As a conservative by declaration and action, I find myself a bit lost in today's political world. I have traditionally felt very comfortable in the Republican party as I felt it also held to my conservative principles. Lately, after licking my wounds from what I consider unacceptable loses, I find myself bewildered that the Republican party has abandoned traditional conservative principles. At least in action the Republican party has abandoned conservative principles; it certainly isn't difficult to find a Republican candidate that talks a good game from the sidelines, but completely drops the ball when put into the game. So I assume many conservatives feel the same dilemma that I do; skip out on the Republican party to join a third party, skip out of voting in order the punish the Republican party, or keep screaming at the Republican party in hopes that they will eventually hear us.
Facing this dilemma, maybe the first step in making a decision should be to put a few thoughts on "paper" that describe what I think the Republican party needs in order to keep my vote.
Fiscal Conservatism
The Republican party needs candidates that understand the simple principle of living within your means. More often than not we are tempted to suggest that only politicians are confused by this simple principle. The reality is that the vast majority of America has fallen victim the temptation of debt. I believe this is why the American voter is incapable of recognizing a candidate that isn't truly fiscally conservative. A household that is consistently paying toward the balance and interest of several credit cards has little concern with a politician that can't create a balanced budget. However, the typical American family sitting around their dinner table does understand that an increase in income is very rarely the answer to a debt problem. By definition, a conservative understands spending reduction to be the answer to a balanced budget. The Republican party needs candidates with proven fiscal principles of balanced budgets. The litmus test should be a candidate's campaign; a candidate that can't lead a debt free campaign isn't likely to offer balanced budget once in office.
Family Focused
Many a Republican candidate has completely fumbled the ball on social topics. On social issues, the Republican party seems to have an "open mouth and insert foot" philosophy. The search for the politically correct (or politically advantageous) answer to social issues has left the Republican party looking like flip-floppers that rival John Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it". The Republican party needs candidates that without apology will address social issues with a focus on family. Family, being defined as a married man & women with children, is the foundation of any society. It doesn't have to be laced with religious overtones; family as the foundational element of a strong society should be fostered without apology. History has proven time and again the strong, thriving societies crumble from within long before they are defeated by an outside adversary. Once the foundational element, the family, starts to fall apart, so goes the rest of society. The Republican party needs candidates that will foster strength within the family through fiscal policies, educational policies, health policies... I'll stop the repetition there and just say all policies must promote the family.
American Exceptional-ism
I want America to be exceptional. That is not a statement of arrogance or a "holier than thou" mentality. I want America to be exceptional so that my children will be provided with a safe and stable society within which they can grow and thrive. I want America to be exceptional in order that America can support and assist other countries in the quest to also be exceptional. You see, I recognize that in order for America to offer the best support to others, America must first be strong and secure. The Republican party needs candidates with a foreign policy that recognizes that American can provide better aid to other countries when America is thriving and prospering - America first. Sometimes we have to say "no". Aid provided to other countries at the expense of a weaker America benefits no one long term. Additionally an exceptional America has greater influence over rogue countries and radical organizations. America doesn't need to be a bully, but recognition must be given to fact that no one on the school playground picks on the big, burly kid that says "yes ma'am" and "no ma'am". Without apology, the Republican party needs candidates that will promote and can skillfully communicate the need for American exceptional-ism.
Well, now that those are captured on "paper", I feel like I have a means by which to measure the Republican party. By no means is this an exhaustive list of what the Republican party needs, but it is certainly a list of things the Republican party had better establish very quickly in order to keep bewildered conservatives like me on the team.
-MT
-MT
-MT
-MT
1) Give parents the power to choose the appropriate education for their children by allowing the parents to decide to which school their tax money is paid. 2) Serious tax reform that shifts power away from government and back into the hands of the people. Move to a national sales tax (eliminate the income tax, gains tax, corporate tax, etc.), this helps the family by promoting personal savings and budgeting while at the same time is stops punishing success. 3) Incentivize corporations and organization (religious or otherwise) offering education and training that promotes the family - education and training on family budgeting, marriage counseling, parenting skills, etc. Well, there are a few ideas. There are certainly more ways to promote family and I'm sure these could be more elaborate, but it's Friday after 4pm and I'm trying to get out of the office and home to my family. -MT
Regarding the suggestion for schools, I have some concerns. One, I believe education is a public good. I don't think it's hard to argue that the more educated our society is, the better off we all are. This holds true for those with and those without children. An educated person is less likely to turn to a life of crime, and is more likely to become a productive contributor to our economy (I don't have any studies on hand, but I'm going to assume that most people essentially hold this as a truth). So, our goal is, therefore, to educate as many people as possible to the greatest extent possible. Because of this, I have no problem with the idea that my tax dollars are going towards the education of other peoples children - even people who pay very little in taxes. I see it as an investment in our society. I anticipate that I will not claim the exemption that is allowable in our county for those 65 and over (I'm pretty far off from having to make that decision). The bottom line for me: I don't pay school taxes solely for MY children, I pay them for OUR children. Continued below...
