With Healthcare for All? Part I

President Obama hopes to succeed where President Clinton failed: securing universal healthcare benefits for all Americans. For most Americans without a basic understanding of basic economics, the lure of universal healthcare is overwhelming. The public is flooded with heartbreaking stories where Americans cannot afford health treatment or medical bills put so-called "working Americans" in massive debt (the Obama administration is especially empathetic about the latter). Now, don't get me wrong; my heart goes out to all hard-working Americans who find it hard to make ends meet when healthcare becomes expensive. But we must understand that the world is not perfect. Unfortunately no government has the power to create a utopia and thus we must always settle for the best possible outcome, which is never the perfect one. We must always ask ourselves what are the hidden consequences of our actions and will it lead to a positive gain or a loss? Few Americans are capable of weighing the various consequences because basic economic knowledge precludes them. Below is a list of reasons why socialized healthcare does not lead to a positive gain.

1. Government can reduce the price of something but never its cost. Part of Obama's pledge is to make healthcare affordable for the average American. Unfortunately, government cannot wave a magic wand and reduce the cost of anything. True government can force healthcare providers to sell their services for a limited amount but this does not mean that the costs required to provide those services will decrease in the slightest. This means that health care companies will start to lose money when a price ceiling is placed on a good or service.

2. Price Gouging is Impossible "But!" the average American will cry, "who cares if the health care companies revenues are less? Aren't they all a bunch of greedy price gougers anyway?" Yet the health care providers are not capable of price gouging. Why? Because health care companies do not set prices. What!? Yes that is right, producers do not set prices. Prices result in the interactions between buyers and sellers. Publilius Syrus once said: "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it." The price of something is maximum price a seller will sell his goods or services considering the minimum amount the buyer is willing to pay for them. A seller may put the price tag for his goods or services extremely high, but all this will do is cause customers to stop buying those goods and services. Patients will choose other health care providers who do set their prices so high and thus the price-gouging health care provider will lose customers and money. Companies have an incentive to sell for the least amount possible rather than the maximum amount.

3. It's about capital. Hight profits are not a bad thing either. People often think its scandalous when companies make huge profits, especially the health care industry which is in the business of people's health. Yet what few people realize is that the profits that businesses make are not horded in a vault somewhere, where the CEO can mimic Scrooge McDuck and go swimming in a sea of money. Few healthcare companies are privately owned, which means that essentially the company is owned by the public and the high profits stay within the company and not in an owner's wallet. Most of the high-ups in large corporation are salaried so high profits do not mean that their personal incomes will increase. Most of the time the CEO is hired and paid by a board of executives so price-gouging by no means will make him any richer. Instead all those profits, which is called capital, are re-invested back into the company to produce a better business, whether by improving the quality of the good or service or hiring better workers. Thus when you restrict the amount of revenue a health care company receives, you are reducing its ability to improve. That meants less money is spent on cancer research, workers won't receive raises, coverage isn't expanded, etc. Socialized healthcare, by restricting the amount of profits, will stagnate the quality of healthcare.

