Leading the Party - How Romney would be a disaster for the GOP

The Black highlights significant dips in the Generic Congressional Vote relative to the democrats, while the red lines and green lines indicate where Romneys vote has rapidly increased (red) or staggered to gradual decline (green). Screenshots from RCP Polling Averages, Fair Use, with a few basic visual annotations. I apologize for the hazy quality - Blogger could not fully handle the image.

The RCP Polling average, at realclearpolitics.com, averages a whole series of generally accepted polls while discluding major outliers to form a scientific estimation of the actual vote. Mitt Romneys slip in the polls in June corresponded with an improvement in the Generic Congressional Vote. Later, when Perry also appeared to have many of the same problems to Conservatives and, given the evidence above, others, the Congressional Vote slipped once again. In short, Romney, though popular himself, as a standard-bearer for the greater Republican Party is a disaster, and the fruits of this disaster would show itself in (at best) stagnation in the congressional races of 2012 should he be the nominee. At worse, the Republicans could end up not only failing to take the Senate, but losing the House, as their generic congressional ballot is often underperforming the Democrats.

Most reasonable Republicans agree that getting rid of the Reidosi dominated congress is as important as getting rid of Obama. Romney looks presidential, talks soberly (though I wouldn't say well, as that requires that you actually say something), has a nice suit and nice hair, and isn't Obama. Because of this, a lot of people are willing to vote for him for President. But a lot of those people will also see him as the representative of the Republican Party, and will conclude that it is every bit as corrupt, unethical, lukewarm and openly fat cat Wall Street elitist as it was in 2008. They'll still vote for Romney, because he's not Obama and looks like a President regardless of what he does, but they won't vote for Republican candidates outside of Romney. It will also prevent the discussion of ideas that leads to congressional majorities, instead having a presidential race focused entirely on personalities and handing the congressional races directly over to California Environmentalists and Wisconsin Public Sector Unions.

And why would it be any different? Most Americans, outside of the most venom-filled, unthinking and partisan branches of the Republican party, know that George W. Bush is just as responsible for our nations current situation as Barrack Obama. Romney represents the Republican party of Bush. Romney represents Republicans with no principles, who will do anything to get elected, will accept bribes like Ted Stevens, know nothing about Main Street or the physical economy (Romney is, after all, the quintessential Wall Street number cruncher who thinks that the economy is a math equation) and have no trouble trampling on the rights of ordinary Americans or casting all good economic sense to the wind (including what he actually knows) simply to be "popular."

Romney represents the kind of thinking that forces Americans to buy a private good and favors a gradual government takeover of the economy - something which he has not only done, but seems rather proud of. Romney, frankly, should move to the countries that follow his way of thinking, putting everything in the hands of corrupt elites, namely the Sudan, Burundi, Zimbabwe, Chad, the Central African Republic or any number of other African Kleptocracies. Maybe then he would realize why an Ivy-Leagueized America is not a good idea and that public-private collusion is not a virtue.

And should we elect him, just what will he do? Will the man who inspired Obamas entire economics agenda really depart from them substantially? Will he kowtow and get along well with the Democrat Congress that he helped elect? Just what will he do?

Update 10/9/11 - As Mr. Presidents approval ratings continue to drop in the RCP average to their lowest point ever this week, now approaching that crucial 40% mark, it seems that more and more the legitimate interest of the Republican Party needs to be selecting a man who can lead the entire party to victory in all 50 states. Winning the electoral college by more votes is not going to help the Conservatives govern. Winning the electoral college, and then winning the Senate and House by more, will.

Politics is Comedy

The Clown Chili Peppers. Attb: Rick Dikeman at the English Language Wikipedia, license c.c.a.s.a. 3.0 unported.

Any frequent reader of this blog will know that there are few more enthusiastic supporters of the Tea Party then me, but I must give one mild criticism.

