That’s the report.  Here’s the analysis.  As suggested some months ago, the past predicts the future.  As Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes, there is nothing new under the sun.  There will be no new net growth in employment until new jobless claims fall below 400,000.  Hiring cannot and will not happen until employers are confident that they have sustainable business prospects, that their expenses will be stable (like health insurance premiums) and that their taxes will be stable.  Again, we’ve seen this scenario before.  It was called the Carter Administration.

Right now, President Obama and his staff are crafting a spin that would suggest this is all the Bush Administration’s fault.  That somehow, the last 18 months didn’t happen and they are not responsible for any of the anemic economic growth evident currently.  The reality is, they could blame the Bush Administration for anything that happened in the first six months of the current administration.  All economic activity since August 2009 is due to Obama Administration policies.

It’s time for the President to put his big boy pants on.  No one wants to hear his whining anymore.  Nor do we want to see solutions that will expand the national debt and budget deficit.  And while I feel for all of the 6.6 million people that have been out of work for six months or more, it’s laughable to watch the arrogance of liberal Democrats defend their failed policies.  The Democrats are imploding, again, something I predicted in November 2008.  They violated economic principles.  They thought they were smarter than that, and that, somehow, because the sun rose and set on Barack Obama, it would be different for them.  This is a hard lesson to learn.  The longer this lasts, the more seats the Republicans will gain in the November elections.  By all means, they should continue their rhetoric.  It’s fun to watch.

Anyway, Mr. Smith asked the President if he thought the criticism leveled at him and his administration was “undeserved”.  “Yes”, the President replied, “it is undeserved”.  He went on to suggest that the future will be kinder to him and his administration once people begin to understand all that he has had to endure and reform in the first 18 months of his administration–that is, the recession, bailouts, health care reform, financial reform, etc.

What?  Is the President delusional?  Politics, particularly modern politics, has always been about the mastery of spin, and this administration is clearly good at it.  But the American people are tired of it, and for the last six to nine months, have begun to see it for what it is–nonsense.

First, President Obama needs to understand–deeply understand–that the stimulus, bailouts, deficit spending, health care reform, and now financial reform, have run counter to the will of the majority of Americans.  Not the people in the la-la land of Obama and cronies, but the folks who do the tax-paying, hiring, spending and bill-paying.  The President’s agenda of wealth redistribution is not what they signed up for.

Second, President Obama needs to understand that there are deep concerns about the economy that transcend stimulus and the expiration of the “Bush tax cuts”.  Last week’s release of economic statistics are a perfect example.  The housing industry is in severe recession still, and no amount of home-buyer incentives will work any longer.  Consumer confidence is low and durable goods orders are soft.  New claims for unemployment benefits were 457,000 in the previous week, suggesting that companies continue to lay off workers.  Finally, preliminary GDP estimates say the economy grew at a 2.4% rate in the second quarter, a mediocre reading at best.

The President is clearly out of touch with his constituents.  Nervous companies are not hiring.  Nervous consumers aren’t spending money (at least, the ones who are working).  And until they are confident that the government is going to stop spending money and that their taxes are going to remain stable, they will not spend or invest, or do anything but sit on their cash.  At least, until the government takes it…

Is the criticism deserved?  You bet!  But we’ve seen this movie before.  We know how it ends.  It was called the Carter Administration and it ended with the resurgence of conservatism and Ronald Reagan.  As long as the current Administration continues to ignore the people and continue down the road they’ve set before them, they can continue to expect criticism.  They are self-destructing.  How I love a happy ending!

I suppose you might be asking yourself a question right about now—how does this relate to politics?  While I’m quite certain that indeed everything relates to politics, the specific answer is the power of the mentally presumed.  The United States is now and has always been a relatively conservative country.  Our Constitution, laws, and values, as well as every poll ever taken on the subject, prove this.  The problem for Liberals is that well . . . they are not.  This presents a huge political task for them.  In order to get the Country they envision, Liberals have to change a large number of long entrenched status quos, and over time they have developed a strategy and the tools to potentially get the job done.

