Brown’s Victory: The Declaration of Independents
In the aftermath of Scott Brown’s stunning upset election victory in Massachusetts, pundits will be debating the meaning and political implications for weeks to come. However, one fact is incontrovertibly clear. The race hinged on the independent voters.
In Massachusetts, 50% of the registered voters are independent, as opposed to 37% Democratic and 12% Republican. In this week’s election, independents voted overwhelmingly for Brown, giving him a 52-to-47% victory — in a state where Barack Obama easily won 62% of the vote in 2008. This enormous swing shows that the independents represent a powerful political force that neither party can take for granted.
Independents are also the driving force behind the tea party rallies. Many tea party supporters have been quite explicit in warning that their opposition to the policies of our current Democratic president and Congress should not be mistaken as automatic support for the Republicans.
So what do the independents want? In a word, limited government.
Scott Brown ran on a platform opposing the big government agenda of President Obama in general and the ObamaCare health plan in particular. His message resonated with independent Massachusetts voters tired of a government running amuck with bank bailouts, “stimulus” programs, and “Cash for Clunkers” — and threatening to take over their health care.
Independents in other parts of the country have also been speaking out for limited government. My home state of Colorado has been in the national spotlight recently because the Democrats here have been faltering, highlighted most recently by Governor Bill Ritter’s decision to retire rather than run for re-election.
In a recent New York Times story on Colorado, small businessman Ron Vaughn spoke for many independent voters when he said:
I want the Democrats out of my pocket and Republicans out of my bedroom. The one word I would use for what’s going on in Washington is embarrassing. I am embarrassed for Republicans and for Democrats.
Independents across America know that the battle in Washington is not just about concrete issues such as health care or banking regulations. Instead, it’s about the more fundamental issue of the proper role of government in our lives. Ron Vaughn and other independents are saying that they want a small government limited to performing its proper function — namely, protecting individual rights.
As Ayn Rand once noted:
If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being.
Genuine rights are not granted to us by elected officials or supernatural beings. Instead, they are objective conditions required by man’s nature for survival in a social context. If men are to live together, we require a government that protects those rights — such as our rights to free speech, property, and contract.
Only those who initiate physical force or fraud can violate our rights. A proper government protects our rights by protecting us from criminals who steal, murder, rape, etc., as well as from foreign aggressors. But it should otherwise leave honest people alone to live peacefully. In particular, government should protect our right to enjoy the fruits of our labors, not rob us to pay for “stimulus packages” or “universal health care.”
The Founding Fathers understood this when they declared that all men possessed the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Independent voters in Massachusetts understood this when they braved bad weather and long lines to vote for Scott Brown.
Scott Brown’s victory also reinforced the earlier message sent by independent voters in the November 2009 elections. To the extent that the Republicans focused on limited government and steered clear of divisive “social issues” such as abortion and gay marriage, they won major victories in the governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia, wresting those seats from the Democrats. In contrast, when Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman tried to emphasize his stand on social issues in the NY-23 congressional race, he alienated independents and lost.
From the tea party protests to the polling booths, independents have been declaring that they want a limited government that protects individual rights.
The Republicans have won an important victory in Massachusetts — one that will reverberate throughout the country as the 2010 election cycle heats up. But they shouldn’t get overconfident.
If Republicans choose to run on a platform of limited government, economic freedom, and individual rights, then they will retain the support of the independents and win. But if they take these recent election victories as a mandate to promote a divisive “social issues” agenda, then they’ll once again drive away the independents and lose.
The independents have spoken — and they want the Democrats out of their pockets and the Republicans out of their bedrooms.
Will our politicians listen?
Sad thing is…neither party gets it!!!! GOP better wise up and listen to the independents and not assume this movement is about the GOP…it is NOT!!!!
The GOP has show time and again they mouth off about smaller gov, while they increase the size of it!
The problem is with the far right and far left. They both want to tell everyone how to live their lives. Yes, the Right does as well, prohibition? Abortion? gambling? these are just 3 things that come mind where they stick their noses into others lives.
All in the “its whats best for you” mentality, well the Left does this as well. only diff is they come from a different moral ground.
So please GOP either REALLY stand up and ACTUALLY DO something about the size of gov or get the heck out of the way!!!
I predict that the GOP will sabotage him in the next election if he really tries to be an independent conservative.
Very funny.
The so-called “democrats” have an administration in power made of radical marxists. This administration tries to pull down America’s might by nationalizations and a totalitarian czars-system.
The people rebel against the regime building, the democrats get defeated in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts and
…
and the pundits say that it is the GOP that must be criticized !!!
Ridiculous.
The victory in Massachusetts has one meaning only:
NO TO THE SOCIALIST AGENDA.
And this victory is only the beginning: in November we have to destroy any further chance for this administration of radicals to proceed with their plan (THE DEMISE OF AMERICA).
Any comment that denies that this is THE point at stake today is just a tactical help for the communists in power.
That is what happens once your elected. As Bush and the Neo-Cons found out, once you win..the dreamin is over and the “makey decisioney” thing begins. So now Brown.s reality time is here…the enemy has been defeated and now he has to face…himself as he begins to create his own record as a MA Senator. Scary stuff eh? I am not advising this young man but if I were him, I would be sticking real close to Joe and John.. his team mate John Kerry and Joe Leiberman and getting their advice on how to vote if he wants to stick around awhile. The press in his state will…. will… be keeping a hawkish eye on their new toddler, that is one thing you can bet on. My opinion? He will switch parties by 2014…..Good Luck to Scott !!
