The Moderate Republican

Wherever you Go, there you are.

This is kinda odd, but it was a year ago, yesterday, I moved my blog from my Blogger site to here. And now, I've decided to ,at least for now, move back. So, if you've linked to this site, please change your bookmarks to: http://moderaterepublican.blogspot.com.

Traveling for a Bit

I'm testing out my old site. So, if you want to keep up with me, please me out for the next week or so here.

Notifications

I just want to know if people who are signed up to recieve updates are getting them. The system seems to be wonky and I want to make sure it's working. Please email me at denminn-underscore-2000@yahoo-dot-com and let me know if you are getting anything from me. Thanks.

Durenbruger Unbound

Former US Senator David Durenburger is somewhat of an oddity in Minnesota these days, a moderate Republican. In a no-holds-barred interview with the Twin City alternative weekly, City Pages, he lets loose on how he feels the current GOP has lost its traditional moorings and steered towards a policy that doesn't believe in representative government. Durenburger believes the party is focused on the exurbanites who tend to, in Durenburger's view, have a rather limited scope (he also manages to praise Democrat and fellow Minnesotan, Garrison Keillor as well:

"David Brooks writes about exurbanites, the people beyond the suburbs, using the analogy of golf. Their life needs to be like a golf course, where all the grass is clean, and cut to the same size, and the sand traps are all edged appropriately. That's the way they live, that's the way of a growing number of Americans. They want to go to churches where people are just like them, and go to malls that serve people and lifestyles just like them. This is Brooks's characterization, not mine. Increasingly, people want to vote for people who look like them, talk like them, and think like them. They go to church on Sunday, and they want to vote for somebody who talks to them the way the preacher does.

He's really saying, Give credit where credit is due. And there's a value in universities, there is a value to big old cities. There's a value to the Hmong or whomever. Here they are. And there's a value in that that doesn't exist in the golf course community, where everybody is the same. You can't possibly say you can represent everybody in your district, everybody in your state, everybody in your nation if have this golf course community mentality. '

I tend think Keillor can be quite boorish and overhypes the Dems a bit too much, but he and Durenburger are on the right track. The GOP of today seems obbessed with conformity and is scared of diversity. There is also a rancid individualism that is corrupting the party. Republicans have always championed the individual over the group, and I think that is one of the values that makes me a Republican. But there's a difference in an indivualism which celebrates the uniqueness of every individual, to empower that individual to be a good and productive citizen in society, and one that celebrates the self to the exclusion of your fellow man or woman.

Take for example Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, who is a Republican. About a week ago, there was a gangland-style shooting a few blocks from my house. Minneapolis, especially the North side, where I live, wants something done. The majorityof the homicides this year have been in this area. When there was a flare up of violence in 1996, then-Republican governor Arne Carlson sent the state troopers in to help out. Today, we have not heard one thing from Pawlenty. Nothing. I guess since it's Minneapolis and most of those who live in the North Side are African American, it's not that important.

He does find time to introduce a a plan that would give property owners the power to block city or country tax increases. So, people who may not live in Minneapolis or St. Paul , can decide on whether or not citizens like me can have more police protection or not.

You don't have to be a raving Socialist to think this is grossly unfair. So, renters who live in the Cities and may want more police to make their communities safer, are out of the loop. Tough cookies if you don't own property.

As a homeowner, and property owner who lives in the city, I am outraged. This is an example of the cancerous type of individualism I'm talking about. Who cares if people in the large cities are dealing with gang violence? As long as I have low taxes, I'm fine.

Such a philosophy has no place in politics and especially Republican politics. This is not the individualism of Lincoln or Roosevelt which was tied to helping others. This is nothing more than selfishness and speaking as a minister, it is sinful. A lot of Republican leaders who say they love God need to be confessing some sins.

Durenburger think the theocon platform is not a keeper:

"It won't last. It can't last. It's not foundational as far as America is concerned; it's not foundational as far as representative democracy is concerned. You can bring your faith to your life and your work, but that should also include respect for other people and respect for other opinions. You know, love your fellow man and all of that. But what you see [from religious conservatives in politics] are the dictates, and the things those same people are doing to people they consider to be their opponents."

I hope he's right. It might have to take a crisis, but at some point people will realize that we have to work together and help others. That, gives me hope.

From the "A Picture is worth a Thousand Words" Department

You just can't make this stuff up.

Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan.

Towards a Progressive Conservatism

I've been reading the new book by Jim Wallis called , God's Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It. In it, he talks about a essay written by New York Times columnist David Brooks last summer. I remember briefly looking at it, but not really getting around to reading it.

If you haven't read it, do so. Now. It's entitled, "How To Reinvent the GOP" and it's a provactive essay on how the Republican Party can reinvigorate itself. His basic argument is that the guiding principle of the GOP in recent decades, namely the size of government, is not an issue anymore. Socialism, which called for a big and interventionist government, is a spent force and the old conservative argument over the size of government is not the issue. Instead he argues for a limited and yet robust government that would spur empowerment among individuals who would in turn, empower the nation.