In politics success in the long-view can be defined as a fight for the subconscious.  Winning this fight takes time and, what I consider to be Liberal’s most effective tool, patience.  Sacrificing in the short term for future benefit is counter to human nature, but seems to be an ability they have developed in spades.  Having entered into every professional sphere for over 50 years, they have been undertaking the unscrupulous duty of chipping away at religion, the courts, the military, our school system, and our moral standards.  They have a big task, big ideas, and an even bigger amount of gall in the way that they have gone about this business.

Your message entering the mainstream is not just the Holy Grail for marketers, but for obvious reasons, is also priceless if you happen to be a political movement attempting to transform a society.  It is for this reason that the vast majority of lawyers, teachers, and reporters lean hard to the left.  They have correctly determined that this is the surest way to achieve the political equivalent of a tissue being referred to as a Kleenex, a bandage being called a Band-Aid, or gelatin being Jell-O.  In advertising lingo, achieving this is called an eponym; in politics I guess you would just call it “shrewd”—disingenuous but shrewd.

There is no need to win the legislative argument if you can turn a carefully crafted and well directed lawsuit into law.  There is no need to win the moral argument on social issues such as gay marriage if you can impart it as the norm to a generation in Sex-Ed classes starting at the age of seven.  There is no need to win the philosophical argument of the role on government if you can marginalize the Constitution in a college lecture hall and then have the issues pitched to the people by the media as questions of “empathy.”  This level of subversion and the distance it creates from the substantive political debates that we should be having, debates that make this Country better, is infuriating and flat out scary.

Interestingly, this battle for the subconscious is one that Liberals have been fighting with no active resistance, and the reason for this is simple.  The status quo has been held and assumed by conservative leanings for years.  Past generations of Democrats, while certainly having political differences with Republicans, were at least in part buoyed by similar values and constraints as their political opposition.  Not since 1933 has the Right been opposed by such a widespread and transformative-minded group as today’s Liberal Democratic leadership.  Republicans have in essence been playing with the lead, and the scoreboard is starting to reflect it.  Though alarming the question that this begs for some is, might it be time for the Conservative movement to counter by beginning to engage in these types of fronts?

For my part the answer is no.  While I think it is important to be aware that this effort is afoot, publicly expose it and defend traditional realities and values, there is far too much relativism being employed by both political parties as it is.  Any actions based on this are indefensible, as what is at stake is the moral high ground.  Joining Progressive Liberals by wading into the oily waters of politically-motivated education, biased journalism, and judicial activism is not only unnatural but is dirty, dirty business.  Come to think of it—it’s about as dirty as an oil-soaked pelican.

So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.

—Sun Tzu, The Art of War

The two major forms of Republicanism each have a doctrine that is tied to actual documents. Religious social conservatives have The Bible, while fiscal and Constitutional conservatives have the Constitution. It is safe to say that the vast majority of Republicans have their political tenants supplied by one, if not both, of these documents. This type of textual anchor is a positive philosophically and morally but in a strictly political sense can be a liability. The resulting positives are what tend to be deep, time-tested convictions, stability, certainty and, when used, an effective measuring stick for candidates in primaries. However, in our current event driven and largely politically uninformed society the negative is that this rigidness makes it nearly impossible to adapt positions to individual situations and use current events for maximum political gain.

This is a problem that the modern day liberal Democrat will not have anytime soon. They indeed stand in the starkest of contrast. Having left the Constitution behind decades ago, they move forward with no defined doctrine. No set of black and white documents that create, inform, or guide their ideology (and don’t even try to give me the party platform). This creates a situation in which changing party leadership sets an evolving standard as to what defines a Democrat. This not only allows them to easily tailor their political message to what they perceive to be popular at the moment, but grants them the option of playing the role of “lifeguard” and coming to the citizenry’s rescue with politically crafted legislation.

