Extreme Makeover -- IL Conservatives' 2009 Edition, Part 3

Today we continue IR's discussion of what the Illinois conservative movement's Extreme Makeover should look like. Yesterday, commenter Pete Speer suggested the conservative movement's foundation should be slightly altered. With Pete's suggestions, the movement's emphasis would shift away from limited government, individual rights, free markets and traditional values to others slightly different, but still conservative:

1. The primacy of the functioning family as the most efficient and effective level of governance. It is the only one that can impose moral values on its individual members. The failure of the family requires that elected levels of government substitute themselves, less efficiently and less effectively.
2. The availability to all of equal opportunity for interclass mobility -- the necessary vehicle for energizing our citizens. It is this energy coupled with opportunity that created and sustains the Republic.

3. The availability to all of geographic mobility -- the movement throughout our large nation of people seeking opportunity. In its stead, politicians seek to keep people and thus votes and the careers of the political class in place.
4. The availability to all of a fundamental education achieving literacy, numeracy and the a knowledge of the civic duties and responsibilities as well as the rights of the citizens.

Let's discuss Pete's proposed formula in Part 3 of Extreme Makeover: IL Conservatives' 2009 Edition.

• Are we willing to consider a foundational shift in the IL Conservative movement's Extreme Makeover?
• Is there something left out that should be added or is there something that should be deleted from Pete's four-part formula?
• With these principles, perhaps those not so committed to social issues would not be so intimidated to join the cause and move us away from the division that plagues all of our efforts?
• If not, what should we include or take away from the foundation that will attract enough support to end the liberal domination we're suffering in Illinois?

Your thoughts are welcomed.  The discussion's just getting started.  Please note, sooner or later, when we have the plans in place, the talking should shift to action.

See related posts Part 1 and Part 2.

Comments

[spintreebob]

Pete's points are excellent. The devil is in the details.

How can government policy at all levels empower the family? For example, giving parents control over their kid's share of education money not only is good for the kid, it shifts power from civil government to the parents.

So some of the resistance to education choice has nothing to do with education and everything to do with who has the power to control other people's lives. Should the elite have that power? Or the parents.

It is a classic populist vs elite issue, not just and educaton issue.

What other details could be derived from the basic points?

[Will from NYC]

Some of the elitists are the parents....

[Ken Vanko]

Geographic mobility is already a constitutional right. I see what he is trying to get at, but it sounds a little esoteric.

Perhaps you should substitute that one for some measure of government reform, term limits in particular. There is no reason anyone should serve in the same office more than 8-12 years. Plus, Republicans should be more aggressive at trying to eliminate gerrymandering - moving towards the Iowa or Arizona models of reform. That may be a start.

[Pete Speer]

Thanks, Kwn.

Gerrymandering reduces the rights of the functioning family, by putting in place an artificial and changing (every decade) set of governments.

It is done not for the benefit of the family but for the benefit of those who seek political control.

[spintreebob]

Gerrymandering is incumbents protecting themselves. A few years ago a SunTimes computer was instructed to design compact districts of equal population. It came up with exactly the same Black-White-Hispanic mix as the gerrymandered map. But it did not protect the Black-White-Hispanic incumbents.

Geographic mobility is hindered when entitlements have geographic strings. If the unemployed move where the jobs are, they lose their unemployment comp, etc.

Of course, the solution is elimination of entitlements. An employee's entire pay, including ALL employer costs, should be in his gross pay and on his paystub. Then there should be a mandatory deduction for a RAINY DATA ACCOUNT. That deduction would be the total of his unemployment comp premium, Healthcare premium, workers comp premium, social security premium, medicare premium, 40kk, 403b, etc.

That account would be self-directed by the employee and as portable as an IRA. That would make the use of healthcare, sick days, unemployment, etc less irrational. Currently there are many jobs going begging (both high paying and low paying). But there are too many disincentives for people to take the jobs that are available.

And what is excessive immigration control except government blocking geographic mobility?

[urbanleftbehind]

Ken Vanko:

Where can I learn more about the Arizona redistricting system? Was it in place for the 2000-2002 redistricting?

S-Bob:

Exactly-Pay me everything in cash! And then let me make my own decisions.

[Larry L.]