4. It's also about incentives. Socialized healthcare also reduces incentives, both by healthcare providers and American citizens. First, when health care is "free" an artificially high demand is generated. If McDonalds started to hand out free cheeseburgers, imagine how many people would come to McDonalnds to buy cheeseburgers! Most likely the line for burgers would be out the door and around the corner. On the other hand, when cheeseburgers are sold for the regular amount there is no line out the door and around the corner. The reason is that the price of a burger means that only those who really want a cheeseburger will come into McDonalds to get one. When they are free anyone who passes buy will come in and get one and eventually demand will be so high that McDonalds will run out of burgers! The long lines at the registers also means that those who really wanted the cheesburgers, say a kid and his dad who just finished up a soccer game, will have to wait in the same long lines with all those people who may not really want a cheeseburger all that much. The same is true with universal, "free" healthcare. Once healthcare is cheap for anyone, people will start to visit the doctor more than they did when they had to pay at the very least a co-pay. When healthcare actually cost a person for using it, they are more likely to consider whether or not they really need medical attention. It will also means that doctor's offices and hospitals will have large lines as more people use healthcare now that it is free or very cheap than when it cost money. People who truly need medical attention will have to wait in very long lines along with those who show up with the common cold. As demand for healthcare increases it will also mean that the cost of health care (though not the price) will increase and the quality of healthcare will decrease as a company's profits decrease. Workers wage's won't increase and so talented workers will go where they will be paid better. This could create a shortage of doctors and nurses if their wages do not rise with the rest of the workforce. This means less doctors will go to medical school and less nurses will go to nursing school. In this way just as the demand for these jobs increases, their supply decreases because the health care companies can't pay them enough. The would-be doctor will become a lawyer or an engineer instead. When this happens, our health care system's quality will decrease dramatically.

Part II will be up tomorrow.

Navigating Through the Media

We live in a busy world where there barely seems to time to relax for some people. Whether it’s because of work, school, children, or keeping the house in order, we seem to have a chronic lack of time and thus we prefer things fast; fast food, fast internet, fast transportation, and fast news. Often times getting things faster is a good thing because it helps us be more productive and gives us more time to relax. However, Americans need to realize that some things simply cannot be rushed. One such thing is a cultivated and informed intellect. Due to Deweyan educational philosophy which has dominated American education since 1900, the traditional Republican ideal of the educated individual has gone by the wayside in favor of educational specialization. People are no longer educated but trained. This is extremely dangerous for our American Republic since an informed and educated electorate is fundamental to the democratic system.


It is our civic duty to elect representatives who will keep to the constitution and protect and better our country. Therefore it is important that every American, regardless of their status in society, be informed about current issues and their context and be able to discern between good and bad policies. To be a discerning voter one must also be a careful learner. Fast media is another thing we cannot afford in our society. As tempting as it is to get all of our information from media outlets we must remember that the primary concern of all media is ratings. This does not necessarily mean that media is untruthful but there is a tendency by the media to sensationalize and distort stories in order to get more viewers. The specific media outlet may also be motivated by the biases of many of the reporters and anchors, whether conservative or liberal. Finally most people working for new agencies are not experts in politics, history, or economics so their coverage of politics, world events, and policies may not always be trustworthy. Therefore, below I have written some advice as to how to be well-informed in the age of mass media.


1. Do not use mass media as your primary source of information on politics, policies, or the external world. As stated above, mass media can be sensationalized, over-simplified, biased, or simply uninformed. Take a break from reading fiction and read several good books on history and economics by scholarly, peer reviewed authors. Popular authors will have the same faults of mass media but a peer-reviewed book has been swept over for biases, inaccuracies, and distortion. These books will give you a good foundation for when you watch the news or read a newspaper so you can know about the historical context of an event and pick up distortions of the facts, sensationalizing, and oversimplification in the mass media.

2. Do not rely on the talking heads or talk radio for your information either. They can be interesting and entertaining or may even be political whistle blowers. Yet like mass media, despite claims otherwise, their chief concern is ratings. They also have the same concerns as traditional media outlets. In addition talk radio and talking heads do not even pretend to be unbiased so there is precious little critical thinking in the news they present.

3. Prefer newspapers and media outlets’ online articles to their visual counterparts. Having the text in front of you allows you carefully digest the information presented and reread parts of the article. Sometimes when something is said on TV it can sound better than it would if it were carefully read. Also, many anchors and reporters are chosen more so because of their attractive looks and good presentation than their expertise in the world around them, while newspapers and online articles do not have this problem

4. Whenever you watch the news or read the article look for the chief facts about the news story, thing such as what is the story about, where does it take place, and who is involved. Stay away from mass media interpretations of the stories and its significance. Use your own critical thinking, background studies, and later research to determine these. Also, do not feel obligated to read the entire article, but scan for the important facts.