This, in tandem with the current perception that this is indeed the role of government, is extremely effective but thankfully also comes with disadvantages. First, the party can more easily be driven to the fringes as their lack of rigid philosophical boundaries allows a handful in the leadership of a given generation to rather rapidly change their party’s principles. A quick look at their current leadership and the top three finishers in the last two Presidential primaries reveal not a single, even remotely, moderate candidate and safely proves this point. Second, though both unfortunate and ironic, their biggest roadblock is that given our current level of debt the Government simply can not sustain an ever increasing financial role. As long as our citizens are concerned with the debt, and according to the most recent polling all but 24% are, their “lifeguard” advantage will be minimized. Though these points make it likely that due to their intensely progressive ideology they will drive themselves off a cliff, in the short term this chameleon like flexibility to adapt to changing realities is a net advantage and one that must be tactically dealt with. What has been created here is the political equivalent of a moving target and the challenge facing Republicans is developing a sound defensive strategy. Sounds strange to say, but the question is: how does one turn the political disadvantage of having and following defined ideological principles and a narrow view of the Federal government’s role into an advantage?

What should be done from a focus standpoint, and what is currently working, is a continued, exhaustive fixation on deficit spending and our National debt. What should be added is further concentration on the ineffectiveness of the Stimulus Package, especially considering the Democrats just quietly tried to procure another $50 billion in borrowed money to funnel to the States. The Recovery Act is not only recent, relatively uncomplicated, and directly tied to the current Liberal leadership, but proves rather blatantly that even with a trillion dollars the Federal Government is not capable, nor was it designed to, “fix” these types of problems. Simply put Republicans can not afford such an expensive and unnecessary tragedy to occur without it being politically fatal to the Democrats.

Legislatively two things come to mind. First, the already passed PayGo legislation needs to be hammered on and strictly followed by Republicans no matter the circumstance. In many ways this was a gift given by the Democrats, as it fits the Republican message, while almost certainly being a check written for political reasons to the American people that Liberalism will not allow them to cash. Along with this is what should be a unified, party-wide push for an Enumerated Powers Amendment. In my view this is the Republicans single best chance to not only start reigning Government back in, but also to maintain the energy of the Tea Party movement by proving that motion in their direction is both possible and something besides lip service. While the actual passage of such an amendment is an impossibility given the Republican’s current minority status, and I concede likely a long shot even with complete control of the Legislative branch, forcing the Democrats to vote down or ignore this concept would pay huge dividends now and in the future.

While any marksmen will tell you the only way to hit a moving target is to aim in front, in this case the surest place to aim is behind, and more specifically about 234 years behind. While it is certainly frustrating to watch the opposition bend and mold their positions to gain short term political support, and though it may be true in this day and age that strictly adhering to principles of limited government may at times seem like a burden, we must as Republicans resist the convenience of straying. We must be strengthened by the knowledge that in the long run, being principled and following the Constitution’s principles is always the correct answer. In those times that the temptation to deviate presents itself we can remember the Italians’ have an old saying for just such a quandary, “A burden that is chosen is not felt.”

Team Obama went the the G20 Summit in Toronto this weekend to chide the other 19 nations to continue to stimulate their economy through Keynsian economic principles.  “Not so fast”, said the other countries.  “We have to make choices, and right now, we choose fiscal solvency and prudence”.  What a concept!

Passage of the Financial Institutions Reform package was always tenuous, at best, but the death of Senator Robert Byrd over the weekend makes passage more difficult.  One less Democratic vote means that it’s more likely that Republicans can filibuster this package, and this is a good thing.  Here’s why:  Any bill that increases regulation, drives up costs to the consumer, and squeezes financial services companies’ margins will negatively affect the economy.  The costs of increased regulation always get passed along to the consumer in some way, shape or form.  Limiting profits also limit tax revenues to the US Treasury in the form of corporate taxes, as well as limiting the taxes paid on dividends.  Finally, no company will hire if they have to choose between new employees and profitability.  Profits first, then job growth.

Of course, this Administration believes that more government, and more regulation is better than the alternative.  Which brings us back to the oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico.  Government could not solve this problem.  President Obama’s unwillingnes to recognize this fact, rather, to pin it on the previous Administration, has convinced me that less Washington is the answer, not more.  Incidentally, government could not solve the Katrina problem either.  It was private philanthropy, including church-based organizations, that had the greatest impact during the Katrina aftermath.

