A 50 year plan: Trade and job creation

To begin this chapter of the 50 year plan, let me say that I’m in favor of free and fair trade. The idea behind NAFTA and other trading alliances is a sound one. Those who are protectionists don’t seem to understand that the economy is a global one and discouraging competition by enacting high tariffs and other barriers to free trade hurts our economy in the long run.

On the other hand, I also feel that we’re giving away too much of our industrial base by shipping production of a myriad of items out of America. If you purchase an electronic product, chances are it’s made in China, and many other items are made across the border in Mexico. But with the cost of labor becoming more and more a share of the total product price, businesses need to create profitability for themselves and their stockholders. And I’m a supporter of a capitalist system.

We also have some bright spots in our manufacturing economy. With our skilled labor force and a prosperous population because of these skills, America attracts many of the top global industrial giants, particularly in the automotive field. Many cars with Japanese nameplates are made right here in America, and these factories spawn thousands of ancilliary jobs in both manufacturing of parts and associated service jobs created by the influx of foreign capital.

At this juncture I want to take a look at just a few of the major products that America imports and exports and make my forecast on the direction we need to go to maintain our prosperity despite competition from huge Asian markets like China and India.

The trading commodity that probably affects us on the Eastern Shore most is agriculture. While the romanticized American Gothic version of the farmer is long gone and has been replaced by the modern-day Internet literate and degreed farmer working on his (or her) multi-thousand acre spread, it’s still a fact that American farmers are able to supply our country’s basic nutritional needs many times over. Thus we’re able to send millions of tons of grain around the globe. Conversely, while America has many areas suitable for citrus crops and truck farming, more and more of those products arrive from overseas. Long gone are the days of “in season” vegetables and fruits, most items are available year-round both because of rapid air shipment from the Southern Hemisphere and technological advances that enable some fruit (like apples) to be maintained and retain flavor for much longer timeframes.

There are some dark clouds on the horizon, though, for which American farmers need to be prepared. As environmental regulations become more onerous the competitive advantage we enjoy is eroded. Fertilizers may have to change composition and could become less effective. Further restrictions on waste disposal could hamper poultry, pork, and cattle farmers as well as egg producers. Another possible threat is the takeover of prime agricultural land by suburban sprawl.

A third pitfall could be the reduction in food yield as millions upon millions of bushels of corn exit the food chain and become automotive fuel. Ethanol production continues to increase markedly and, if present trends continue, corn may be as rare a commodity on the table as fresh strawberries in December used to be.

As farming continues to evolve into being a less and less labor-intensive task due to the twin influences of technology and a shrinking real number of farms, job creation in the agricultural field needs to be concentrated on research in two realms of study. One path would be to discover ways to make crops more disease-resistant, improve yields, and make them more adaptable to poorer soil conditions. The second path is searching for ways to make biomass (or waste products) more useful in the energy field. It’s a known fact that methane gas from animal waste is a huge emission source – the trick is finding a method to utilize this resource and keep it out of the watershed. On a local level, while Salisbury University does not have an agricultural program, UMES has a program that can become a leader in such research if given a good level of support.

Moving back to a national level, a vital import of ours is oil. While America has a lot of oil still left underneath its lands and territorial waters, overblown environmental concerns have prevented us from taking advantage of our own resources – hence, we now import almost 2/3 of our daily oil consumption. And the list of countries we buy our oil from is a list of states not necessarily in agreement with the strategic goals we’ve set globally. With the exception of Canada, we’re at odds in some way, shape or form with most of the remaining main suppliers.

Further, while oil is generally refined into the fuel that drives our transportation industry, we can’t forget that this resource has many other uses, particularly in the manufacture of plastic products. So to me, it’s vitally important that we work out some sort of compromise between the environmental issues and the national interest that we all have in maintaining a free supply of domestic oil. Our current situation, where some stalwarts in Congress place the needs of caribou above the needs of our economy, has passed the ridiculous stage and is quickly closing in on dangerous. Even if ANWR, Pacific, and Gulf drilling were allowed tomorrow, we’ve lost (and will continue to lose in the short-term future) tremendous amounts of capital that could’ve been left in the domestic realm instead of paying OPEC their sheik’s ransom for black gold.

Once again, technology plays a role in allowing us to begin moving past an oil-based economy. Just like steam-powered vehicles were replaced by gasoline-powered ones early in the 20th century, somewhere out there is the key to the next generation of transport. In a future installment, I’m going to look at education and its role in the next 50 years, but it’s going to be incumbent on the next two generations to solve these issues through rigorous research.

America does have one export that maybe not everyone thinks of as a tradable commodity, but it creates a huge amount of capital. As a country, the United States is almost certainly the world leader in intellectual property – a term I’ll adopt as shorthand for all of the books, movies, television, and musical recordings that are created by Americans and exported around the world. In many cases, revenues made overseas by films can exceed the domestic take. And sometimes musical artists considered obscure here are major players in various foreign nations.

One of our major trade gripes with China at the moment is their laxity when it comes to stopping the sale of pirated movies. Black market copies of Hollywood films are big sellers there but the studios never receive a cut of the take. And with the evolution of “on-demand” movies, downloads of songs for personal use, and increased internet bandwidth (not to mention services like YouTube) major film studios and record labels are going to find it more difficult to maintain a revenue stream using models developed 30 to 50 years ago. However, on the flip side music is more accessible than ever. I know some of my favorite local groups would’ve had a lot more difficulty having their music heard prior to the advent of Myspace and the internet in general. While we have the phoniness of “American Idol” (which actually originated “across the pond” in Great Britain) there is still quite the untapped market out there for America to export intellectual property.

But now I want to complete the circle and discuss our manufacturing capability again, this time by reviewing a little history.

In the century-and-a-quarter from 1845 to 1970, Americans changed the world. Starting with Samuel F.B. Morse revolutionizing communications with the telegraph, on our shores we created invention after invention that made our society as we know it (while America also fought and won two world wars in that era), culminating with Neil Armstrong and his small step for man. And while America is still a powerhouse when it comes to innovation, many of the more recent advances have occurred offshore. It seems to me like we’ve settled on mediocrity, doing research in order to secure the next government grant instead of being truly innovative.

It’s long past time for Americans to make stuff again. But the idea in this go-round is not necessarily to make the cheapest product, it’s to make the most cutting-edge product that has the quality and construction to last for decades. In turn, American consumers need to reward these efforts and consider quality as much (if not more) than price. Maybe a better term for this consideration is life-cycle cost.

The next two generations have the potential to allow America to be a leader once again, just like it was not all that long ago. Before we cede our crown to those in China or India, we need to remember that there’s a reason that Japanese auto makers put their trust in us to build many of their best-selling cars. Japan became a world leader in industry by taking both the American know-how that built up their industry after we defeated them in World War II and the can-do spirit that still existed in America at that time, and allowing these to evolve by putting an emphasis on manufacturing goods of high quality and innovation. We can do the same (again) by putting our minds to it and telling those who wish for us to remain mediocre (like those interested in big government and not creative capitalism) to get out of the way.

