What is a Conservative Independent?
I have been asked that question by my readers many times, for they tend to find this website's title to be intriguing. And the reason they find it intriguing is that, quite simply, they don't know what it means. Most do continue to come back time and again because, for in the most part, they find our take on politics and other matters of interest and concern also intriguing. However, it is time to explain what this website is all about, and where I am coming from as a Conservative Independent. So here goes:
It is our evaluation that most of Middle America is Conservative in their thinking patterns. But conservatism for this group, formerly known as "The Silent Majority" is not the extremism of Neo conservatism, nor is it the extreme Left excesses of Neo liberalism. They are conservative in their thinking pattern, and tend to lean toward the arena of reasonable compromise; a political position generally identified as - Middle of the Road.
They are a core group that in most situations, if given reliable access to non politicized facts and the time to reason and think will, for the most part- take the middle ground. In other words, they are willing to make reasonable gradual compromise to inevitable change, as long as that change is not so dramatic as to impact destructively, their core values or social comfort levels. And because they can think and compromise, more and more are becoming Independent voters. They are the new - Thinking Class.
Secondly, it is our contention that many of the guiding principles of science can very often be applied to an effective theoretical appraisal of what takes place in the human condition. This is to say not so much for prediction, but rather as an explanation of what often appears to be, in the light of certain incontrovertible facts - incomprehensible human behavior.
Within this realm of future planning we also make judicious application of the greatest engine for future projection ever devised, that being the technically precise, nonpolitical genre of speculative fiction, loosely referred to as - Science Fiction. Yes, well written thought provoking and well thought out literate scenarios that heed no social barriers, more often than not written and devised by professionals in the sciences, have proven to be of great value in our pursuit of likely outcomes to social situations in our increasingly chaotic world.
As far back as the late 1950's, there have been many speculative fiction future-projection novels and stories written in intricate detail, laying out many of the problems that plague society today. They have forecast the drug usage revolution and it's impact on society, the rise of the mega corporation and their ability to control the actions of elective governments, and they predicted with incredible accuracy the rapid dissolution of the nuclear family structure, and the globalization of American society as frighteningly portrayed in the 1982 film "Blade Runner". And it would be well to remember that the 9-11 disaster was clearly envisioned in speculative novels, many times, decades before it actually occurred. A point toward which I quote the final words of former governor of New Jersey, Thomas Kean, Chairman of the 9-11 committee upon completion of their damning report:
"...The most important failure was one of imagination."
Thirdly, many have noted we very often employ the entirety or specific scenes from well made, scripted and acted motion pictures as part and parcel of our explanation of sometimes intensely serious and sometimes difficult to comprehend complex human subjects. This is a matter of communicative choice and what we consider to be one up on the old axiom of 'one picture is worth a thousand words.' A static picture may make a bold statement that cannot be rationalized, but a well crafted theatrical or televised production is far superior at delivering the element of 'understanding and comprehension.' And the reason for that is that when people are able to actually see, acted out before their eyes, they more often than not place themselves in some part of that scene. And when they do so their quotient of understandability will often triple or quadruple. But the most important point is that the cinematic or televised experience, done well, can be understood by the widest range of intelligence levels - often referred to as the audience. In other words, just about everyone participating in the viewing experience will get the point.
What is a Conservative?
How does one define a - Conservative? Well quite simply put, there is no such single existing entity in the form of a person, political organization or party that can truthfully bear that definition or banner. And the reason being is that the group calling themselves such, is fragmented into varied camps of political extremists; most of whom hold to fixed viewpoints, heavily inter-layered with religious convictions and principles, on any number of social and governmental issues. In the main, they can best be described as - Believers.
It is not that these people are intellectually unintelligent, but more a matter of their willingness to phase out reality from their thinking patterns when reality threatens their sacred viewpoints. For most of them, religion is at the core of their everyday evaluative processes, which in turn is the same process factor they employ to think politically. And since to them thinking is anathema to their core beliefs, they tend toward the choice of belief as an acceptable if not mandatory replacement.
Therefore, when evaluating the Evangelical politics of the late Reverend Jerry Farwell of the Southern Baptist Convention, and the equally late Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran (both considered Conservatives in their own countries), one will notice with careful study that both leaders rejected any projection of the future which embraced 'social change' as an acceptable element. Instead they opted for the past as a blueprint for the future and rejected the input of those who in any way opposed their viewpoints. The two men may have been following different road maps but, in essence, they were traveling the same road to the same place in the future - the past. History has proven, beyond doubt, that approach is fraught with conflict and simply does not work.
The Experience Factor
In this politically charged American season of primaries and caucuses, there is dangerous talk being bandied about concerning the dynamics of 'change.' And that exchange concerns just how a legitimate political climate change is successfully brought about. Can it actually be accomplished by the simple injection of an inexperienced force into the frey of domestic and world affairs? I think not!