It would seem that if anything, this Administration, and especially the President, is deliberately trying to keep people from focusing their attention on the economy, jobs and the fact that companies continue to shed them.  This is preferable to actually implementing policies that will create jobs, stimulate the economy, and generate revenues back to federal, state and local treasuries.

On Friday, the Labor Department will release the non-farm employment numbers for June.  Consensus estimates suggest that the economy shed 145,000 jobs this month, and if so, that the unemployment rate will rise to 9.8% from 9.7%.  Look for President Obama to do some if not all of the following:

• Create a diversion
• Blame it on the financial crisis and the previous administration
• Express a need for additional stimulus

Do not expect him to take responsibility, or offer any potential solutions other than those expressed above.  This will prove to solidify Republican gains in both houses of Congress in November.  The country wants solutions and for a  responsible President.  It will have to wait another two and a half years.

Gross Domestic Product, unemployment, consumer confidence, bond ratings — the state of a nation can be measured using a series of black and white numbers, and while these tell a large part of the story they leave out a great deal. Every country has in a sense its own unique collective personality built from the attitudes of its people and their shared traditions and history. The journey that this country has taken from its inception to its current greatness has been made possible not by good economic indicators, but by the traits we have carried with us along the way. Through both high points and hard times we have been bolstered by a certain toughness, resolve and indeed a stubbornness that is uniquely American. Regardless of generational ideological shifts it is the retaining of these traits that is paramount in securing our future. Increasingly it is becoming less true that “tough times make for tough people” and more accurately put “tough times make for weak and dependent people.” The Left wing in this country is on the verge of answering The Greatest Generation with the creation of The Glass Jaw Generation, unable to take a punch and become stronger for it. If this is allowed to occur, the final blow to the empire will have been dealt. So as Paul McCartney wrote and Ringo Starr once sang, “Lend me your ears and I’ll sing you a song, and I’ll try not to sing out of key”.

While the following will not be out of key, it will certainly be at times ugly and displeasing. Just as the fields of Philosophy and Psychology have as a main tenant self-introspection, any useful political theory must be crafted only after a look in the mirror. Even the most country-loving and patriotic American should never shy away from the duty, or the results, of a brutally honest self-evaluation. Granting the fact that the positives here are left out of this snapshot, it is indeed a grim picture, particularly when looking at our younger generations. There are mind-blowing percentages of obesity, staggering high school drop out rates, flat-lined test scores, record levels of both teen promiscuity and teen pregnancy, rampant single parenting, and, new to the youngest generation, widespread debt courtesy of credit cards. It is my contention that the root cause of many of these social problems, as well as a great deal of our country’s fiscal problems, is what has been over the last five decades a destructive, systematic, and society-wide removal of consequence. This can be seen in nearly every corner of American life.

While a sliding moral standard in popular culture has unquestionably been on display for years, the lowering of the ethical standard has, to a shocking degree, crept into politics. Beginning with Bill Clinton who, after cheating on the First Lady (in the Oval Office mind you) and then lying about it under oath, was remarkably able to maintain not only his Presidency but a continuing position as a powerful and leading voice in the Democrat party. This precedent paved the way for current Democrats like Charlie Rangel and Chris Dodd (tax issues, sweetheart mortgages, and multiple ethics violations) as well as Republicans Mark Sanford and John Ensign (unstable emotional behavior, infidelity, lying, and cover-up cash payoffs). Amazingly all these men still hold their positions as our “Representatives” and illustrate the pathetic reality that the consequence for immoral and unethical behavior even by our elected “leaders” no longer includes the mere loss of their jobs.

