A couple days ago a Gingrich Super Pac came out attacking Romney because when his venture capital firm took over a company to transform it, many of the workers would be laid off. Gingrich could have distanced himself from the remarks, because by law a Super Pac can say what they want and raise as much money as they want, but it is illegal for them to coordinate with the candidate. However, instead of doing this Gingrich has come out in agreement with these anti-capitalistic charges. Never one to be outpaced in a race to the stupid-line, Rick Perry took the same course calling Romney a “Vulture Capitalist.”
Before going any further, let me assure you that I am no Romney supporter. I agree that Obama-care is simply Romney-care writ large, and I see him as too moderate to even imagine him as the conservative/libertarian firebrand this country needs. However, to have two supposed conservatives using such emotional charges to attack free market capitalism is appalling. I could hold my nose and cast my vote for Romney, Paul, Huntsman or Santorum (yes, it would take overlooking serious problems to vote for any of them). This would be a vote of “Anyone But Obama!” I might be able to hold my nose enough to vote for Gingrich, if he were to win the nomination—about as likely as the Colts making the Super Bowl. As for Perry, I have decided that I could not vote for him for dogcatcher.

When Perry first entered the race I had problems with his record, but was willing to overlook them. The biggest problem I had was the way he tried to force a new vaccination for HPV on the girls of Texas. I gave him the benefit of the doubt that his views on federalism would prevent him from trying such things on the national level. When voters are willing to overlook some things, it is helpful if the candidate doesn’t keep stacking on things to overlook. Pile crap high enough and it can no longer be overlooked, and much of what was coming from this campaign is pure crap. It is so bad, when a Perry ad comes on TV our houseplants get a fresh burst of life—as if they’ve been fertilized.

In a national debate, Perry, when questioned about his support for in-state tuition for children of illegal aliens, said that anyone who disagreed with him did not have a heart. I disagree with him and I have a heart—I keep it in a jar on my desk, so I can look at it. By doing this he alienated the whole other side of the argument. While many who disagreed may have figured that they could overlook his position, it is hard to overlook his stereotype of the opposition.

Perry soon found he was in trouble after this, and after he forgot his talking points in another debate (He couldn’t remember the departments he pledged to cut—it’s hard to trust you to keep your promises after the election if you can’t remember them during the election). To fix this he decided to pander to the basest feelings of the electorate. He came out with a promise to transform Congress into a part-time legislature. According to him, elect him as president and all Congressmen would have to return home to make a living between sessions. Their pay and benefits would be pared down to their new part-time status. While I agree our freedom is greatest when Congress is deadlocked or out of session, Perry forgot a little document called the Constitution. Congress makes its own rules, sets its own schedule and its own pay. He could recommend legislation along these lines, but who thinks a majority in both houses would support such a thing. This was the type of promise a politician loves—impossible to keep, so failure is not your fault.

As if these were not enough to give the finishing blow to the Perry campaign, he attacks Romney by smearing free-market capitalism. While many readers may agree with this assessment of venture capital and the process used in taking an unprofitable company and turning it around, you have to understand the reason such companies exist and why they do what they do.

Corporate revenues and resources can be broken down into outgoing and incoming. Incoming includes all revenue received from customers for product. Outgoing is everything needed to keep the doors open, the lights on and to produce the product that will bring in the revenue. A company is profitable when incoming is greater than outgoing—it must cost less to produce the product than is received through the sale of it. When failing to turn a profit a company can either cut its outgoing expenses or increase its incoming revenues. To increase income a company can develop (i) a new product line, (ii) a new customer base for its current products or (iii) raise prices. Note that the first two options will also increase the outgoing as new production lines must be opened and new employees hired, etc. The third is the easiest, but is only possible when the market will permit the new price. All three are tied to the market. If there is a market for a new line, one can be developed; if there is a greater market for the old line, it can be expanded; if the market will tolerate higher prices, they can be increased. The free market rules.