Paul,
I’m all for limited government, but…
“Genuine rights are not granted to us by elected officials or supernatural beings.”
This assertion comes out of nowhere and you do not support it… even though you later quote the author(s) of the Declaration of Independence who wrote otherwise. I’m not sure about the effectiveness of the strategy you’re proposing, but there’s some cognitive dissonance at the heart of your rhetoric. Also, your argument pretty well boils down to, “some independent dude in Colorado said x and I agree.” Your point could be better made if you dropped the amateur philosophy, spent more time comparing and contrasting Brown and Hoffman, and also pointing out additional evidence along those lines.
This is exactly why I voted for Brown. Thank you, Dr. Hsieh, for stating it so clearly.
What the Democrats don’t get…is they NEVER had a mandate for leftist radicalism. When you live in an echo chamber, you hear your own voice and not much else.
What the Republicans don’t get…is that there aren’t very many RINO’S. GDI’s aren’t Republican in name only…they aren’t Republican at all.
” Herein lies the problem with building a strong national presence for independents. There is no defining structure to the “party”. It is a loose coalition of people who don’t want the “other two”.
I believe if a strong, charismatic leader could give voice to the rejection of the baggage that comes with our broken two party system, it would find itself a very large tent for those who have no political “home” team and who swing the pendulum in American politics wildly from side to side…basically by “throwing the last bums out”.
I detest the leftists. (although I have a very soft spot in my heart for the compassion of CLASSIC liberals). I am repulsed by the radical left wing ideologues and I find their inherent treason despicable.
On social issues, I have soft spot in my heart for faith-based folks…and I feel these folks get picked on and stereotyped repeatedly, in a way that, if aimed at certain OTHER minority groups, would create a vehement and powerful backlash. Careers would be ruined, instant pariah status attained. The irony and hypocrisy of the group who would impose the former AND the latter, seems to be missed entirely.
On social issues, I am indeed more inclined to promote government non-interference, it is true. On fiscal issues, I ask that the government not bind and gag the free market with red tape. On national defense issues, I ask that the government not shrink from sworn enemies. On taxation issues, I ask that the government tax me on what I use and expend…not on what I make. If I am taxed on what I make…you are creating class warfare. If I am taxed on what I use and expend (especially national services), then I am paying my fair share.
This desire to create a war between the “haves” and the “have nots” is a canard. “Haves” are not the enemy of “have nots”. They are almost always the benefactors. Building phony resentment…is usually done by trying to get the “kinda haves” to believe that they are being kept down by some super-secret, double probation, society handshake. What a load of horse hockey.
Quit making the IRS into a mafia bag man. Quit making the federal budget into Santa Claus on crack. Quit making the Supreme Court into a peeping Tom.
If we could wrest away the debate from the screaming Mimi extremists, what a paradise we could build here. The two party system is broken. I asked that it be changed…and now I fear I got my wish. We are hurtling toward a one party system. First things first…that needs to be resisted with every ounce of effort we can muster.”
I wrote this comment to VDH on:
Feb 19, 2009 – 3:57 am
I love the title of the article. It is also quite telling that conservatives and independents have embraced the tea party movement and liberals have shunned it. Democrats are a lost cause. Hopefully the Republicans are not.
@Jeff Johnson:
Of course he doesn’t support it here, this is neither the time nor the place to do so. The quote from Ayn Rand pretty much sums it up. The ‘amateur’ philosophy is called Objectivism if you’re interested in learning the reasoning behind the assertion.
What do we want?
LIMITED EFFING GOVERNMENT!!!!!
When do we want it?
NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Genuine rights are not granted to us by elected officials or supernatural beings. Instead, they are objective conditions required by man’s nature for survival in a social context.”
While Jeff@5 already discussed this comment, I would also like to take a poke at it. Our rights if not devined by God then as you say they are defined and granted by “man’s nature”, which means they can be abridged, abrogated, abused much as the progressives have been doing for 60 years. The founders had it right, but man’s nature for power has ruined that cherished document.
Comparing Brown to Hoffman NY23 is apples to oranges. Our own GOP apparatus hurt Hoffman in favor of a RINO. Had the party, as pi$$ poor as it stands, got behind him early, and not Scuzz, he would have won easily. He demonstrated that pushing conservative principles will get you elected-it was just too late.
So you independents cannot decide what you want, is what you are saying: you voted for the messiah knowing full well what he represented and now you THINK you gave Brown the victory as some lesson for us. Wrong! Had Brown not been a conservative, we and you independents would not have voted for him. It is his CONSEVATIVE principles (at least his lip service to them) is why we all voted for him.
How can you have the protection of “individual rights” if you cannot protect in some fashion the most vulnerable citizens of America-a baby? If you can square that hole fine. But I bet you can’t. Abortion is NOT a right found anywhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
And really that line about republicans out of the bedroom is right from the lefty playbook. Which party really is the party of the bedroom: progressives want unfettered abortion, unfettered gay rights, unfettered rights for NAMBLA and other kooks, lenient punishments for child rapiest and pedophiles and other rapists… So tell me which party is it again that wants to intrude into the bedroom?
This essay exactly reflects why my husband and I supported and voted for Brown. What a great time to live in Massachusetts. I remember when Brown first started running he had to almost go it alone with quite minimal support from the national Republicans (there are hardly any MA Republicans)! I don’t think he will forget that too easily. Note as well that he didn’t use the word “Republican” in his acceptance speech. And that most of our reason for voting for him has already been fulfilled: Obamacare V.1 is dead.