A 50 year plan: Military and veterans’ affairs

The Cabinet-level Department of Veterans’ Affairs is a relatively recent creation, authorized by President Reagan in 1988. What I’m going to touch on in this installment of the 50 year plan is more aligned with the direction and function of that Department than the actual global military strategy necessary during those times. Some of that I discussed in my chapter of the 50 year plan about the Long War. Insofar as the rest of military strategy goes, I subscribe to the Reagan-era doctrine of “peace through strength” with an emphasis on forward deployment. This is why I advocate not completely retreating from Iraq when our job there is through (assuming the permission of the Iraqi government of course.)

What has placed this particular facet of veterans’ affairs at the forefront is the continuing saga at the Walter Reed veterans medical complex. Building 18, a moldy, rat-infested firetrap slated to be closed in a few years, has become yet another avenue for Congressional Democrats to continue their mantra of “it’s Bush’s fault” when problems occur and need to be addressed. Yes, there are problems in the veterans’ healthcare system – but they go far beyond the bricks and mortar of decrepit facilities and even beyond the lack of oversight and maintenance that placed Building 18 in such atrocious condition. Like most Americans, I feel that veterans deserve better.

In many areas of life, veterans get preferential treatment. This dates back to Revolutionary War days when pensions for war veterans and land grants were established. Sponsored medical care for disabled veterans also dates back close to two centuries. Outside the realm of financial and medical care, the original GI Bill enabled World War II veterans to buy homes and helped pave the way toward the postwar prosperity of the 1950’s. The neighborhood I live in is among the thousands that were created during this era, with reasonably-sized homes built for newly financially empowered veterans and their young families.

As things stand now, there are a great number of benefits to joining the military, including recruitment bonuses and college assistance. Beyond service years, veterans get assistance in job training, finding housing, preference for civil service work, and many other benefits not generally available to those who chose not to serve in the military. (Obviously there’s a risk factor involved which makes the perks necessary.) In most cases I don’t have a problem with these and they actually benefit and supplement things available to the public at-large. Anyone can train for a different job, buy a house, or apply for a civil service job whether they served in the military or not. But only veterans, their surviving spouses, and dependents are eligible for VA medical assistance.

To me, there’s a solution that can help eliminate a lot of the government red tape that has bogged down the veterans’ health care system and created situations that allowed problems like Building 18 to fester. This solution is a two-part solution.

The first portion is to allow choice for current veterans as to the location where they’ll receive their health care. Many veterans (particularly the few WW2 and Korean War vets remaining) would probably feel most comfortable with continuing to deal with the VA health care system as it is now. But I think newer veterans should be given a choice whether they wish to continue in the VA or be given vouchers by the federal government that can be used in one of two areas:

  • Payment for care at a hospital not affiliated with the VA when required, and/or;
  • Establishing a Health Savings Account, with the high-deductable insurance policy required as part of that through a qualified private insurer.

Meanwhile, future military personnel would be given the vouchers and allowed to choose the method and delivery of health care services.

Eventually this would lead to the closing of VA facilities, but what would likely happen is that existing non-VA facilities would begin to cater to the needs of the veteran population in an effort to secure their voucher dollars. It would eliminate a situation where services are (more or less) duplicated for two separate but comingled populations: the 60 million or so people eligible for VA services of some sort and the rest of us.

Taking care of veterans through pensions, benefits, and the like is one of the few areas not specifically addressed in the Constitution where I feel the federal government has a legitimate stake in regulating day-to-day needs. It is because these men and women have sacrified in service to our country that this is so. But as Rush Limbaugh has noted, the purpose of the military is to “kill people and break things”, so having the military running a health-care system doesn’t meld well with that particular skill set.

By allowing the private sector to bring better competition to the market, it gives veterans opportunities to select the health care they feel is best for their needs, rather than the one-size-fits-all solution government bureaucracy seems to come up with.

Just as an aside, if and when Hillary Clinton tries to introduce the single-payer health system she favors, think of being housed in Building 18 – because that’s the sort of treatment we’ll all get if we put the federal government solely in charge of our health care.

A 50 year plan: Election reform

I don’t remember this sort of attention the last time that we had an “open” seat for the Presidential race but for whatever reason the 2008 campaign has gotten off to a really early start and the trend is accelerating as California recently moved its 2008 primary up to a February date. This instantly makes the Golden State a disproportionate player in the Presidential sweepstakes and all but dooms states that even have primaries as early as March to second-tier staus.

As part of my 50 year plan for election reform, I’m going to address this piece of the electoral pie, but there are other slices that I think merit attention first.

The very first thing which needs to occur is to require a photo ID to vote at the ballot box, or have one on file with a signature card for absentee ballots. It just makes sense to me that, in a society where I’m asked for my ID in order to place money into my own bank account, some form of photo identification needs to be required to exercise one of our most precious rights.

Normally the Democrats scream about this point that requiring ID disenfranchises the poor. (It’s probably why a bill dealing with this died in committee here in Maryland.) I believe Georgia was going to require something similar to this and was willing to pony up a few hundred thousand dollars to allow anyone who could get to the DMV their own photo identity card, but that still wasn’t good enough for the Democrats. I guess then I have to ask what they’re so afraid of? Are they worried that their ideas aren’t good enough to appeal to a majority of those who vote? (I know if I were them I would be.)

So if we adopt part number one above we’ll have voter ID. The next step is to use the electronic machines, but have a backup paper trail set up as a double-check. Conspiracy theories about the 2000 and 2004 elections aside, and using my bank as an example again, every time I put in or take out money I get a receipt. Something tells me that voting can easily be the same way, and with the backup no one in the tinfoil hat brigade can claim a Diebold conspiracy.

Thus, I’ve taken care of making sure the people who are eligible to vote can do so (once) and that their votes would be accounted for properly. But there are two other items that Maryland does (or may do) which, in my opinion, need to be rolled back.

First of all, in 2008 we may have a Constitutional amendment placed on the ballot that allows for early voting but insofar as I can tell doesn’t have a provision to pay for securing the ballots for the extra days necessary nor a common-sense identification check on it. (This has passed the Maryland Senate but is pending in the House of Delegates.)

I believe that we have adequate means of voting between the polling places being open on the days already designated by the state Constitution and absentee balloting (even with some limitations I’d place on it) that the number of voters who actually wish to participate in the process has a chance of doing so. There’s no need to extend the opportunities for voter fraud and tampering by adding several days to the process. For me, I’ve made the time to be there on Election Day, in fact last year I worked the polls for Bonnie Luna’s campaign as well. Voting and then working the polls is something I’ve done for a number of years.

Now, as far as absentee balloting goes, I believe there should be some restrictions placed back on it. I don’t really care for the “shall-issue” rules Maryland has because it leaves some openings for a lack of accountability. A more common-sense approach would be one where certain classes of people remain eligible (such as those over 60 years of age or serving in the military and stationed out of the state), but a qualified excuse has to be provided for others. I’ve voted absentee only about a half-dozen times in my life – mostly while in college but in 2004 I voted absentee for Ohio because I found out I’d move to Maryland too late to be registered here for the November election. Those are legitimate reasons to get an absentee ballot, whereas just because you don’t want to drive to the polling place is not. Hell, the weekend before the 1996 election I was laid up in the hospital with pneumonia but I’ll have been damned if I wasn’t going to be out for Election Day to at least vote for Dole, if I couldn’t work the polls. (Fortunately I recovered enough to be let out on the Sunday before.)

