SC’s Next Governor

The campaign season for SC’s next governor is beginning to heat up. After the debate in which SC voters had a chance to see all Republican and Democrat candidates together on one stage, it is clear there is a large spectrum of views represented. Clearly I am looking for a conservative candidate, but I am still undecided. Below I have compiled my list for narrowing down the candidates to the one that best meets the needs of SC at this time in our history:

1. Restoring Trust – Before our next Governor can make the changes needed in our state, they must earn back the trust of that office by our citizens. This means getting to work immediately after the election, putting together plans ideas to tackle our problems, and putting the people of SC before their own careers.
2. Create a Business-Inviting Environment – South Carolina is clearly a business-friendly environment, with some of the lowest taxes and standard of living costs in the nation. It is fair to say that SC is not in a position of fearing businesses fleeing the Palmetto State. However, SC is far from being  a business-inviting state, one where businesses are eager to come to SC. We must work for creating incentives to businesses that come to the state and are uniform for all businesses and industries, not just creating incentive packages that just benefit one company in particular. We must also not let these incentives benefit new businesses while harming companies that are home-grown by our own citizens or businesses that have been loyal to our state for years. These incentives should be long term benefits over short term promises.
3. Striving for Excellence in Education – SC is one of the worst states in terms of the educational achievement of its students. Our problems will not be solved with a single magic bullet, as some lawmakers think. Instead, it will take a complete toolbox of ideas to make education a strength of this state, not a weakness. This includes fairer funding to K-12 and higher education, such as a per-pupil system; more choices within the public school system and freedom of parents to exercise discretion to take their children out of the public schools if they so choose; increasing local and parental control over education, instead of state and federal governments; and creating an education system that inspires learning of ideas and skills for the future over memorization of facts for standardized tests now.
4. Reforming SC Government – A state trying to compete with other states and even globally in the 21st century cannot do so with an inefficient form of administration created in the 19th Century. Our governor, a weak position to begin with based on our outdated constitution, has been stripped of power further by the legislature and the courts. Our legislators have unprecedented power, yet lack the ability to accomplish anything, while unelected agencies create most of our legislation in back rooms out of the public eye. SC needs transparency, accountability, and a true system of checks-and-balances. We also need control over our budget and spending, knowing that we need to save in years when we have a surplus for years when we fall short in revenue. Our legislators spend all we have in these good years then expect education and other departments to cope with huge budget cuts when our state comes up short. How can we expect businesses to come to our state and our state departments to operate efficiently when our own government cannot predict future expenditures and revenues?
5. Creating a 21st Century Energy Portfolio – Having a state energy plan is not just about what you and I pay at the pump, but also what businesses pay in energy costs to operate in our state, how much our own government pays to keep the lights on in its buildings, and even what future generations will pay for all of the above. Families will come to our state when they can count on having low energy costs. Businesses will come when they know that their profits will not be dependent on the price of a barrel of oil from Saudi Arabia, but instead on a more reliable energy source here at home. And our state could save millions of taxpayer money by simple investments in energy efficiency, responsible solutions that many people are using in their own homes to save a few bucks. SC may not be the richest state in terms of resources, but we can and should work to be the smartest in how we use those resources. We do not need a heavy-handed government approach as some on the left suggest, but rather a market-based set of solutions for a 21st Century Energy Portfolio.

These are not by any means all the issues that face SC, but rather some of the most pressing that our next governor should be able to solve. The coming months will show who is ready to lead this state into the future.

Defining Conservatism

Mitch Baroody, on his website Thoughts of a Conservative Mind, has posted two blogs on what he views as the definition of Conservatism.

http://mitchbaroody.com/2009/10/19/what-does-being-a-conservative-really-mean/

http://mitchbaroody.com/2009/10/21/what-does-being-a-true-conservative-really-mean-2-further-clarification/

Mitch is a good guy, someone who I’m proud to have giving his voice to SC politics. I look forward to working with him over the coming years to make the case of Conservatism to our generation. He is one of the many bright young voices in the SC GOP.

I found his blogs very interesting. I don’t disagree with his definition of conservatism, but I do feel like it is only half the definition, which leads him to take some positions about what “True Conservatism” really is, particularly on social issues. I encourage you to read his blogs first before the rest of

According to Mitch, being a “True Conservative” means you want government to stay out of your life completely any more than the founders intended.