What I want, as a conservative Democrat is, in a word, Subsidiarity. It seems to me that the followup question to “Is it prudent for the government to do X?” is “Does X need to be done at the federal level?”
I’d be willing to consider health-care reform, but I’m not willing to consider anything that is administrated from Washington.
(BTW, it seems that Scott Brown may be on to this idea…)
Your phrase “Declaration of Independents” is powerful and resonant. I suggest you interject it into the web consciousness as often as possible. It would be a rallying cry that would attract a large and diverse following.
Is there a “meme of the year” award?
What independents are we talking about? The ones that swing wildly back and forth between ideologies each election cycle? We are talking about conservative principles here and groups of conservatives disenfranchised by their party elders reckless behavior. Perhaps independents are waking up and paying attention after a year of Obama, but to imply that they are some special force behind this “awakening” is ridiculous.
Social issues also command strong majorities, witness the success of referenda opposing gay marriage. However, the free market conservative majority and the social conservative majority are not the same. The two goals are best pursued separately. Candidates will be successful embracing free markets and limited government. Social conservatives are better off pursuing laws, amendments and referenda that achieve their goals.
I propose the the attorney general be an elected official on off-year elections so that there is an additional check and balance against the executive and legislative branch. The president is supposed to be the top cop, but if he goes corrupt then there is no government. That pack of jackals in congress certainly could be held up to legal inspection. What part of bribe, tax fraud, or pilfering in D.C. puts them above the law? Yikes, they think that they are the law.
What I don’t want is the US to become a failed state like Michigan, Indiana, New York, or California. We can learn from bad examples.
The author writes:
“If Republicans choose to run on a platform of limited government, economic freedom, and individual rights, then they will retain the support of the independents and win. But if they take these recent election victories as a mandate to promote a divisive “social issues” agenda, then they’ll once again drive away the independents and lose.”
So, what should Conservatives do? We do want to stop the gay marriage movement and we do want to protect religious liberties. But both these goals require that we promote divisive “social issues,” as you call them. Oh, and by the way, religious liberty is in the Constitution and I have every right to denounce homosexuality as immoral. Yet, you seem to want me to be quiet about that so that the Democrat Party can be defeated at the polls? You are what I would call a “REAL RINO.” You see, the Republic needs its Constitution or it will cease to exist. You and similar REPUBLICans are willing to sell your Constitution and your republic down the river for short term political gain.
Paul,
“The Founding Fathers understood this when they declared that all men possessed the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
WRONG! They did not “delare” that we merely “possessed” them. They delared that we were Endowed By OUR CREATOR with them. A clear and outright acknowledgent of a Superior Being, force or entity of Ultimate Moral authority over what is right and wrong, just and unjust.
To NOT have these rights was no mere inconvienience to the individual, or (ultimately as we see today) counterproductive to the group. To NOT have them was a deep and inexcuseable Moral Flaw against the very design of Mankind.
Their model was a Christian God, an all loving “Father” who, like me to my very own son, would never concieve the appropriateness of his enslavement, perpetual servitude,indebtness or outright robbery to please my needs. No decent father could permit anything but love and opportunity to his child, indeed a good father would willingly suffer the pains of death to provide the best opportunity for his son, not the other way around. (As our current government believes, grandchildren shall pay many tomorrows for the wastefulness of the fathers today)
My point is, casually dismissing/watering down “endowed by their Creator” into a generic “declared to posess” concept is inaccurate and dishonest. Calling the moral/religious foundation of our freedoms “devisive social issues” to be avoided for the sake of political expediency is just the sort “devisiveness” that IS THE PROBLEM today. You cannot as an American, claim your civil rights on the “Founding Fathers” model without the (honest) acceptence of THEIR religious view, that there was indeed a more powerful, more Just, and more knowing “Founding Father” before THEM.
All else is relative, and “democracy” can easily mean 50.1% of the population can now confiscate the labor value of the remainder because “we all agreed on it in the election”
Two things…
1. “keeping Republicans out of the bedroom” is standard issue lefty boilerplate tripe. I am embarrased for you [and you used it twice!]
Really, what on earth does that mean?
2. By your definition of “rights”, they are simply useful [apparently] superstitions that have aided our survival as a species. This opens the door for more lefty/statist “living document”-type BS that makes rights malleable.
Otherwise, you make a good point or two.
Independents. Ah, yes the independents. Now the independents want limited government. Kinda odd. It seems that they wanted something else last year when they elected a communist big government chicago thug to the highest office of the land. Hmmm. Change their mind or confused? I think the so called independents need to sit down for a minute, take a breath, pick up a few books, read them, and formulate an original, honest and informed decision about what they believe, what their value system entails…hopefully something that is consistent and logically hangs together. MAKE UP YOUR FRIGIN MINDS! ARE YOU A TRADTIONAL AMERICAN FOUNDING FATHER CONSERVATIVE OR A STATIST WITH LEFT WING IDEOLOGY AND LIBERAL SOCIAL AGENDAS? PLEASE,THE REST OF YOU STOP WITH TRYING TO DIVIDE CONSERVATIVES BETWEEN THOSE FICALLY CONSERVATIVE AND THOSE CONSERNED ABOUT MORAL DECAY. ITS SO OLD AND TIRING.
Theo Goodwin (#18) and The Root ’83 (#19) seem to have missed the point entirely. They also show why this is a declaration of INDEPENDENTS and not the GOP.
Great article, Paul! I couldn’t agree more. Keep them coming.