In both state and national election law, there are restrictions on candidate financing. When the McCain-Feingold reforms were passed in 2003, it was supposed to take the money out of politics – but estimates are now coming in for the 2008 Presidential election that suggest the spending total may reach $1 billion. Other changes made by McCain-Feingold gave it a billing as an “incumbent protection act” as regulations were placed on advertising within 60 days of an election.

Personally I think any and all contribution limits should be abolished. But with that carrot comes the stick of daily and accessibly reporting any and all contributions to a particular campaign. So if AFSCME gives $50 million to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, within 24 hours anyone in the pajamas media can say, hey, AFSCME members, look what your union dues are paying for. If the trial lawyers’ associations give $20 million to John Edwards, we can immediately follow the money and ask him what’s the quid pro quo here? Obviously the situation holds true as well if the national Chamber of Commerce gives $15 million to Rudy Giuliani.

But, one may argue, wouldn’t that make the little guy’s $25 contribution to Giuliani meaningless? After all, it’s said that money talks and more money talks louder. Well, this is true, but the people still hold the absolute power of the vote. And if I’ve found out that someone or something donated to a candidate I don’t like, I can choose to act accordingly. For example, when I get the annual reports from companies I invest in, I check and see who their board members make political donations to and withhold share votes from those candidates who support people I don’t feel are friendly to the goals of the business as I see them. If more people did that, it will police the situation.

After all, George Soros donated many of his millions to defeat President Bush, but he only had one actual vote in the matter. I’ll grant he influenced many to follow him and vote against Bush, but others worked and donated to the Bush side and the President prevailed because he and his supporters convinced 59 million people to vote for him.

Now to the California question. To me, it’s insane that we’ve dragged this election process out so long. Here Maryland has plenty of common sense in the way it runs state elections. Last year our primary was September 12, a date that was 8 weeks before the general election. This gives candidates and the public the maximum amount of time to get together and interact so the public can make an informed choice with as many candidates in the running as possible.

However, in the decision for the 2008 Presidential election, by all indications we’ll know who the two leading candidates are a full nine months beforehand. (Even though Maryland has a March primary, we’ll have little say.) In 2004 there was some case of “buyer’s regret” among Democrats that summer when John Kerry didn’t turn out to quite be the candidate they thought they’d get in March when the race was essentially decided. So it looks like most of 2008 will be consigned to mudslinging and negative campaigning between the Republicans and Democrats and nothing will get done in Congress either because no one will want to hurt their candidate or help the opposition.

I think I have a better idea then this. Of course, Presidential politics are dictated by the party conventions that generally take place in July and August. The first step is to move those to a mid-September timeframe, right after Labor Day when people begin to pay attention to the campaigns anyway. One can start the Monday after Labor Day and the other the following Monday, alternating between cycles.

(It might mess up Newt Gingrich’s idea a little bit, but there’s still time for several weekly debates.)

So now we work backwards from that point. What I’ve always thought would be a good idea would be to have a series of regional primaries held on consecutive weeks. Six regions of eight states each (more or less, depending on population) would hold primaries, starting the Tuesday after July 4th and ending in August. And to assure each area would get the “prime” first spot once every six cycles, the regions would run elections in a particular order, the first one in a cycle sliding back to last in the next cycle. Thus, the idea Maryland was trying to promote of having a “regional” primary date with Delaware and Virginia would be realized, only on a slightly larger scale. For example, we could be teamed up with Delaware, Virginia, DC, West Virginia, the Carolinas, and Pennsylvania with our regional primary. Iowa and New Hampshire would be exempt and continue with their influential first caucus and primary, but could be moved back into June.

So instead of having this process last almost a year, I’m compressing it into five months. It gives the American people, who are getting less and less of an attention span, a short and focused campaign for our highest office and it also means Congress can get more done because they don’t have to worry quite as much about influencing the Presidential race.

Voting is the most important civic duty most of us do over the course of the year. I believe that these reforms would go a long way to increasing the percentage of people who actually exercise their right as citizens to do so.

A 50 year plan: Border security and immigration

This post should be right up Crabbin‘s alley. For those of you not familiar with the Eastern Shore blogging scene (and those who are but don’t know his blog), D.D. Crabb (pen name of the writer) spends quite a bit of his time looking at the issue of illegal immigration. This chapter of my 50 year plan is going to deal with his pet issue.

Some have estimated that there are 20 million illegal immigrants in America. Most are from Mexico and Central America, but a few come from other places around the globe, including countries that are on America’s terrorist watch list. The impact is obvious – just look at the bilingual store signage that many national merchants now feature. Even in our position over 1,000 miles from the Mexican border we have Spanish-language radio stations in our area. All of this was unheard of in most parts of America even 10 years ago. But this immigration spigot along our southern border had been dripping for most of the last fifty years. It’s become a rushing torrent in the last decade though as Mexican and Central American economies stagnated while America’s abundant thirst for cheap labor combined with easy access to free health care and the chance for children of these undocumented workers to become American citizens by virtue solely of being born within our borders enabled this problem to become a hot-button issue. It’s so hot that a heretofore obscure Congressman from Colorado, Tom Tancredo, made a name for himself as a border hawk and is now one of the second-tier GOP candidates for President in 2008.

For most of the late 19th and early 20th century, America was the land of opportunity for immigrants of all stripes. Wave after wave of Germans, Poles, Irishmen, Italians, Greeks, Asians, and others from all points of the globe converged on America and filled up this land from sea to shining sea. My ancestors, mostly from Germany but a few Poles mixed in, were in that group. All of them had to deal with the language barrier and some amount of discrimination (as in the mid-19th century “No Irish Need Apply” signs) but if they didn’t adapt, their children surely did because they wanted to become Americans. Most cities of the era had enclaves where these immigrants eventually settled to be with those they shared language and culture with. But even moreso than the fun poked at rural Americans today, people from the “old country” were looked down upon by the next generation and those children who were born or raised in America grew somewhat ashamed of their cultural roots, leaving these old-world enclaves to live out their American dreams.

Eventually the pendulum started swinging the other way and in the last half-century or so many Americans have reembraced their ancestry through vacations to the homeland, ethnic festivals, and the like. In my old hometown of Toledo summers were punctuated by weekend gatherings celebrating Irish, Polish, German, Hungarian, and Greek food, dance, and culture. (And those were some good eating, let me tell you – particularly the Polish Festival. Now there’s where you can get REAL kielbasa.)

