I think by this point that it should be painfully obvious to everyone Republicans aren’t conservatives and conservatives aren’t Republicans. I’ve been struggling lately to define what, exactly, the Republican Party is on a philosophical level – and I think I’ve finally settled on an answer. The Republican Party represents an entirely different branch of conservative thought, completely different and separate from religious conservatism, fiscal conservatism, libertarianism, or any other form of conservatism that leaps to mind. Unquestioningly, the Republican Party is an entirely different beast. It is popular conservatism.

What is popular conservatism? Simply put, to win an election in America, a political party needs a majority of the votes. Popular conservatism is a spin off of the conservative movement designed to appeal to over 50% of the electorate. It acknowledges the fact that only about 40% of the population identify themselves as conservatives, that there are philosophical differences within the conservative community which further divides it, and that to win elections appeals have to be made to independent voters as well. To win elections, the conservative movement needs to garner the support of that other 11% and remain a cohesive faction (that is to say, one group can’t leave and form it’s own splinter party or the whole thing goes down the tubes.)

In politics, when an ideological rift opens in a faction, there are two ways to recover: reach out to those you disagree with and put aside your differences to achieve what you all agree are the most important things, or cast off the rogue elements and either acquire or ally with a new constituency. With regards to the latter, the second step is critical to the process. If you decide to disavow people who disagree with you, you’re going to lose those votes. If we were merely talking philosophy, votes are irrelevant. In elections, however, they’re extremely important. You just can’t tell a sizable chunk of your voting electorate, “we don’t want your vote any more.” It’s suicide.

That said, disagreements are inevitable in life. When the disagreement happens between two completing philosophies, nothing much comes of it. They can agree to disagree or go their separate ways and no one outside of their social circles every really notices. When the disagreements happen inside a party, on the other hand, the potential for major political change is incredible and it invariably leads to an evolution of political ideology.

When this evolution of party platforms, constituencies, and identity occurs, the philosophies tend to drift apart and mutate into entirely different beasts, each of which claim to be the “true” philosophy. [Corollary: Ask an Evangelical Lutheran who the real Christians are and see what happens.] This process – this evolution – this mutation – whatever you want to call it – is directly responsible for the “conservative philosophy” of the Republican Party.

Is the Republican Party really conservative? Well, yes and no. The best way to think of the Republican Party is to think of it as a coalition of philosophies. Social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, and moderates all contribute to the agenda and ideology of the Republican Party. Social conservatives disagree with fiscal conservatives and libertarians about expanded welfare programs, for example. Libertarians disagree with fiscal conservatives on the powers that should be granted to law enforcement. Moderates would prefer to be more liberal and compromise far more on virtually every issue.

All of these internal disagreements and dialogues change the core ideology of the party. Republican’s have to make compromises and set priorities that appease the group as a whole, and these decisions do not necessarily conform to anyone’s definition of true conservatism. The resulting philosophical construct is an aggregated patchwork of ideas that is neither truly conservative, nor intellectually coherent – but it is conservatism. Kind of.

The Republican Party is currently looking to reinvent and rebuild itself. Social conservatives are calling for the expelling of those who do not conform to their particular brand of conservatism. Libertarians want to liberalize the party’s social platform and reduce the power of law enforcement and counter-terrorism forces. Moderates want to spur the party to action over the economic crisis while fiscal conservatives are screaming bloody murder over the budget.

Regardless of how everything pans out, the Republicans will have to evolve for the next election. The evolution will not result in a true conservative party. It will be, as it has always been, a unique creation which is completely independent of it’s constituent philosophies.

Does anyone else smirk contemptuously when they hear the phrase “party of no” thrown around? I don’t know what planet these people come from, but said to me coming from them, “no” is a badge of honor.

I realize it’s somewhat trendy to call the opposition the party of no. The Republicans labeled the Democrats with the exact same phrase for the exact same reasons, with the exact same effects back during the Bush administration. “Oh,” they moaned, as if the opposition was supposed to something other than oppose, “the Democrats aren’t letting the party in control of the legislature pass any legislation.”