The other side of the corporate coin is outgoing expenses. These include facilities, equipment, materials, and wages. If unprofitable a company may move into smaller facilities to save on rent or mortgage. They may find more efficient equipment or a material supplier that is cheaper. Of course, these do not only go down. Over time they go up. Land, materials, equipment and wages are all inflationary, so a company’s profitability is affected, on both the outgoing and incoming side, by market forces. It is not uncommon to have a company pinched by falling prices for their products and rising prices for the materials to make the product. In time a free market balances these out if everything is left fluid to the demands of the market, but if even one area is unmovable then the market must take drastic action to set things right. This brings us to wages. Wages are usually contractual and while increases are easy to implement, cuts in wages are very difficult. Because of this wages tend to ratchet up.

In time the immovable nature of the wages may increase the cost of production beyond any hope of profitability. When this happens there are limited options. One, the company goes under and the employees are forced to take other jobs. These new jobs often involve a pay cut, which permits the price of wages to be adjusted back to market levels. The other company is for someone to take over who is not contractually obligated to the wage structure. This new management can offer to let employees keep their current jobs, if they accept cuts to pay or benefits. Those who will not accept are free to take their skills elsewhere. Either way, the market is balanced and wages settle back to where they should be according to the free market. The unchanging nature of wages in a company make these last two options necessary. We could do away with the corporate “takeover and turn around” if we set wages to fluctuate with the market, but this would not be popular—nor really even desirable.

Rick Perry should rethink his view of capitalism. While he and Newt Gingrich would be shocked to be accused of attacking capitalism, this is exactly what they have done. This type of pandering might work on the Democratic ticket of victimization and class warfare, but is out of place among Republicans. Republicans understand, in the words of Milton Friedman, “Capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom.” Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, in an attempt to undermine Mitt Romney, have each leveled their guns at freedom.

Personally, it can be preferable when one says, “I once held view ‘A,’ but evidence convinced me otherwise and I know hold view ‘B’.” Such a person demonstrates thoughtfulness in their views. Rather than regurgitating the view of a parent, teacher, professor or preacher, they think through issues to find the truth. Those who have never changed any views were either very lucky to be spoon fed perfect truth without error, or (most likely) they have put little thought into their beliefs. Why would we automatically reject the thoughtful converted one in favor of someone who shows no sign of thinking through positions? Simply agreeing with us, is not proof of deep thought or even reasonable views.

Several years ago I was discussing with a friend his childhood in a very strict Anabaptist sect which I won’t name. He told me that his father used to say, “Beware the converted.” Though the Christian gospel requires Christ’s people to reach out to the unbeliever, this group became so untrusting of outsiders that even those responding to the message of Christ and seeking membership among them were held in suspicion. This would shock most Christians, but this is exactly how does this differ from how we treat those who change their political views.

When a candidate stands up and says, “Yes, I was once pro-choice, but now I’m pro-life.” We should celebrate a victory and ask what convinced them. It is possible the argument or experience that convinced them would work on others. Don’t forget, even Ronald Reagan—hero of the conservative movement—was once pro-choice. While I cannot attest to Mitt Romney’s credentials as a pro-lifer, I am not going to spend years working to convince others that life begins at conception and then slap a candidate who says he now agrees simply because he once disagreed. There is a certain place for giving the benefit of the doubt.

It is of course easy to tell what happened. A set number of those attending decided their primary qualification was a sense of electability and held firm for Romney. Then the ideologues were split among Santorum and Paul. Of course, this was inevitable. Santorum appeals more to the evangelical, social conservative, while Paul appeals more to the fiscal conservative. Being libertarian many of Paul’s views on social issues would be seen as libertine and unacceptable to most evangelicals. Sometimes I think I am the only libertarian evangelical in the world—though I know a couple others who may qualify.

Since Iowa is a state where voters can show up at the caucus and change their affiliation to vote, a large number of independents supported Paul. This of course skews the numbers for Santorum because it means the lion’s share of rock-ribbed conservative GOP voters in Iowa must have voted for him. Had Paul not been in the race, it is likely many of his GOP supporters would have selected Santorum as the anti-Romney candidate, giving Santorum a runaway evening.