In America, a conservative shouldn’t want government programs that go beyond the government’s constitutional responsibility of  ensuring justice, tranquility, defense, the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty.

I absolutely agree with this quote. This is the ideal “limited” form of government that conservatives strive for. However the assumption he jumps to is that this means government completely out of our lives. I agree that government does not have the responsibility to bailout banks, to create a government healthcare plan, etc. But the other half of conservatism is to preserve order in society. As Mitch mentions, government does have a purpose, albeit a limited one. Conservatives should be as much for keeping government from encroaching into our lives as they are for keeping people operating within the legal framework of society. This takes into the ensuring justice/promoting tranquility aspect of government. It also recognizes the rules and laws society has recognized and established.

Simply put, government is like the roadways. It is a framework, an infrastructure. We rely on this framework to conduct our business, live our lives. Following Mitch’s definition of “true conservatism” would be to say that you have a right to drive wherever you like – it’s your freedom! However, how many people would actually say it is right to drive on the wrong side of the road, or to drive off the road to get to work? The reason is that when you operate outside this framework, you infringe on the rights of others. When you drive on the wrong side of the road, you endanger others driving down the road correctly, taking away their right to drive peacefully without interference. When you drive off-road, you destroy the property of others, taking away their right of use and enjoyment. What I define as conservatism would say that this infringement on the rights of others is a huge problem, and creates chaos in society.

Mitch determines that there is a difference between Libertarians and Conservatives, however, I feel that he defines “True Conservatism” as Libertarian thought. I think this is a problem. Unlike Lindsay Graham, I do not blast Libertarians. Although I disagree with them on some issues, I have many Libertarian friends and even some family members and can find common ground with them on issues.

The main problem I have is on the social issues. When you add in my second part of the definition, to preserve order of society and keep people from harming the rights of others, the conservative stance is not a Libertarian approach, nor is it a liberal approach as Mitch suggests.

As readers of this blog know, I advocate for Traditional Values with a Nontraditional approach. Why? Because I believe in traditional views of life, marriage, separation of church and state, etc. However, the approach (the solutions to the problems of these values being eroded in our society) I think has largely not worked unfortunately and calls for a new approach. So here is my list of Conservative stances on the 3 social issues Mitch looked at and my idea of what the right approach to these positions is:

1. Pro-Life: Being pro-life is not about limiting the choices of the woman seeking an abortion, but instead protecting the life of the fetus from being harmed by the woman’s choice. This is no different from driving down the wrong side of the road or off-road. As I’ve said before, I think overturning Roe v. Wade is an important step. It would recognize the choice of states to protect the right of life from harm by others. However, I think focusing our efforts on that one solution ignores the problem of woman having abortions in general. While we are picketing abortion clinics and filing briefs with the Supreme Court, abortions are still going on. We cannot ignore this fact. But pro-life is more than anti-abortion. It means using restraint with our troops, using them to protect our rights and defend our allies with careful consideration and as a last resort. The sacrifice of our troops is something that should be taken very seriously. Also, we should have outrage against murders, rapes, assaults in our communities and make sure our laws provide justice to the victims and also provide a fair trial to the accused criminals to be certain we do not strip the innocent of their rights, including the right of life, by criminal penalties. But we must also be sure that our penalties protect others from people already deemed guilty by society.

2. Pro-Marriage: I will be honest that this is a hard issue from a conservative stance. I define it less as an attack on gay marriage, but more as a pro-marriage stance. Traditional marriage is what society as decided to define marriage as a matter of common law. Recognizing this definition in the form of statute takes it out of the realm of courts. Marriage is not just a religious institution; it is also a legal institution that establishes new rights for the couple. This is a serious legal issue that should be decided by the voters and their representatives. I think the important thing to remember is that there are ways to grant rights to people without granting them access to that institution. But this remains the decisions of the individual states through their legislative process as marriage is a state issue not a federal one. I think this is the important guidelines to establishing a conservative approach to the issue. I also take offense to the idea that the civil rights debate in the 60s is somehow similar to this issue today. African-Americans were denied rights guaranteed by the constitution, rights every human has. Homosexuals have those rights already. What they seek is being granted additional rights already given to married couples. There is no comparison in my mind. The true debate is whether homosexuals should be allowed those additional rights as a married couple.