Even in the area of society that one would generally expect to see the clearest cut cases of cause and effect, the criminal justice system, we have a level of diluted punishment that both undermines and largely de-fangs the entire branch. The vast majority of prosecutions are plead down with any resulting convictions almost never ending in a fully served prison term. The level to which this disregard for written law has become mainstream and infiltrated our government is perhaps best exemplified by one man. Luis V. Gutierrez is currently a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for Illinois’ 4th Congressional district. Mr. Gutierrez publicly threatened to vote against the recent Health Care bill on the grounds that it did not allow illegal aliens to buy health insurance with their own money. Money that they have illegally obtained by sneaking into this country and made either by stealing someone else’s Social Security Number or earned tax free under the table. This is a man who took the Congressional oath when seated to uphold the Constitution and Federal law, who in this current climate feels justified and comfortable enough to repeatedly, and on national television, undermine and effectively curb-stomp numerous laws of this country. Mr. Gutierrez, along with all our legislators, was elected and empowered to change laws that he disagrees with, not to ignore the ones he does not like. Taking this situation from bad to worse is that instead of being reprimanded he was appointed by his fellow Democrats to none other than a seat on last term’s Judiciary Committee. Scary. It is a mistake to think that any of the examples given above are insignificant, as what is being created is not only a flawed framework but one that is being seen and will no doubt be repeated by the next generation of our political leaders.

What should be of most concern to people however is the economic arena and the evolving role of our government into what I have coined a “Givernment.” The difference between the two is far more profound than the swapping of a vowel and represents the changing of our government from guaranteeing abstract things like freedom, rights, justice, and opportunity to providing actual things like food, housing, money, jobs, and healthcare. While many problems are created by this shift, the common current running through all is that they either lessen or eliminate all together the true result of people’s actions and behaviors.

In the legal system there is a concept known as Adverse Possession in which your rights as a property owner are forfeited if you, knowingly or not, allow someone to use your property for an extended period of time. For example you are a land owner and a neighbor begins to openly farm a portion of your land. You as the owner of said land have a duty to inspect, protect, and in general maintain a watchful eye on your property to avoid it being legally reassigned to another who has taken to using it. This absence of action by the property owner is known as “sleeping on your rights” and if you do so for a period of time, your legal remedy is gone–essentially, a statute of limitation. Applying this doctrine not to land, but rather to our tax dollars is exactly what has transpired to create the entitlement society that we now live in. We, as taxpayers, have “slept on our rights” long enough to concede possession of our resources to the receiver class through Adverse Possession.

The legal tenants that need to be met for a party to acquire through adverse possession are intent (you have to think it’s yours) and continuous “open and notorious use” for a statutory period of time, all of which have been met. Particularly when looking at programs like welfare, food stamps, government housing, and Title XIX (Medicaid), there has undoubtedly been a belief developed that these programs are rights that belong to people, rather than temporarily legislated benefits. The fact that these programs have been proven by both political parties to be untouchable by reform for so long is the final bit of evidence that possession has been established.

The problem created by this belief and the widespread overuse of these programs is that they simply remove the consequence of people’s actions, and it is this belief and overuse that are especially guilty in creating the inter-generational dependency that we now have upon us. If you are poor and are pregnant you have the baby delivered for free; if you can not afford to feed the baby or yourself you are provided food stamps and formula; if you can not provide health care for yourself or your children then it is provided; if you can not afford a place to live you are provided a home. If you choose not to work or to get pregnant again the whole cycle can, and does, get repeated. The fact that there is never a price tag or a cost extracted from the recipient to create a disincentive leads to yet more of the behavior.

Given the inescapable fact that there simply are not enough resources to sustain generations of Americans who are completely devoid of the ability, or even the concept of needing to, offset their own existence, changes must be made and solutions must be offered. While fleshing out specific proposals and dealing with their difficult political viability must be reserved for a future time, here is brief start. Nearly all Federal involvement in social welfare needs to be transferred to the state level, where 49 (all but Vermont) have at least some Constitutional language that requires a balanced budget. This would end the ability to kick the cost can down the road in the form of deficits as well as allow for the levels of benefits paid out, and therefore the amount of taxes collected, to be subject to the political will and economic realities of each state. Any remaining Federal programs should be outfitted with a hard cap and be gradually transitioned into having upwards of 80% of benefits being paid out as loans subject to re-payment plans and future wage garnishment. The choice to opt-out of Social Security needs to immediately be given to anyone under 35, with the goal of having it exist as an opt-in only program by 2035. There are those that will say these, and virtually any other, proposed solutions are too tough and would like nothing more than for us continue “sleeping on our rights.” Further absence of action is not only economically unfeasible but, as I fear most, will eventually result in the loss of our truly greatest commodity: Fortitude.