Last night is a perfect example of what will happen if there is a third party run by a serious candidate. Unfortunately, Paul refuses to take such a run off the table. He did so early in the race declaring that he would not go third party but would run as a Republican, but recently on a late night talk show he said a third party run was still possible. In Iowa, Santorum was the candidate closer to the values of the state. Don’t get me wrong. I am not a Santorum supporter and believe he has much to answer for and could be very vulnerable in a general election, but Iowa is not the beltway. He should have been a shoe-in, but with the addition of another ideologue candidate taking away a large enough number of the base and a good number of independents, Iowans ended up with a candidate they have little in common with—one whom the majority of the state did not want.

This scenario is going to keep playing itself out. State by state, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum (or Perry in some) will split the conservative vote and Paul will bring in enough independents to pad his numbers until we end up with Mr. Romney as the official candidate for our party. I fear the skewed numbers will convince Paul that he has a shot and he’ll leave the GOP at the last moment to run a third party candidacy. If this happens get ready for four more years of Obama.

How to Win a Local Election

In 2008 the GOP ran a candidate ill equipped to inspire the base. While he could promise little more than four years of the same, Obama promised something different. Of course it would be different. He was using the word “Change,” wasn’t he? He said he would change things. Of course there was little said about what he would change beyond such bromides as “share the wealth” and “fairness.” His Senate record of voting “Present” was no help pointing out the direction he would take the country. Yet he was able to inspire people and assure them that he was the savior they had awaited for so long.

This election we have a chance to make real changes in Washington. We have the House already, and a Senate majority is within reach. Hopefully both will be dominated by rock-ribbed conservatives. The problem is our ticket for the White House. None of this lot really inspires the base, in general. Sure each has their supporters, but none seem able to coalesce the base into a political machine. Each will have to rely on a fear of four more years in the Obama wasteland to keep their detractors in check, pushing them to show up at the polls, nose held tightly to cast their ballot. But show up they must. This is because while there they will vote for something even more important than the butt parked in the Oval Office. Every member of Congress and 1/3 of the Senate are up to reelection. Remember, the House initiates all appropriations bills (they hold the checkbook) and the Senate must approve all court nominees and treaties (they hold the keys to our freedoms).

The most important thing the GOP candidate can do is motivate. Rather than running as the Anti-Obama, this person must run as America’s answer—inspiring hope. Ronald Reagan did not simply run against Carter. Yes, his quip about a recovery being defined as Jimmy Carter losing his job was funny and creative—and oh, so very true! However, he spent most of the time playing up America and the bright future that was ahead for her if only the people would put him in office. We had just ended the long bloody Vietnam conflict. Inflation was rampant, unemployment through the roof. Things were so bad that previous laws of economics were rewritten giving us the previously unknown “stagflation.” After Nixon’s shenanigans, Ford’s questionable pardon of him, and Carters general ineptitude, people had a deep distrust for politicians. Well guess who is back. We have Jimmy Carter the sequel. It is time to send this guy off into the private sector, once and for all. The way to do that is to take a play from the Gipper and inspire. Don’t play on our fears; draw from our hopes.

Somehow I’m having visions of 2008 all over again. It looks like, just like in 2008, we will have our candidate chosen by the media. Once he has secured the nomination the media will turn on him fiercely and protect their candidate Barack Obama. While current polls show Romney as a serious contender for Obama this lasts only until the media make him their favorite whipping boy. I know the party apparatchiks who support candidates like Romney expect us in the libertarian/ conservative camp to hold our nose and support the centrist candidate. I know the alternative, if we take our toys and go home, is four more years of economic lunacy and Chicago style politics; however, I want to ask, when will the GOP centrists hold their nose to support our candidate? I’ve been around long enough to know the answer to this involves a cold day in a hot place.

The question I ask coming out of this election is how will the GOP read it? The election was spun by the left as a referendum on healthcare and that is exactly what won it for Brown. The people of Massachusetts came out in droves to vote against Obama’s plans to extend control over 1/7th of the US economy in the guise of healthcare reform. GOP leadership is of course ecstatic over the victory and they should be (heaven knows it’s been a while since good news involved the GOP). The danger to those of us who value freedom is a misread of Brown’s victory by party elites.

If party leadership reads this victory to mean people are so fed up with the Democrats they will vote for anyone wearing the Republican moniker the potential for big wins in 2010 will be lost. The Republican Party lost big in the last round, not because the country had shifted left, but because the Republican Party had shifted left. Under Bush it was hard to tell a Republican voting record from a Democratic one. Keynesian deficit spending alongside rampant Congressional corruption and moral turpitude produced a perfect storm for the left. The left won because the right stayed home.