3. Separation of Church/State: I agree with Mitch that separation of church and state exists not to protect government from religion but to protect religion from government. The first amendment has two restrictions on the powers of government when it comes to religion:

1. The Establishment Clause – the most cited part that government cannot establish a state religion. This keeps one religion from dominating another, or keeps government from lifting one religion over another.
2. The Free Exercise Clause – the other half of the section that  keeps religion from interfering with the practice of religions so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

Government cannot lift any religion over another any more than it can infringe on the rights of that religion to operates as long as it does not hurt the rights of others. Things like human sacrifice and terrorism are not legal by any means even if as a “practice” of religion.

I do not attach Mitch for his definition of conservatism, but I do take issue with defining Conservatives that want some government within a certain limit as “moderate” conservatives. I don’t think my stances are perfect, and they are open for revision. The great thing about conservatism is that is not adherence to a rigid ideology, but rises to meet the challenges of the times.

Green Conservatism

Courtesy Robert Dalton/Spartanburg Herald Journal

This week the SC GOP accepted a matching donation from Roger Milliken that would allow them to pay off their mortgage and to adopt LEED standards for the building, something Milliken encouraged the party to do. It was reported by many news sources that the party was “going green”. They certainly aren’t the first, and I doubt they will be the last organization to do so. Newsweek’s cover story this week was about the “greenest” big companies in America. So why is the SC GOP “going green” so important?

This is a great example of Green Conservatism. The idea of “going green” has grown among conservatives in recent years. There are still some conservatives out there that think this idea is nonsense. They say that the “green conservatives” have bought in to the liberal environmentalist movement. Some, like Newt Gingrich, disagree. They seen this as just another aspect of the larger Conservative movement. I consider myself in the latter group. However, I welcome the discussion and even the disagreement, something that I think makes the Conservative movement stronger at the end of the day, not weaker.

So what exactly is “Green Conservatism”? To figure that out requires a look at the other side, what some call the radical environmentalist group. I think it is fair to call this group radical. Why? Their ideology leaves no room for disagreement on any level. They claim to allow people and companies to “go green” at whatever level they feel committed to. But in practice, they plan to use the government’s power of force to require all to meet the highest possible standard, a one-size-fits-all commitment. They also discount every other motivation to “go green” besides their one reasoning: global warming/climate change. For them, everyone should believe in an apocalyptic scenario where the Earth begins to destroy itself because of our destructive lifestyles of pollution and waste, causing untold levels of damage to cities around the world. They also attack any industries that do not agree with their agenda. I reject this one-size-fits-all form of environmentalism. But should we also toss out the concept of “going green” just because this way is wrong? No, we should look for a better way: Green Conservatism.

The foundations of Green Conservatism lie in the Conservative principles that free market solutions are better than government mandates. Why? Milton Friedman famously pointed out that free markets are important to democracy because they empower people to make their own decisions. When given a chance to make their own decision, humans have an enormous capability to sort out the facts and make the right choice most of the time. They also are more productive and have a larger impact. When forced to do something by the strong hand of government, people are reluctant to follow, become less productive, and inevitably look for a way to skirt the system. Look over history. Watch the people around you. It is simple human nature.

So do Green Conservatives below in no government involvement? I have yet to hear one say that. Instead we favor tax credits over carbon taxes, incentives over penalties, carrots over sticks.We must also look at government spending in this area as an investment. I’m hesitant to use this terminology because liberal environmentalists have used it to justify their agenda. However, I think it is time to truly take it back. Investment means spending money with the plan of getting that money back plus a profit. Too many liberal environmental “investments” wind up like so much government money: in a black hole. True government investment should see a return to taxpayers of at least what was spent into the program. It may also involve spending money on research and design that is needed to improve alternative energy technologies for reasons I will discuss in a moment. However, this should never be solely government money but a cooperation and partnership between private corporations that have a stake in improving the technology and the taxpayers who will benefit from it.

I’m willing to say almost all of Green Conservatives would agree with those points. However, what makes the movement so great is where we vary on the many different reasons to “go green”. The first and most obvious is financial reasons. Going green is not cheap, as shown by the need for Roger Milliken to donate to the SC GOP  to help them with the costs of their transformation. However this is truly an investment to do. The SC GOP will spend around $160,000 on upgrades to their building, but they will save $3,000 to 4,000 annually in utility costs. And smart development allows for them to install a state of the art media center which could be used as a means to provide income for the party. I would call that a great investment for them. Utility costs remain one of the highest costs to individuals and organizations, and they are the most unpredictable costs. Energy efficiency helps to minimize this uncertainty and cost while also allowing us to get the most bang out of our buck. If I can spend less to do the same thing I’m doing now, why not? The current technologies also are inefficient. Most appliances and light bulbs create more heat than actual energy to do their intended job. This is a waste of resources, similar to a business paying 100 employees while only 10 to 30 actually work.