I think Pete's point #1 RE: the primacy of the family is excellent as well. It isn't a change in position for the GOP but rather a change in the articulation of the rationale. I have heard time and again that the Democrats are all about, "community," and, "togetherness," whereas Repbulicans are all about the responsibility of the individual. Although we do place a large degree of importance on the individual responsibility, that isn't to say we don't think people are islands in-and-of-themselves. This, "community versus the individual," is a false choice. The difference is that we don't confuse COMMUNITY with GOVERNMENT, and I don't think our Republican politicians highlight that distinction enough. Everybody needs a hand once in awhile, and that's where true organic community comes into play. Starting with a healthy functional family and extending out to non-governmental community groups such as churches, non-profit groups, etc. Then only as a last resort should we establish government programs.

And as Pete pointed out, the primacy of the family actually creates more efficient applications for social support. Free market conservatives understand the utility of having a diverse set of miniature, "experiments," when it comes to discovering market-based solutions for economic challenges. Why not apply that same model when it comes to social challenges? When talking to people sympathetic to the conservative free market message, we need to package the rationale of the primacy of family in those terms. The best way to provide social support to an individual is to have those that know them the BEST make those determinations. And 99 times out of 100, that will be family and close friends, assuming they are reasonably functional. I also think that hammering home the TRUE cause and effect relationship of family units and financial help will be useful. Many people say they are for financial, "bootstrap," conservatism but aren't big on the strong family or social issues. Some of these folks may think that once somebody is economically stable, THEN they will get a stable family. In reality, I think it's the other way around. I think pointing that out to the fiscal bootstrap conservative might help bring them along to the social part of the party platform.

Now, I'm not suggesting that faith-based conservatives abandon their message at all. I'm simply saying that when people are running for office they ought to know their audience and be willing to articulate the rationale in a slightly different way depending on the audience. This is not pandering or flip flopping positions. It's keeping the same policy positions but being willing to selectively offer different rationales depending on the audience. For example, a non-religious free market conservative might not be persuaded by talk of, "traditional family values," in the old fashioned sense. But if you connect the dots and frame it as a social efficiency issue, you're going to win some more votes.

[Larry L.]

Pete is also right in that the failure of the family unit puts pressure on elected officials to offer government funded programs and solutions. The reason government social programs should be a last resort isn't simply because it costs vast amounts of money. It's also bad because they simply DON'T WORK in the long term. We need to stop allowing Democrats to frame the debate that we are somehow cold-hearted. President Bush tried to hit on that in 2000 with his, "compassionate conservative," message, but unfortunately I think his effort was mis-applied and it amounted to simply being a big-government conservative and increasing social programs even more. The massive government programs are grossly inefficient at properly diagnosing and administering help, and can quite often lead to unintended bad consequences. The Democrat's solution for a social saftey net is to create a bigger and more comfortable one. The Republican's solution--by focusing on the family unit and TRUE community--is to create a world in which fewer people are in danger of falling into the social saftey net in the first place. That's what I call pre-emptive compassion through encouraging people to be the best that they can be. Erecting massive saftey nets for people to nestle into is a function of the, "soft bigotry of low expectations."

Lastly, not only do failing families frequently trigger often-botched government intervention, but it can actually create a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts too. Once the government programs are in place, it erodes the individual's sense of responsibility for helping out their direct family member, friend, or neighbor. The presence of big government programs triggers the, "diffusion of responsiblity," within the community and thus enables individuals to ignore a local problem because they assume that, "government already has a program for that."

Now, at the end of the day, I don't think that most Repbulicans are advocating the 100% total abolishment of government programs. We're conservatives after all, not anarchists. But I do think that drawing the distinct connection between a strong family and financial stability (and thus a lower likelyhood of needing a government social program in the first place) can be useful.

[spintreebob]

Whether you call it "Democracy in America" or subsidiarity, the safety net is first-of-all the immediate family; then the extended family; then voluntary religous, fraternal and professional groups.

In 1964 there was a research paper on "Upward mobility in Chicago's Inner City" that focused on the near west and near northwest sides. A person just laidoff would go to prayer meeting Wednesday night, or to church on Sunday and testify as to how he knew it was God's plan that he lose this job because God had better things for him. A fellow church member would then approach the unemployed person and say "We have openings at my factory."

Churches part of a denomination would send out "prayer letters". Members at other churches would come up with jobs for the church in the inner city.

The old time precinct captain played the same role, often in competition with the church to see if he could earn the favor owed. Factories were constantly hassled by building inspectors, zoning inspectors, health inspectors, etc selling ads in a political ad book or tickets for a raffle at some political event. The old time precinct captain would make a deal with the factory management that he would keep the inspectors off their back and be the only point of contact for the factory owner. In exchange, the factory owner would give the precinct captain a heads up on job openings.

