America needs a good conservative leader.

The elections are over and the votes have been counted. Obama and the Democratic Party, under far-left rule have won. And they don’t hesitate to remind us of that with the passing of each and every day. As we conservatives turn towards the next round of elections and to the still distant 2012 Presidential elections, we are looking for a strong candidate to take the lead and don the mantle of conservatism. So that begs the question; just what would we look for in a conservative candidate?

Well, let’s see. First of all our candidate would need to be fiscally conservative, wanting to reign in the run away spending of the Obama administration and this Democratically controlled congress. He would need to look at tax cuts. Our candidate would show that the present rates not only check consumption but discourage investment and encourage…the avoidance of taxes rather than the production of goods. And that our present tax system…reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking.  Our candidate would know that a tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.

Our candidate should realize that the government does not owe each individual an education, or free health care, or even instant citizenship. No, our candidate will have to take on this entitlement mentality and put back into motion the idea that self reliance and hard work is the order of the day for every American. He should further state that our economy hinges on the work ethic of all Americans, so it is in everyone’s best interest that the entitlement mentality be excised from the American conscience.

On foreign policy, our candidate should make it known that America will vigorously defend herself to all enemies of the world. That America is a great and vital nation, not one among many, but a vast wealth of freedom, spirit and independence that can lead the world instead of trying to placate it. Totalitarianism in whatever form cannot be tolerated and our candidate will be vigilant in his effort to protect America from all her enemies. And in his foreign policy there needs to be a place for Israel so that our vitally important ally can know that we appreciate their position in this world. That we honor Israel’s determination and spirit, but that we do not forget our close ally’s peril, for no other nation in this world lives out its days in an atmosphere of such constant tension and fear. Israel needs to know we realize that no other nation in this world is surrounded on every side by such violent hate and prejudice.

Lastly, our candidate will need to truly be a uniter, and not a divider; for although that is easily said, it is hard to come by. Our candidate must seek not the Republican or Democratic answer, but the correct answer and in doing so our candidate must not place blame, but he must accept responsibility for our future. It is easy to spout catchy phrases and sound bites that the media will lap up and repeat over and over. What is truly hard to do, but well worth the effort is to reach across that aisle and work with congress in its entirety, not just with one party.

I know that many of my liberal readers will be saying that this message is nothing new, just the same old right wing rhetoric being rehashed and repackaged again. But I think it might be worth mentioning that on all my major points, I was working from a previous source. See, what I did was to go back and do a bit of studying of a former President. This President was known to be fiscally conservative, expansive on the military, at times a hard liner on foreign policy, he never apologized for America, instead he spot lighted her greatness. This man I speak of knew the importance of working with our allies, not placating our enemies, for only through strength can peace be achieved. This man knew that in order to stimulate the economy of America, you needed to cut back on taxes and also on the size and scope of government. This man knew that it was better to show a man how to do something, rather than have the government provide it for him.

The President I speak of is not a Republican. He is a Democrat and his name was John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Funny isn’t it how what he represented more closely resembles what a conservative stands for, rather than what a liberal is? Yet JFK is often thought of as the poster boy, if you will, for liberalism. I have taken great care to include in my narrative some of JFK’s quotes. I did not cite them for obvious reasons, but do want it known that I used them in part or in whole to illustrate the point I was trying to make.

So now my liberal readers I ask you; how hard is it to admit that what I have laid out here today could be the bridge we need to stop this petty bickering and unproductive division in our country? If I, a conservative can admire a great man who just happened to be a Democrat, why cannot we all see that the change we have so recently been promised comes not from one side of the aisle only, but from both sides?


8 comments on “America needs a good conservative leader.

  1. While I may agree with some of what you say, totalitarian ideology insists on bending the world into the fold of ideas from a position of strength. The US must discontinue that sort of thinking. That is what landed us in our present hated status. Sure, it is okay to defend and be safe at home, but we need to let other countries form their own policies even when they are in direct contrast to our own. The article sounds as if it is directed at democrats rather than the republican party it should be directed at. Bickering and listless, the republican party needs leadership, plain and simple. Ideas of the working class taking back the country can not be achieved until the trade deficit is addressed. As far as what government owes the people; the government is responsible to use tax dollars in a way that benefit all- even if it means universal healthcare and other social programs designed for the needy. We are no third world country and it is time we stop acting like one. The days of the the republican party representing the rich have come to an end-thank God.