It has often been said that in many ways the Tea Party needs to learn. Being a new "organization" (more like "tribe") this is undoubtedbly true, but what precise due they need to learn? If one says "learn to tax people and give bailouts," then surely we have already seen the fruits of these decisions, the very standing on which the Tea Party was organized against the establishment of the Republican Party. Indeed liberals, your prayers against the hypocrisy of the Bush Administration have been answered.

If one says dealing with racism, while there are certainly racists in the Tea Party (and every other party I might add), I challenge you to give any example where a poilcy that could be considered racist was supported simply because it was racist. You will find none, but rather, a plethora of wasteful, ignorant and dangerous policies that undermined American law and order, or laid waste to our federal budget. It seems once again that the "unwashed masses" are more intelligent then our isolated, and steamed in a lost and perverted academia till no nutrition remained, vegetables of elites.

Rather, there is something far more fundamental, far bigger, and far more important at this moment in time that they must learn. If they do not learn it, they will fragment, and unlike a traditional party the Tea Party has no answer for such a fragmentation, all will be lost, and politics as normal will continue.

To understand what and why, let's step back for a minute and look at a great and foolish debate taking place in the tea party today: whether to increase taxes. It's easy enough to see why this debate would happen, and easy to deride the opposition to doing so. As a Texans put it, and what greater pleasure is there in life then hearing Texans speak, "do you honestly think not going to the mall and not using your credit card will pay off your debt?"It's easy enough to dismiss this crowd as toddlers, infants, those who were born yesterday.

Yet they have a very real intuitive fear, and one that is correct. For every dollar saved from the deficit by "Revenue Increases," there is just a little less pressure on congress to end our dangerous habits. Then there is a little more pressure to expand existing government entities and assets to facilitate new ends, possibly even ends with some merit, bringing us to precisely where we are now 4 years later, with less ability to borrow and, thanks to higher tax rates depreciating our economy, less ability to pay off. This is a very valid fear.

Why is it so hard to believe that one thing can be done at one instant and another at another? If you rearranged the lines in a movie, would they neccesarily make any sense? Or would the very point of the film be lost on its viewers?

Sometimes one must hold a gun to the head, must threaten and coerce, especially when one possesses only one house of congress, and has substantial detractors even among its own adopted party in the other. Sometimes one must also rearrange the scene to rearrange the decision. Politics is not a game for straight-talk or fairplay, especially not when dealing with other politicians, and exceptionally stubborn and heartless ones as we've found.

Politics is an art of timing and discretion. If the claim that increasing tax rates is indeed true, there will come a time for it, but that time is not now, especially since government can also raise revenue by selling government assets, such as public land with substantial mineral and oil reserves or quality soil for farming, and that dilapidating spending not only will help balance the deficit, but can alleviate the burden facing businesses with their excess of regulation and paperwork, a burden that currently equals $10,585 per employee for a small business, and close to $8,000 per employee for larger firms. The cost to our federal budget of regulation is $1.75 trillion, or more then the current budget deficit. This is a figure that comes from the Small Business Administration, a entity that the Obama administration has some ability to control and doctor with spinning.

Not only would selling these lands and relieving these costs to business reduce our deficit through spending cuts, but as Senator Marco Rubio recently pointed out, they would also unleash an economic torrent of growth likely far greater then the "10 day reprieve" the tax increases offer. As one can tell, things are not as they once seemed. The "balanced approach" folks really do not have the sense that the mind would conjure for them. We need to cut spending, and any attempt to raise revenue artificially will only slow such a process and damage the economy. Eventually, revenue will be raised - if we do it right, tax increases may not even be neccesary.

Take your turn, wait your time. It may seem hypocritical, but it's a fight we didn't start and we're in it. Know what to say and when, and realize who it empowers and who it humbles. Control your tongue, and let all the chips fall in place, for "there is a season and place for everything under the sun." (King Solomon, translated from book of Ecclesiastes). Don't let haste make waste, rather realize that politics is comedy, and your power is also a grave responsibility.


WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

For a Friend

Aerial view of Mercer Island, public domain by Derrick Coetzee

I would like to thank a blogger I know from Pretoria for bringing to mind the events of many years ago. This is a story I believe everyone needs to hear.

