Card check just won’t die

A friend who works at a libertarian/free market organization told me this week that donations for anti-EFCA projects are drying up. The Inside-the-Beltway buzz is that card-check (the provision that axes secret ballot requirements from unionization votes) is not as imminent as pro-enterprise groups had feared. But organized labor has friends controlling both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, not to mention a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate. The political environment may never be better to pass card check.

Sure enough, the SEIU launched a campaign to advance card check this week. Predictably, they frame it as necessary to improve the lives of workers. Nothing improves your quality of life like a union goon looking over your shoulder.

It would be unwise for pro-enterprise groups to allow SEIU and its allies to operate without an answer. Otherwise, secret ballot supporters may find themselves playing defense too late to make a difference.

Bookmark and Share

Oh yeah, baby, bail me out…

Yesterday’s fun news of the afternoon was the $5 billion adult entertainment industry bailout proposed by Joe Francis of Girls Gone Wild and Larry Flynt of Hustler.

With Congress was going wilder than any of the barely legal spring breakers has Francis caught on film, the Porn bailout is well timed. The case they lay out similar to the Detroit automakers’: Flynt and Francis (the F&F boys?) argue that thanks to the internet, people just aren’t buying smut in the form of magazines and DVDs anymore. Rather than adapt to the new technology, they argue that the government should fund an old business model – a model which, if not fatally flawed, will certainly never be as profitable as it once was.

Some actually took it seriously: as the story unfolded, the Huffington Post used the occasion to point out how the recession has affected porn. Which goes to show just how ridiculous the concept of corporate welfare is: eventually, the government has to pick and choose which industries to subsidize and which to turn away. As Francis and Flynt show, any industry can claim to “need it so bad,” but Congress has to draw a line somewhere.

Bookmark and Share

Six candidates, two questions, three answers

I finally got around to watching/listening to the entire 90-minute televised RNC Chair debate sponsored by Americans for Tax Reform on Monday. Predictably, there were discussions of technological improvement of party infrastructure, recruiting among young voters and minority populations, and of course political philosophy.

For those party faithful looking for a candidate to emerge from that debate as a well-read scholar of the conservative philosophy that is the bedrock of the party, the debate could only have been a disappointment. There were questions with obvious answers – moderator Grover Norquist asked each candidate if he was prolife, each said yes – and buzz-phrases – the theme of “returning to our party’s small-government roots” was echoed by each candidate.

There were two excellent questions which could have shed some light on each candidate’s understanding of conservatism: “Who is your favorite Republican President?” and “Who is your least favorite Republican President.”

The first question was answered by each candidate in rapid succeession. Each said “Ronald Reagan.” That’s certainly a safe answer, but it would have been nice to hear one candidate say, “Reagan is my favorite, but since everyone else will say that, I’ll throw Calvin Coolidge in there too.” Along with Reagan, Coolidge was the other 20th century President who gave the concept of smaller, restrained government involvement – so mentioning him would have expressed an understanding of how those ideas have been put into practice by a good President. (And I’m not just saying that because I lived in a building named after the man for three happy years.)

On the question about each candidate’s least favorite Republican President, most candidates answered with some variation of the following: “I don’t have a least favorite Republican. Any Republican is better than any Democrat.” If you’re scoring at home, that’s the opposite of philosophical understanding. Give credit to Ken Blackwell, who named Herbert Hoover – Coolidge’s successor who abandoned free market ideas when the economy stalled, making a bad situation worse. Sound familiar?

All this is the long way to say that the RNC chair doesn’t want to go out on an ideological limb. But will they need to?

Nancy Scola at TechPresident sums up an ongoing debate on the right about the balance between the Republican Party’s tactical evolution and philosophical rebirth – and points out that by having a party that’s open to expanded grassroots involvement, the national leaders may not need to be fighting the good fight all the time. As Scola points out, the 1994 Contract with America was less a top-down set of talking points and more a grassroots roadmap for the Republican Revolution, with the focus on local leaders rather than a national figurehead.