5. Subscribe to a good monthly journal where significance and interpretation from the previous month can be discussed by experts.

6. Always think critically when reading or watching the news.

7. Do not watch the news media religiously but only keep the news on for extended periods of time when real news stories are under way, e.g. wars, elections, national crises, etc. All other times news tends to be hyped and sensationalized for ratings.

8. Remember, although blindly trusting the media is tempting because it is fast and easy accessible, it tends to always be of the highest quality because it depends on hyped headlines and non-experts. Therefore, do research on your own and make sure that you are an intellectually cultivated individual. The security and prosperity of our nation depends on it.

Some Thoughts on the Church

This morning I was grabbing some dollies from the parking at Lowe’s where I work when I came across a truck that was covered in bumper stickers that were conveying messages of what one might call the persuasion of the religious right. Essentially, they were comparing President Obama to the Antichrist and democrats as demons. Some of the bumper stickers used Bible verses while one was laced with profanity. Another thing to keep in mind that this couples of the “Religious Right” was at Lowe’s at 10:30 am on a Sunday morning (due to a scheduling mistake I was forced to work Sunday morning even though I had informed Lowe’s that I had church every Sunday). Now I am a both a committed Christian and a committed conservative. I am fearful that many of the programs that Obama is instituting are coming not from good economics but rather from the president’s commitment to egalitarianism and democratic socialism and will do a great deal of damage to this country’s economy and its finances. However, I believe that it is absolutely inappropriate to disrespect the President of the United States, especially by using sections of the Bible. St. Paul taught, regarding those in positions of civic authority, that we must give “respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.” (Romans 13:7). It is helpful to keep in mind that Paul was speaking of those very pagans were persecuted Christ’s Church.


What I saw this morning reinforced my fear that the Religious Right is doing more harm to Christianity than help. Some in the Religious Right are also extremely un-Biblical in their ministry, if it can be called that. They make many secular people fear giving Christianity any force in society because of the Religious Right’s angry rhetoric, such as: God Hates Gays, God allowed 9/11 to happen because of gays, and God sent Hurricane Katrina to punish New Orleans because of its immorality. First this is unbiblical because God forbids us to assume that we, apart from His Word, can assume to know His will (see Isaiah 55:9). They belie the fact that the chief message of Christianity is not hatred towards non-Christians but rather grace. Often Christians believe that must choose between a full-out crusade against secularists in society or acceptance. I would propose that neither of these choices are biblical. As Christians we are called to live godly lives, fulfill the Cultural Mandate, and fulfill the Great Commission. The Bible nowhere tells Christians to launch a Crusade against the non-Christians of the world. Rather non-Christians are to be dealt with evangelism, where as Christians we can convey to those who do not know Christ his wonderful love that, at the price of the cross, bought us grace so that we might be restored as the children of God.


Sometimes pastors, especially some of the ones I see on TV, give full sermons condemning the godlessness of the world. To be sure, the Bible affirms that the very definition of the “world” is that which is godless. It is the City of Man. Yet St. Paul says “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. ‘Purge the evil person from among you.’” (I Corinthians 12-13). Christians must never accept the godlessness of City of Man, which is the world, but are to leave the judgment of the world to God. Rather Christians are to focus on improving the piety of the church. Christians need to say less harsh things about non-Christians and say more about the failure of those within the Church to fully live up to the model that Christ set for us. Over and over again the Apostles taught that the best way to transform the world for Christ was not through angry rhetoric but by living godly and joyful lives so that the world might see the power that is in Christ. Christians are also should be imitators of God’s mercy by loving the unsaved just as God loves us who were at one time also unsaved. It is important to remember St. Paul’s constant admonition not to boast. Thus Christians should remember that, apart from the grace of God, we are no different that the homosexuals, the sexually immoral, and the moral relativists who compose much of what Christians refer to as “the world.”