Asinine as the assertion may be, I can understand where they’re coming from. It’s frustrating when the minority won’t let you ride rough shot all over them. Gosh, when you can only pass the least psychotic of your agenda, your spending gets reigned in, and people start pointing out all the obvious flaws in your legislation, it’s a total bummer.

Take a look around. Republicans are stepping up domestic surveillance and warrantless wire taps. Democrats are vastly expanding welfare programs. Republicans started the bail outs. Democrats are nationalizing entire sectors of our economy. Spending is out of control. We’re cutting taxes. States are going bankrupt. Just about the only thing we can say no to is enforcing our immigration laws – but why the hell not, we’re giving them free heath care, social security benefits, and discounted education.

The truly amusing thing about this farce of an insult is that when it comes to saying “no” to things, neither party can really claim any measure of self control. We don’t have a party of no, but we freekin’ need one.

Think about it, what’s wrong with saying no? No more taxes. No more spending. No more pet projects. No more agencies. No more regulations. No more subsidies. No more bail outs. No more stomping on the bill of rights. No more discrimination. No more junk science. No more fuzzy math. No more knee jerk reactions.

What do you say when people run with scissors? What do you say when people play with fire? What do you say when total strangers ask to borrow money? What do you say when people play in traffic? What do you say about driving after six or eight shots? What do you say about juggling big knives? What do you say child pornography?

What do you say about more government?

Say it loud. Say it proud. Hell no!

It happens all too often…

Walk on down to your local liqueur superstore on a Saturday morning and you’ll see it happening: cute girls – probably early teens, maybe early twenties – wearing low cut shirts and short skirts printed with their company logo all over it. They’ll flash you a coy smile and press a shot into your hand. A little eye candy and some free booze? Who could say no? Sure, it tastes like nail polish remover, and you only came in for a case of beer, but there’s nothing wrong with having a little fun while you’re there. Two or three shots and a little harmless flirting later, picking up a bottle or two sounds like a pretty good idea.

Head over to your local appliance superstore and ask for help buying something big. The salesman’s barely a kid, but he’ obviously into this stuff. He can tell you how many pixels the compressor gets to the ohm and how you can save money in the winter by changing a couple settings. It the one he would buy, and he knows what he’s talking about. Get the extended warranty, the extra coverage option, and the in-store service plan while you’re at it. He would.

It’s a classic sales technique. It’s not as underhanded as bait and switch and they’re not exactly lying to you, but it’s dishonest all the same. “I know what I’m doing,” says the salesperson. “You can trust me.”

If you don’t know much about cars, you know what I’m talking about. You have to do your homework. If you don’t, words like “reliability” and “low-maintenance” and “resale value” are used in ways you’ve never seen before. You have to place your trust in a salesman. Can you trust him? If you can, how much trust do you give him? Ever walked into a dealership not knowing what you really want? He’s got plenty of advice for you, like that chicks dig spinning rims and if you might have a kid in a year or two, you should really get the bigger SUV.

To you and me, it seems ridiculous. We’d never fall for that kind of stunt. So why do politicians constantly fall for it? Why do we constantly fall for politicians we know have no interest in serving the people?

I roll my eyes every time I see the poll numbers about which candidate I’d rather have a beer with. So what if the president looks good without his shirt on? If Hillary is doing shots on the campaign trail, shouldn’t that tell us something? … something profoundly wrong? Does the fact that McCain’s teeth look a creepy change his stance on cap and trade? Does Sotomayor’s (I’m pronouncing it So-toe-my-err on general bloody principle) skin color make her a better judge?

Why do we do it? Why do we feel the need to base our judgments on trivial things? It’s easier. It doesn’t require as much effort. We don’t have to think about it. Why bother doing the research and taking the time to learn something about what you’re considering when you can just ask someone else?

It’s lazy. It’s willful ignorance (stupidity?).

I would say that we, as Americans, deserve more from our leaders but we, as Americans, have made our choice in leadership and this is what we’ve chosen. Next time, vote for the old, mumbling man who tells you the ugly truth. The guy with the slick hair and the nice smile just wants to sell you a bigger government.