In point of fact the term 'inexperienced', in and of itself, begs to be defined in real terms when considering its application to humans, and with particular reference to politicians. For instance, because a prostitute is new to the business, does that make him or her any the less suspect as to motives - like for example a lawyer? Think about that! They very fact that they want to enter a profession, known in advance to be a dirty one, speaks more to their character than the term - inexperience. In fact in my train of thought, in this instance, the term Moral Choice comes in advance of the term - Inexperience.
Therefore, when the term is applied to the presidential candidacy of Senator Barack Obama (D) IL., one gets the distinct impression that his backers feel they are getting someone - unsoiled. While on the other side, the opposition regards him as someone who, due to his inexperience, may push the wrong button at the wrong time - or not. From where I sit the view from both sides have points of validity.
The position of President of the United States of America can never safely be a trainee position. Quite simply put that strategic position, by its very nature, does not lend itself to 'on the job training.' Think about it for a moment. Would you fly on an airliner flown by an inexperienced pilot, but one that you personally liked? Or would you prefer to travel on one flown by an experienced pilot - even if he was a bastard at heart? There, you've just answered that 'no-brainer' question.
George Will's Standard
Conservative columnist, George Will, has stated that the following is a reasonable and important test for the choice of an American president in these extremely troubling and dangerous times. He thinks voters should use this scenario as an effective and realistic guide as they measure presidential candidates’ readiness on national security:
Nightmare Scenario of Our Times:
"You’re the security adviser. You’re awakened in the middle of the night. You have three minutes to get the details of an attack coming on the United States. Then the president, who you notify, has four minutes to answer. That’s seven minutes." Which candidate do you, the voter, think best fits the seven-minute question?
"Experience: Instinctively knowing which direction to try first, when all one has to go by, is the consul of equally confused advisors and an educated guess."
The Editor
From the Brutally Comic to Tragic Possibilities
Therefore, in keeping with my example of using a well made television production or a high quality motion picture to make the point, I once again nominate the 1986 British television series "Yes Prime Minister", and the chilling 1962 American Cold War film - "Fail Safe."
In the British series, "Yes Prime Minister", the point is brought home through cleverly comic scripting, that no elected head of state can operate effectively, if those who serve at his and the state's pleasure, do not cooperate with and, to some degree, share his wishes.
In this respect the British Parliament and its House of Commons reflects our Congress. And it must always be kept in mind that most of the individuals who populate these coveted and lucrative positions do not aspire to higher office.But they have a nasty tendency to simply settle in comfortably where they are. They are the in effect the - true government - that lasts through many administrations, and they do so by making certain that the man on top does not drastically change anything that may in any way lend insecurity to their positions. To put it in plain terms, they are 'business as usual animals.'
When presidential candidate Barack Obama states, categorically, that he is the emissary of change, he is blowing smoke through his hat. The only way he can effectively achieve such a major change in government is to (right after taking the oath of office) machine gun down at least 80 percent of the congressional occupants of both major parties in both houses of Congress. Barring such drastic and highly unlikely action on his part, the change he's promising is simply - not going to happen. In other words, he cannot in any way whatsoever deliver on that election promise. This point is made vividly clear in the intelligently produced and well scripted British series, "Yes Prime Minister."
We now come to the of crucial question of national security, in which the experience factor must be taken seriously in the choice of a new president. In the1962 Cold War film, "Fail Safe", due to a realistically posed technical glitch, a squadron of nuclear armed Strategic Air Command (SAC) bombers head toward the Soviet Union. They are under the mistaken impression that the Russians have launched a nuclear attack upon the United States. And as a function of the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) policy followed by both sides at the time, their coded pre written orders are to destroy Moscow.
The president of the United States, portrayed in chilling realism by the actor, Henry Fonda, is placed in the position where he must make a decision (with the help of a conference room of advisors) on a plan of action - before the bombers reach Moscow. In pursuit of this end he establishes Red Phone contact with the Soviet Premier and, together, they try to work out an acceptable compromise solution acceptable to all - should by chance the bombers make it to Moscow.
For those of you who have never seen "Fail-Safe", I respectfully suggest that you rent or buy it: the viewing will be a mind opening emotional experience. However, for those who don't have access to this remarkable film, the attached video will reveal the film's controversial ending. You be the judge of the wisdom and or morality of his solution to the avoidance of a possible Armageddon.
However, what you must do is to place your choice for president in the place of the film's fictional president, and seriously and honestly ask yourself - how well would my choice operate under such circumstances? How well would he or she standup under George Will's Standard? And most of all, if he or she does not have experience to rely upon, then what? In this day and age, more than at any time in the past, that question is not only relevant but real time as well.