To protect my friends privacy, I will call him Seth. He was someone I wish I had gotten to know better, and earlier, and someone whose story would enlighten all of us today about the most important side of morality: love.

Seth is gay. And no, this story does not end with him being killed by armed KKK brutes, nor does it end with him taking his own life, he is far more resilient then that. It ends with something more common, and for most of us, more true. Yet without the story, the ending means nothing anyways.

Seth was bright, intelligent, healthy, and in no way or manner effeminate. There is nothing about Seth that would seem less of a man, that would make him any less male than I or any man that you know. He was civilized, and never rude, and always spoke softly and carefully, every word that came out of his mouth, something he learned from his own life, and yet he still had a sense of humor. He is one of those rare people who can keep himself totally disciplined and still be open to everyone and everything around him at the same time. He was strong-willed and frank, saying exactly what he means and doing exactly what he intends. He had a strong work ethic and a sense of responsibility for himself that too many people are missing today. Seth was a talented actor and singer.

He had grown up on an island of 13 square miles with 19,000 people (since then the population has grown to 22,000), two miles from Seattle. You could ride a horse along a short section of the main drag of town. There were many beautiful cliffsides and views from out across the lake, and he lived on a one-lane road that wound up the hill with no guard rails and a 300 foot cliff on one side, from which you could see the tops of the trees. He was the only son of his wealthy father, a careless, neglectful single father who would rather spend his time with 15 egotistical mistresses who all thought they were the only one then take care of his only child.

Seth was called many names at school, and ridiculed, even though he was hardly a homosexual stereotype, and even in the place, the Drama Department, that one would least think such abuse would occur. The actors in the Drama Department were a very dog-eat-dog bunch, never caring for their own, always set on themselves, and when abuse occurred, they would not stand against it, lest they anger someone. The only person who seemed to care at all was the teacher, and since most people knew this, they simply waited until she was away, then recommenced their behavior.

I don't remember entirely what happened, but somehow one day I told Seth a joke I really shouldn't have, something very offensive towards gays. Realizing what I had done, I quickly apologized for it. What happened next I don't believe I will ever forget. He looked me straight in the eye and said "do you honestly think that would offend me? I've heard so much worse then that." He paused, sighed and then concluded: "What you would think if you heard what I've heard."

I spoke to Seth many more times, and before the school year was over, he told me he was consulting his boyfriend about moving to Houston, Texas. We were out among the fallen chestnuts, speaking after school, him alone waiting for over an hour to be picked up before I found him after Track practice. He seemed very at peace, but also very anxious to get off of our island. He was only a junior, had not graduated from high school yet, but when I met a friend of Seth's next year, and asked him why I had not seen Seth, he told me he had moved to Maryland - while his father was still here on the island. I doubt very much that he completed high school there.

Regardless of what you think about homosexuality morally, no one, in their right mind, will say that my friend Seth, my kind, civilized, open, disciplined, honorable, thoughtful, and honest Seth, was treated justly.

The Gospel of Joseph Stalin, Episode 2: Parable of the fruits and the nuts

Secretary General and Loving Father Stalin, who only sends those who really need it to Siberia to be worked to death. Photo taken by CCCP, public domain for all good comrades. Here

"And when the Republican Candidate for Governor of California comes, on the second of November, carried on the backs of lobbyists and wearing a tacky turtleneck sweater, she will divide the Californians, and in her bowl will be the fruits, and in her mouth will be the nuts.

"And she shall sayeth to the fruits as they look on in their simply fabulous sunglasses while their gay partner holds their hand and massages their left shoulder, "curse you oh fruits, for I was hungry, and you cancelled my welfare checks, I was naked, and you let me escape prison for streaking, I was in the hospital, and you cut my Medicaid, I was in prison, and you caused the prison library to be sold to Half Price Books."

"But Meg Whitman, when did we do any of these things to you?"

"Assuredly I say to you, when you overspent at the ballot box, you did it to me."