But the large majority of immigrants in the modern era have played the role in reverse, wishing America to adopt their culture and language instead of having the desire to become Americans like immigrants of yore. With the foreigners’ economic impact and the desire of major corporations to be politically correct (lest they offend some legal organization someplace enough to incite a lawsuit) they’re bending over backwards in an effort to appease the undocumented folks streaming in across our southern border. Bank of America recently made headlines by adopting a pilot program in California that eliminated the requirement of a Social Security number for applicants to receive a credit card. And right now a big fight amongst the Republicans pits the Chamber of Commerce types who like the idea of a cheap labor pool against the border and security hawks who see danger in the flood of humans crossing the border knowing that there are some among them who wish our nation ill.

In choosing sides, I stand with the border and security hawks. But the solutions of putting up a stronger security fence and enabling our Border Patrol to become a quasi-military outfit in order to fight against the heavily armed drug and human smugglers who operate along what’s best described as a lawless Mexican border is just a small bite out of the whole enchilada.

We also need to crack down on the employers. Obviously this is going to piss off the Chamber of Commerce types but there’s millions of people out there who knowingly or unknowingly have had their Social Security numbers hijacked by someone who’s using it to work here illegally. It’s unfortunate that the Mexican economy has put itself in such a bad state that emigration by a large chunk of their young male population is necessary, but with all of the oil they sell to us one has to wonder how they cannot support their own people with decent jobs. This phenomenon isn’t lost on the new Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who’s even questioned whether his relatives are working in the United States legally. Speaking to the immigration issue from Mexico’s perspective, he’s quoted in the Washington Times today, “We want (those who emigrated to the U.S.) to come back; we want them to find jobs here in Mexico.” Continued President Calderon, “We miss them. These are our best people. These are bold people, they’re young, they’re strong, they’re talented.”

So these are three legs of the stool: tighter physical security at the border, a stronger show of force against drug and human trafficking, and a crackdown on employers who don’t show due diligence in checking whether a worker has the proper status to be in the country.

But there are other needs which have to be addressed. Another simple one is to make English our official language of government. Additionally, it’s my belief that bilingual education needs to be scrapped. Just like the immigrants in the days of old, the adults may feel more comfortable to converse in their native tongue, but in order for children to advance in our society they need to learn English as their first language. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being bilingual but in America the vast majority of people speak English as their first and only language. If one were to move to Japan it would be expected that this individual learn enough of the language to get by and if they were to have children those children would be taught Japanese as their first language. So it is with America.

If America is to survive and have a chance to enact the entirety of my 50 year plan, among other things it has to disdain this slide into multiculturalism. Abraham Lincoln noted (paraphrasing Sam Houston) that “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” By Balkanizing our culture in the way we have over the last quarter-century, we’re isolating pockets in our country that do not speak the language and have no desire to become Americans with the exception of the dollars we place in their pockets. We’ve turned the heat off from under our melting pot and the results are far from the ideals we once shared in common.

A 50 year plan: The Long War

Editor’s note: In breaking news, the Senate did not advance this resolution, voting 56-34 in its favor. Sixty votes were needed to advance it. Seven Republicans broke ranks and nine did not vote; meanwhile, save for Joe Lieberman, all 50 healthy Democrats voted “aye”. I found it most interesting (and it buttresses my point below) that Sen. Harry Reid stated that any subsequent actions would not be nonbinding. I’m not surprised.

I actually hadn’t planned on doing this chapter quite so soon, but yesterday’s vote in the House on a non-binding resolution (H. Con. Res. 63) goaded me into action. First of all, I’m quite disappointed that our Congressman, Wayne Gilchrest, was one of 17 Republicans who broke ranks and voted for the resolution. So I wrote him an e-mail, which reads as follows:

As you’re probably aware, you and I have had a number of policy disagreements over the course of the last two years I’ve resided in Maryland. It’s apparent from your voting record and the words that I write on my website that my political philosophy is quite a bit to the right of yours even though we both are elected officials in the same party.

However, I’ve not been so disappointed with a vote you’ve cast than the one you cast today on H. Con. Res. 63. In your press release, you tell us that “(o)ur troops deserve to know that their elected leaders back home care enough about their lives to make sure that their mission is justified and their cause is just. As a former Marine platoon sergeant, I know I hoped for that when I was in Vietnam.” But my contention is that the majority Democrats are going to use this resolution as the first step on a slippery slope to start squeezing our forces in Iraq; and knowing this, the enemy can bide its time and wait until President Bush has no choice but to withdraw, handing the enemy a victory they surely could not accomplish on the battlefield in a fair fight.

In June 1970 the Senate passed a similar resolution regarding the Viet Nam war. This resolution, known as the Cooper-Church Amendment, ended funding for U.S. troops and advisers in Cambodia and Laos, banned combat operations over Cambodian airspace to support Cambodian forces without prior congressional approval, and cut funding to support Southern Vietnamese forces stationed outside of Vietnam. It was a small step and seemed harmless enough because it would have no real effect on American troops fighting within Viet Nam. (In fact, the original bill died because of a veto threat, only to have a slightly modified measure pass a lame-duck Congress that December.)

But Cooper-Church opened the door, and once the GOP was blown out in the 1974 elections, Democrats felt free to cut off funding from the Viet Nam war entirely. We all now know what tragedies awaited the people of Southeast Asia in the years immediately after our shameful withdrawal. After Saigon fell, did it not make you wonder as a Viet Nam veteran whether the lives of friends and fellow servicemen that were lost in Southeast Asia were sacrificed in vain?

My stance on this war has also been in support of our troops. But further, I support their overall mission and I support the President’s prayerful handling of this mission. I have to believe that President Bush made the decision to add more troops after consulting with his top military brass, and decided as Commander-in-Chief that it would be the best course of action to take. No President has ever handled a war flawlessly, if he did, we would have lost no lives while attaining victory. To me, the increase in troop strength combined with more aggressive rules of engagement when it comes to Iranian interference in Iraqi affairs would go a long way toward victory.

Moreover, we face an enemy that does not deal fairly at the diplomatic table; where lying and deceit are acceptable tactics in their effort to spread radical Islam globally, and sacrifice of one’s self is considered noble as a shortcut to Paradise. The only way we can defeat this sort of enemy is to wipe them out in whatever manner necessary to demoralize them into surrender. Words will not do it, but in my mind military action has some chance of success. But by your vote today, you’ve made our nation take a step backward in this fight, and it’s a sign of weakness our enemies will surely find a way to take advantage of.

It also bears repeating that we were warned at the start about the time this effort would take. Noted President Bush on September 20, 2001:

“This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion.  It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes.  Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen.  It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.”

Americans have seemed to forget that these words were spoken just over five years ago. We also seem to forget that several other countries have felt the sting of radical Islamic terror in the last few years, with major events in Great Britain, Indonesia, France, and Spain just to name a few. With the exception of the British, none of these countries have (or had in Spain’s case) a significant number of combat personnel in Iraq or Afghanistan, the main military fronts in this war.