@Simon Templar:
Exactly.
@ The Root ’83:
Nail meets hammer. You hit it square. Our rights have a source, and to deny that source is to deny those rights. There’s no way around that issue.
@ Fugate:
1) You make a good point. The way the libs used it as a hammer to bash conservatives, they conveniently dropped it when they got in power. You could say the same things for them being ‘anti-gay’ (or the way I put it ‘pro-marriage’) but at least they’re consistent. Meh. I’m lost on that issue however: I say let the states take care of it… with the proviso that they don’t have to accept a ‘Marriage’ from another state just because two guys (or girls) got a license. Let the states decide, but give them the power to refuse.
2) This goes back to what The Root ’83 said, but I’ll also add my two cents:
The Constitution says that Government’s only reason of existence is the protection of rights. The Constitution protects my rights from criminals, the government itself, and foreign armies. Most conservatives under stand this. Now for something completely different…
The Constitution also protects my rights from your rights.
‘Huh?’ you say? Tis true. The constitution protects my right to spend my money that I’ve earned from your ‘right to healthcare’.
These ‘so called rights’ aren’t rights at all… they’re the privilege for one man to steal from another with the government’s approval. Conservatives really need to educate people on the difference between bona-fide rights, and criminal privileges disguised as ‘rights’.
@Justin: Agreed.
@ Simon Templar
You have summed up my frustration with the so-called ‘independents’.
I don’t think they’re actually all that ‘independent’ at all. I think they’re more like ‘bellweathers’: they follow the tide. They vote largely for the stronger candidate in any election. When Obama won against McCain, it was largely a fight between two empty suits, and they voted for the one handing out 20 dollar bills. I hate to say it, but the independents broke for Brown because they saw a good opportunity to sock it to the Machine, and Brown was running a pretty good campaign.
They don’t realize that there’s more in common with the desires of people who genuinely want law abiding government with law abiding citizens. They don’t realize that they have much in common with people who want their rights vociferously defended by a just government that knows it’s boundaries. They want those things too… there’s just a problem:
They hear the word ‘conservative’ from the state run media and cringe. I bet if they sincerely knew what we were for, they’d never vote liberal again… it’s just difficult to reach them, and sadly, these ‘bellweathers’ don’t have near as long a memory as we’d hope.
For those of you who don’t understand “keeping R’s out of my bedroom”:
(maybe still) Go buy a sex toy in Alabama. Illegal.
Until recently, get a blow job from your wife in Texas. Illegal.
Get it yet? blotto’s counterarguments were laughable.
Independents want what we all want. A representative constitutional government, not some Saul Alinsky experiment that takes us down the
road of bankrupt socialism. Mr. Hsieh, get a hold on reality. The next time you write an article, consult your brain before opening
your mouth.
Why are you guys so opposed to big government? The problem is not big government, it is big business, and big government working for big business.
Stupid white people.
Great article, although I would quarrel with the idea that rights are not granted by “supernatural beings” – as others have stated, our own Declaration of Independence states otherwise. The idea that elected officals are somehow commensurate with the Supreme Being is, well, odd.
The issue is focus. The GOP needs to set forth a platform of about 5 planks (e.g. balanced budget, limited government, tax reform, strong defense, secure borders) and then leave the remainder of the issues up to local candidates who understand the lay of the land in their respective districts/states.
Focus, focus, focus. Bring the federal government and federal spending to heel first, then worry about everything else.
29. Liberal Larry:
There are too many ways to make fun of this…you’re joking right?
The first joke would contain something about the lack of mass graves on one side of that equation…
For the record, neither the wife nor I have noticed “Republicans in our bedroom”, though.
I want to keep Republicans out of my wallet as well as the democrats.
As for republicans in the bedroom. I also want democrats out of my bedroom as well.
Democrats need to drop the gay marriage thing. I am getting sick and tired of the government trying to redefine words. I can also agree that republicans should not have any care about what happens in privacy between two consenting adults. But the truth of the matter is that the only social activities that either party are a part of are those that the Supreme Court forced upon them through judicial activism. That is gay marriage and abortion. While you can try and claim that since democrats are for these thing, that they are staying out of the bedroom, but they want federal tax dollars to pay for both. Tax benefits for gay marrieds and tax payments for abortions.
While I am on this tangent, lets look at where most federal bullying in social issues originates, and that is the classroom. The federal government should have no role at all in education.
@Bill Johnson
Sorry to hear about your troubles Bill. I’d suggest you stay away from Alabama and Texas.
“I want the Democrats out of my pocket and Republicans out of my bedroom.”
A valid point, and one that has been common since the early 70s, and might have matched reality then.
Except for the minor issue of gay marriage, where have the Republicans been interested in what goes on in anyone’s bedroom? When was the last time any of them spoke out in favor of sodomy laws, against consensual sexual acts among adults in private, etc?
Ed Meese has been out of power for decades.
Many have addressed this, but to Bill Johnson, no I don’t “get it yet”. Sodomy laws are on the books in my state too and the state government has been dominated by Democrats for over 100 years. Your examples are trite and silly. Show me where the Republican party has made a stand on the issues you bring up.
Also, a little defense of independents from various bashers who blame them for voting for Obama. Admittendly, I have trouble understanding how anyone could fall for that shallow, arrogant, know-nothing, but the fact is re ran to the right of McCain on many issues. If he announced his intention for a government takeover of the car companies or the entire health care system during the campaign, I’d like to see some links.