As some of you are aware, I occasionally kick around the idea of getting a masters degree. When I entertain the idea, I usually consider either an MBA or a law degree. During my most recent flirtation, I decided to try to find out exactly how much a degree would cost me, should I actually peruse it. Needless to say, education is incredibly expensive, and with the price of school going up and business and law being both popular and prestigious, the price tag was well beyond anything I could hope to pay. Naturally, the first thing I did upon figuring this out was to take a look at the scholarship opportunities available to hopefully offset the cost.

The results of that research remain a burden to my soul.

Apparently, if I was black, there would be scores of scholarships, grants, and guaranteed loans to choose from. So much money, in fact, that were I to peruse them all (and, again, if I were black) I could easily afford to go to school, buy books, and have a little left over. People would literally pay me to go to school. Likewise, if I were Hispanic, plenty of doors would open and non-profit organizations would gladly give me an opportunity to go to school. Unfortunately, I’m white. There were maybe half a dozen (I’m being generous with that estimation) grants and scholarships available for me to apply for. There were a grand total of zero white-only financial aid options.

I realize that to some people this may sound like the whining of a privileged white male bemoaning social justice, but there’s no justice here. Minorities deserve special treatment, the apologists claim, because the prosperity of whites was built upon the enslavement of others and therefore reverse racism is merely the leveling of the playing field. On this, I call bullshit. It’s absolutely absurd. The insanity of such a statement is so enormous that I have trouble articulating how ridiculous it is because of the sheer volume of reasons that instantly leap to mind and struggle to come rushing forth all at once.

First of all, such a claim is based on the notion that I, an innocent person who has never discriminated against someone, must pay for the actions of people who lived over a hundred and fifty years ago and goes against everything – and I do mean everything – that a just society stands for. Our constitution explicitly forbids such nonsense. We do not charge children with the crimes of their parents. We are not Communists. We do not round up and kill families for the sins of one member. We are not Nazis. We don’t bulldoze villages because someone who used to be from there did something bad. We are not the Taliban. We do not execute rape victims for dishonoring their families.

We are a society of law governed by fair and just laws that say, “if he’s not guilty, we don’t punish him.” Clearly, I, as a human being under the age of 144 years old, have never owned slaves. The notion that modern Americans should be punished for owning slaves generations ago is no less ridiculous than suggesting that we go out and invade the African nations that sold them to us – you know, for social justice.

And even if we suspend all rational thought for a moment and suppose that African Americans whose ancestors were enslaved had a legitimate grievance against the whites who enslaved them, the policies of reverse racism ignore the fact that most whites back then didn’t own slaves. It ignores the fact that many whites immigrated to this country long after the Civil War. It ignores the fact that not all blacks in this country are here as a result of slavery. Are you going to tell me that the son of a Nigerian who came to this country in the late 60s fleeing their civil war deserves some sort of advantage over the grandson of a German immigrant who came to this country fleeing Nazi rule in the 1930s? Is that fair? How does that even make sense?

Let us suppose for a moment, in our madness, that all people who have pale skin (regardless of who they are or how they got here) somehow owe something to those people with dark skin (again, regardless of who they are or what their exact grievance is) because of a socio-economic system (set up hundreds of years ago, shattered generations ago, and completely outlawed decades ago) and that, somehow, two wrongs make a right and reverse racism was somehow acceptable … supposing all of that, how does any of that entitle other racial groups – I’m looking at the Hispanic and the Asian communities here – to be allowed to demand the same sort of discriminatory advantages?

What claim do you have to reverse racism that the Irish didn’t have? Or the Italians? Or even the Polish? You’ve been exploited by overworking, underpaying people who want to take advantage of the fact that you’re new to the country and don’t speak English or have any solid connections in your new country? That’s immigration in general. Anyone who gives up their residence, culture, and lifestyle is going to have to deal with it. Are you discriminated against because of your strange customs? The same thing was said about German-Americans. Are you paid lower wages because of an influx of willing replacements? So were the Irish.