In my opinion the overarching philosophy that needs to underlie any future solution is a return of consequence back to the American culture. The removal of rightful cause and effect in our political, legal, and economic system not only results in a weakened society, but is the single biggest factor in producing cyclical dependency, which is unsustainable by a free people. As F.A. Hayek aptly wrote in the introduction to his classic book The Road to Serfdom, “If in the long run we are the makers of our own fate, in the short run we are the captives of the ideas we have created.” The ideas we have created, and which now hold us captive, are that we can unnaturally and systematically remove ramification. The solution lies in just the opposite: the return of consequence.

It is always amusing when a single statement contains such a large number of fallacies. Let us count the ways.

First, Goldman was acting in their role as an investment broker. Everything they do is essentially either a bet for or against something…or the facilitating of someone else doing the same thing. More technically, they are simply acting as brokers, and not as agents. Agents represent a buyer or seller. Brokers facilitate the transaction. This is the “market mechanism” and it is what guides the whole system of the effective allocation of resources. It is fundamental to our material progress. As significantly, if people would have actually listened to Goldman, the whole mortgage disaster might have been avoided. Starting in 2004 Goldman was very publicly saying that the US housing market was overpriced and that we were headed for real trouble. Unfortunately, too few actually listened to them, including Senator Levin. In the case of the SEC-driven synthetic CDO case, Goldman was actually not making a bet against the mortgage market…an investor was. But even if they were, it was completely their right to do so.

“But the disclosure wasn’t adequate…” Please. If you hear anyone say this just say “stop,” and remember that these things were bought (not sold) by some of the most sophisticated investors the world has ever seen. These buyers were high-powered investors looking for levels of interest unavailable in our low-interest world, and they got torched. Anyone who uses the word “disclosure” in this argument is either very poorly educated, or more likely concealing a very ugly hidden agenda. Funny, have you heard anything from the actual investors who lost all the money? Most of the money that was lost in the mortgage meltdown was not even held by the banks. Unlike the power-mongering Senator Levin however, they all know and accept the penalty for the sin of their ill-fated and over-reaching greed.

Secondly, and contrary to Mr. Levin’s fear of profit, the world has proven over and over again that without the opportunity for “profit” the world tends towards universal impoverishment. We should very quickly notice that profit is not a word to be used exclusively with respect to corporations; it is a universally human word. All of us require “profits” as a source of motivation. Mr. Levin demonizes corporate profits, but fails to recognize the evil of “government profits,” which are the desired fruits of his labors. In the case of government, the profits take the form of the shifting of funds from individuals and corporations into the pockets of government. Profits, thus defined, always flow out of a system where productivity is advancing. It has to. The only question is who gets them. Mr. Levin has decided that they should flow to him and his kind, as opposed to those with the brains and drive to actually create something of real value. Profit is virtuous. The conscription of profits by the government is the true evil. This is particularly evident in the case where the “disclosure” of the intentions of the government (think Mr. Levin) is what is so entirely deceptive and completely lacking.

Lastly, Mr. Levin effectively is saying “And what we need is a really, really, really big solution to this really, really, really big problem.” What we have in the case of the mortgage crisis is actually a really limited problem with a very large set of consequences. The failure that we experienced was a classic simultaneous failure of the banking and insurance systems resulting from too little capital required to support the levels of risks being taken. This is hardly a new problem. The current financial services bill, like the health care bill, is just an opportunistic ruse that only tangentially relates to the real problems that we face. All we need to fix the problems with mortgage-backed securities and their “derivatives” are a set of rules around the capital needed to support both their issuance and their holding. End of story. Mr. Levin actually knows this. And that is the real problem…and a crying shame.

Sophisticated systems like ours create “sophisticated solutions” to create take-overs by the government that are accepted by “We the people.” The financial services bill is sophisticated only its complexity, and has nothing to do with the problems we really face. And herein we see the real evil. Goldman is not our problem. Levin is.