There are other financial benefits. Companies that go green, even if purely for their bottom line, soon realize they may be able to attract new customers without much effort out of the large segment of the population that could be called “green”. Then there are the government incentives that are already out there. However, if we move to a system that imposes more penalties instead of incentives, we are looking at more companies moving to countries that do not have those rules and shutting down small businesses due to the high costs of doing business, further destabilizing the rocky foundation of the American economy. I think it is also important to note that the other side blasts oil companies in particular, however many of these companies invest in alternative technologies research. Without this funding, we have no idea what level of technology we would have, but I am willing to bet it would be significantly lower than we have today. These companies know the future is in energy sources other than oil. They may be investing for selfish reasons, but that doesn’t matter. The important part is they are investing in the future.

Some look at the foreign policy and economic problems of remaining dependent on foreign oil. When billions of our dollars leave our county and our economy to be invested in another country, we have a big problem. When some of that money winds up funding the very people we are fighting overseas, we have an even bigger problem. When our society can be shut down by a small terrorist attack or trade problem affecting our oil supply, we need a solution. Luckily there are options. Everyone knows that oil supplies will not last forever. They are finite resources. There is a need in the future for alternative energies (wind, solar, hydro, natural gas, and maybe others yet to be discovered). However, as I mentioned before, the technologies are not at the point yet where we could rely solely on them. However, there is no reason to not utilize the resources in our own borders, specifically oil. It would be nonsense to allow China to drill for oil right off the coast of Florida, as they are doing now through their friends in Cuba, while we get no benefit from that oil. But we must be smart about this use. It would be equal nonsense to use up all of our oil. We place ourselves in the same unstable situation down the road should the alternative technologies not work out as well as planned. Offshore drilling, to keep from being tapped by other countries, would be the first step, providing for our energy needs while saving the reserves onshore for a later need.

There are a large number in the Green Conservatism movement that do care about the environment. And why shouldn’t they? Who honestly doesn’t enjoy a swim in the ocean or a peaceful stroll in the woods. A healthy environment provides a place for entertainment, education, hunting, and many other uses. Some have this desire out of strictly a love of nature. Some out of religious beliefs, often called “creation care”, or a desire to protect God’s creation. There is even room for those that believe in climate change. However, most of them understand that the scientific jury is split on the causes of climate change. They also understand the idea of a sudden apocalyptic climate change has been rejected by science since the predictions of  an impending Ice Age in the 1970s leading up to recent predictions of a global meltdown. However, they believe that technology may not be the cause of environmental problems, but it may be a way to solve those problems. They are the ones leading research into ways to cool down the Earth if needed (think artificial cloud creation if you can even fathom it) and ways to get rid of pollution already in the atmosphere and reducing future pollutions. This group all want to leave the world a little better for the future generations.

And there are countless other reasons to “go green”. The importance is that Green Conservatism allows for a diverse group of people. It truly is a big tent. The common thread is the end result.

So what motivation drives me? I think they are all great reasons. I wanted to reduce my power bill, so I invested in energy efficient light bulbs. I believe God made us stewards of His creation, so I work to not litter and try to look for ways to make the environment better for my children and grandchildren. I enjoy using nature, so I make sure I protect green areas that will give me a place to relax and have fun. I try to do my part, and that is what this movement is all about: allowing each person to do what they are capable of without holding an impossible standard over them with ridiculous penalties. So what can you do?

A Sad Day for SC

Gov. Sanford after leaving his home Thursday to head back to work, courtesy of The State newspaper

Although I disagreed with Gov. Sanford on a couple of issues, vocally on this blog about his stance on the stimulus, I still defended his role as our governor and his character. Although I have been skeptical of him at times, he had earned my trust and I grew to think of him as a truly honorable man especially after hearing him speak and meeting him at the SC GOP Convention. However, with the revelations of his affair and his trip out of the country without informing his staff or family of his location, I am disappointed and embarrassed at the mistakes Gov. Sanford has made.