There's a lot more I should be saying, but it's close to eleven and time for bed. What I can say is that Brooks is advocating for a conservatism in the view of Teddy Roosevelt, a progressive conservatism. I think it's a great blueprint for the party and I could see it expressed in someone like Chuck Hagel.

I will comment more on this article later. Bed awaits.

Grover Is So Over

There's an good piece in the Washington Monthly about how Republican governors are spurning the advice of anti-tax guru, Grover Norquist. Norquist is known for his statement of wanting government to be small enough to, in his words, "I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”

Well, governors are finding out that his anarchist utopia doesn't match up with real-world issues like education and road maintainance. Mitch Daniels, the former budget czar in Bush 43's first administration is now the governor of Indiana. Daniels upset Norquist, by closing a budget deficit of $600 million by raising taxes on the the richest Hoosiers.

Other GOP governors are following suit after a decade of ignoring fiscal reality. In Colorado, a Taxpayer's Bill of Rights was introduced back in the 90s. It turned out to be a disaster. Here is the money quote:

"In 1992, at the instigation of Douglas Bruce, now a county commissioner in Colorado Springs, Colorado voters passed a referendum known as the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, or TABOR which attached an amendment to the state constitution that required any tax increase to be approved by a vote of the people and limits state spending increases to inflation, with adjustments made for population growth. Any amount that the state collects above its spending limit has to be returned as a tax refund, unless the public specifically votes to allow the state to keep the money. So far, no Colorado official has even tried to bring the question to a vote. “It sounds good, so it's hard to fight politically,” says Brad Young, the former Republican chairman of Colorado's joint budget committee.

Throughout the state, moderate businessmen such as Clark kept their political checkbooks closed to many Republicans last year. Several statehouse incumbents who might otherwise have counted on huge campaign spending advantages over Democratic challengers instead faced something approaching parity. A tightly organized state Democratic Party was able to take advantage, knocking off enough Republican incumbents to gain control of the Colorado legislature for the first time in 40 years. Democratic leaders in the state legislature are now reaching out to moderate Republicans to make changes to TABOR. As for Owens, he's term-limited and preparing to begin his last two years as governor. With a reinvigorated Democratic majority in the statehouse and a conservative base disappointed with his concessions to budget realities, he's quacking lamely. TABOR is at no risk of being jettisoned altogether, but its reputation as the third rail of Colorado politics has taken a permanent hit, as have Owens's hopes for competing in the GOP presidential primary 2008. "

No Republican likes taxes. None. But sometimes you have to raise them in order to pay for services people use. Republicans should be about keeping taxes reasonable, not about eliminating taxes. Roads have to be kept up. Schools have to be properly funded. These are things states have to do. Of course some savings can be made in harsh times by cutting some budgets. But any fiscal hawk worth his salt knows that to balance a budget you need to do two things: cut programs and raise revenue. There is no way around that.

Here in Minnesota, our Republican governor, Tim Pawlenty is still under Grover's spell. Despite budget deficits, he still maintains that taxes don't need to be raised. Programs have been cut, but there is still a deficit. He has basically used accounting schemes to push the deficits into the future, but the problem is still there.

The governor however seems to think we need revenue. So, instead of raising the revenue through a tax increase, he has decided to strike a deal with three economincally disadvantaged Indian tribes to open a casino in the metro area. Estimates are that a casino could bring in $200 million into state coffers.

But is this what we want? I don't like tax increases, but I also don't like relying on dirty money to provide for services. This would put a burden on the poor and middle class who tend to go to casinos.

This is not enlightened governing and it's not what Republicans who should believe in fiscal responsiblity should be engaging in.

It would be nice if our governor got a clue. Scary thing is, he is being considered as a presidential candidate in 2008.

Social Security Deja Vu

The latest polls are show that Dubya's Social Security plan is losing support. This has his team going out to campaign for the changes. For some reason, this all seems eerily familiar, and I guess I'm not alone with that line of thinking. Back in 1993-94, Clinton introduced his Health Care plan and the Republicans were pretty much united in opposing it. Clinton tried to rally support and the plan died without ever coming to a vote on either floor in Congress.

What's also familiar is that even though the plans put forth are bad, the opposition seems to ignore that there is a big problem facing the nation. A decade ago, the Republicans were the ones blinded by ideology (government intervention into the markets) and ignored the real fact that the nation's health care system was in dire need of repair. Today, the Democrats are blinded by ideology (government programs are sacrosanct and don't need to be changed) and ignore the fact that something needs to be done to shore up Social Security from the coming Baby Boom storm. Clinton's health care plan was too clunky to really get anywhere. Bush's plan for private accounts doesn't really do anything to fix Social Security. Both plans were bad, but that didn't mean that there was no problem.

It's sad that politics has become a version of "kick the can." The Opposition is no longer interested in working on pragmatic solutions; only about winning the game. What happens when Social Security is beset by the Baby Boomer rush to retirement and the health care system is in shambles?

At some point you wonder if either party really cares about America. I think they are more worried about protecting their bases and vested intrests instead of working together to solve national problems. It's ridiculous and sad.