Last week, the former President, Bill Clinton, made comments linking the Tea Party Movement to the worst act of domestic terror that has ever been experienced in our country’s history.  The Oklahoma City bombing was a tragedy of massive proportion.  Apparently, Mr. Clinton believes that the same ideological forces that motivated the bombers of the Federal Building are those that now motivate those that gather under the Tea Party banner.  To consider this comment reckless and irresponsible is to understate its vitriolic intent.  It is almost impossible to adequately underscore the complete disconnect between the former President’s “I feel your pain” tone with his real message. Farcical messages delivered with a level of alleged caring are amongst the most dangerous.  It is reminiscent of the initial tempting of mankind in the Garden of Eden.

The reason the Civil Rights Movement emerged was that a people group was being treated unfairly and were being oppressed by a system that stood for a higher principle than was being observed.  And there were those who at the time “stood up” and said that what was happening was both immoral and evil.  Most people of conscious knew that this situation needed to be fixed, with the only differences of opinion coming in terms of the appropriate means to that agreed-upon end.  We humans are endowed with a sense of justice that transcends both our group distinctions and our distorted modern media coverage.  We know injustice when we see it.  The only question is whether we “stand up” and voice our disaffection.  Mr. Clinton must certainly understand this attribute of a liberal democracy such as ours, as he was a societal product of the 1960s.

The only difference between the Tea Party Movement and the Civil Rights Movement is the nature of the oppressor.  The driving force behind each of the movements is the same.  In both cases a minority group is passionately expressing a very heartfelt concern that their individual liberties are being violated and that their freedoms are being abused by a tyrannical oppressor. In the 1960s the oppressor was a racial group.  In 2010 the oppressor is the Federal Government and the Obama Administration. Both movements were asking for something quite simple: just treat us with fairness.  To believe that one of the movements was racial and the other ideological, and that they are therefore different, is to miss the obvious common factor.  It is a distinction without a difference.

Can the evils of an oppressive system cause certain rogue individuals to take actions that are legally inappropriate and even reprehensible?  The answer is obviously yes.  But that is not the point, and the former President knows it.  The Civil Rights Movement created some very ugly scenes. For purposes of this discussion, let’s remember the situation in Detroit in the summer of 1967.  Would Mr. Clinton ever think to link Civil Rights and Detroit?  No.  He does not cast himself in the role of oppressor in either situation.  He rather sees himself as a liberator.  And in his self-analysis is his error.  Until the liberal left comes to see themselves as the real oppressors, we will continue to hear the same insulting and condescending rhetoric.  Funny thing: Vladimir Lenin didn’t see himself as an oppressor either…he saw himself as a liberator.

Most adults in America today (other than the most senior amongst us) have never had to directly face the ideology of the N. Pelosi’s, C. Schumer’s, J. Wright’s and E. Holder’s of the world.  Even the 1960’s form of “progressivism” was set against the backdrop of the known evil of an outwardly racist system, and an equally controversial war in Vietnam.  Today is different.  What we face today is an unforced and radical progressivism without any of the supporting historical props.   The problem with the interpretive thinking of conservatives today is that we are attempting to see the logic in the ideology of the left (or at least some form of semi-coherent palliative) that will allow us to understand the apparent vacuity.  But herein we are seeking to see that which simply does not exist.

When we look at the notion that some of us are from “another solar system” we are on the right track.  But it is us conservatives who are from the alien planetary system.  The history of the world is that of self-elevating power and the associated worldly riches that accompany the resultant control of resources.  America has been one of a small number of exceptions to the world’s power narrative.   To willingly give up available control (as has been done in America) is the exception, not the normal state of world affairs.  We are the spoiled children of a very rich political heritage, the leaders of which were painfully aware of the past and very oppressive history of humanity.

Where we have become confused is in the definition of words that are used to describe the phenomenon which is modern leftist radicalism.  To give the moniker “ideology” to the left is to cede far too much credit to whatever it is that progressivism stands for.  The word ideology artificially conjures up the notion of a level of intellectual coherence.  And this is our great error.  An ideology is based on a set of principles.  The radical progressivism of the Obama administration is based not on any set of principles, but rather just on the seizing of available power.   We are simply watching the history of world being played out in our own back yard.  To actually fail to see and understand the underlying logic of progressivism is the naturally expected outcome.