I think Gov. Sanford has been a good governor overall, however I am joining those who are asking him to resign.

As a Christian, I believe in the power of forgiveness. I believe Gov. Sanford made a mistake. However, I find it hypocritical to speak of family values while committing an act that hurts his wife and kids. It is hypocritical to vote to impeach a president caught having an affair while holding on to your office after committing the same act. I also think it is irresponsible to use taxpayer dollars to pay for trips to visit your mistress while speaking about cutting wasteful government spending to keep from burdening future generations. As with all hypocrites, they only recognize the problems after being caught, such as Gov. Sanford now offering to pay back taxpayers for that cost.

I also believe Gov. Sanford has ignored the trust given to him by the people of SC when he leaves the state and country for a week without leaving the reins of the government in the hands of your Lt. Gov., a man elected to do that very thing by the people of SC.

But I think the most important reason for him to resign is to take the much needed time out of the spotlight to earn back the trust of his wife and kids. Jenny Sanford has given him another chance, and she has proven herself to be a strong woman. I hope he will put his family first during this time. As a SC state senator said, Mark Sanford has 3 titles: Governor, Husband, and Father. He should put those latter two over his first title. Family is the most important institution in life, at least in my opinion.

Not to mention SC would be much better served by a Governor that has not also lost the trust of the people.

I am praying for Gov. Sanford and his family, just as many are all across this state, including Lt. Gov. Candidate Bill Connor. I will close with his prayer for the Sanford family, a prayer we should all share:

Friends,
I’m going to take some time to pray for the Sanford family. Jesus brought forgiveness and redemption to all who believe on Him. I pray that He heals the Sanford family and brings redemption. I also pray Mark and Jenny turn to Him during this painful time. Please consider joining me in this prayer. Thank you.
Sola Fide,
Bill Connor

Nonsense in the Palmetto State

 

Justin with Gov. Sanford at the SC GOP Convention

It would be funny if it wasn’t our tax dollars at stake.

I’m referring to the debate going on in Columbia over the stimulus funds and the budget. The stakes just got higher for both sides today. It began months ago, and I have made my opinions known. But the nonsense started with a lawsuit filed by a high school student who had no legal interest and no constitutional ground to support her argument. She attempted to force the Governor to take the money. Although I want Governor Sanford to take the money, I respect that it is his decision to make, and his only. The next stage took place when the General Assembly passed a budget that not only did little to curb our out of control spending and tighten their belts while the rest of South Carolinians are, but it also attempted to force the Governor to take the stimulus money. Gov. Sanford vetoed. General Assembly retaliated and overrode his vetoes. So our Governor is now being forced to sue the General Assembly to protect his constitutional powers.

What this debate needs is less nonsense and more common sense. It is not a simple black and white issue as both sides claim it to be.

The stimulus bill should have never been passed. I would have voted against it if I was in Congress. It places a ridiculous burden on the backs of future generations. However, it did pass. 

That put the ball in the court of the states receiving the money. Most went directly to agencies. Some landed at the feet of the governors of the states. Gov. Sanford initially said he would reject the money under his control (that can be used only for K-12 and higher education or prisons) unless he could use it to pay off debt. I sent him my letter asking him to take the money. My idea was for him to use it for needed projects at colleges and universities, thinking that if we could not use it to pay down debt then we could use it to keep from getting in further debt with bond bills that would be required for those projects. My worry, like many South Carolinians, was that the money would go to other states requiring us to pay back the money while receiving no benefit from it. 

Gov. Sanford certified the money from the Federal Government. This means that South Carolina will get the money. New Jersey or California will not run off with it, unlike the ads playing on television portray. But many on the other side of that debate and unfortunately many in the General Assembly still think that is the case. Rep. Mike Forrester of Spartanburg wrote the following to one of his constituents, Larry Bateman, just today:

Larry thanks for contacting me on this issue. A lot of people say that it’s fiscally irresponsible to increase our debt on the backs of taxpayers. I agree.  That’s why I opposed Congress passing Obama’s wasteful plan.  However, I think it’s even more irresponsible to let California schools take our tax dollars when that money could go to Spartanburg County schools, now that congress has passed it. No matter what, Spartanburg County taxpayers will have to repay that money. Not taking the money would be an incredibly irresponsible financial investment on our part.