For those who believe the Founding Fathers took Christianity as their guide:
America’s Founders on the subject. A few samples:
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” [Madison]
“Jefferson believed in materialism, reason, and science. He never admitted to any religion but his own. In a letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, 25 June 1819, he wrote, ‘You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.’ ”
“It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.” [Adams]
“The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” [Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli, Article XI, passed by the Senate under John Adams' presidency.]
Also, see the debate, here, on separation of church and State.
While Jeff@5 already discussed this comment, I would also like to take a poke at it. Our rights if not devined by God then as you say they are defined and granted by “man’s nature”, which means they can be abridged, abrogated, abused much as the progressives have been doing for 60 years.
It is your idea that the source of rights *must* be someone’s whim, be it God or government, that is arbitrary and ungrounded.
Dr. Hsieh is operating on the premise that rights are objective, i.e. that they find their basis in the given facts of reality, and as such are not subject to circumscription, abrogation or “balance” by anyone’s whim, be it God or government.
You dismiss this as a groundless claim, based on *your* groundless claim that there must have been a Creator, and you primitive screwheads think *that’s* an argument?
This fallacy is called “primacy of consciousness”, and amounts to a wish — shared by Leftist and conservative alike — that there be no absolutes, that there is always an escape hatch somehow, somewhere, from a reality that one may not like.
The only thing Leftists and conservatives really differ about after agreeing on a premise like that, is over *whose* consciousness gets to re-author reality. Conservatives pray to God to change what they don’t like, Leftists prefer the collective DIY approach of society as God… but the end results are the same.
Your point could be better made if you dropped the amateur philosophy, spent more time comparing and contrasting Brown and Hoffman, and also pointing out additional evidence along those lines.
If Dr. Hsieh were to do as you counsel, and drop the proper context (what you laughably deride as “amateur philosophy”), by reference to what is he supposed to “compare and contrast” anything? By reference to what?
You might as well tell Brett Favre that he could score touchdowns better if he abandoned play-calling and just did whatever after the snap. This sort of willful abandonment of principled thinking is what leaves the field clear for the religionists to fob off their primacy-of-consciousness BS and expect it to be taken seriously.
Rights are natural, not supernatural. They derive from our nature as rational, moral beings. The particular identity of the Creator is immaterial, whether it’s the Christian God or the Deist God or Allah or Jehovah or Mother Nature.
Some will of course argue that it does matter, and their particular God is the preferred candidate. At that point, faith takes the place of rational discourse.
Subsidiarity:
There is no political solution to an economic problem, and
there is no solution _at_all_ possible at the Federal level;
The Govt. is too big, slow, and bound up in bureaucratic
red tape to do anything in time.
Some of the states are in good enough shape to begin
the economic recovery by encouraging the creation of
new wealth at Hi-Tech Start-ups; If the rest of the
world, China in particular, wants to buy our products,
they are more likely to give us enough credit to fund
new capital goods manufacturing.
All the Feds can and should do is get out of the way.
P.S. Yes, I know subsidiarity covers many other issues;
None of them should be addressed until unemployment in
the US is below 5%
Independent voters:
Those who vote on issues, or for candidates,
rather than the straight Party ticket.
Since the whole D/R Tax-and-Spend paradigm
has been overtaken by economic events, they
will joint the Tea Party, forming a new
majority; The L/R minority Wingnuts are
cordially invited to fight one another
to the death.
Separation of Church and State:
The Declaration of Independence
is a marvelous piece of propaganda.
The _Constitution_ is the Law of the Land,
and it establishes a _Secular_ State.
There is _never_ a good reason to pass a law
based on religious belief; Those who try
to do so are part of the problem.
P.S. Calling on God or Gaia; All same-same.
The rejection of Obamacare (and only incidentally, the justification for Browns election) has been great news. But the Republicans absolutely MUST be reminded they will NOT get the support of moderates and independents if they continue to offer nothing but Democrat lite. No Bush-like expansion of medicare, no forcing me to “serve” my country McCain style. The Republicans must step in to protect our rights. Not just tell us what to do in a different way.
When a conservative or independent trots out a nihilist like Ayn Rand as an authority, I suspect we’re in trouble.
Conservatives wanting to lump all independents into one “mushy” group makes as much sense as doing the same with all conservatives; IIRC there are at least six distinct flavors of conservatives. At the end of the day, the priorities and certainly policy positions vary within these large groups, sometimes significantly. That’s only to be expected.
We will get nowhere and only make ourselves victims of progressivism if every time this subject comes up, conservatives start dissing all independents as if they were mindless and without principles. This is not only wrong on the facts it is just plain stupid (politically speaking).
But there is a solution, already alluded to in some comments above if we could just bring ourselves – as @Mike C urges – to focus on it. It’s the solution the Founders gave us, because they expected that inevitably factions would arise and threaten dis-integration of the republic.
That solution was and is to keep the federal govt and the states to their originally designed roles. The principles are (1) limited well-defined responsibilities at each level and (2) government as close to the people as practical. The abortion issue might be a good example, because it is so often cause for dispute between social conservatives vs fiscal conservatives vs conservative libertarians vs moderates. The Constitutional answer is that it is inappropriate for the federal government to be involved in this issue, period. A state may Constitutionally take a particular position, and that may be different from another state; the Founders knew such things would occur and allowed for such. A state, perhaps one very large and diverse like California, may even decide it best to leave the decision at the local level, i.e., to “the people”. Rather than trying to force one another to conform to our particular value system, this model allows for as much flexibility and respect for differing views as is manageable. It is when 300+ million people start arguing with each other over whose rules should apply to everyone else, and doing so incessantly across nearly every aspect of public and private life, that our social fabric and politics collapses.