By its nature, this war is totally different than the “Cold War” of my youth. However, the fear of nuclear annihilation is still present. Instead of the fallout shelters and drills of the 1950’s that were to prepare us for a missile attack from the Soviet Union, the threat is now just as great of a so-called “suitcase nuke” or “dirty bomb” rendering a city uninhabitable and costing untold American lives. Additionally, China has demonstrated an ability to destroy satellites, which could be another tool terrorists engage eventually. With warm relations between China and Iran and Tehran’s support of radical Islamic groups we’re currently engaged with in Iraq, it’s not difficult to imagine this technology becoming another weapon in the Islamic arsenal.

But Democrats seem to be in favor of diplomacy rather than solving this through the aggressive use of force. I heard this point made Thursday as Bill Reddish on WICO radio had a short interview with Maryland’s junior Senator Ben Cardin. Senator Cardin made the following point:

“Sacnctions will work in Iran if we have the support of the international community.”

I placed the emphasis on “if” because, as was proven in the “Oil-For-Food” program and in the assistance Russia and China have given the Iranians in their war efforts, that the so-called international community will cheat when they feel it’s in their best interests to. Combine that with the stated tendency of radical Islamists (and for that matter Communists like North Korea) to extend one hand at the negotiating table while readying the knife in the other hand for that stab in the back, it’s clear in my eyes that the only way diplomacy works is when one side is completely subdued and has its terms of surrender dictated to them.

Yesterday the Patriot Post published an essay that enlightened me about the two main and competing sects of Islam. I found it interesting that just 10 percent of Muslims subscribe to the Shi’ite sect, but that 10 percent are a majority in five nations. These five include both Iraq and Iran. So I looked a bit further and found that on the other hand, the Salafists (or Wahhabists) consider themselves as a purer form of the majority Sunni sect. This is the brand of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and to which Osama bin Laden subscribes. Also, the Taliban in Afghanistan are another subsect of Sunnis. In essence, our fight against radical Islam is against a small portion of the entire Islamic world – however, that small portion tends to congregate in countries that are some of the leaders against us in the Long War.

Because of this factor, we will likely be fighting these enemies for quite a spell; thus a difficult question arises as to what sort of help we can get. One theory I have on this is that we need to identify and support Islamic nations that are more moderate to help in this battle. To me, this is part of the reason we’re in Iraq and Afghanistan, making an effort to install leadership that is more friendly to our interests. Other countries such as Bahrain, Turkey, and Kuwait have also been helpful in providing forward bases for us to work from.

It’s here that I depart from the more mainstream conservative movement. Part of reinventing Republicanism is facing the fact that we are the source of freedom for the globe, and a healthy chunk of the world economy. Thus, our national interests transcend our borders and isolationism cannot succeed in the world today. While we do need to secure our borders better and work on free but fair trade (more on these subjects in future chapters) we need to realize that having American troops in far-flung places on the globe is going to be a fact for the foreseeable future. It’s one thing that our Founders may not have thought of in their era.

For example, George Washington opined in his Farewell Address:

“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.”

But he then stated:

“Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”

Where I differ with Washington solely lies in the fact that we are not in a “detached and distant situation” anymore. As I spoke of earlier, our interests are now global and our foreign policy must reflect this fact. To this end, we must do whatever it takes and resort to whichever “temporary alliances” are needed to subdue the threat posed by radical Islam.

I do have one other main point to make. Some are of the opinion that we need to pull out of the United Nations, and I tend to agree with them.

Unfortunately, by its nature the UN is populated with all nations, regardless of their devotion to the freedom of their citizens. A tyrannical nation like China has an equal say and veto power there as we do, therefore I believe it’s truly not in our best interest to be fully invested in such an organization. Add in the fact that it’s a bloated and relatively corrupt bureaucracy saddled by its inertia (hmm, sounds like the federal government) and the benefits from divesting ourselves from the UN grow. After all, the UN did nothing to a tyrant who violated seventeen of their own resolutions until we took it upon ourselves to build a coalition to take care of the problem, which we solved. Truly we have a better solution in “going it alone” if we must than having to beg for a hall pass from the international community.

A 50 year plan: Eminent domain/property rights

I actually wasn’t going to do this particular subject yet, but I received an e-mail at work yesterday that bothered me and I wanted to share my reaction. In turn, since I’d planned on doing a “50 year plan” post on the issue anyway, this was as good of time as any to do so.

Recently, partially at the behest of my company but moreso to keep my continuing education requirements straight (and maintain my architectural license) I rejoined the American Institute of Architects after a hiatus of about 5 years or so. So now I’m a member of AIA Chesapeake Bay instead of AIA Toledo, but the national song seemingly remains the same.

I figured out that my membership had gone through when I started receiving AIA e-mails at work, which I have zero problem with. But yesterday’s e-mail was a newsletter called The Angle, which documents their political lobbying efforts and other related items the AIA pursues. Part of this newsletter was soliciting input for an AIA position statement, as follows:

Proposed Position Statement 46 – Eminent Domain

The American Institute of Architects believes that eminent domain is a critical tool for revitalizing our cities and improving the quality of life in urban and suburban neighborhoods. State and local governments must ensure that eminent domain laws do not curtail smart growth efforts, brownfield cleanup, or otherwise limit new development and improvements to existing development.

Well, since they asked for my input, they got it…

I would feel much better about this if the statement read as follows:

“The American Institute of Architects believes that eminent domain is a critical tool for revitalizing our cities and improving the quality of life in urban and suburban neighborhoods. While the AIA acknowledges and agrees that private property rights are paramount in our free society, we also feel that state and local governments can and should balance the rights of existing property holders with eminent domain laws that do not curtail smart growth efforts, brownfield cleanup, or otherwise limit new development and improvements to existing development.”

As I read it, the AIA is taking a position of property holders be damned, we just want to develop sites regardless of who’s hurt in the process and all these damn libertarians who insist on actually following the “takings clause” in the Fifth Amendment are just meddling with our profession.

Many eminent domain proceedings in the last decade have stretched the term “public use” way beyond its intent. Personally, I do not believe in government using its power and taking one’s private property to benefit another person simply for additional tax revenue.

And so begins this portion of what I’ve come to call my “50 year plan.” It’s pretty simple, really. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution reads, in part, as follows:

(N)or (shall a person) be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Emphasis mine.)

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court handed down what’s popularly known as the Kelo decision. In a 5-4 decision (Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer the majority; O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas found for Suzette Kelo) the Court held that, despite the fact that “the city is not planning to open the condemned land – at least not in its entirety – to use by the general public.” They noted, “this…Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the…public.

You know, sometimes the Supreme Court gets it wrong. The idea behind eminent domain was to allow the taking of private property for a public use, such as a highway, airport, or a building that would be owned by the taxpayers rather than a private entity. But in the case of Suzette Kelo, her property would be used by a private developer – a developer who was planning on developing the land to boost the city’s tax base.

In the time since, many states have enacted laws to prohibit this practice. According to the Castle Coalition, 34 states either have a prohibition on this practice or strengthened its position on the law in 2006. Maryland is not one of them.

There is a fairly weak reform bill in the hopper in the Maryland Senate this session, SB3. A similar bill last session, also SB3 (along with HB1137), was referred back to committee once it was amended to change from a legislative matter to a Constitutional amendment by an amendment from Senator Allan Kittleman. (The House bill did not make it out of committee at all.)