It is telling that all of the condemnations in the apostolic letters are aimed, not at condemning the world, but at condemning the immoral and scandalous behavior of those in the church. Christians always be models of God’s grace and love to fallen world as we are called to be imitators of Christ, who is described as the friend of sinners. So did God send 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina to punish immoral Americans? Perhaps, but only God knows for sure, therefore I will not speak with confidence as to why God allowed these things to happen. Personally, I believe it is just as likely that God sent for the church so that in a time of crisis God’s Church might emerge as a leader in these troubled times in a fallen world. Therefore, Christians should be concerned about improving the piety of the church so that the transforming power of Christianity can be truly manifested.

History

History is for most people a boring subject. For most this is because it is about the past, which people don’t feel has much to do with them. The American industrialist Henry Ford once said “history is bunk.”Many people would agree emphatically with his statement and add that they should never have to take the miserable subject in school ever again. However, before you write off history, let me pose this profound statement to you: history is the only thing you can know for certain. The scientist will immediately scoff at this statement. But please pause and think it over for a minute. Say you are researching how chemical A will react with chemical B. The event happens and you prepare to draw a conclusion. But upon what basis are you to make your conclusion? Why, it is history! The history of the event of the reaction of chemicals A and B. Unless as a person, you are capable of reliving the exact moment of the chemical reaction while simultaneously writing the conclusion your information is passed upon the memory of past events. We are all involved in history everyday by recalling past memories and interpreting them or understanding them.

History is fundamentally important to our everyday lives. We avoid touching a hot stove because we remember in the history of our lives touching such a stove once in the past and being burned by it. Most of our actions are based on our remembrance of the past. Imagine what your relationships would be like with your friends, girlfriends or boyfriends, and husbands or wives if you suddenly suffered a bout of amnesia and could not remember anything. You could not remember how to please them or talk to them or, if need be, deal with them. In reality everyone is concerned with history in one form or another. History is not important not only on a personal basis, however. If, as a society we refuse to remember the past we will be like the foolish little boy who cannot remember that the hot stove burns him. Now I do not mean in any way to convey in this analogy that history comes in cycles. I do not believe it does, but the problems and challenges we face today have been experienced by countless generations before us because they are the challenges and problems of humanity. It is foolish to have their examples and not learn from them. History does not repeat itself but the human experience and human characteristics endure throughout history. History does not simply teach us about people who lived long ago but also tells us about ourselves. It teaches what humanity is capable of; both in creative power and in depravity.

History is also important because cultures develop historically. History tells a great deal about where we and other countries in the world are today and how we got there. Understanding the history of the United States should be important to anyone who claims to be a good American citizen. We can understand what policies failed in the past and avoid them in the future. If you listen to any of the talking heads on TV or radio they almost always will try to use history as a verification of the policy they are promoting. If Americans had a better understanding of history they would see that such historical "proofs" are often the result of bad history (See my blog on historical fallacies). History helps develop a critical mind. An understanding of foreign cultures and how they developed is also key for voters who are elected leaders that deal with American foreign policy. I believe one the reasons that Americans are so disliked around the world is because we have a poor understanding of other countries. For instance, I believe that Americans have a poor understanding of the Middle East or even Europe which has not helped the United States positively interact with these areas of the globe.

I would encourage you to take a closer look at history and understand its importance. People are far too influenced by Deweyian "practical" education. The average person and even a great many in acamedia are specialists and do not have a broad education. As a result they tend to be very narrow minded. An education in engineering has a good many applications. It helps us build better buildings, machines, and bridges. But engineering cannot tell us more about the world around us or ourselves. History, which is ultimately the study of people throughout history, is the best at educating us about the world and equipping us with the tools to be good citizens.

Between One Socialist and Another?