This argument is just false. The debate needs to now shift toward how to use the money. And I now find myself on the side of Gov. Sanford. Do we spend the money all immediately? I think that is okay if we work out a plan like the Bradley Proposal that spends it now with federal funds so that we do not pay for them later with state funds. But the General Assembly does not want to come up with such a plan. Instead they want to increase the budget. So I like Gov. Sanford’s approach as well: save the money. By spreading it out to cover routine state costs over a couple of years, we free up other state money to pay down our debt. Anyone who has had a credit card knows how much a drain on your income monthly payments are. But they also know what a surge in income they have after they pay it off, freeing them to spend that money on items on our wish lists.

Lets get rid of the nonsense and try some common sense, Please!

SC GOP Convention 2009

The SC GOP convention was a chance for me personally to recharge my Republican batteries. I was excited to see a great leader (who just happens to be a woman) Karen Floyd become our new chairman and a great team of vice-chairs get elected to help spread our message. It was also a great chance to hear some candidates for office and current elected officials speak about what it means for them to be a Republican. (Note: I will be posting a blog in the coming days on what it means for me to be a member of the GOP.) One of my favorite speakers was Sen. Jim DeMint whose remarks reflected his idea of how the GOP can be a big tent party while holding on to its principles, the main points of which can be found in his WSJ article. I also had the chance to meet Gov. Sanford, Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, and Sen. Jim DeMint.

Here are some pictures from the convention:

Standing on the statehouse steps next to George Washington

Standing next to Sen. DeMint as he autographs his new book “Saving Freedom”

Speaking with Gov. Sanford

Gov. Sanford and myself

Gov. Sanford speaking to the SC GOP Convention

Faith and I with Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer

Jack Kemp’s Legacy

I wanted to comment on the legacy of Jack Kemp, however when I read Cal Thomas’ blog on the man, I think he put it best.

The Jack Kemp I Knew

by Cal Thomas, May 7, 2009

Many have commented on the life and legacy of Jack Kemp — the former Buffalo, N.Y., congressman, former vice presidential candidate, former HUD secretary, former professional football star and a friend for life to all those who knew him.

I knew Jack and his family well. Our children grew up together. We belonged to the same church.

Next to Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp was probably the most optimistic Republican I knew. He was also a conservative advocate for civil rights long before many other Republicans would address that issue. This was because, as he said, it was difficult to oppose people you had showered with as an athlete.

Kemp believed civil rights was a conservative issue. After all, don’t conservatives value people before government and don’t they want to liberate individuals from those things that limit their ability to succeed? Kemp saw racial discrimination as one of those limiting things and he tirelessly campaigned against it. He even supported voting rights for the District of Columbia, though it would ultimately mean more Democrats in Congress.

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert wrote that Kemp’s attempt to get his Republican Party to accept blacks and other ethnic minorities was “futile,” given the GOP’s “Southern strategy” in the 1960s and since. Kemp advocated economic independence and strong families. Herbert suggested that Kemp’s strategy should have been to embrace Democratic objectives — i.e., bigger and ever-growing government — to help blacks overcome discrimination and poverty. The Herbert and Democratic Party approach has deepened dependency on government handouts. The Kemp approach sought to make the poor self-sustaining and independent of government.

In 1988, I attended a reception hosted by Kemp during the Republican National Convention in New Orleans. There may have been more African Americans at that event than in the entire GOP at the time. Kemp’s civil rights activism was not for the purpose of attracting black votes — though he openly appealed to blacks that they would find a better home and a better future in the Republican Party. Rather, his civil rights activism flowed from his belief that when the Declaration of Independence says all are created equal, it actually means all .

Kemp was way ahead of Republicans and Southern Democrats on race. He would visit housing projects like the notorious Cabrini-Green in Chicago, a nest of poverty and gang activity that even Chicago police officers were afraid to enter. It is now in the process of being torn down and its residents relocated. Whatever replaces it should include a plaque with a tribute to Kemp.

Kemp was an idea man, not caring who got credit so long as people’s lives were improved. He disliked those who demonized people on “the other side.” He saw all Americans on the same side and this put him at odds with certain people in his party who made enemies out of those who held different beliefs in order to raise money and attract votes. Some had a divide-and-conquer approach. Kemp’s approach was to unite for the benefit of all.