It may be possible for the GOP to go one cycle or perhaps two with the old practice of running RINOs and Rockefeller Republicans. It is possible the electorate, shocked by the abuses of a strong Democratic majority, will vote for any elephant walking down the street, but this will not last long. Unless the party of Reagan returns to its base it will find itself exiled from power again and again. If this happens it is not the Republican leaders who will suffer but the American people who are forced to watch more and more of their freedoms wheedled away by misguided apparatchiks.

Unfortunately, certain Republicans in the House of Representatives thought that you and I do not spend enough on utilities and voted with the majority to dip into your wallet. It is my hope that the eight voting for the bill will face serious primary opposition and be removed from office next time around.

The eight who voted to raise the consumer’s cost of energy:

Mary Bono Mack (R CA)
Michael Castle (R DE)
Mark Kirk (R IL)
Leonard Lance (R NJ)
Frank LoBiondo (R NJ)
John McHugh (R NY)
Dave Reichert (R WA)
Christopher Smith (R NJ)

In party politics we as individuals must realize that we will never have a perfect candidate—one who is supported by all of the party. Compromise is essential in politics, even on the choice of a candidate. In deciding whom to support we take many things into account and their position on issues are only part of the equation. We must also keep in mind that, at least on the federal level, no single candidate will ever accomplish anything. The lone wolf is the most ineffective member of Congress. Change comes from majorities. If the majority will be freedom loving then it may be necessary to tolerate a few RINOs so long as the majority is large enough to counter their foolish votes. Unfortunately, with the last Republican majority this concept caused trouble. First, the majority was slim enough that liberal Republicans often obliterated the advantage of the majority by voting with the opposition. Second, once the ratio of conservatives, moderates and liberals in the majority tips from one to the other you may have the same party in charge, but an entirely different agenda.

The Republican party leadership must realize that the base will not support a liberal or moderate majority, even a Republican one. As conservatives and libertarians we must support candidates who believe in the maximum of freedom, even if at times it means our party loses.

We ordain the Constitution to protect our liberty.
We permit the government to wield our power.
We create parties to express our voice.

The GOP got the mistaken idea that the members of the party exist to keep them in office and power. They forgot that the liberties, the power and the voice are ours. They are simply one of several tools. Like any tool, it is of value so long as it performs its function, other wise it is discarded.

I attended a meeting of a local Republican organization and heard a speech from the county Chairman of the party. Out of respect I will neither say what group nor identify the person. The problem was not the speaker nor the venue but the substance of what was said. Seldom have so many words been spoken with so little being said. The entire time was spent on a litany of charges against Barack Obama with the occasional back-handed jab at the Clintons; all of which were the same old screeds bouncing around the internet. While many of these charges are serious and should be investigated, this chance to motivate the grassroots was wasted with pointless tirades. There was nothing of substance to show what the party should do or what the GOP had to offer. This speech made me wonder if the GOP is reverting back to opposition party mentality as the anti-Obama party: “vote for us because we are not Barack Obama.” We saw this before when Bob Dole ran as the moral antithesis of Bill “Where’s my cigar” Clinton. This tactic never succeeds and if the GOP is going to adopt it then yet another election cycle will be lost.

Conservatives and libertarians in the GOP must lay out a plan. Running against Barack Obama will fail, while a workable plan with a definite direction is the road to success.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiGuuYkl7kw

If the Republican members of the House have come back to party principles then four years in the political desert is worth it. While stopping Obama and the Hip-pocket Congress, we must rebuild the party with honest committed conservatives and libertarians. The party faithful are loyal to the principles of the party more than to specific candidates or precious majorities. Start pitching for the other team and you too will get benched. Our principles are what will put you in office and return you to a majority, not good press or entitlement voters.

Mr. Pence, I hope what you say about the Republicans in the House is true. Forgive us if we don’t take your word for it. We will watch and see. As the old saying goes: “Fool me once shame on you; fool me twice shame on me.” Principled Republicans must not be fooled again.