The Candidates
Hillary Clinton (born October 26, 1947) : Well schooled in law, eight years involved in the government of her home state, eight years in the White House as a politically 'active' First lady, and one and a half terms as a senator from New York State. She also knows many of the world's leaders on a one to one personal basis, and was once coauthor of an unsuccessful universal medical plan under her husband's presidential administration. She does have a tendency toward an abrasive personality, but is not afraid to draw and spill political blood when necessary. Well known on all sides of the political arena in Washington as never walking away from a fight, and like her husband, Bill Clinton, is capable and willing to fight dirty when she has a need to. Is she as her campaign states so confidently; ready to go on day one! Possibly.
John McCain (born August 29, 1936): A Vietnam War hero of true proportions (captured, imprisoned and tortured by the North Vietnamese for five years) and a senator from the state of Arizona, McCain served in both houses of congress from 1982 (first two terms in the U.S. House of representatives) to present. He is also coauthor of the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002, a sincere move toward campaign finance reform. He is well respected by his colleagues on both sides of the political fence, but is regarded by his own party, the Republicans, as a political maverick. And he is known to vote with his mind not his heart, which often runs him into trouble with his own party - such as his very liberal stand on immigration.. Still he considers himself to be a true conservative, but not a neo conservative. Is a supporter of George Bush's invasion of Iraq and the current surge of troops. However, he has been highly critical of much of the operations of the Bush administration. It is also important to note that McCain has gone through two bouts of cancer, and his wife, Cindy, suffered a stroke in 2004 attributed to high blood pressure.
Barack Obama (born August 4, 1961): A Democrat and successful lawyer, he is the junior U.S. senator from Illinois who is at present near the end of his first term. He was elected to the Senate in 2004, and took the oath of office on January 4, 2005. And although he has placed his co authoring signature on any number of bills and legislation proposals, he has as yet to show any outstanding qualifications for the role of President of the United States. His constant campaign theme is "..It's time for a change..", but he has been characteristically unclear, evasive and obtuse as to just how he would accomplish such monumental changes as he has proposed, in a 200 year old institution known for successfully resisting interlopers with such ideas. However, as matters appear to be moving, he appears to becoming more known as the 'Black' candidate rather than the 'change' candidate, and that may damage his image far more than anything the Clinton machine can do to him. Though reduced from what it was in the past, race is still a major undercurrent in America and its politics, and can easily be expressed in the silence and anonymity of a voting booth.
John Edwards ( born June 10, 1953) : A true 'son of the South' from the state of North Carolina, Edwards was elected to the Senate from his home state in 1998, and served one term. Edwards does appear to have a legitimate feel for the Middle Class citizen, but he is untested in any other political or administrative government arena. He was the vice presidential running mate of Senator John Kerry in his failed 2004 presidential run.
Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947): Highly successful businessman and son of a previous governor of Massachusetts. He has held the reins of the governorship of Massachusetts for 4 years (one term), and did not seek reelection. During this period the rate of jobs growth in the state was a mere 0.5 percent, while in the country as a whole it was 5.5 percent. Yet a mainstay of his campaign for the White House is a promise to increase the rate of employment in the country: a promise very much at odds with his record as governor in Massachusetts. And while it is true that he has been the successful CEO of two major corporations, he has absolutely no congressional experience. And to his detriment, he has exhibited a noted tendency to quickly 'turn in the political wind' to the direction most favorable to himself - which has often manifested itself as a complete about face from positions he previously held. An glaring example of such obvious chameleon like behavior is his position on the question of gun control: he was for it as governor of Massachusetts, now he's against it as a Republican presidential candidate.
Ron Paul (born August 20, 1935): Ron Paul is a medical doctor and former U.S.A.F. flight surgeon during the Vietnam War. He is a Republican congressman from Texas, the first to propose congressional term limits, who has served in the House of Representatives in nonconsecutive terms (1976-97, 1979-86 and 1997 to present). Incredibly, Paul has been able to raise a startling amount of campaign funding, quite rapidly, almost solely through the Internet. He is often described as a Conservative Libertarian Constitutionalist, and was nominated as the Libertarian candidate for president in 1988. But no one is quite certain just what this candidate is for, other than being an advocate for a devote adherence to the principles of the Constitution. He has however fielded an impressive list of what he's against - and its a long list. He's for getting rid of the Social Security System, foreign aid, what he refers to as 'forced health screenings', the National ID Card, corporate welfare, the income tax, the looting of Social Security, and the immediate cessation of the Iraq War and the immediate removal of all of our occupation troops there - as well as from all other countries where we have large bases. But he has been neither very clear or consistent on just how he'd make up for the functions of the systems in place or the troops he will remove - immediately. Like it or not, however, he has become the text book candidate that will attract large and larger followings of young independent voters in the future. Therefore, for this reason if no other, he and his candidacy cannot be summarily dismissed.