In short, if independents and conservatives of their various stripes adhere to the original design of the system, there is room for all to have their views respected. This is not perfect – all will sometimes find themselves in the minority even when the decision is made at the local level – but nonetheless it is the best and most workable. For those who cannot abide by the decision of the local electorate, they can vote with their feet – which is exactly what a vast number of Americans did over our history for exactly this reason.
Bravo, Dennis. Very well said.
blotto wrote: “Our rights if not devined [sic] by God then as you say they are defined and granted by “man’s nature”, which means they can be abridged, abrogated, abused …”
The most egregious violations of man’s rights have and continue to be in the name of God, whoever the hell that is.
The source of objective rights *is* man’s nature as a volitional, rational creature.
As Ayn Rand wrote:
“The Declaration of Independence stated that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Whether one believes that man is the product of a Creator or of nature, the issue of man’s origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kind—a rational being—that he cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival.
“The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.” (Atlas Shrugged)
To violate man’s rights means to compel him to act against his own judgment, or to expropriate his values. Basically, there is only one way to do it: by the use of physical force. There are two potential violators of man’s rights: the criminals and the government. The great achievement of the United States was to draw a distinction between these two—by forbidding to the second the legalized version of the activities of the first.
The Declaration of Independence laid down the principle that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” This provided the only valid justification of a government and defined its only proper purpose: to protect man’s rights by protecting him from physical violence.”
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_man_rights
Chaz write: “Conservatives really need to educate people on the difference between bona-fide rights, and criminal privileges disguised as ‘rights’.”
Since it is evident that, generally speaking, conservatives aren’t very clear on the concept of “bona-fide” rights (or at respecting those rights), I see this suggestion as particularly unwise.
@11 ” ….they are defined and granted by “man’s nature”, which means they can be abridged, abrogated, abused much as the progressives have been doing for 60 years.”
Dr. Hsieh doesn’t say that rights are “granted” by man’s nature; he says they can be objectively derived from man’s nature. Indeed, he argues that rights are not granted at all – they simply _are_.
Now, can they be abrogated or abused by humans? Of course they can. ** They can also be defended and protected by humans. It is this fact which makes government necessary. A valid government will have as its sole purpose the protection of man’s objectively-defined rights.
** As, by the way could rights which were somehow granted by a supernatural being, whatever that means.
Excellent article and I agree. I might add a couple of other things most voters want:
1. both Republicans and Democrats out of their bedrooms and pockets;
2. limited government that works efficiently for all the citizens;
3. government that doesn’t run up huge deficits unless there is a Congressional declaration of war.
As can be seen from a large portion of these comments, “conservatives” are very hostile to arguments based on reason and intend to discredit you with claims about the Almighty. America is a secular country founded to protect its citizens’ natural rights endowed to all by the very aspect of their existence and the requirements of that existence.
“Yes, the Right does as well… Abortion…things that come mind where they stick their noses into others lives.
All in the “its whats best for you” mentality, well the Left does this as well. only diff is they come from a different moral ground.”
Pretty sure that lies along the lines of “what’s best for the human that you would otherwise kill”, as opposed to what you said.
Had I lived in Massachusetts I would have voted for Brown, because he’s the alternative to the Democrat-sponsored turn toward material Statism. If the Republicans were on the verge of taking us down the road of spiritual Statism, I’d vote for a Democratic alternative.
Those of you here who would legislate Christian morality are, in fact, one half of the danger Dr. Hsieh warns against. If Republicans are to reconcile their platforms with the idea of individual rights, they will stop listening to you. The notion that homosexuality is evil belongs in the Dark Ages. People like me will vote against Republicans that support such nonsense. I just want political freedom, which means both economic AND social freedom.
Threaten individual rights and lose your majority. Republicans and Democrats alike; you have been warned.
@Trent: If Rand is a nihilist then the Pope is a swinger. It’s not even a tiny bit true.
Bill Johnson,can you tell me when those anti-sodomy laws were passed and who controlled the southern states you cite, at the time of ratification? And if by chance it was a Republican, why haven’t one of the dems elected in those states since, done something about them?
It’s funny the only Republicans in my bedroom are my wife and I.
Liberal Racist Larry/Moho; Stupid black people,stupid brown people,stupid yellow people…Do you see how stupid you are “Larry”? No…I didn’t think so.You know ignorance can be excused and remedied.Stupidity not so much.
If same-sex marriage can still go down at that ballot box even in California, are you really so sure that social conservatism is a losing proposition?
Personally, I’m really tired of trading off between the socialists and the theocrats, or relying on gridlock to limit the abuses either can commit. I’m a firm believer in individual rights, the Constitution, and the free market. I’m also a staunch secularist who wants religion to be treated as a private choice, and who objects to people’s private lives being dictated by imposed religiously based morality. I have no choice but to be a nonpartisan voter; neither party has a place for me. If the Republicans want my vote, they need to focus on the issues that give us common ground . . . limited government and support for free markets. If they think the social conservative issues are more important, they can do without my vote.
And the Christian conservatives are welcome to disagree with my views, or think they’re philosophically incoherent. But what it comes down to is, do they want me to vote for Republican candidates, or stay home?
personally.. as an independent.. I want honesty in the people we elect to represent us.
Yeah, I know…
Obama qualifications to reform health care:
No birth certificate
Can not stop smoking
Difficulty telling the truth.
Narcissistic personality disorder.
