Fighting to Preserve Liberty in America
With the election safely passed so that nobody can make political hay of it, the poor excuse for courage known as the deficit commission released its preliminary report. I have to give them credit for not leaving a lot of stones unturned but bold it is not.
The Democrats like to point to the Clinton presidency as proof of their fiscal responsibility. It was a period of strong growth, balanced budgets, and prosperity. They then point to the Bush presidency, all eight years of it, and deride it for deficits, and ultimately a very severe financial crisis. But it is worth taking a moment to recall that the federal government is made up of three co-equal branches of government with built in checks and balances. The Congress is not subordinate to the president and it does not work for him. It is an equal branch of government that checks and balances the power of the presidency. For the purpose of this discussion, I will leave out the third branch, the judiciary.
Despite the famous 1992 Clinton campaign slogan, “It’s the economy, stupid,” the recession had already ended in March 1991. When Clinton took office he had a Democratic Congress and he pushed through a massive tax increase in 1993 without a single Republican vote. We know what happened to Congress in 1994, the Republicans took over for the first time in 40 years. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich tried to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which was included in the Republicans’ Contract with America. It passed in the House but failed by one vote in the Senate. After losing this round, Gingrich met with the Republican leadership and put forth the idea of acting as if the amendment had passed and just start submitting balanced budgets. They succeeded in the last three years of the Clinton presidency to produce budget surpluses and decrease the national debt. This included a tax cut by the Republican Congress in 1997, and the economy grew much stronger after the Republican takeover of Congress than under an all Democratic government.
In the 1996 election, the Democrats regained control of the Congress under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Up until that point the economy had grown steadily under President Bush despite two wars. With Bush in the White House and the Republicans in control of Congress we had tax cuts and seven years of economic growth. In December of 2007 the economy went into recession, almost one year after the Democrats regained control. Now with a Democrat in the White House, and the Democrats in control of Congress we are looking at massive growth in government, a whopping tax increase bearing down on us that will hit on January 1, 2011, and a growing debt that may eventually bankrupt us.
So what is all this talk about eight years of failed Republican policy? Under Clinton and a Democrat Congress it was two years of a tax increase and modest growth. Under Clinton and a Republican Congress it was six years of tax cuts, budget surpluses and strong economic growth. Hmmm….same president, different parties controlling Congress. Under Bush we had seven years of growth and tax cuts with a Republican Congress. Under Bush and a Democratic Congress, recession, fiscal crisis. Hmmm…same president, different parties controlling Congress.
But don’t expect honesty on the campaign trail from the Democrats. It’s just not the Chicago way.
There was a time when people came to our shores to find a better life. To escape persecution and poverty and to build a better life for their children was their goal. They found Lady Liberty lifting her lamp beside the golden door.
What happened next was that people assimilated. Their children went to school with other children and learned to read and speak English. Their names may have sounded different but before long their voices didn’t. Sure, New Englanders sounded different than those from Mississippi, but they sounded very much like their neighbors. They became Americans.
I just finished reading Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen’s historical novel, To Try Men’s Souls, which is the story of the George Washington crossing the Delaware on Christmas night, 1776, and attacking Trenton. Trenton was guarded by Hessian mercenaries, who were some of the most elite soldiers in Europe. It was a mismatch beyond belief, but in a last ditch effort, their password that night was “Victory or Death,” and with the element of surprise, they prevailed. In one passage it mentioned American soldiers of Dutch and German extraction shouting to the Hessians to surrender, in German. They were probably closer to the Hessians in culture and blood than to their fellow Americans from Boston, but they considered themselves Americans and were willing to die for their country.
The Balkanization of America
Today, we are mired in multiculturalism. I remember the story of an Hispanic man loudly protesting to his local school board regarding bilingual education to which he was opposed. “You’re teaching my son to be a janitor!” he said, “I want him to learn in English, so that he can get a job with a future!”
We should not lose track of our roots. It is right to celebrate where we came from. One of the great things about New York is the different neighborhoods and parades that teach and celebrate about where we came from, which is good. But if carried to the point where we no longer assimilate; where we remain pockets of groups with their own identity and politics, we are in grave danger of ceasing to be America.
During World War II, what if people of German heritage refused to fight against Hitler or for that matter felt a greater allegiance to him than to America? Some did. They were tried for treason. What if they were protected instead? What if their differences were looked at with admiration rather than suspicion?
Fort Hood
Commentators in the news are twisting themselves in knots trying to disassociate Major Nidal Hasan’s slaughter of 13 Americans from his jihadist proclivities, despite evidence of outright hostility toward America and contact with a radical imam. It is politically incorrect, to speak of his religion. The Army Chief of Staff raises concern about negatively impacting the military’s record of diversity, if we focus on anything but a lone gunman who snapped.