  2. To begin; I would like to applaud you for an excellently written article. Of course, we have ideological differences such as the inference that the present administration is not “fiscally responsible.” I am not particularly pleased with the excessive spending but it begs the question: What alternative approach did they have? Also; you must admit that the conservatives failed to come up with any credible plan of their own. Conversely; I am in agreement with you regarding your view of Israel and our continued support of said nation.

    Your focus on the need for true bipartisanship is also laudable but I have little faith that it can ever be achieved. As long as the conservatives continue to put any credence in the diatribes of Rush Limbaugh, bipartisanship won’t be seen in our lifetime. Presently; your leading contenders appear to Jindal (sp) and Romney. Being a resident of Mass. where Romney served as governor, I can assure you that for the majority of his term, we didn’t even know we had one. Jindal has proven to be easily rattled whenever he is faced with difficult questions-not exactly a strong leadership quality.

    Finally; you allude to the Democrats’ propensity to cut military funding. You might be wise to take another look at the recently passed military budget. I have no problem supporting a viable Republican candidate providing he possesses the traits you outline. I consider the party system to be detrimental to growth. Perhaps that is why there is no mention of opposing parties in our constitution.

    I enjoyed your article and feel free to ask me to read more of your writings. You come across as a very pragmatic person whose sole concern is that of bettering our country. Personally; I feel that President Obama has done a pretty good job to date and that 125-130 days is not a sufficient amount of time to judge either him or his legislation.

  3. My intent with this article was to get people of differing opinions to see that it shouldn’t be so hard to work together when the goal is to promote American values and to raise our country up.

    @ndfenceofobama – I would argue that democracy building is not what led out country to be hated by anyone. For where we have liberated peoples from tyranny, they are very supportive of the USA. For example in Iraq, the resistance there is from terrorists crossing the borders from Iran and Syria. I do not have a link, but I get this from a very bright man who has worked in the Pentagon and with the NSC. His name is Michael Ledeen and his book, “The War Against the Terror Masters: Why It Happened. Where We Are Now. How We’ll Win” is a must read for anyone wanting to know more about our intelligence community and the history of Islamic Fascism.
    No, the reason that we are hated by some in the world is that our values and way of life threaten their strangle hold on the people they attempt to grind under their heels. For so long as we exist, the tyrants of the world know that the people they subjugate have something to strive for.

    @DeanConnor – I would have to say that the present administration did have a choice to be more fiscally responsible. The unprecedented spending is not only atrocious, but dangerous to our future as a country. For ANY president to have more deficit spending in the first 100 days in office than ALL other administrations combined can in no way be considered fiscally responsible.
    As far as Rush Limbaugh, well he is an entertainer. No more, no less. It would be the same as if the Democratic party was held responsible for the inane comments made by Keith Olberman.

    I thank you both for taking the time to read my article and look forward to more discussion in the future.

  4. Oh, also I looked at Obama’s defense spending and found this –

    “President Barack Obama Thursday unveiled a 663.7 billion dollar defense budget, up a modest 1.5 percent on 2009, but projected a sharp decline in spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the coming years.”

    From what I can tell, Obama left the increase in defense spending that Bush had outlined in his last budget, but plans on cutting the defense budget in the years ahead.

  5. In response to the cut in spending for the wars; of course there will be a cut since the President’s objective is to deescalate the war in Iraq and focus on the real war in Afghanistan. The cost of the war in Iraq far exceeds that of Afghanistan. He has already increased our presence there and I am in full agreement with him. Very nice analogy with Olberman-I consider him to be an ass as well. The difference lies in the fact that Democratic leaders do not fear Olberman or retract statements they may have made about him as Steele and others have done with Limbaugh. Finally; I must again mention that the conservatives have yet to propose an alternative spending plan other than a 12 page “leaflet” promising more to come.

  6. Thank you for providing that link. Though I find it to be a bit ambiguous in sections; it’s definitely more than I thought they had. I don’t particularly care for their citing Milton Friedman whose views on corporate responsibility I consider horrendous. If it were up to Friedman; there would be no OSHA or pollution regulatory commissions. He felt that any corporation that showed an interest in social issues was doing a disservice to its stockholders. See: Boatright, J. (2007). Ethics and the conduct of business (5th ed.). In the Republican proposal, they state “It flows from a confidence in the American character. It is built on a conviction that America’s strengths lie in America’s character-in their creativity, their productive capabilities, and their personal initiative.” Those are things we would all like to believe in. The problem is that it’s difficult to exercise those values when they’re kicked out of their homes and their jobs are taken from them. The status quo wasn’t cutting it.