Therefore, I Igor produce Obama Birth Certificate at http://www.igormarxo.org
Compare Obama Care vs Igor Care at Obama vs Igor Care
2010, the year of the Declaration of Independents! A new milestone in the glorious history of the land of the free!
@Theocrats and their apologists:
There are certain pre-conditions for civil society; you don’t kill me, I don’t kill you, what’s mine is mine what’s yours is yours. We call the collection of such pre-conditions “rights”, because we have an immutable claim to the lives (ours) that such pre-conditions protect. One doesn’t relinquish self-ownership once one decides to join another in civil society. There is nothing supernatural, nor arbitrary, about that. What is quite evident from the history of man, is that neither religion, nor secular statism, believe in one’s self-ownership and the consequences thereof.
You theocrats can rant until your fingers get blisters, but your religion had uncontested power over the Western hemisphere for a millenium and a half and your alleged rights-granting deity did nothing to protect those unfortunate individuals from the inhumane ravages of church-based rule.
the writer kind of gets it but fails in the end. Our rights are not “natural rights” given to us for simply being human. The founders said :”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. ”
which means Yes Virgina, those rights are given by God or as the wirter says a “supernatural being”. The founders believes that because we were children of God we had these rights. that means no earth bound government can take them away. The founders placed the storage of these rights in the heavens for the simple reason that by doing so they could never be taken away by government/man as long as religion was a central belief in the country. It is no coincidence that communists countires outlaw religion.
Another point that the writer gets wrong in NY23rd. the GOP candidate endorsed the democratic candidate at the last minute. she called on her supporters to throw their vote to the dem instead of the conservative. It was not the independents that won the elction for the dem it was the dems and gop teaming up to stop the independent conservative. In fact it says much that it took the combined efforts of the two major political parties working together to stop the third party.
the race had nothing to do with “social issues”. It was run on the baisis of party vs third party. ther eis every indication that Doug hoffman will run in 2010 as a the GOP candidate and looks to run away with the win on the second go around.
This is not to say I think the GOP should embrace the “social issues” It is to say there is nothing wrong with a national party embracing life (since it is one of the core rights), embracing freedom OF religion instead of both parties trying to drive relgion into the shadows and back allys so that citizens worship at the alter of big government instead of at a church,or other relgious place of worship.
As far as staying out of the bedroom I agree. but the government also has a right to protect the helpless like children in those bedrooms. they have a right to ensure that people ar enot being raped or forced into things they do not want to do. So while the governemnt should stay out of two consenting adults bedroom they have a right and obligation to make sure that its a safe place for all.
Simplified semantic point:
For an individual in his natural state:
An entitlement is something you do not have unless it is given to you.
A right is something you have unless it is taken from you.
MCWagner writes: “A right is something you have unless it is taken from you.”
Not even close. The right to live one’s own life is normative, not descriptive. That is, I *ought* to live my own life and I *ought* to let others live their own lives.
If someone or some group holds me against my will, my freedom to live my own life has been taken from me but my *right* to live my own life has not been.
That is to say, those holding me against my will have not taken my right to live my own life away (that right is unalienable), they have *violated* that right.
As Ayn Rand wrote:
“A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.”
How does one take away a moral principle from someone?
She goes on to write:
“There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self- sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action-which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)”
unseen wrote: “The founders placed the storage of these rights in the heavens for the simple reason that by doing so they could never be taken away by government/man as long as religion was a central belief in the country.”
Not even wrong. The above is not only factually incorrect, it is self-refuting.
As a self-described independent with conservative leanings, I agree with the sentiment of “keeping [the government] out of my wallet and out of my bedroom”, with the caveat: “at the federal-level”. The Constitution proscribes a limited form of national government and reserves to the states and people the powers not explicitly delegated (10th Amendment). Thus, issues like abortion, gay marriage, health care etc. would be addressed at the state-level. As an independent, I think the state government should do the same (stay out of my wallet and bedroom), but at least such laws would be Constitutional.
Bullshit. Conservatives want smaller government. Liberals want bigger government. Some “independents” want SMARTER government, not necessarily bigger or smaller. But most “independents” simply don’t know what they want.
The Election of Scott Brown:
Scott Brown certainly was the preferable candidate. I voted for him. But he is in NO way opposed to Government run Health Care. As an architect of the Massachusetts Government Health Scheme that is already bankrupting the state he carefully avoids specific questions as to what he would stand for should the legislation be redesigned. His stand can be summed up this way: “My gang will do it better!’
That is indicating an unreliable and unstable premise. It is not a principled approach to health care. It ignores the fact that universal health care schemes are vicious in concept and therefore a disaster where ever they have been forced upon the people. Universal health care by its nature is a flagrant violation of rights, both of doctors and patients. What is needed today is that we all write letters to Brown and all other Republicans that we may be able to reach and talk about the true reasons why Massachusetts voters rejected ObamaCare and elected him into office. We here in Massachusetts are grasping for straws. It is not the issue of HC Reform or the economy or all the other issues at all that the pundits are pulling out of thin air. The problems that we are facing in this country are fundamental.
It is the un-named sense of the American People that something monstrous is being perpetrated on them and that their inalienable rights to their own lives, their freedoms and their right to pursue happiness are are being assaulted. That is why the Massachusetts voters are trying to grasp a straw in the person of Scott Brown. From all what I have heard him say is that he himself does not know this real reason why the voters chose him over the opposing candidate. So the fact remains that he may be only to a slight degree less evil than the Obama clique represented by Martha Coakley.