"Then she shall sayeth to the nuts as they hold their combined King James Bible and AK-47 maintenance manual, "curse you oh nuts, for I was trying to break the strikes, and you stopped me, I was trying to lower taxes, and you increased them, I was trying to build a fence on the border, and you turned the ground in to quicksand."

"But Meg Whitman, when did we do any of these things to you?"

"Assuredly I say to you, when you made yourselves look ridiculous, you made me look ridiculous."

"And then everyone, including Meg Whitman, shall inherit a hell called modern day California. There shall be 20% unemployment rates and a considerable number of ruined political careers, and even the wild animals shall consider them an abhorrence and a disgrace."

Ahn Cao (R - New Orleans)

Image Courtesy of the Office of Congressmen Ed Royce, public domain

There was exactly one Republican congressmen who voted in favor of Obama's healthcare bill. Ahn "Joseph" Cao of Downtown New Orleans, a district more liberal, on average, then Seattle, Washington - populated almost entirely by African Americans and hyper-urbanites who live in 500-square-foot lofts and go to parties all the time. The devil-may-care attitude of his hometown has led at once to a brilliant and sophisticated culture, utter extravagance and excess, and monstrous levels of poverty, crime, general sleaziness, and finally, corruption. He was elected as a pro-business, moderate, no-nonsense, relatively innocent and squeaky clean Vietnamese immigrant Republican against a Democrat who had been caught with 85 grand in his freezer.

His district probably has a lot of people without medical insurance. We know his district is generally very economically liberal, and so his conservative votes on the Stimulus and Cap-and-Trade likely had serious repercussions for him back home. His election was entirely the product of a two-party system and the lack of competition it creates. In short, something had to give.

I know a lot of conservatives are very angry at Mr. Cao, but they should realize that if he does not occasionally throw his constituents a bone - especially one that, from the special interests viewpoint alone, would be so delicious to them - he WILL lose this seat. If he keeps this seat, the GOP may have the opportunity to expand its presence not only in New Orleans, but in Inner City America in general, the kind of frontier expansion that Republicans have not really engaged in for a long, long time. May I remind you that we are not in the majority right now.

Beyond this, it may indeed have been a vote of conscience. Follow this link to see for yourselves. In particular, he used his bargaining power to arrange for an amendment, Stupak-Pitts, that will prevent federally funded plans from covering elective abortion, producing an effective abortion tax. Consider also that this fellow is VERY Vietnamese, and as such probably has a more collectivist view of life then is normal here in America. To him, denying some people medical freedom to protect the vitality of the whole probably (though I will emphasize probably, as I cannot see in to the mans head) does not seem quite so bad, and if he can get an anti-abortion amendment doing it, well that's just twice as good now isn't it?

So no, I do not believe Ahn Cao is a "traitor." Reagan himself said "you only have to vote with your party 80% of the time." I continue to follow his career with special and keen interest and to recognize the unique constraints on his power as a legislator as a result of his district. Like it or not, America is a democracy. Ahn Cao continues to provide a more clear and business friendly and hardwork oriented path for the people of New Orleans and to promote Conservative interests across America through his cooperation from a group of people (the inner-cities) that so far no other Republican has really reached out to. He voted with us on the Stimulus and the Cap-and-Trade, and this is a vote (Downtown New Orleans) we normally wouldn't have.

Lehman Brothers Burns in Hell

In honor of the mighty fall of a mighty bank, almost exactly (less one day) a year ago. Dedicated to the way the very fabric of our society has been torn to tatters by these and similar rogue companies. And dedicated to all those who have suffered or will suffer as a result of this tragedy of human hubris and pain intolerance.

Image Courtesy of David Shankbone, cc SA 3.0 & GNU 1.2 Licenses under condition of attributing the artist and share alike.

I read an article in the NYT the other day about how Lehman Brothers had to die for the financial sector to live. The crux of the argument is that without Lehman there would've been no federal bailout. This is certainly true. But, did the federal bailout really help us in the end?