Continued below...
Are there other ways to hold under performing schools accountable when they are not meeting the needs of the students? A way that doesn't have negative consequences for the low-income children who are already at a disadvantage? Running out of time here, so I'll try to write more later, specifically with regards to the other two examples you gave. Again, I appreciate your willingness to have the conversation. Sincerely, Alex P.S. Enjoy your family time!
For those that don't have school age children - they still have to pay the taxes, but the also should be free to choose the school to receive their tax dollars. Suppose a retired couple lives in a school district that has woefully inadequate or even corrupt schools. Their tax money would be better spend in another school.
1) An idea or solution should never be rejected because forethought can not prove to benefit everyone. I believe school choice will benefit more students than it harms, thus I support it for that reason. Additionally I believe that parents know better than the government what is best for their children. 2) I don't subscribe to the notion that parents that truly want their child to attend the school across the county will allow something like transportation from stopping them from doing what they believe to be what is best for their child. For more on this you are welcome to read a blog post I wrote on the topic - http://ramblingtanner.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/when-will-america-stop-bowing-at-the-altar-of-cant/ -MT
-MT
I'll check out your other article when I have some more time later. I understand you having an issue with parents who aren't willing to do whatever it takes to get their children to the best possible school. The problem is, there are serious roadblocks for many of these folks. What would be easy for me or you would be a real logistical challenge for others - no car, no gas money, work conflict, disability, etc. And yes, these obstacles CAN be overcome, but the fact is that a lot of parents aren't willing to make the sacrifice to make that happen. The result is that the kid goes to the neighborhood school that is under performing and getting worse. Judge the parent all you want, but it's not going to help the poor kid. While I can appreciate the ideal of "if only everyone were more responsible and self-sufficient," I think it is unlikely to ever become reality. In the meantime, practical solutions are discarded in favor of uncompromising pursuit of utopian ideals. As far as government not holding schools accountable, do you not think the elected school board has any role in holding schools accountable? Sincerely, Alex
I think you have misunderstood my thoughts on parents that have difficulty with providing an unconventional education for their children. I don't offer my thoughts on the subject with any judgmental sentiment what so ever. That said, I have no fear of challenging said parents to do better, to go above and beyond, for the betterment of their children's education. I find it ironic that you mentioned the obstacles faced by some parents, acknowledge they CAN be overcame, and finish with some are just not willing to make the sacrifice. I have a problem with discarding a solution because it will not accommodate those not willing to make the sacrifice. According to your argument, the only students that wouldn't benefit from school choice would be those students that were not taken to the better schools by their parents - parents not willing to make the sacrifice. That said, I must mention that I don't agree with the notion that under performing schools will get worse if students transfer out of the school. It is common sense that a smaller organization is easier to manage/lead, thus the leadership would improve as the student population goes down. Additionally, if funds are directed appropriately the teacher to student ratio would increase thereby improving the education. Lastly let me say school choice does not represent my Utopian ideal - in my utopia parents would home school. -MT
-MT
First, I sincerely apologize if I came across as judging you in my previous post. I am passionate about these things, and sometimes I am guilty of stereotyping folks and I think I may have done that a little bit with you. When I said "judge them all you want" in reference to the parents, I say that because I believe most conservatives look down upon people who receive welfare-type government benefits. My point was that while they may be worthy of scorn, their children are the ones who pay for their mistakes and they are still innocent. I too have no problem challenging parents to do better - I just think we need to be prepared for their possible failures that leave the child vulnerable. I don't think my comment about parents not willing to make a sacrifice was ironic. I think it makes perfect sense. They face challenges and for whatever reason, they choose not to overcome them (in fairness, in some cases we are talking about major sacrifices). Yes, it is a choice. Yes, it is often a failure. Again, my point is that the children are the ones who are victims when the parent fails. I'm not worried about accommodating the parents so much as accommodating the kids. I have a problem with hurting children because of the failures of their parents. Cont...
As for the school that shrinks, I understand your philosophy, and there is probably some truth to the idea that less students means easier to manage. However, I think you may be underestimating the effect of "bright flight". While teachers play a major role in our academic development, peers play a major role as well. The young students would be exposed to fewer "model" students, and you would have a higher concentration of low-income (and all of it's associated baggage) students. I'm sorry I don't have more time to properly flesh this out, but I think it is a valid concern. When I referred to utopian ideals, I was referring to the idea that all parents would make the right decision for their children. It is not going to happen. I believe we can improve the situation by doing what we can to help all children so that one day they will be good parents to their children. I believe blaming parents for failures may be justifiable, but it doesn't help the children. Sincerely, Alex