The next RNC chair will have to appreciate the role of conservatives in defining the party’s direction and legislative agenda, but he may not need to be the second coming of Russell Kirk.

Bookmark and Share

A vision of Happy Meals yet to come

Wired.com has posted a vision for the 2013 Happy Meal. Some of the cool things include a Capri-sun style beverage container that lets you decide just how cherry you want your cherry Coke to be and a disposable iPod.

But their vision has its disturbing parts. First, the promotional tie-in is for Harriet Potter. (Hollywood isn’t exactly imaginationland, so let’s not give them any more recycling ideas.)

Even more bothersome is the warning from the “Health Czar,” which alerts customers to the common sense conclusion that a McDonald’s-exclusive diet is unhealthy. Of all the elements Wired sardonically predicts, this is the most likely to actually come true – depending on how agressively Obama’s celebrity pick for surgeon general wants to pursue anti-fast-food initiatives.

Bookmark and Share

RNC Chair Debate Week

It’s a big week for the GOP, with no fewer than three different forums for the six candidates vying to be the next RNC chair. The first one is hosted today by Americans for Tax Reform. The race has, as Politico pointed out this morning, laid bare some rifts within the Republican party.

As we listen in to these forums, my personal hope is to hear something more creative than we saw from Republicans over the past two years. Just before Christmas, Rob Willington of RebuildTheParty.com broke down the candidate’s answers to a questionnaire released by Virginia’s RNC Committeeman Morton Blackwell. Willington charted the candidates’ use of several key terms (such as “technology,” “recruitment,” “Internet,” etc.). Though the candidates ran through many of the same themes, there were some differences in how those themes were presented. For instance, Saul Anuzis – the candidate who launched his bid on Twitter – did not mention technology once in his responses.

During the Republican presidential primaries, candidates all but fell over each other themselves “conservative” or quote Ronald Reagan. But as much as I consider myself a conservative who admires Ronald Reagan, I don’t want to hear that from a Republican leader. I want someone who walks the walk – and when they talk the talk, it shouldn’t be directed at the “base” but at the people who should be in the base but aren’t – like the record numbers of people signing up for the party of pay-to-play.

Bookmark and Share

2009: Three Issues to Watch

The conventional wisdom is that the Republican Party will be more aggressive in 2009 and beyond. They will have to be, since they are looking at a filibuster-proof majority of Democrats in the Senate to go along with the Democrat majority in the House and a Democrat President. It will be important, therefore, for Republicans to seize the offensive initiative.

There are three issues which will likely come to a head in 2009 which Republicans can win – if they can get out in front of the story and start framing the debate before their counterparts:

Card Check/Forced Unionization. The Employee Free Choice Act is a proposed law that makes it easier for union “representatives” to intimidate workers into joining unions. (This can’t be repeated enough.) Aside from giving Democrats a healthy stream of campaign cash and workers, stripping workers of the right to vote against unionization on a private ballot would likely expand unionization – which, as anyone from the American auto industry can tell you, will serve to make American goods more expensive and less competitive in the marketplace. The right to a secret ballot is sacred for most Americans.

Business Bailouts. Speaking of Detroit, industries are already lining up with their hands out hoping to snag a share of the federal budget. Commercial real estate, retail stores, and even newspapers are rightfully asking why they shouldn’t get the same help as other industries. Handing out money hand-over-fist will earn votes in certain states and communities, but it won’t help the economy. And, in general, bailouts are unpopular among voters. Taking a stand against corporate entitlements would be a good way to demonstrate a broad support for entitlement reform.

Health Care. This may be the biggest challenge for the Republican minority, and it’s the issue they are already the most behind on. Given the state of the economy, a federal health care entitlement figures to be a popular program – especially if common misconceptions continue to be spread without answer. The Obama Pre-Administration has already solicited “public input” for its health care plan by having supporter organize “community discussions” during a time when many groups that would oppose his plan were taking a Christmas vacation. Of course, there’s plenty wrong with allowing the same people who run government institutions like the school systems, the IRS, the DMV, etc. to run medical care, but that case has to be made clearly, aggressively, and repeatedly.