This attitude was most evident during his 1996 vice presidential debate with Al Gore. Kemp began his remarks by promising no personal attacks and pledging to conduct himself with civility. The approach angered some on the Right, who wanted blood, but Kemp was true to himself.

Kemp regarded the football teams he played against as opponents, not enemies. His politics displayed the same attitude, which is why his opponents admired him on and off the field. It is also why his funeral Friday will be held at Washington’s massive National Cathedral (the service was moved from his church to accommodate the large crowd that’s expected). The cross-section of attendees will be a testimony to the value of his approach to politics and to life.

Jack liked people and if there was anyone who didn’t like him, he worked overtime to change their opinion.

As Republicans hold public forums on how best to rebuild their party, they could do a lot worse than consider the ideas and attitude of Jack Kemp. His approach to problem solving, not destroying opponents, ought to be the GOP’s strategy for building a better future … and a better America.

“How Republicans Can Build a Big-Tent Party” by Jim DeMint

Wall Street Journal, May 4th, 2009

How Republicans Can Build a Big-Tent Party 
It’s the Democrats who won’t tolerate a diversity of views.

by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-SC 

Sen. Arlen Specter’s defection to the Democratic Party this week is no reason for Republicans to cheer. But his reason for leaving — he faced an unwinnable primary election next year — is no cause for soul searching. There is a question Republicans do need to ask: What is it that binds our party together? 

In the wake of two successive electoral defeats and the likelihood of a 60-vote Democrat majority in the Senate, what does it even mean to be a Republican today? Moderate Republicans are right to remind conservatives that they cannot build a center-right coalition without the center part. And conservatives are right to remind moderates that Republicans only succeed when we rally around clear principles. 

The real mistake is that Republicans became more concerned with staying in D.C. than reforming it. 

Despite notable successes at both ends of Pennsylvania Ave., it seems to me that Republicans in Congress and in the Bush administration forgot a simple truth. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, if you aim for principled reform, you win elections in the bargain; if you just aim for elections, you get neither. 

No Child Left Behind didn’t win us “soccer moms,” but it did cost us our credibility on locally controlled education. Medicare prescription drugs didn’t win us a “permanent majority,” but it cost us our credibility on entitlement reform. Every year, another Republican quality was tainted: managerial competence, fiscal discipline and personal ethics. 

To win back the trust of the American people, we must be a “big tent” party. But big tents need strong poles, and the strongest pole of our party — the organizing principle and the crucial alternative to the Democrats — must be freedom. The federal government is too big, takes too much of our money, and makes too many of our decisions. If Republicans can’t agree on that, elections are the least of our problems. 

If the American people want a European-style social democracy, the Democratic Party will give it to them. We can’t win a bidding war with Democrats. 

Freedom will mean different things to different Republicans, but it can tether a diverse coalition to inalienable principles. Republicans can welcome a vigorous debate about legalized abortion or same-sex marriage; but we should be able to agree that social policies should be set through a democratic process, not by unelected judges. Our party benefits from national-security debates; but Republicans can start from the premise that the U.S. is an exceptional nation and force for good in history. We can argue about how to rein in the federal Leviathan; but we should agree that centralized government infringes on individual liberty and that problems are best solved by the people or the government closest to them. 

Moderate and liberal Republicans who think a South Carolina conservative like me has too much influence are right! I don’t want to make decisions for them. That’s why I’m working to reduce Washington’s grip on our lives and devolve power to the states, communities and individuals, so that Northeastern Republicans, Western Republicans, Southern Republicans, and Midwestern Republicans can define their own brands of Republicanism. It’s the Democrats who want to impose a rigid, uniform agenda on all Americans. Freedom Republicanism is about choice — in education, health care, energy and more. It’s OK if those choices look different in South Carolina, Maine and California. 

A Republican recommitment to freedom and limited government will foster an agenda that will strengthen and invigorate our party. Freedom has worked for our party and our country before. It will again, if we let it.

Tea anyone?

Tea Parties sprouted up all across the nation, and I was honored to take part in one myself. At the Spartanburg Tea Party held at The Beacon hosted by the Spartanburg Young Republicans, between 700-800 people turned out to stand up against the ever increasing federal government. And I was excited to see the Upstate Young Republicans had an estimated 10,000 at their Tea Party at the Bi-lo Center in Greenville.