Just about the only major case of institutionalized racism I can find regarding Asians is the Japanese Internment during World War II, during which time thousands of (white) German- and Italian-Americans were also detained, and while that is quite possibly one of the saddest chapters of our nation’s history, formal apologies and over 1.6 billion dollars in reparations have been paid to the Japanese people who were detained there.

So, explain to me again why people of a certain skin color deserve a competitive advantage over people of another skin color?

Those who attempt to justify this type of racism without just coming right out and admitting that they are, in fact, racists tend to all bemoan the same point: they live in poor socio-economic conditions. Unfortunately for them, there’s a flaw in their argument. People who suggest that because of disadvantaged socio-economic conditions, an entire race of people should be given an unfair advantage in life over their equally disadvantaged white counterparts are engaged in blatant racism.

Yes, I’m white. I also grew up dirt poor, the son of a single mother who worked as a secretary and a father who couldn’t afford to pay child support. Sound familiar? To make ends meet my mother had to throw Tupperware parties and make my clothes instead of buying them from a department store. I grew up lower class. My mother was able to buy a home and eventually help me some with college, but my father, to this day, still wanders from place to place looking for work. If I hadn’t started my own business and become comfortably upper-lower class, I’d still be making 9 bucks an hour working security like I was before – or maybe 10 working construction and busting my ass like I did when I was in college.

Nothing was handed to me. I haven’t received any special favors because I’m white. And yet, if I were a minority, I could apply for dozens more grants for college. After I graduated, no one held a spot for me to meet their Affirmative Action quotas. No one says, “Hey, he’s white, let’s promote him to showcase our diversity!”

I’m not asking for hand outs. What I want is equality.

You can’t despise racism with one hand and promote reverse racism with the other. You can’t play the race card at every opportunity and then claim to be a “civil rights” group. You can’t whine and complain about the man holding you back when you’ve never made an effort to better yourself. Doing so is hypocritical and manipulative at best. At its core, it’s blatantly racist and evil.

Equality means everyone has an equal playing field. Holding someone back because of the color of their skin is racism. Giving an advantage to someone because of the color of their skin is racism. Stereotyping black people as victims is racist. Stereotyping white people as oppressors is racist. I realize this is asking a bit much, but I’m begging you on this one: Please, can we stop seeing race and start seeing people? Can we do our best to realize that as much as we resemble one another, every person has a unique situation, temperament, and beliefs? Can we admit that these differences transcend racial lines and that deep down inside we are all human?

All I’m asking for is common sense and free-thinking.

… I have a feeling I’ll be waiting a while.

The overt racism in this country boggles my mind sometimes. With the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the supreme court two days ago, all manor of vermin are coming out of the woodwork on both sides of the debate. Conservatives are making the same charges that liberals were making about Miguel Estrada when Bush nominated him in 2001, liberals are going along with Obama and praising Sotomayor in what can only be described as partisan support, and the media is being laughably two faced about it all. Face it, unless you followed her appointment as a Circuit Court judge 11 years ago, you probably know nothing about her – and even if you did, it’s been a while and she’s developed quite a judicial record since then. Until the research is done, know one really knows anything but the barest details about her.

Naturally, no one’s keeping any of this in mind. Instead we’re all flipping right the fudge out. Why? Because she’s (gasp!) hispanic. The left is pushing for her because she would be the first hispanic Supreme Court Justice (as vigorously as they pushed back against Estrada, ironically) and bring the number of female Justices to two. The right is saying that she’s only getting the job because she’s a she and hispanic.

Conventional wisdom, you see, says that if you’re a minority, you deserve special treatment because of the color of your skin. Questioning this is, obviously, racism. Virtually everyone who sees the flaw in this argument believes that any minority promoted to a position of power got their job as a result of racism. The insanity of it all blows my mind.

Has anyone honestly asked themselves if she’s the best qualified person for the job? At this point, does anyone even have the information available to make that kind of judgment? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if there was some kind of process to find these things out? You know, like a hearing or a committee or something?

/facepalm