But what if there is a larger plot? What if there is an effort on the behalf of some Muslims to purposely not assimilate, to infiltrate the military and become a fifth column within? Multiculturalism makes it far easier for this to occur because if everyone looks different, no one stands out. On the other hand, if everyone assimilates, those who speak, act, or plot against America become more obvious. Again, imagine multiculturalism in the United States in 1943. You might have whole communities that were German to the core, did not like non-Germans among them and quickly spread the alarm when a stranger approached. How much easier would it have been for Hitler to build a network of saboteurs?
Kill Multiculturalism Before it Kills Us
We must reinvigorate the idea of assimilation. Speak any language you want at home; dress any way you want; practice your faith as you please, but where government is involved, we should be treated equally. We should speak one common language for all official business. If not, where do we draw the line?
In Minnesota in 2007 a public university coffee cart was banned from playing Christmas Carols, but public money was being used to install foot baths to accommodate Muslims before prayer. After the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and now another terrorist attack at Fort Hood, we have to be able to tell the good Muslims from those out to kill us. We must have true peace loving Muslims, become true Americans. We have to engender that we are Americans first, like those early Americans of Dutch and German decent, and not have divided loyalties particularly where the “other loyalty” insists on killing us infidels.
“marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties” — Miriam Webster Dictionary
The talk about bipartisanship and the accusations about a lack of bipartisanship are flying back and forth with such intensity, who could blame the casual observer for throwing up their hands and wishing a pox upon both houses?
President Obama and Bipartisanship
I believe that President Obama is sincere in his desire for bipartisanship. His willingness to meet with and listen to conservative columnists, and Republicans is indicative of his desire to change the tone in Washington. On the stimulus bill, I think he just painted himself into a corner by letting Nancy Pelosi write the bill while he held those meetings. Listening to the other side is a start, but it falls short of the definition. It remains to be seen if President Obama recognizes where this approach fell short or if it really is just window dressing.
Democratic Leadership and Bipartisanship
The Democratic Leadership has a very different view of bipartisanship. Their view is, “we stake out a position and you (Republicans) agree with it and that’s bipartisanship.” If they don’t agree, they are rabid partisans, doing it strictly for future political gain. But if you look at the definition of bipartisanship above, the Democratic Leadership is just not interested. The stimulus bill was put together solely by the Democrats and when asked by a reporter if the bill was bipartisan Nancy Pelosi responded, “That depends on how the Republicans vote.” That’s pretty much it in a nutshell.
When President Bush came into office, he brought with him his experience in Texas where he worked very successfully with the Democrats in the legislature. However, the Democrats in Congress were so angry with the outcome of the election in 2000 that they never gave him a chance, voting against anything he proposed.
Republicans and Bipartisanship
The Republican leadership has expressed their appreciation to President Obama’s efforts to reach across the aisle. However, as genuine as the gesture was they were still pretty much excluded from the legislative process. They fully understand that elections have consequences, but they want to be heard, they want to offer alternatives, they want the opportunity to persuade. If denied that by the Democratic Leadership, they will take their case directly to the American people and in 2010 get the public’s decision.
Is Bipartisanship Possible?
Is there such a divide that bipartisanship is just not possible? Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is trying to tackle that issue through a non-profit organization called American Solutions. That organization polled Republicans, Democrats and Independents to find areas of widespread agreement. The key to bipartisanship is to first find areas where you agree. Then look for areas where you differ but not so significantly that there is not room for negotiation and compromise. Lastly, is to recognize those areas where the difference is so wide that you simply have to agree to disagree. This is a list of ten initiatives that a majority of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents agree on.
- English should be the official language of government. (87 to 11)
- We want our elected leaders in Washington to focus on increasing the energy supplies of the United States and lowering the costs of gasoline and electricity. (71 to 18)
- The option of a single rate system should give taxpayers the convenience of filing their taxes with just a single sheet of paper. (82 to 15)
- Every worker should continue to have the right to a federally supervised secret ballot election when deciding whether to organize a union. (79 to 12)
- Keeping the reference to “One Nation Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is very important. (88 to 11)
- Congress should make it a crime to advocate acts of terrorism, violent conduct, or the killing of innocent people in the United States. (83 to 12)
- We should dramatically increase our investment in math and science education. (91 to 8 )
- We believe that if research indicates we could build clean coal plants in the United States with no carbon emissions, it would be important to build such plants as rapidly as possible. (71 to 8 )
- Illegal immigrants who commit felonies should be deported. (88 to 10)
- We support giving a large financial prize to the first company or individual who invents a new, safer way to dispose of nuclear waste products. (79 to 16)
As you can see by the percentages, the support for each of these ten measures is rather substantial. Bipartisanship on any one of these issues should be very easy to obtain. You just have to ask yourselves: how many of these are supported by the Democratic Leadership or President Obama? You can see that a number of them are not only not supported, but adamantly opposed.
So what is your view of bipartisanship? Is it where you surrender your principles and fall in line with your opponent? Or is it trying to find common ground among all Americans and not pushing a partisan agenda where government runs the smallest aspect of your life?