Not long after the federal bailout was authorized, AIG gave huge bonuses to their executives. They apparently did this with the full-hearted agreement of certain not-to-be-named Obama cabinet members (okay, it was the Treasury Secretary), and mystified many, who saw this as rewarding the very people who started the crisis. The companies, under intense pressure from the President, underwent the supremely hypocritical and politically caniving action of demanding that the executives give the bonuses back (?) as if they have the right to ask such a thing when it was the company's own sleaziness that distributed the bonuses to begin with. Notice any trends? Perhaps a little systematic incompetence and corruption? A particular AIG exec, Jack DeSantis, wrote a rather impassioned letter pointing out the supreme level of hypocrisy and irresponsibillity involved in such a transfer of blame, especially when his sector of the company was one of the few strong points, and was derided at by a hyperbolically riduclous American public who could not see beyond the size of his bonus. Which brings us to our next point.

What was the very intention of the bank bail-out? What was the point? What's the big idea? Well, Obama said they were "too big to fail" and that rather then letting nature take it's course on these corrupt, tyrannical, unclean, and generally absurd willfully sinning banks, we should come in and save them, both financially, and from themselves.

And here's the big dilemma: if we don't do interfere in their affairs, the natural corruption and self-congratulating nature of these banks up way past their bedtime will cause this to happen AGAIN. And if we do interfere, these mediocre, socialistically controlled banks will stifle all competition and innovation in the financial sector by way of their immense government investments and protections, removing one entire potential for American growth, stunting the development of financial cities like NYC, Atlanta, Miami, Chicago and Dallas, and making us completely dependent upon London & Frankfurt for the financial side of our growth. In particular, we can kiss the supremacy of the Dollar goodbye - now it'll be the Euro that's the world's chief currency! Just like rent controls pushing the development out of historic Manhattan to the edges, this bailout will, by way of similar controls, push financial innovation and new markets to other continents.

If we had let these banks fail, there would've been no liquidity in our economy and the price of taking a loan or converting assets would shoot through the roof. Ah, but here's the good news: the high price of loans and low price of assets would create a massive incentive, a veritable gold rush, on the part of private investors to build their own banks. It would also stimulate small business, as new companies could still acquire financing (and through it cheap assets) through selling their original stock on the NASDAQ. Just like how San Francisco, within two years of it's great 1908 earthquake, had rebuilt the city completely (though rents did briefly shoot through to three times their original price), our financial sectors own immense price gouging would rebuild Manhattan, both literally and figuratively, and in the end create a more stable, meritocratic, compartmentalized, dynamic, innovative, and small-business geared economy.

New banks, new financial centers, new small business, new great cities, and new organizations that no longer work on the handshake, wink wink, nudge nudge system. That would be America's financial future. But not now - now that Banks are too big to fail, the market is too crowded to succeed! We've got ourselves a corporate traffic jam, and all 12 lanes on this freeway are packed with old clunker cars that are twenty-feet long, weight 100 tons, and crash every five feet, so prepare for a slowdown and eventually being overtaken by Europeans riding horses.

Maybe part of the problem is we don't appreciate Hell enough. Don't get me wrong, Heaven's great, but sometimes you just need a trashcan or a cattleprod, and hell serves both these. Fear can be quite stimulating, and sometimes things just reach their condemnation. Like Pharoah in Exodus, they run out of chances, their heart is too hard, their actions too geared along the track of evil, destruction is the only place they can go, and if we do not put away "the evil from among us," it will corrupt the hearts of us all who are left and put us in a position where we can't be righteous even if we want to (like Jack De Santis). I was thankful to see this happen with Lehman's, and regret that more unrepentant sinners did not find their demise. Even worse, by not punishing or threatening in any credible way bad behavior, those who have already begun to take this road will never fork off of it, but take it straight to it's scarlet conclusion, destruction, for them or all.

It is obvious that the NYT wants to make Lehman Brothers Christ, but these, these banks, they be willful sinners, the unrepentant kind, the rebels without a cause, the apostates. We should've sent these guys to HELL!!!!