We may have a slight window of opportunity here given the euphoria over Brown’s election that may allow us to talk to our Republican friends and indicate to them the truth about the reason for the election of a Republican Senator from Massachusetts. The Republican Party should finally give voice to what long ago was its origin, the protection of individual rights! This would require shedding all remnants of the Liberal Ideology that they share with the Democrats and thus become the true voice of the American People!
If the Republicans can make this fundamental shift of ideas and go back to the roots of their party, they deserve to win big in the future.
This is the lesson of the Massachusetts election. Outliberalling the Liberals by holding on to fantasies that ‘my gang will do it better!’ will not bring a renewal of American ideals.
I’m not sure what to make of the shot taken at independants in comment #21 by Simon Templar and the shots that follow. As an independant, I choose believe that it is realy partisans bitterly complaining that we refuse to join their respective folds.
Republicans politicos lost their majority because many didn’t hold to the principals they claimed and many of the rank and file (conservatives including those that are independant) chose not to show up. The independants you blaim for the current occupants of government buildings in Washington DC tended in the liberal direction anyway (not the mention making history stuff that was pumped out by the megawatt). It’s not that we are wishi-washy or unable to take a stand, it is that we don’t choose to affiliate ourselves with partisan political clubs that exist for their own selfish purposes and rob us all of our rights, dignity and fruits of labor. George Washington called it right in his farewell address.
It is the last recourse of the political scoundrel to claim it is our responsibility as citizens to vote when that political scoundrel knows we won’t vote for his team. Why? Because low voter turnout delegitimizes the victor of the election and one team or the other always wins. When the party(s) put up folks that don’t fit our needs, we shouldn’t vote of either one of them, even if that means not voting for anyone in that office. I’ve heard several people of partisan stripe discuss “strategy” and that independants should vote for the partisan fav so the party can become the majority and get more done that those independants like. (Politics is the art of the possible and all that). It is a false strategy that only serves the selfserving politicos.
Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. I believe it is our patriotic duty to occasionally withhold our consent when the office seekers are clearly not up to the job.
@27. Bill Johnson:
I’ve lived in Texas for all my 48 years. Gotten lots of blow jobs in that time. Never been arrested.
Are those laws really “in your bedroom” if they’re never enforced? Contrast that with the Democrats’ being in your wallet. That gets enforced every year on April 15th.
I think Independents vote against the party that is spending too much money or shows themselves to be sleazy or who they perceive as having wrecked the economy, to wit:
Kennedy was elected in 1960 after Eisenhower spent billions on the Interstate highway system.
Nixon was elected in 1968 after Johnson’s Great Society with all its spending passed.
Carter was elected on the heels of the Watergate.
Reagan was elected after Carter botched the economy.
Clinton was elected after Bush I reneged on “Read my lips.”
The GOP was given control of Congress after Clinton tried to take over health care.
Bush II was elected on the heels of the Lewinsky scandal.
The Dems were given control of Congress in 2006 after Medicare Part D and the attempt to spend billions reforming Social Security.
Obama was elected after the housing bubble burst and as a reaction to TARP.
VA, NJ, and MA are a result of ObamaCare and it ain’t over yet.
“The independents have spoken — and they want the Democrats out of their pockets and the Republicans out of their bedrooms.”
You are misleading your readers:
This is what really happened: “13. Noah Nehm:
I’d be willing to consider health-care reform, but I’m not willing to consider anything that is administrated from Washington.”
Independents in MA just wanted a senator who could vote against the proposed health care plan in DC, so that they can keep THEIR already well-liked MA health care plan. They don’t care if uninsured countrymen stay unprotected. The new MA motto should be: ‘We have our own, others go to hell’.
Dr Hsieh, do your homework. I challenge you to publish this.
“Republicans out of my bedroom” means that some factions within the GOP seem intent on legislating morality and telling us how to live our lives. They seem unable to draw a line of distinction between religion and politics. If there is any argument about this, look at (Google) the things Mike Huckabee has said about libertarianism. In contrast, Reagan embraced libertarianism in order to forge the coalition which put him into the White House. The GOP has to embrace independents (largely libertarian) if it ever hopes to gain a governing majority.
#36 Fugate – Go to transcripts of the debates. http//www.presidency.ucsb.edu/debates.php
Examine the rhetoric, the specific things Obama said. The clues are there. 3rd debate tells it best. Healthcare, energy, education. His mantra. Over and over, advocating for bigger government.
“Automakers have to be held accountable. They have to start making the highly fuel-efficient vehicles of the future.” – ‘Sfunny, but I thought they had to make cars people want ot buy.
Government option was mentioned there, as was no pre-existing conditions exclusion mentioned in a previous debate.
One has to ignore the happy rhetoric and look deep into how his policies would translate into practice. Then, you’ll see how little regard he has for individual rights, but rather, embraces the collective. Remember “spread the wealth”? Who said it was his wealth to spread around?
@69. Chris:
“…some factions within the GOP seem intent on legislating morality and telling us how to live our lives.”
There are some factions on the left that want to do the exact same thing. Even worse, they want to tell us how and what to think.
Both sets of these factions are dangerous. They believe government is the solution to everything. This is why we (all of us) need to step back and stop looking to Washington for solutions. We need to get back to what the founding father intended: A small, low power federal government charged with defense, coining money, and interstate commerce while the states are free to do as they please.
I didn’t hear anyone in the Republican Party come out for repeal of 2000 pages of legislation already on the books. They just wanted a little less of the same crappy, collectivist junk the Democrats wanted.