Interestingly enough, the eminent domain power in Maryland has not been used much recently for “traditional” items such as highways, airports, government buildings, etc. The heaviest user of eminent domain in recent years has been the Maryland Stadium Authority, as they cleared out blocks of homes and businesses to build, among others, M&T Bank Stadium and Oriole Park at Camden Yards.

I like the idea of a Constitutional amendment at the state level, as long as the amendment clearly states that the power of eminent domain is to be used only for the public good and not to enrich one powerful private entity at the expense of a class of lesser entities as happened in New London, Connecticut. Theoretically, the federal level is already taken care of in the Fifth Amendment; all that needs is a Supreme Court which remembers that our laws are based solely on what the Founders wrote, not what they feel is in our best interest at the time or on incorrect precedents.

Because this eminent domain issue has a fairly simple solution and can be settled rather quickly, it’s one of the easiest planks to rectify in my 50 year plan. So I’m going to expand on the subject a little by talking about private property rights and other property issues.

Obviously in our nation one has some restrictions on property rights, which are mostly common-sense sorts of things. For example, it would not be a good idea if I built a rifle range in the midst of a residential area. If I had complete property rights theoretically I could do this, but most areas have some sort of zoning to prevent such incompatible uses from occurring on adjacent plots. Generally things like usage, setbacks, building area as a percentage of a lot, and building height are covered. These can also be waived if the property owner presents a compelling reason to do so in front of an elected or appointed local body.

However, I see a trend where government is restricting land usage by regulation. A recent example was embodied by the number of National Monuments established by President Clinton by his interpretation of the Antiquities Act of 1906. Whereas national parks need Congressional approval, in many cases national monuments do not. Clinton established a total of 19 national monuments, mostly in the final year or so of his term. While much of the land was already federally owned, this action also further restricted its usage. With the strokes of his pen Clinton placed over 5 million acres of land out of reach to mining and development. (That’s about 2/3 of the size of Maryland.) By comparison, President Bush has enacted just one land-based national monument of about 1/3 acre in New York City. A summary of concerns can also be found here.

While local zoning codes are generally fair, the scale of regulation of private property by the federal government is much less so – and much harder to combat. Another area of regulation that concerns me is hypersensitivity by people concerned with environmental issues such as endangered species. A number of projects have been thwarted nationwide because some so-called endangered species MIGHT have a nesting ground or habitat there. While there’s a case for preserving habitat, the balance is currently way too far in favor of militant environmentalism at the expense of economy.

Now I’ll shift my focus to a more local level.

In last year’s state election, Maryland voters unwisely placed the General Assembly in charge of the disposition of state land rather than retaining it under executive authority. This ballot issue arose from the proposed sale of state land in St. Mary’s County to a developer – something I personally had no problem with. Just like the argument in the Kelo case about the economic benefit to the city of New London, the land in question could have possibly benefitted the coffers and overall economy of St. Mary’s County. But in this case government took the opposite side.

Ideally to me governmental entities will own the least amount of land necessary to function. Further, land that is owned by the government should be as free of restrictions to private use as possible. While development would have limits, something where the public good outweighs the risks (such as drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) can be done if managed properly and carefully.

This portion of the 50 year plan will take much longer to implement than the eminent domain issue will because again it’s going to take a sea change in attitude by the powers that be. The more land they have, the more power. It’s going to take a forceful voice from the people to make government give back to the private sector what is rightfully theirs.

A 50 year plan: Role of government

The other night I read the State of the Union speech. Since I was out enjoying life (it was bowling night) I didn’t actually watch the speech but reading it took about 5 minutes, thus saving me about an hour of my life. These are just a few of many Bush Administration initiatives in the speech that I’ll use for illustration:

  • Setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels by 2017.
  • Dictating new fuel mileage standards for autos and light trucks. (I’ll bet Rep. Gilchrest is all over this.)
  • Changing tax laws regarding employer-paid health insurance and direct Federal funding to assist states that provide help for poor or hard-to-insure residents with health insurance.
  • Reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

For years Presidents of both parties have used the SOTU speech as a showcase for whatever programs they wanted to push. Invariably, these were billed as panaceas for problems that faced our nation, and always it was a Federal solution that would cure the ailment. To use Bush’s speech as an example, these new programs either create or extend Federal mandates on what states or private enterprise may do.

Unfortunately, these energy-related items may all have unintended consequences.

The most likely way that our country would meet the 2017 alternative fuel mandate is by the additional use of ethanol. While ethanol is more environmentally-friendly and comes from a renewable resource, it actually takes MORE energy to create a gallon of ethanol than a gallon of gasoline, and ethanol costs more to boot. It also drives up the price of corn, which is a food staple, so grocery prices would increase from the twin factors of higher prices for the raw food material and transporting the finished product. That’s going to be most apparent in prices for produce, which is almost always shipped long distances.

A similar conundrum exists with the government mandating additional CAFE standards. In recent years, the market has favored large SUVs which come in below average on the fuel efficiency chart. These also provide the largest profits for the Big Three automakers, and with less profit coming in because they can’t sell so many of the profitable SUVs the automakers are cutting costs the one way they can – laying off workers. The Michigan economy is already hurting as the Big Three buys out as many employees as they can, and raising the CAFE standard bar would be another blow to their efforts at recovery.

In regard to the other two SOTU items, these fall into a category that has bothered me for as long as I’ve been a student of politics. It’s the basis of this essay on the role of government.

I keep a small booklet-sized copy of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution on my desk. The Tenth Amendment reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The first and foremost objection I have to the current method of government (practiced by both parties; neither is blameless in this) is when Congress puts together a bill that holds either the carrot of giving additional Federal funds or the stick of a Federal money cutoff to a particular state based on their action or inaction on a particular measure. One example I see as I drive into Maryland is the sign stating that .08 BAL is the law in Maryland. Apparently Maryland was one of the last states to lower the BAL but got with the program once their highway funding started to (or was scheduled to start to) suffer.

One Senator was responsible for this, Ohio’s now-former Senator Mike DeWine. Tragically, he lost one of his daughters to a car accident involving a drunk driver. But if he had been a proper government servant he would have lobbied the state of Ohio to lower its BAL limit as a statewide effort to promote highway safety. Instead, after trying for a few years to get this adopted, he managed to place this stick in some Congressional legislation and thereafter states had the gun of losing part of their federal highway funding put to their head if they didn’t follow the .08 BAL standard.

A couple days ago I heard a radio news item talking about Delaware not having a compliant open container law, thus it loses a small percentage of its federal highway funding (the figure I saw was 3% based on a 2001 article.) Yet again, it’s an example of the stick being applied to a state government to bend over to the wishes of the federal government, which is once again overreaching its Tenth Amendment rights.

With the latter two SOTU examples listed above, state and local governments will be placed at the beck and call of what some bureaucrats and do-gooders in Congress want them to do. If you give health insurance to your heretofore uninsured residents, we’ll give you more money. If you don’t enact the federal NCLB regulations, we’ll take away your federal education funding. (The same principle applies to taxation for individuals as certain actions are either encouraged or discouraged, but that’s a topic for another day.)