Preident Obama is extending an arm of friendship toward Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez at the Summit of the Americas. The two have discussed resuming diplomatic relations which were severed last September by the Bush administration. Chavez was even nice enough to offer Obama a book. It's title: Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. The author, Uruguayan journalist Eduardo Galeano, blames countries like the US for exploitng Latin America. Obama said that the book was "a nice gesture." This is akin to if Khruschev offered Kennedy a copy of Das Kapital at the Vienna Conference and Kennedy referred to it as a "nice gesture." I would humbly suggest to writers such as Galeano that the notoriously corrupt and irresponsible governments (such as Chavez's) that have misruled Latin America for over two centuries are the real exploiters. Obama claims that his warm exchanges with Chavez are part of his campaign to "reach out to" America's enemies (the assumption being that it is the fault of America that they are our enemies). I would like to point out to Mr. Obama that Chavez has currently undermined the democratic process in Venezuela by changing the constitution, albeit by plebecite, so that he can become president for life. Chavez has also accused a Venezuelan opposition leader of trumped up charges of fraud. Economists also believe that Chavez may be driving his country toward fiscal ruining. He has relied on socialist programs to gain much support from the populace but with oil prices at $40 a barrel and the Venezuelan state-owned oil company PDVSA running what is believed to be severe defecits by some, Chavez could be cooking a recipe for ruin. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden has said: "Here's a case where I would watch for behavior, not for rhetoric, and the behavior of President Chavez over the past years has been downright horrendous -- both internationally and with regard to what he's done internally inside Venezuela,"

So why is Obama courting this would socialist dictator? Apart from the fact that Chavez and Obama's fiscal and economic policies are alike in many aspects, it would be good to remember Venezuela has lots of oil. In Obama's justification for friendly relations with Venezuela he noted that "they [Venezuela] own Citgo, the oil company." When Bush removed a horrendous dictator in Iraq there were cries of "blood for oil" yet similar denunciations are not made when Obama gets cozy with a man that has undermined the democratic process in his country and is well on the way of becoming a dictator himself.

Some Historical Fallacies

Today I sat in my economics class at college and had a hard time controlling the outburst that was building within in. It is the last day before Easter break, and as many of the students had skipped class to catch early flights back to their homes our professors decided to give a lecture on the economics of war. However, in the process, my libertarian professor proceeded to put forth some serious historical fallacies. Since I have to wait several hours to be picked up before heading home, and my roommate is taking the xbox, I have decided to empty my anger at the class by correcting his mistakes. Now, don’t get me wrong, my economics professor is a really nice guy. But he, like the other libertarian economists at my school, have a very poor understanding of history because their view of history is filled with libertarian bias. They try to universalize an ideology that works well with economics but not elsewhere.

He tried to make the case (correctly) that wars do no benefit economically for a country. Wars, he said, are started only because the ruling elite see an opportunity to expand their power. First I would like to point out that this libertarian economics professor is, ironically, making a Marxist argument. A Marxist view of history teaches that wars are fought for the benefit of the ruling capitalist elite for their economical or political benefit. History is driven not by ideals or ideology but for material gain. The problem with this view of history is that it was destroyed in the First World War. Socialists and capitalist alike enthusiastically clamored for war and there were celebrations in the streets of London and Berlin when war finally broke out on August 1, 1914. World War I was fought primarily over nationalist sentiment that had reached a boiling point in the 1910s with a volatile diplomatic environment as countries practice realpolitik to advance their national interest. Wars do not benefit monetarily, but, like other costly transactions, a decision is made that the material costs of the war outweigh the national interest or ideological victories that might be won. Wars, in short, are not fought for material gain, which is a point lost on many libertarians and leftists to this day.

