Appointment by Race.

It will be interesting to see what happens with Roland Burris, recent appointee to the senate seat vacated by Barack Obama. The senate Democrats have stated that they will not seat anyone appointed by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevish, who is governing under threat of indictment and impeachment. That statement was issued, of course, before the Democrats knew that the appointee would be an African-American, although surely they knew that was a likelihood.

If the Democrats now back down and go ahead and seat Burris, it will be a strong indication that liberal guilt still rules their party. They will yield to those in their party, such as Illinois representative and former Black Panther Bobby Rush, who has virtually dared them to stick to their guns and "lynch" Burris by treating him as they would a Caucasian appointee.

If on the other hand, the Democrats stay strong and refuse to seat Burris, it just might be an indication that they are finally willing to begin to leave race behind and to make some movement toward that color-blind country they always said they wanted. This is a move that Republicans made decades, if not generations, ago. The GOP has demonstrated that commitment by pushing for individual rights and equality before the law. The Democrats, on the other hand, have pushed continually for racial quotas, affirmative action and hate crimes - all based on the belief that the answer to past discrimination is even more discrimination in the future.

The senate Democrats have a goodly amount of cover. They issued their "no seat" rule long before an African-American was appointed. Burris has made contributions to Blagojevish's campaign, thereby further tainting an already tainted appointment. And, perhaps most importantly, President-elect Obama has voiced support for the Democrats' stance on a Blagojevish appointment. This speaks well for Obama. Let's hope the future will also speak well for senate Democrats.

A Return to True Republican Principles

It has lately been argued that the Republican Party needs to return to its roots, and I agree, although not perhaps in the way many would have it. Such advocates usually have in mind a more solid support for pro-life issues, laissez-faire capitalism, true civil rights (meaning individual rights as opposed to racial and gender quotas disguised as affirmative action) and balanced government budgets. While I can certainly argue for supporting the last three (I have a somewhat unique take on abortion, which I may or may not share in a later editorial), I don't believe that these issues, in and of themselves, form a firm foundation for rebuilding the party. Instead, I advocate we return to the true basic beliefs of the Republican Party, those being "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Speech, and Free Men." These elements constituted the 1856 campaign motto of the first Republican Nominee for President, John Charles Fremont. So, in the spirit of the Party of Lincoln, before there even was a President Lincoln, let us examine these issues with a modern eye:
1) Free Soil. This portion of the motto indicated support for the Homestead Act, which became law in 1862. The act was seen, somewhat naively, not only as a way to settle the West, but also as a way to help build a nation of yeomen farmers. For our purposes, a modern equivalent would be support for free education, training and, if necessary, relocation. In other words, government support to help our citizens become productive and hopefully self-supporting.
2) Free Labor. Everyone has the right to form unions, leave their job and, if they wish, to become self-employed. There needs to be the promise that, should a citizen become a self-supporting entrepreneur, that no government - be it federal, state or local - would attempt to strangle the new born enterprise in the name of protection for existing businesses. In other words, citizens would be free to build their business, offer their service, or plow their land without government interference.
3) Free Speech. This would be self-explanatory if there weren't constant challenges to this basic right. Nowadays, this comes almost exclusively from the left, whose devotion to colleges speech codes, elusively defined hate crimes and self-serving harassment policies have often trumped the right to free speech. A recommittment to free speech could only help the party find its soul and move forward.
4) Free Men. This, of course, dealt with the issues of slavery in Antebellum United States, an issue that was effectively handled by the Civil War. I suppose if we were to pledge allegiance to this basic fundamental, we would take stronger stances against ongoing slavery in the modern world. According to the organization Free the Slaves, there are currently 27 million people still in slavery, primarily in Africa,the Middle East, Latin America and the Caribbean. While I would argue against U.S. military intervention in those geographic areas, I certainly believe a louder and stronger public condemnation on the part of our government is in order. This could be followed by a U.S. motion for the United Nations to actually enforce its own Article Four, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that, "No one shall be held in slavery..." Such a move on the part of our country would not only help put the UN to shame (if such a thing is possible) for its lack of action, but would also put our own domestic problems into perspective.

In summation, if we are to "return to principles" as we rebuild the Republican Party, let us at least return to our founding principles. As those who have read my earlier writings know, I'm all about examining and, if they prove true, enforcing past principles as we head into the future. The winning party in years to come will be the party whose leaders can see the possibilities of modern technology, can support free enterprise while protecting its citizens from unfair trade agreements, and can recognize that most people wish to be productive and self-supporting and will help them on their way to those goals. That can certainly be the Republican Party as long as it also clings to its founding principles.

The Good Bailout.

Finally, a bailout plan that I can live with ... and not just for the obvious reasons.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R., Texas) has proposed a two month tax holiday to replace the rest of the Paulson-Pelosi bailout. Gohmert's plan would relieve taxpayers of the burden of federal income tax and FICA for January and February of 2009 and, in the process, pump an estimated 334.4 billion dollars into the national economy. Since the remainder of the P&P bailout would cost 350 billion dollars, Gohmert's plan would actually save 15.6 billion dollars.

I like this primarily because it allows people to keep more of their own money and spend it any damn way they want. Nothing says, "economic recovery" like citizens with money in their pocket. However, I need to add, I also like this plan because it recognizes a fact that has been lost on politicians lately: economies don't work from the top down, but rather from the bottom up. No government bailout to businesses, or for that matter to financial institutions, can help if there aren't people out there with sufficient cash to make purchases. No amount of government (ie: taxpayer's) bailout money to GM will help unless there are people out there with enough purchasing power (ie: money) to buy a car or truck.

I actually have a degree of sympathy for business people. They have been regulated nearly to death. But the answer is not a federal bailout, but rather an easing of regulations. Unless businesses are physically harming people or someone else's property, they should, with a few exceptions, be left alone. However, they shouldn't then be allowed to come before Congress asking for a handout.

Face it, the average citizen is a much better judge of where and when to spend his money than is some elected official in Washington, D.C. If we are determined to further unbalance an already unbalanced federal budget, let's at least do it in a way that will actually help our economy. If enough citizens have enough money in their pocket, then failing banks will be replaced by new, more efficient banks and failing car companies will be replaced by companies than can produce a vehicle, at a reasonable price, that people actually want to buy.