Mike Huckabee (born August 24, 1955): Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister and Republican, was governor of Arkansas from 1996 to 2007. Other than being a state governor for two terms, Huckabee has no other apparent qualifications for the position. In fact, various statements in his early candidacy would lead many to believe he does not have a good working knowledge of foreign affairs. The former governor also has a tendency to put his foot in his mouth in a manner that appears to indicate an inability to anticipate the feelings of minority cultural, religious and racial groups. He has also shown and been criticized for a proclivity toward high paid speaking engagements and the receipt of expensive gifts from those with access to corporate bank accounts and discretionary funds. Most of all, however, he has proposed some very controversial amendment changes to the Constitution to ban abortions, ban gay marriages and return prayer reading to public schools. Because of his staunch religious Christian stance Huckabee is well admired by a large proportion of the Evangelical community, especially in the southern states, This outlook however appears to have limited his appeal outside of these areas.
Rudy Guiliani (born: May 28,, 1944): A former Democrat turned Republican, and a partner in the Bracewell and Guiliani law firm, his greatest claim to fame or resume was his 'take charge' participation during the 9-11 disaster in New York City. It was at this time he earned the heroic title : "America's Mayor." He served two terms as mayor of that city (1994-2001), but can present no other significant qualification to become president of the United States - other than he wants the job. He refers to himself as a Conservative, but he is obviously a very liberal one (in 1993 he ran for mayor on the Liberal Party Line), since he has accorded tenative backing to many 'firestorm' liberal viewpoints. Among those liberal leanings are Gay Marriage, gun control and a woman's right to choose as referenced to the Abortion issue. Making his road to the White House even more difficult is the trail of many marriages: three to date. Former presidential candidate, Senator Joe Biden, once stated that Guiliani's whole campaign was nothing more than a noun, a verb and 9-11. It is our opinion this Guiliani will not make it past the Florida Republican Caucus as a viable candidate.
Joe Biden (born November 20, 1942): This is the man who should be president, but who will probably never be in his lifetime. Biden has dropped out of the race for the White House after poor showing in early Democratic caucuses. His loss to the country as a vital, knowledgeable candidate for presidency is a tragic one. In coming days of international turmoil we may well live to regret the elective oversight. Biden is currently serving his sixth term as senator from Delaware. He is also Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and is well respected for his undisputed and vast knowledge of international affairs. It should also be noted that he was the only candidate running for the presidency who had actually put forth a plan to end the Iraq War.
We've Been Here Before
Electing the nice guy who is willing to 'change the system' and promises he can change everything is nothing new, we did it before: does the name Jimmy Carter sound familiar? Like in the game of baseball, we cannot afford a third strike, for it may well place us out of the game.
In November of 1976 we elected Carter, a certifiably moral well-meaning peanut farmer from Georgia (who had also once been a naval nuclear engineer) as leader of this country. He'd served two terms in the Georgia senate and was governor of the state from 1971 to 1975. And to his credit he thought of even the most complex situations in simple non political terms, and made every effort to apply his straight forward simple-minded principals in the same manner.
Under his watch we experienced the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, the Iran Hostage Crisis, an embarrassing failed rescue attempt to retrieve those hostages, and a failed attempt to introduce a 'staggered' payroll tax increase to address the looming shortages in the Social Security system. Nor should we leave out the incident that drew world wide attention and ridicule, when during a 1980 election debate with Ronald Reagan. President Carter mentioned his then 13 year old daughter. Amy. He stated for the entire world to hear, that he'd asked her what the most important issue in that election was, and reportedly she said, "the control of nuclear arms dad. "
Jimmy Carter served one term in the oval office, at the end of which even his most ardent supporters knew his presidency to be a well established disaster. Unfortunately, a good majority of us did not learn that lesson by example, and in 2000 elected George W. Bush to that White House chair.
Bush unsuccessfully ran for the House of Representatives in 1978. He then went on to unsuccessfully run two oil companies and, as a co-owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team, came close to running that franchise into the ground. However, with heavy family and political backing he was able to attain the governorship of Texas in 1994, and went on to achieve the U.S. Presidency in 2000.
Under his watch we've experienced the 9-11 crisis, the justified invasion of Afghanistan, followed by the unjustified invasion of a sovereign country that did not attack us, Iraq (at the cost of almost 4000 American military personnel to date), the rapid conversion of a $750 billion surplus to a budget deficit nearing a trillion dollars, and a national debt climbing at the rate of $1.1 million a minute, an almost unavoidable upcoming recession in an domestic economy that is undeniably tanking. Now he'd like to start a war with a third nation, Iran.
For whatever reasons of bending to race or gender breakthroughs, do we Americans really want to go through this again? I think not! Our time for major choice errors in our elective process has run out.
This time as a nation and people we must choose a leader, if not from a viewpoint blessed of national wisdom, then at least - at the bare minimum - from a vantage of - national survivability. |