There are three principles I’d like to see the next generation embrace when they get to the positions of power. First and foremost is an end to these government mandates. Let the states be individual laboratories of government as the Founders intended. It’s a shame that all the faceless bureaucrats who get to push paper and make sure that the lower reaches of government do exactly as they have dictated to them would lose their jobs, but perhaps their talents can be used effectively in some other task. Lord knows eliminating red tape would open up a lot of jobs in the private sector!

The second principle is not something that the Founders intended, but I’ve come to believe in the last few years they’ve become necessary. Additionally, the Constitution now has a precedent for it in the 22nd Amendment.

I think there needs to be term limits for Congress. Where I live now, this district has had the same Congressman since 1991. Maryland has one Senator who has held her seat since 1987, with the other just beginning his Senate career after two decades in the House of Representatives. He takes over for a Senator who served 30 years.

The Founders intended a legislature composed of public-minded citizens who would serve a short time in Congress then return home to their communities. President George Washington embodied this principle by refusing to serve a third term, despite the fact he would’ve almost certainly won in a landslide. It’s been suggested that a person be limited to three terms in the House of Representatives and two terms in the Senate, and that seems like a fair number. Ohio has term limits for its state officeholders of eight years. Of course, what’s happened in a few cases is that legislators who run through their four (two-year) terms in the Ohio House run for the Ohio Senate to take advantage of its eight-year limit (two four-year terms) and vice versa. Since the Ohio law was enacted in 1994, I haven’t noticed yet if the switchers will try to return to their original legislative body for another eight years. To combat that tendency, I’d also like added to the law a lifetime limit of 18 years in Congress (three terms in the House plus two terms as Senator.)

The third principle I’d like to see adopted is the automatic sunsetting of government rules and regulations after a point in time, say, ten years. Just as many government programs need to be reauthorized from time to time (like NCLB) encoded laws themselves need to be revisited occasionally.

After the 9/11 attacks, Congress enacted the PATRIOT Act, which curbed some of the civil liberties that libertarians in particular hold dear. If I recall correctly, the original authorization was for three years so it had to be reauthorized in 2005 – meanwhile, some of the supporters called for the provisions to become permanent.

I understand how curbs on certain rights are required during a time of war. During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus for a time as part of prosecuting the war. President Franklin Roosevelt interred thousands of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

But to me these provisions need not become permanent, as at some point in our future the War on Terror will be won. (If it’s not, then the diminished rights we enjoy now would become meaningless. I don’t think there’s a right of habeas corpus in Sharia law.) Occasionally someone will write a newspaper column or a website post about some archaic law that has long since outlived its usefulness but still languishes on the books. (A Maryland example is the concept of ground rent.)

The other factors in this are sort of sneaky. If a Congress is debating the merits of existing laws that have come to the end of their sunsetting period, they have less time to dream up new restrictions! Also, because of the term limit principles I’ve touched on earlier, it would be an almost entirely new Congress that debates the issue, and they wouldn’t have the ownership aspect to color their view. To use one example, would John McCain (a Senator since 1987) or Russ Feingold (occupying his Senate seat since 1993) be in favor of repealing their campaign finance law? It’s doubtful, but if it came up for renewal in ten years their successors may feel differently.

In my thinking about government, I think I have envisioned something a little closer to what the Founders intended. As it stands right now, the governmental pyramids are inverted – power is concentrated at the top, but that’s where the fewest people wield it. I believe government was intended to have the maximum power placed at the bottom of the pyramid with the people, then the “several States”, with the federal government at the peak of the pyramid – only intended to do things that have a national interest like coining money and defending our nation. The Constitution addressed the failings of the original Articles of Confederation and defined the roles of government more clearly.

As I stated when I began this occasional series, this change is not one that’s going to happen overnight – it’s going to take decades and the generation of my stepdaughter and whatever children she’s blessed with to accomplish these goals. But I believe it’s possible and it just may refresh the tree of liberty without shedding any blood of patriots, tyrants, or bystanders.

A 50 year plan: Community

I’ve decided to continue my “50 year plan” series with a look at what I call community. This isn’t necessarily political or issue-oriented, it’s more about what I feel is missing in the modern day and yearn to see come back.

Many years ago, I wrote a short essay called “Giving Back”. I think I wrote it for inclusion in the Rogue Elephant, which was the newsletter the Toledo Young Republicans did at the time I was involved with them. Unfortunately, I either didn’t keep or lost the copy so that essay’s pretty much lost to the mists of time. (In looking for it I found a lot of other interesting stuff but, alas, not what I was searching for.)

But I do remember the main points and that’s what I wanted to write about today.

As long as I can recall, State Farm Insurance has gone by the slogan, “Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there.” I don’t bring this up as an advertisement for their insurance but as a commentary on being good neighbors. Despite all of its problems, America remains blessed with the First Amendment freedom of the people “peaceably to assemble.” The problem is that in society today people tend to insulate themselves from group settings as much as they can. Many of today’s teens interact with each other through Internet sites like Myspace instead of doing what my generation did and hang out at the mall. Or, in generations past they would gather after school or on weekends at the local malt shop. Regardless of where these interactions occurred, they were a part of normal life.

This trend is even reflected in housing. Because I’m in the architecture business, I notice these things more readily, but it’s also a function of where I’ve lived. I’ve lived in a total of nine houses in my life, and these houses were built anywhere between 1897 and 1976.

In the four of these houses that were built prior to World War II, they all had pretty similar traits. All were fairly close to the street, and all had at least some covered front porch to them. This was pretty common among the houses along those particular streets and it encouraged neighborhood interaction. People would sit out on their front porches during summer evenings and visit if they saw a neighbor outside.

But the other five in which I’ve lived (including one my parents had built new when I was 11) only one had more than a small set of concrete steps in front and that porch was uncovered. The others were all relatively far away from the street (with part of this being setback requirements adopted in recent decades) and they had their family gathering areas in the rear of the house, either a concrete porch or a deck. (My parents built an enclosed porch on the back of theirs after I moved away.) It reflected societal trends away from interaction and toward more privacy. This was also reflected in those houses having larger yards and being farther away from the main city core.

In more recent times, some architects have questioned the role of housing in the community and an urban design trend restoring the central core has emerged. While in the case of this website “New Urbanism” has branched out into an anti-sprawl screed, I think there are other benefits to this type of community. It does take up less open space and infrastructure needs are reduced. Moreover, notice that many of their examples are in Europe, where cities were laid out centuries ago. As I stated before, most subdivisions now (aided by local zoning codes) spread out the houses and push people farther apart.

So where does my 50 year plan fit into all of this?

While we can’t just tear everything down and start all over, it seems to me that we as a society need to get away from being aloof and self-centered and get back to being more neighborly, regardless of housing style. The example I used about housing style just serves as a metaphor for what’s happened to us over the last several decades. We’ve become a nation that has let the 2% of bad apples dictate how we interact with others. By moving our collective selves off the front porch and out of sight, we insulated ourselves from the benefits of community.

