About the debate

Yeah, I know I've said that I wouldn't dabble into political issues much here, and I meant it. But I did reserve the right to do it every now and then. Well, today is now. Or then, take your pick.

I wanted to say something in light of the Democratic debate the last two nights. They sure like to spend your money, and I must stress your money, don't they?

I am a political conservative. Why? For many reasons, really, yet one does kind of stand out. I think we have to be very careful about taking other people's money and spending it however we like. The essence of government spending is exactly that: taking other people's money and spending it however we like.

I'm not arguing against any and all forms of taxing and spending. We need government, and government does need money in order to work. Still, the idea that something should have public money spent on it simply because I want it spent, or because that's how the majority of voters want it spent, is plain arrogance. No matter how good of an idea it might be on certain levels, and especially no matter how good of an idea you may think it is, it doesn't automatically follow that you should force other people to pay for it.

The simple guideline is that government should generally only spend for a substantial public interest. I would look at the 18 basic ways of public spending as outlined in Article 1 of the Constitution as a good guideline. After that, we really shouldn't be too quick to demand, yes, demand, that individuals cough up their cash for what someone else believes right and just. Simply put, that is the tyranny of the majority. That's as bad as the tyranny of a king.

Jeb is Not Quite Right, but...

Is Jeb Bush right? During his speech at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Committee, he asserted that the GOP is the party of No. Republicans are against everything, it seems; his list is that the GOP is "anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-gay, anti-worker, and the list goes on and on and on." And he may be right, but perhaps not for the reasons he might think.

The fact is that is you have to be against some things if you are to be a rational man, let alone a good leader. You must be against and preach against things which are wrong in themselves as well as what will not truly help people. But the liberals have done something about that: they've dictated the terms of the left/right debate and put conservatives on the defensive. And we've let them have their way: we've let them makes us the people who always say no.

Never mind that little factoid which we only just said, that sometimes we must say no. Yes, must must: but we must do something further. In explaining our naysaying we must grasp the bull by the horns and explain why our ideas are better, in terms both practical and encouraging. There's a very easy reason why Ronald Reagan won so big, even among traditionally Democratic voters. He did exactly that. He reminded Americans, in a very passionate and caring manner, why conservative principles are what made our nation great. And what happened? The high economy of the 1980s.

So we should not be afraid to say no when it is called for. But we must go beyond that. We must tell people why we say no, and say exactly why our ideas are best. As it is, we have allowed the Democrats to control the debate. We end up responding to their false charges an innuendo rather promulgating real truths which we know will keep our country great. We must stop that; we must stop being reactive and become instead proactive in our cause. Reagan showed us how. We must review his lessons and make them the blood and sap of our vision. Only then will the Republicans become the dominant party in American politics. Make the people say yes to us, and the nos will be drowned out.