Let’s quit talking about the leftist as ideologues.  We credit them with the virtue of human thought.   Rather, let’s just refer to them as “political thugs.”  That will solve two problems.  The first problem solved is that of the obvious mislabeling.  The second problem solved is that of conservatives wasting their brain cells on “figuring out” the agenda of the current administration.   There is actually very little to figure out.

I should have seen it at the time, but now, it is clear to me just how important it was for Democrats to pass Health Care Reform, in any condition.  Even torn to shreds.  Getting it done early in 2010 was absolutely essential.

Because that was the one chance that Democrats had of holding seats in November.

It’s a gambit that tries our souls and puts folks on both the left and right on edge.  By completing the effort early in the year, Democrats have essentially taken ownership of the election, or at least taken a position that gives them a stronger political advantage.  That is, stronger than they would have had if they had tried and failed to complete the work, or completed it in late summer or early fall.

The manner in which Republicans play this out over the next several months will have a greater impact than anything.  Even though a majority of Americans opposed the Democrats plan, ultimately the tide will shift on the perceived benefit of those in the middle.  Already, some Republicans are seeing the challenge of continuing to fight this head on.

Now, instead of fighting against a bad idea, instead of promoting a smarter model for Americans to address the real Health Care issues at hand, Republicans who go all in with the “Repeal ObamaCare” crowd will be quickly branded as trying to take away rights, because that’s what entitlements are to those who receive them.  Although the early days after the signing of the bill into law saw many Republican Legislators and Candidates clamoring to proclaim their commitment to repeal it, they might as well now be committing to drop Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment, Baseball, Apple Pie and Breathing.

Regardless of the right or wrong in your political discourse, elections hinge on perception.  One could make an irrefutable case for providing better quality health care at a lower cost, but the evidence would become so much blather in the face of chants that Republicans (EVIL Republicans) want to take away “free” health care.

The facts that the new law is full of so much junk (that’s my code for earmarks), that the financial model is consistently misrepresented by the Left (meaning the CBO report, while accurate, is over simplified), and that health care costs overall are certain to increase dramatically as a result of this legislation (weren’t we trying to reduce costs?), have already been forgotten.  Any attempt to promote a blanket repeal of this law will play well with conservatives and libertarians, but is likely to fall on deaf ears amongst Moderates who would much rather see the law fixed than scrubbed.  Having passed the bill, Democrats now have an upper hand.

But they don’t have to.

The key warning here is, that although conservatives like myself would love to wake up and read the headline “ObamaCare Repealed By 112th Congress”, and we love to hear candidates proclaim their commitment to reversing the law, and it is so easy energize the base by just saying you are going to repeal the law, it is dishonest to tell people it is that simple.   And it is highly unlikely to happen that way.

Better to have a plan that will gain broad support and have a positive impact on the lives of all Americans, by maintaining our cherished liberties and ensuring basic needs can be met.  This is possible.  This will take work.  This will take some explaining.  And it will be difficult to encapsulate into a 15 second sound bite.

As painful as it might be, the time may be here for analyzing the legislation that is now in place and producing a bill (or multiple bills) to correct it’s most insipid problems.  New legislation that keeps the parts of the current law that are actually useful (as few as they may be) and puts forth a plan to maintain the integrity of our social order while ensuring that all Americans have access to quality health care.  A plan to actually reduce what we already know to be a burgeoning level of cost for a health care system that could be less costly, less litigious, less fraudulent, and accessible to all.

One more thing.  If Republicans can put together (and gain broad candidate support for) such a plan, we might even get painted as the folks that helped avoid years of fighting in court over 10th Amendment States Rights to eliminate the legislation.  Do it right and we could gain bipartisan support to see the plan through.

Then, instead of the obstructionist label we hold right now, we can be seen as the party that makes a difference, that brings value, that serves the greater good.