This was all quite informal, but very elaborate. The inspection folders in the building department would be coded as to who had "protection" and already "taken care of". There were various codes and colors with different meanings.

The war on poverty programs such as government as centralized bureaucratic employment placement office killed much of the voluntary safety nets.

But the voluntary safety net still exists. Take the immigrant community as an example. They arrive and almost always find a job within 48 hours through their "cousin" or similar voluntary safety net member.

Remember, even now probably 2/3 of all jobs filled are never advertised on the internet nor in the classifieds, and especially not at the unemployment comp office.

In 1964... member would then approach the unemployed person and say "We have openings at my factory."

Ahhh, the good ole days.

Too bad all the factory jobs today have been outsourced overseas or hire cheap illegals.

[Will from NYC]

your man Bush..

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-conscience2-2008dec02,0,5741992.story

He had 8 years to do this! He does it as he's sneaking out the door! Chicken$hit! Your hero... just threw a divisive wedge bomb just when the country needs a little calm....

here's your plank for the next 2 years.... good luck.

[Jim Leahy]

Will,
How is this any different than the pro life stands Bush has taken through out his whole term? Chicken Shit? He has never looked people in the face and lied about voting to leave born children to die in closets, has he? He stood up to some pretty big pressure on the fetal stem cell ban and was proven right, he put the surge in place and stood behind the commander when almost everyone else would have caved. I can name at least 10 other things that Bush did that was against the polls and was proven right. You can say allot of things about President Bush but Chicken shit is not one.

[jorod]

Will, Al Gore had 8 years to talk about the environment...Where's my health insurance?

How about a national right to work law? That might give some mobility.
Take away the power to tax from unions...

Family provides a safety net for its members, provides physical, psychological, emotional, economic support like no government can; as opposed to the 1-parent welfare family that is based on children being economic units supported by the government..

There are many jobs....for skilled workers.

For public policy positions check out http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=3832

[Phil Collins]

Larry, I agree that government social programs usually don't work. According to the Index of Leading Social Indicators, by Bill Bennett, Congress increased welfare spending, in 1965, because of Johnson's War on Poverty. When welfare spending increased, many women, especially minorities, had more babies out of wedlock. When only one parent raises children, it's harder to teach kids good morals, since many single mothers work two or three jobs, to earn enough to survive. When those teenagers don't have enough parental supervision, many of them become criminals. The teenage arrest rate greatly increased, 1975-'85.

Jim, President Bush says that he's pro-life, but he singed a few laws that gave money to Planned Parenthood and the World Health Organization, so that they can perform abortions.

[Susan]

well if Mr Bush had such strong feelings then why DID he wait till he was out the door to implement this rule??? why did he wait until his lame duck status hid him away in the shadows?...

he was never a true proud supporter of the conservative agenda. He just claimed to be... big difference.

[jorod]

Bush was conservative on taxes but a liberal on everything else..especially spending..

[Pete Speer]

Permit me to attempt to get the discussion back on point -- as a matter of principle.

The purpose of the four principles is to provide a common ground around which a polity can organize itself. These are the ideas that must be evangelized by at the lowest level of that organization, the door to door 'precinct workers'.

They provide the basis around which individuals can be recruited and come to the holding of common belief, on which organizations live or die.

Disagreements on issues can be tolerated among people who believe and hew to the same principles.

Common principles are what make people work together.

Let me expand the discussion and refer the participants to "Politics As a Noblr Calling" the memoirs of F. Clifton White published by Jameson Books. I have just finished it. It is a primer for the organization of political parties bby the pre-eminent Republican organizer of the last half of the 20th Century. Although ending in 1993, White and his collaborator, Jerome Tuccille, outline in experienced detail how to organize political campaigns for success. White was a conservative Republican. The book deserves a careful read by all who would hope to organize or reorganize for success the carcass of what we see today in Illinois.

Hard work from the bottom up, smart work at the top.

Find it in your library or order it from the Ottawa Illinois, publisher

Pete's principles would have Democratic support. Not sure conservatives would support numbers 2 and 4.

[Pete Speer]

Anon?

In what sense would they not support 2 and 4.

2, especially, since it becomes a necessary condition to support the availability of entry level jobs for our legal residents. Illegal aliens are not condoned.