People in my neighborhood most likely don’t know me from reading this blog. But if I say that I’m the guy who they see on his several times a week walks up and down the neighborhood streets, they may say, “ok, now I know who you are.” Hopefully when the weather warms and more people are outside they’ll recognize me and wave or say hello or whatever they do. And like most people, I’m not out here casing your house to burglarize it or looking to kidnap your child. I’m getting out because I enjoy walking through my adopted neighborhood and interacting with people I see, plus it’s good exercise.

At some point in the future, I’m going to use a “50 year plan” post to discuss consumerism, but for the purpose of this essay I’d like to touch on a little bit here.

To some in our nation, it’s all about “stuff” (i.e. he who dies with the most toys wins). For me, it’s more about experiences. I probably could afford a larger house and more expensive car, but what I have is just fine and suits my purposes. It’s my opinion that people need to spend less time and worry on stuff and more time on what’s important, like being part of their community.

To that end, I’d love to see the next generation start to get off the PlayStation a little bit more and do other activities. Join a community organization, get into a bowling league, even just get out and walk around the neighborhood. If you have kids in school, get involved with their PTA. And believe it or not, my ex-wife and I raised a child in the 1990’s without her having a TV in her room, her own personal phone, or us having cable TV. You can do this and turn out a child who becomes a productive adult. We made mistakes along the way and so has she, but nothing too disastrous and we all learned from them. One mistake we made was wanting “stuff” we couldn’t afford – fortunately we worked our way through it.

I live in a nice area of somewhat older homes (circa 1950’s) that’s not too expensive and built back when craftsmanship wasn’t a lost art. No, these homes aren’t all really big and they’re sort of close together, but I like it that way. And I think it’s something we need to get back to.

I’m going to close with a fond memory. When my ex-wife and I lived in Toledo, we lived on a street of mostly older homes in a fairly middle-class neighborhood. The most fun we had were the couple times where we petitioned the city to temporarily close our street for an afternoon and one of my neighbors brought their cousin in to do a hog roast – the rest of us did potluck. The kids could run up and down the street while we caught up with our neighbors and dodged water balloons. Everyone ate well and we all chipped in $5 for the hog roaster.

The reason this worked so well was that we had a good neighborhood where people got to know each other because they’d be outside on the front porch or out doing their yard work. Most of them were older and raised in an era when being neighborly was valued, not having the nicest car or the biggest TV.

So this is a call for community. Let’s find ways to come together and by gosh have some fun with other people!

A 50 year plan: Introduction

Tonight it’s time to get sort of philosophical. I’ve spent a couple days between posts thinking about a number of things and how best to express them.

To start out, the reason I got into the political world was that I saw it as a way to make a difference. Back then I was younger and more idealistic but unfortunately had not a clue how to accomplish what I wanted to do. As I got older, I learned much more about things which are my strengths and those that are my weaknesses, and I tried as much as possible to manage my life to bypass those areas that aren’t my main strengths. One thing I found out rather quickly is that I’m not the prototypical politician by any means. I don’t have the gift of gab and the part about raising money and sucking up to people for votes just doesn’t appeal to me very well either, at least in a large-scale sense. I just deal better with small groups.

On the other hand, I do seem to have an ability to put words to paper (or onto a computer screen) that can become a good argument for the position I’m advocating. And political movements have room for people like myself, so I’ve been graced with attracting notice from various people and getting opportunities that not just anyone can take advantage of. Years ago I helped with the newsletter for our Young Republican club and would write the occasional letter to the editor of our local rag. But this political phase began with my being accepted to write on an occasional basis for the Patriot Post, continued with my original Blogger site, and evolved into monoblogue. And this site continues to grow – this week will be my first 1,000 visitor week according to my Site Meter. Part of that is being in the Maryland Bloggers Alliance and some of that comes from being featured on BlogNetNews Maryland. However, I think there’s more to this modest but blossoming success and I’m led to believe that it’s because I put together a website that doesn’t go into the personal attack mode like some others do. Further, when I write about a problem, more often than not I have some thoughts or suggestions for a solution to this issue.

And this in turn brings me to what I’m going to attempt to begin today.

When I ran for my current post on the Wicomico County Republican Central Committee, the main goal of mine was to make Wicomico County a county where Republicans outnumber Democrats. Part of achieving this in my mind was to get the younger people in Wicomico County to become Republicans because of my belief that it’s in their best interest to follow conservative Republican principles, and that American society will be more successful in the long run if they do. I have no idea of the demographics of my readership but I’m betting the average age is less than 40.

Last year I devoted a lot of time and post space to the Maryland election cycle, which gave me an opportunity to see issues from many different sides. In District 37B there was a candidate named Jim Adkins who, while I didn’t agree with his stance on a number of issues, couched them on the premise of looking at their impact 20 or 30 years into the future. Obviously, parents want what’s best for their kids and I believe that may have been a part of his thinking, but there’s a LOT of politicians on both sides who look only 2-4 years ahead and think solely about maintaining their position of power.

I noted earlier that I was not born to be a politician because my skill set isn’t the same as, say, a Jim Mathias. In some ways this is a bummer because I think I have a lot of good ideas.

But, on the other hand, this is liberating as well. Because I’m not a legislator or seeking an executive-type post, I don’t have to deliver a lot of hollow promises. In fact, my political philosophy may turn some types of people off because I’m the sort who doesn’t believe that government in and of itself should enrich people nor do I think it’s a proper vehicle for wealth transfer. Unfortunately, it’s been noted that “a democracy…can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury.” Since I’m opposed to that concept, there’s no way in hell I could be truthful about my beliefs and ever reach a high enough office to put these plans into action.

In my small way, by beginning these writings I’d like to help begin a movement much as the Federalists did at our nation’s birth. More recently, at least parts of this goal have been accomplished by leaders like Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich. Unfortunately, President Reagan is no longer with us to lead but Gingrich continues to write and speak with a similar eye on the future of America. Like me, he’s not currently shackled by having to pander to an electorate which frees him to state his case for a movement. Whether or not you agreed with the concepts, the Gingrich vision embodied in the 1994 “Contract With America” changed politics in our country.

And therein lies the reason I term this as a fifty year plan. In my eyes, it’s going to take five decades and a dedicated generation to turn back the tide of government that’s not for the people, but for only some of the people and taken from others – particularly taken from those who achieve financial success. Indeed, it’s possible I may not live to see that day come, and there’s always the threats from without that could doom our society as we have come to know it.

For my generation (I’m on the cusp between Boomer and Gen X’er), it may be too late to make a significant change in America. Our hope for change lies in the Millennial Generation, those born after 1980. It’s a group that came of age with Bill Clinton and 9/11, and it’s the one who’s bearing the brunt of the sacrifices in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s for them that I begin this series of writings, which will be on an occasional basis and focus on one particular area that I’d like to see the next generation improve our nation in.

Something tells me that they’ll be more than willing to meet the challenges we face.