Secondly he put forth the libertarian myth that the American entry into World War I, and thus breaking the “sacred” advice of our founding fathers, had terrible consequences on the rest of twentieth century history. He stated that the American intervention inadvertently caused the rise of the USSR because the approach of the “yanks” caused the Germans to send V.I. Lenin back to Russia to foment revolution and end the Eastern Front. First I would like to point out that the Kadets and the Mensheviks had already thrown the tsar in March before the US entered into the war in April. Second, the Germans did not need any motivation to send Lenin to Russia to collapse the Russian state later in April. The war was already costing the Germans millions of lives and the German population was living in perpetual starvation by the time 1917 came and any chance to exploit the political stability in Russia would be seized by the German General Staff. Contrary to what my professor said the Germans were not “holding their own” in the war, but rather needed an immediate end to the conflict, even if the US had not entered the war.

Whether the US had gotten involved in World War I or not Lenin would have made his way back to Russia and launched the October Revolution. Even if the Germans had considered the risk of sending Lenin to Russia outweighed ending the war (unlikely given the state of Germany in the spring of 1917) can it honestly be believed that Lenin would not have made his way back to the Russia to take part in the “inevitable unfolding of history?” The consequences of the US entering the war actually benefitted the European situation by decisively ending the war. By 1917 the populace that had embraced war in 1914 was now shocked by the affects of total war and growing angry with appalling poverty and starvation that the war had caused. Socialists and communists had been steadily growing louder and more radical. Earlier in 1917 the French army mutinied and refused to continue fighting until it the mutiny was crushed. If the senseless slaughter that the Europeans were unable to extricate themselves from continued longer, it was likely that disillusionment with the war may have caused a socialist revolution across Europe. Such a revolution almost occurred in Germany in 1919.

Thirdly my professor claimed that the US also, by winning the war for the Allies, paved the way for Hitler and the Third Reich. I will not deny that Versailles was a major contributor to the rise of Nazism, but history is not inevitable. The Germans had fourteen years to choose their course and unwisely, for a variety of reason including Versailles, chose National Socialism in 1933. But this is not to say that the Germans could not have chose otherwise or that Hitler was inevitable given Versailles. The Americans under Wilson actually presented a peace plan (the Fourteen Points) that would have staved off the effects that a punitive peace had on Germany, but David Lloyd George and Georges Clemenceau reneged on their agreement to the Fourteen Points in the spring of 1919.

These stories are merely the propaganda of libertarians who want to equate deviating from the Jeffersonian model with mortal sin. The advice of Washington in 1798 not to become involved abroad was given in a historical context that has long since passed. Strictly adhering to foreign policy advice made in the 1790s simply was not prudent in the 20th century and remains so in the 21st. Contrary to libertarian rhetoric a proactive government is not a heinous sin. It was precisely the isolationism of the US during the 20s and 30s that facilitated the rise of Hitler in the 1930s. Hitler was able to make his territorial claims on Europe because he knew that the US would not intervene. While the US should not entangle itself in needless foreign interventions, a proactive US foreign policy can be quite beneficial both to Americans and the world. As a Christian, I think that that what Paul says concerning government is true: “for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” (Romans 13:4)

Saving Conservatism

It is no secret that the last two elections have gone badly for conservatives. Over the last four years Republicans have lost both houses of Congress and the White House to democrats. It has been a reversal of the situation in the early 2000s when Republicans won the White House in 2000 with George W. Bush and the Senate in the 2002 Congressional elections. How long with this stinging defeat last for conservatives? It is impossible to tell. Although some talk radio hosts like to think that the recent elections have not been a referendum on conservatives, it is hard to see what else this has been that reaction of disillusionment on the part of many Americans to what they see as the failings of conservatism. How long the American public holds this view depends on how conservatives react to the current political environment. I will suggest several things that might not solve all the problems facing conservatism today, but are critical to putting conservatism back on track.