Courtesy of The Immaculate Heart, image shown by Our Lady of Fatima in 1917

Healthcare Co-ops - The Third Option

On healthcare, the debate is set on extremes. Do we continue a private healthcare system with EVEN LESS regulation to drive down cost, or do we create public healthcare, either by edict, by government advisory board, or by trojan horse. Is it going to be for-profit businesses, or a theoretically non-profit (though the very nature of democracy would seem to suggest otherwise, the "profit" should be different but equally self-serving) public health board/organization/government corporation/service. But why must it be one or the other?

Why not do for healthcare what groups like the BECU (Boeing Employee Credit Union) have done for banking? Have non-profit heatlh NGO's that sell premiums, administer care, and have their guidelines, procedures, rationing (if any) and exact benefits dictated democratically through the election of "board members" by the people who own the plans? Why must, to avoid for-profit business, we resort to government rationing and tyranny? Why must it be either a corporate beaureacracy or a government beauracracy that manages our care? Why not put it in the hands, to the maximum extent possible, of the premium holders?

People flee countries like Canada and England to nations like the United States that have private healthcare when they become truly sick. Some folks will try to fool you in to believing that our healthcare sector acheives worse results then those of other nations using statistics like life expectancy as indicators. Problem is, those "indicators" are indicative of forces outside of the system, forces like genetics, cultural habits like eating and transportation, and our large immigrant population, that affect life expectancy by way of the entire general public more then the occasional cancer victim. Fact of the matter is, most Americans (85% insured in 2006, US Census, probably dropped a little since then but likely [unemployment 4% -> 10%, 6% change] still above 75%) do very well under our current system, and because of existing regulations, if you have the insuracne, most things will be covered.

Now I understand the problem of the other 25%, and yes, we do need competition for the corporations to bring prices down and hold them accountable. But why does it have to be the almost always tyrannical hand of government? Why not more charitable, credit union type organizations, that can still receive some government start-up funds to compensate for their lack of size (just as the BECU received funds from Boeing) and then be governed not by some far away beaureacrat but instead by the very people who hold the plans? And if you're not pleased with your group, you can find a new coop. We could have a different coop for every kind of need!

Cap-And-Trade Roll-Call - Naming the Guilty

In this weeks house roll call vote to push through Cap and Trade, the democrats passed the bill 219-211. But 8 GOP congressmen defected! Now, this is still considerably less then the number of Dems who defected (hence the margin being narrow) but nonetheless, it is clear that some of our conservative friends should have a guilty conscience. If only four of those GOP congresssmen had stuck to their side of the aisle, the vote would have been a tie. Three of these GOP congressmen are from New Jersey.

Well, one truly guilty face is Seattle's own Dave Reichert. Representing the 8th District, and the only Republican congressioanl district West of the Mountians in Washington State, Reichert has long been known to be considerably more environmentalist then is normal for a Republican. In a previous life, he was awarded Sheriff of the Year in 2004 for his exceptional conduct as King County Sheriff, including catching the Green River Killer, but has since held few significant policy stands or achievements.

Another guilty face is Matt Kirk in his district to the north of Chicago. Like Reichert, he too has been known to support environmentalism. His agenda, however, is much more clearly suburban. Both Reichert & Kirk's districts are Obama Republican, meaning that despite a Republican congressman, they voted for Obama in the Presidential election.

Mary Bono Mack's district in Southern California also voted for Obama, but by only 51%, unlike 60% for each of Reichert & Kirk's districts. The district used to be clearly Republican, but in recent years has slid more and more liberal. She is a fiscal-environmentalist conservative who has won simultaneous awards from both Sunline Transit Agency & Americans for Tax Reform.

Our fourth fiend is Mike Castle from Delaware's At-Large district. He's mostly a social conservative anyways, representing a state that is liberal to the bone, a district even more liberal then those previously mentioned.