I consider this kind of political involvement coming from the grassroots to be very helpful to our political system in this country. Average everyday Americans took time to plan these events in their hometowns and attend them, often with their spouses, children, and friends.

I have heard a lot of people, some who attended Tea Parties and most who did not, attempt to define what they were all about, but often falling short of the true message. These Tea Parties were not just about taxes, although that was a part of it. It was not just about the Obama presidency, although his policies are clearly in opposition to what these people stood for. And it was not just about the bailouts, although that did start the protests.

What these tea parties were about, in the simplest description possible, is the lack of fiscal restraint in Washington on both sides of the aisle. Allow I am a proud Republican, I cannot forget that this problem can be traced in part to the Bush Administration. But that does not give the Obama Administration a pass for his proposed $1 Trillion dollar deficit while painting himself as a fiscal conservative offering tax cuts and a balanced budget.

I have heard these parties described as racist, anarchist, partisan, and many other terms I prefer not to repeat. I will admit that a couple of the attendees at the Tea Party I attended could be described as racist. Some of them advocated overthrowing the government. But these were not at all the views of the majority of the people in attendance or even the grassroots organizers of the party. They were just people (whose views I happen to disagree with) that chose to attend an event open to everyone.

Were many of the organizers Republicans? Sure, and many of the attendees as well. But some were not, and they were welcomed because all of them, like myself, are conservatives first. We united on a common ideology and put the rest behind us for that short moment in history. So these parties fell far short of being partisan rallies.

Some attendees and spectators have complained about Rep. Gresham Barrett getting booed and heckled at the Greenville Tea Party over his vote for the original bailout that started the Washington hand-out snowball. But isn’t the point of the Tea Parties about free speech and standing up for fiscal responsibility? If a congressman who voted against the bailout because he viewed it as a lack of enforcing fiscal and personal responsibility, then turns around and votes for it when millions of pork has been added to gain votes, does this not seem like a flip-flop? And if that same congressman wants to attend a protest against wasteful spending in a campaign for governor, should he expect a pass for that vote?

Let me be clear: I think Rep. Gresham Barrett has a solid conservative record during his time in Congress. But if people want to protest one vote he had that they view as forsaking his values and theirs, then they have that right. It is not tacky, as some have said; it is what this country (and this recent grassroots movement for that matter) is all about. Plus, it doesn’t hurt for our representatives to be humbled by those whose votes they seek. Too often politicians get a pass for the decisions they make. They deserve to know that those decisions are not just made in the vaccuum of Washington; they have consequences in the real world outside the Beltway also.

Government 101

An 18-year-old student made headlines this week by filing a lawsuit in the SC Supreme Court against Gov. Sanford over the stimulus money. The article can be found here.

I am glad to see a young person getting involved in the political process. I also have been very supportive of education (as I hope my personal stance on the stimulus has shown), but I disagree with the sky-is-falling approach she and likely her teachers are espousing. I also think she has a misunderstanding of the way fundamental way government works. What her government teacher has seemingly forgotten to tell her is that in the American system government, which has been modeled in our SC government, is the basic idea of seperate and distinct branches of government. 

What this student would like to do is have the SC Supreme Court tell Gov. Sanford what decision he must make regarding the $700 million in federal money. What her attorneys’ should have explained, and what I hope the Court realizes, is that they do not have the jurisdiction to do this. This state has three seperate branches of government, all with distinct duties. Gov. Sanford has the constitutional duty to either accept or reject the money. The court’s job is to rule on laws passed by the General Assembly. It can also be argued that they can determine whether the Executive Branch is acting within its constitutional duties with certain actions, such as whether Gov. Sanford has the constitutional right to make this decision. What it cannot do is make the decision for him, which the suit attempts to do. 

Let me be clear, I absolutely oppose the expansion of federal government that has taken place over the last several years, exponentially increasing recently. If in Congress, I would have voted against the stimulus. But I feel that SC can cut the federal mandates in the stimulus and use the money to better our state instead of allowing the money to go to other states. I hope Gov. Sanford will use the money to temporarily fund improvements to education while working to lower the overall cost of our state government in the long run. But I recognize it is his decision to make. No one else has a right to make it. Sanford was elected to do a job and perform certain duties. Whether we agree with him or not, the state still has government officials with certain specific powers we must recognize. 

I don’t think it would hurt for us all on both sides of the debate to have a refresher course on Government 101.