Common Sense Conservatism

I was never really a big fan of the phrase "Compassionate Conservatism", thinking that if we (from here on out I'll group myself with conservatives and often times with Republicans) still feel the need going into a presidential election to convince voters that we care about them, it's probably not a good sign. On top of that, it doesn't really imply anything about policy or beliefs. It's pretty hard to twist that slogan into a negative (see: War on Terror) but it certainly doesn't make anyone excited. For better or for worse, I imagine we won't see the term "Compassionate Conservatism" used much anymore.
Somehow Republicans still have a good chance this election after a more than difficult Bush presidency. I'm not that down on Bush but the country certainly is. Republicans need to get back to simple, common sense platforms. No they're not sexy, or glitzy and it would probably give the Dems the White House in '08. I'm almost OK with that just so I can watch universal healthcare implode. Almost. Common sense, less is more, small government stances are needed now more than ever. Who thinks universal healthcare will work? Really? Honestly? "But the Canadians..." yeah well Canada has barely 1/10th the population of the US. Beyond that, how do we decide on regulations, because the government can't fund every operation or treatment. Numerous procedures cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, making difficult decisions inevitable. Civil rights lawyers would be salivating, just waiting to go crazy, suing every government agency in sight for any possible discrimination. Do people who abuse their body (drugs, alcohol, STDS) still have the opportunity for organ transplants? I don't see how the system could float if they do. Of course Jackson and Sharpton would be rallying left and right, waiting to pounce on the rampant institutional racism. It would be a catastrophe and create an even larger mess of our tax system. All the money wasted on universal healthcare would be better used to create research grants for pharmaceutical companies, or subsidizing University reserach, or just about anything. I think if Hillary or whoever tries to make this a plank of her campaign she could be hammered with a simple, repeated question: who is going to pay for this? The median income in the US is around $46,000 meaning a majority of Americans do more than OK for themselves and won't take kindly to providing health insurance for the approximately 15% of people without insurance (nothing through employer or gov. agency). For those young Leftists who immediately made a crack about the end of the Iraq War paying for healthcare remember that once this system is implemented it will be nearly impossible to kill it. So planning on putting the reamainder of the Iraq budget into healtcare won't mean anything 50 years from now. Taxes go up, production goes down. There are plenty of people way smarter than me who can vouch for that fact. Some will point to Sweden or Finland, certainly examples of successful comprehensive government health care systems, but fail to recognize key differences. For me the biggest is that the US is a world leader and has to, absolutely has to, remain a world leader for its own safety. We need power, whether it be militarily or economically, to deal with countries that disdain us or would rather not dealwith us. Placing serious constraints on our economy is an easy way to ruin a good thing.
Another place Republicans could make up ground is in the arena of race. No I'm not talking about grabbing the black vote but solidifying the white vote. There comes a point when candidates have to stick to their guns and if their views don't jive with a certain demographic, so be it. I'm all for courting the black vote and giving them a reason to vote Republican but the party is so stigmatized or in such a rut that too many candidates would have to compromise bedrock conservative values to gain a few votes. Many whites are simply getting fed up with the institution of affirmative action and the rest of the show. The famous "Proposition 209" in California effectively ended affirmative action in the UC system, with Washington and Michigan following over the last decade. Too many businesses, school systems, and universities have been forced to slant policies to favor minorities just to prevent "disparate impact" of policy, basically eliminating even the possibility that it could be accused of institutional racism. Government agencies even go as far as to pay off contractors to hire minority businesses. Affirmative actions' effects on the universities of this nation are well documented. Blacks routinely get into public law and medical schools with lower grades or test scores and often time produce higher dropout rates. These are public schools funded by tax payer dollars wasting resources. Why pay for the student with lower scores? Oh because he's hispanic. That makes sense. My generation didn't grow up experiencing the tubrulance on the '60's or witness blacks being treated as second rate citizens. It comes as a shock then to learn that certain races or ethnicities have privileges before the law. We were raised to believe that everyone is equal and that hard work and diligence will yield success. Somewhere along the way this logic is perverted and instead whites are hammered on the "intolerance and bigotry" that persists in society, that just by being born white we did something wrong. There is a sense of frustration that I think will boil over win some Republicans elections. I don't see this, nor should it, be used as a major tool in a presidential campaign, but state elections will be won or lost over candidates ability to preach color-blindness before the law. It should be noted that I usually use blacks as the counter to whites simply because that's the way it's portrayed in the media and in the textbooks today. Also, more blacks are applying to college than hispanics or Native Americans.
Just keep in simple. People get simple. Lay off the ridiculous economic reform plans that never make it off the drawing board. Let citizens keep as much of their money as possible. Be the ones to frame issues. Promote reasonable debate within the party. Some new ideas on immigration and foreign policy should be welcomed, then dissected. On the flip side there is a danger is applying equal weight to every opinion. The Senator who walks around declaring that Iran isn't a danger to the US can be quickly dismissed. So here's to a Common Sense Conservative movement (hopefully).