the federal health dole just because you're old. Second, if people had to make choices about their health care by considering, as one factor, cost, they would probably take better care of themselves and we'd see alot less money wasted on heroic but ultimately ineffective interventions. Third, we'd see a more consumer-friendly healthcare system, with less bureaucracy, more access to doctors, and less complexity. I support a voucher system if we are going to continue a Medicaid/Medicare program and I think that insurance companies should be made subject to the antitrust laws and their oversight dramatically tightened and strengthened. As for malpractice, a uniform compensation system is appropriate IF we also get insurance reform along these lines.

On housing, I again go with the voucher approach. The government should not build "projects." Nor should governments require builders to set aside "affordable housing units." Empower the poor as consumers by giving them the ability to bargain for themselves.

6. Social issues.

I oppose abortion (in almost all cases) and I think Roe v. Wade and the Casey case are incorrect interpretations of the Constitution. I do not fear having this issue debated and decided in the state legislatures. That said, I do think there is a right to privacy in the Constitution and I do think that access to birth control (as opposed to abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or where the health of the mother is at risk) must be preserved. We should be providing our children with intelligent and comprehensive sex education, and it should be done in the public schools.

I don't have any problem with gay marriage and, if the courts find that the Equal Protection Clause requires allowing civil ceremonies for gay partners, I am not bothered by that. There have been many social changes driven by interpretation of that clause of the Constitution (or similar ones in state constitutions), including civil rights and greater gender equality, that were feared at the time. They worked out fine. And we are not talking about religious ceremonies here. Any church will always retain its right, as it should, to decide for itself who can and cannot get married in it. I oppose any constitutional amendment aimed at blocking gay marriage and I also support civil union proposals, particularly if they tamp down conflict over gay marriage.

I oppose the death penalty.

I think that our century-old experiment in juvenile justice reform is worthy and needs to be continued and improved. We should not treat a teenager as an adult except in the most rare of instances, as science now tells us that teenagers are simply incapable of making decisions in the same way and with the same maturity as do adults. The United States should ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is one of only two or three nations worldwide that has not done so.

I think that separation of church and state is essential to a free society and so I don't like to see Congress or state legislatures institutionalizing the prayers and practices of one creed over another and courts putting up Ten Commandments monuments or the like. I don't, however, think there is any problem with elected officials considering their own spiritual background and beliefs as they decide matters of public policy. No federal money should go to any religious organization of any kind. Those organizations already have an exemption from taxation (under section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code) and thus it is not fair or, in my view, constitutional to further subsidize them.

I do not generally like affirmative action. I think it has helped provide greater economic opportunity for members of minorities in this society, but I also think it has contributed to a culture in which some are given advantages to which merit would not entitle them. That is especially a problem in higher education and in public contracting. So we need to be putting in place a phase-out program for the whole affirmative action approach.

I think that illegal immigration is a huge problem for this country. I oppose amnesty for illegals and I think that national security demands much stronger border security.

I hope my exposition of these ideas will help me sort out whether there might be a future for an iconoclast like me in the Republican party. I appreciate everyone's help.