These issues may not be the top three on President Obama’s docket, but Republicans can’t allow their agenda to be dictated by Democrats as they have for the past four years. These issues, while challenging, will help Republicans regain some control of the nation’s policy agenda.

Bookmark and Share

Trend of 2008: Pop-Politics

Barack Obama’s election was historic on many levels; aside from being elected America’s first black President, Obama raised more money for his campaign alone than had ever been spent by all candidates running in any previous Presidential campaign. Incredibly, he did all this just four years after first popping up on the national radar by having an innovative campaign that used online tactics to achieve offline results.

But beyond his tactics, Obama benefited from an intersection of pop culture and politics. Viral videos like “1984,” “Obama Girl,” and “Yes We Can” underscored that much of the hype and excitement around Obama came from beyond political circles: none of these internet famous videos was produced by the campaign, but both served to underscore campaign messages. (In the case of “Yes We Can,” the Obama campaign almost immediately promoted the video on its own site.)

The need to create excitement around a candidate is nothing new – just watch any footage or read any account of a successful campaign rally since the founding of the Republic. But the funny, creative videos that supported Obama without overt political messages, allowed the campaign to push the storyline that Obama was wildly popular. The campaign itself paid careful attention to imagery, creating a website with the visual qualities of popular online communities rather than traditional campaign sites. Even the “O”-shaped bumper stickers were different from the usual, run-of-the-mill rectangles that usually pop up in traffic every four Octobers (including those used by his opponent).

These tactics helped simplify Obama’s messages to a broad range of voters, allowing his official campaign to avoid discussions of policy specifics through much of the campaign – discussions which could only serve to drive away voters attracted to Obama’s celebrity status.

The Obama campaign’s strategies were ultimately the same as any other campaign’s: Supportive voters were identified, contacted, and encouraged to get to the polls. And they did it well; when the votes were counted on November 4, the victory was decisive. But Obama looked like a winner long before Election Day thanks to non-traditional message-delivery vehicles which simplified his messages and took his candidacy from politics to pop-culture. And that can only help those outreach efforts.

Simple messages have always been better in politics, which is why the advent of pop politics is a “trend” and not a story, development, or event. But it’s an increasingly relevant trend, especially for conservatives and Republicans grappling with their messages in 2009, 2010, and beyond. Since voters now face so many information sources competing for their attention, a message delivery vehicle which entertains is more likely to be successful.

Bookmark and Share

New Year’s Revolution

As 2008 ends, the story of the year is obviously Barack Obama’s election – and in tactical political circles, the talk is of the online tactics used by Team Obama. It’s a big theme in the current race for the RNC chair, and various Republican organizations – such as Rebuild The Party – are calling on new party leadership to embrace technology.

In this rush to keep up with the Democrats, The Next Right blogger Dale Franks adds an important perspective about technology in politics. Franks points out that the whistles and bells of online activity are worthless if they do not produce offline results.

As conservatives start putting together their plans for 2009, they should heed Franks’s advice: technology can be a tool to deliver strong messages, but without those messages it’s just a way to make noise.

Bookmark and Share

Radio Nowhere

With Washington DC run by avowed liberals, the New York Times predicts an upswing in conservative talk radio. Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, and Rudy Giuliani are expected to join the ranks of Limbaugh and Hannity in stoking America’s unrest with inside-the-beltway politics.

It’s a start, and these voices will have their place. But make no mistake: they represent an old guard and an old medium.

The problem with radio is that, like television, it’s passive. So as millions tune in, it becomes easy for the so-called “main stream media” to dismiss Rush Limbaugh as a single voice delivering soliloquies from the fringe of American politics. They don’t want to see the millions of heads nodding in agreement.

But what if those nodding heads used their voice to speak out? That would be hard to ignore. That’s where a medium like the internet can go beyond where talk radio has gone before.

Bookmark and Share