  7. from ndfenceofobama: “As far as what government owes the people; the government is responsible to use tax dollars in a way that benefit all- even if it means universal healthcare and other social programs designed for the needy. We are no third world country and it is time we stop acting like one. The days of the the republican party representing the rich have come to an end-thank God.”

    I cannot help but cogitate that we are in some surreal social experiment, and there is no chance of escaping it. The effusion of one’s sanity is all but assured. Where does it state that the government is required to provide heath coverage for all? To assert that it should presupposes that the government, by the very nature of its existence, is the appropriate purveyor and therefore its responsibility is intrinsical. I must vehemently disagree, I posit that such an ideal is an imperfect realization of collectivist principles. How can one even logically asseverate that the infusion of the government within the health care spectrum will yield beneficial results? Have you seen what goes on in the Veteran’s Hospitals? This is what we are in store for. An enforced utopian socialism is a direct infringement upon individual sovereignty, as participation is coerced and freedom of choice is all but negated. If you want a governmental health care system, it should come out of your taxes, not mine. I would support limited assistance programs, as long as it helps the individual regain and or foster personal responsibility, self-actuation, and the knowledge to become self-sustaining.

    With regard to the somewhat simple statement of Republicans representing the rich, can you explicate the Democratic interference of the auto and housing industries? How about the injection of the unions? It seems to me that they are mixing corporate welfare and social welfare quite nicely, and all supported by legalized theft. I am particularly proud of this administration introducing quasi-guild socialism by letting the unions infuse themselves in business policy, legal policy, social policy, and financial policy. I am waiting for the day that citizenship requires that it be subjected to card check.

    from Dean Conner: “Of course, we have ideological differences such as the inference that the present administration is not “fiscally responsible.” I am not particularly pleased with the excessive spending but it begs the question: What alternative approach did they have?”

    Firstly, he who promulgate that politicians have intimate knowledge of fiscal responsibility are either ignorant, or a liar. This is from Reason Magazine;

    “It is true, as Obama says, that he inherited most of the FY 2009 deficit. It was George W. Bush, with the support of most Republicans in Congress, who engineered a series of expensive bailouts and the federal takeover of the mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But it didn’t take long for Obama to add his own billions (see table): $789 billion in “stimulus” (25 percent of which will be spent in 2009), a promise to spend at least another $250 billion to “rescue” more financial institutions, and so on.

    To fulfill his promise of “fiscal discipline,” the president would have to shave billions off the federal budget. Yet there are no real program cuts in his budget. Instead the president proposes to dramatically boost health care spending and add many new subsidies for energy companies, students, broadband Internet service, highspeed rail, and low-income Americans.

    The result is an expansion of the federal government that will persist long after the current spike of stimulus and bailout spending.”

    With respect to having an alternative, this is from the Cato Institute;

    “The self-correcting nature of markets will ultimately prevail. We should not underestimate the power of monetary policy; with the sharp increase in the nation’s money stock starting in September, monetary policy is now extraordinarily expansionary….

    Federal policy is damaging the economy’s prospects. It fails to provide the needed tax incentives for investment in factories and equipment, incentives that were central to efforts to revive the economy during the Kennedy-Johnson era and under Ronald Reagan. But government spending can’t lead the way to sustained recovery, because its stimulating effect will be offset by anticipated higher taxes and the need to finance the deficit.

    Heavy-handed federal intervention into the management of companies from banks to auto makers will also delay recovery. And misguided efforts to help distressed homeowners by permitting courts to rewrite the terms of mortgages will cause banks to limit mortgage lending, which will prevent housing from contributing to the recovery.

    The unrelenting anger across the country over bailouts of corporations and households that made unwise and even irresponsible financial decisions is influencing federal policy. Punitive measures, like forcing companies receiving federal dollars to cancel employee events, will increase uncertainty over where the government will strike next in its effort to deflect public outrage. Instead of more bailouts, we need a clear and consistent path to fundamental reform of our financial system.”

    With regard to specificity, there are various schools of economics, the Chicago and Austrian schools, that have alternate paths to acquire economic stability. They have not been seriously considered as a viability since they do not conform current party policy. In other words, it interferes with their social agenda. But let’s face it, politicians have as much knowledge on economics as I do about quantum mechanics. Their decisions are party-lined based, and not necessarily what’s best for the citizenry.

    You think he has done well, really? Then you do not have intimate knowledge of his budget and correlative social policies.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s