Chris Smith of New Jersey's 4th has considerably less of an excuse. His district voted a comfortable 52% for McCain in 2008 and 56% for Bush in 2004. He, however, is primarilly a social conservative, being a major figure in the pro-life movement and the author of several antiabortion bills. He has strong ties to ORGANIZED LABOR, and as such can be considered a member of the Christian Left.


Congressman John McHugh represents the 23rd District of New York as a Republican moderate. He recently received several earmarks in a defense appropriation bill that he celebrates on his website...

Representative Lance of New Jersey's 7th votes with his party 88% of the time, making this particular exception somewhat odd. On his website, he justifies this vote with his strong commitment to renewable energy. Overall, however, he has very little policy information (total: 10 long sentences, though 4 on the environment) on his website (circa 06-27-09) and so one finds his sincerity of intent questionable. His district is obviosly very gerrimandered, like an ameoba on his district map, and has not had a Democrat representative since 1980. Its' median income is 75 grand.

Lastly, Representative Frank LoBiondo of New Jerseys 2nd (includes Atlantic City) voted in support of this bill. LoBiondo is a member of Newt Gingrich's freshmen class, having taken his seat in the 1994 congressional sweep after a failed 1992 run. He is a member of the moderate "Republican Main Street Partnership." Unlike Lance, his policy stands are very detailed, almost too detailed, and his "news" section on his website holds very candid and angry stands on almost every detail of Economic, Energy, Defense, Veterans, and legislation related to local beaches.

Ahn Cao, interestingly, did not vote for it, despite being a moderate republican from an obscenely liberal district (Downtown New Orleans, voted 85% for Barack Obama, 65% African American). He also did not vote for the stimulus, and, according to Orange Juice, may be facing a recall attempt as a result. This immigrant came to America as the son of a former South Vietnamese army officer, attended law school after almost becoming a Catholic Priest, and built his own law firm in New Orleans.


CONCLUSION

Of the 8 who did vote for Cap and Trade, Smith, Bono Mack, Lance, and McHugh would probably have been the easiest to persuade. Reichert is a maybe, as is Kirk. The other two could not have been persuaded, as one district was too liberal.

What is a conservative?

Note: We are working exclusively with the Anglo-American and Sino-Korean conservatives (they are nearly identical) and not the European or Islamic kinds, which may be very different. Likewise, we are working with Anglo-American liberals.

People tend to look at liberal and conservative as simple bullet points of policy. This makes no sense. It makes no sense because that is not the way people view the world. It takes the extremely cynical (and extremely wrong) view that people find a random set of issues to vote a certain way on and follow through with them, or that each group just watches the same news channels, but people look for the news channel that agrees with them.

Kathleen parker nailed it when she wrote this article: "Mars and Venus Collide." Liberals also nail it when they call themselves "progressives," Conservatives when they call themselves "strict constructionists." These are not lies, there is more truth to them then nearly anyone can know.

The difference between a liberal and a conservative is the difference between ideals and opposing goods. A liberal believes that there is a goal, a hope, a specific place that we should shift our entire society and everyone in it towards, while a conservative believes in a natural balance created by our competing desires, motivations, and intellects, opposing opposites, and leaves ideals for individuals. Your right-winger believes that if everything in society (including government) is in the proper place in which it fits, and those in power essentially keep their hands off, we will find tranquility, prosperity, and enlightenment (scientific progress) on a higher level then the liberals foolhardy extreme, and then the individuals can step forward with their own ideals, and shift themselves among the boxes as they please and their abillity allows them. Conservatives may still believe in ideals, but they are individual ideals, and NOT goals for society.

Now keep in mind that not everyone who is a Republican is a conservative, and that Democrat and liberal are not interchageable either, for the political parties truly are just policy points (as they would be, since they need to win elections and stay in a pack for power) and you would find in the Republican tent many libertarians, populists, moderates, Christian theocrats (who may be a different kind of liberal), et cetera. In the Democrat tent you would find labor unionists (who may be a different kind of conservative), anarchists, moderates, and environmentalists who may or may not be liberal.