The first problem with conservatism today is its repugnant populism. Beginning in the 1980s as many socially conservative blue-collar workers became disillusioned with the liberal social agenda of the Democrats, Republics were quick to reach out to this demographic to extend the conservative base. However, this outreach has caused a numbing down of intellectual conservatism in the party’s platform. Demagogues in the form of talk radio have hijacked the conservative movement by appealing to the “common sense” of the “common man.” Solutions are often put forth bluntly, with slanderous rhetoric that angrily attacks opposition. In this case, conservatism has become more reactionary than conservative. It conjures up in the historic memory of the common man this idea of classic Americana that has viciously been assaulted by liberals and needs to be restored. Typically this type of reactionary conservatism uses this ideal and mythical model of Americana instead of reasoning as the basis for party platform and tends to extremely inflexible in its beliefs. In a streak of anti-intellectualism, liberals are put forth as elitists that need to be countered, not with equal intellectual fire-power, but with the common sense of the common man. It offers over simplistic answers to complex questions. This switch has drastically isolated the educated class, especially college students who abhor conservative’s tactless rhetoric and lack of interest in engaging with the intelligentsia. Conservatives have continually failed to sway this demographic because of their inability to present intellectual appeal. Academia is often demonized. While it is true that academia is usually contrary to conservative ideals, what it needs is to be transformed by conservative ideals rather than blow apart by them. Rational discussion, opposed to bumper sticker ideology, is key.

Secondly conservatives had over-relied on social conservatism. Both Republicans and President Bush heavily relied on conservative evangelicals for their core basis of support during the last eight years. The fear among social conservatives that turning against Bush and Republicans, despite some egregious violations of other conservative values such as limited government and fiscal conservatism, would surrender society to the social liberal agenda. In short Bush was able to maintain popularity among conservatism throughout his term by appealing to social conservatism all the while undergoing massive government expansion, increasing the national deficit, and committing some foreign policy blunders. Now I by no means mean to bash Bush here. Liberals have done that enough, but certainly I feel that Bush betrayed some serious conservative ideals, perhaps unintentionally, by relying too heavily on social conservative support. Unfortunately the advances of social conservatism by governmental means are rather limited outside sanctity of life legislation and proposing a marriage-protection article to the Constitution. Pushing a social conservative agenda also isolates non-social conservatives who, nonetheless, could cooperate with conservatives on other projects (e.g. fiscal responsibility). In short, social conservatism is best resigned to grass-roots movements because pushing a social conservative agenda in big government can cause resentment and end up being counterproductive.

Finally conservatives need to rebuild their moral capital. Many Americans felt betrayed by conservatives’ fiscal irresponsibility to the point that they perceived little difference between Republicans and Democrats on the issue. Also, the angry rhetoric coming out of talk radio (such as Rush Limbaugh’s tactless statement that he hopes that President Obama fails) does more harm that it does good. Conservatives need to return to core values such as discipline, fiscal conservatism, and constitutionalism. Many social conservative’s worries could be better addressed by appointing conservative judges who do not legislate from the bench. Conservatives need to rein in spending and only then will they be able to criticize Obama’s Keynesian economic policies without appearing hypocritical. In short, conservatives need to regain the moral high ground that they have lost from out-of-control spending, rushing into war in 2003 with faulty intelligence, and angry rhetoric from talk radio. While it might be tempting to lash out at Obama, conservatives need to criticize Obama with the respective his office deserves, a respect that liberals did not accord to Bush during his presidency. Only by doing this will conservatives regain the moral high ground in the minds of the American people.

In short conservatives need to rebuild their political movement based on dispassionate politics, discipline, fiscal conservatism, ethical responsibility and guardianship of traditional government practices. The Republican Party needs to de-emphasize its populist appeal and reach out intellectually to college students and young professionals. It must be smart, flexible, disciplined, and kind. Placing its eggs in the basket of populism is a poor investment because the social conservative, blue-collar demographic is rapidly decreasing in favor of a more idealistic and college-educated professional. All of this begins with building a firm intellectual basis, which, by necessity, must be more flexible. Conservatives must prioritize their agenda and cooperate with others, even liberals, in order to achieve aspects of it. Conservatives must cease to be seen as reactionary and instead as actually conservative; i.e. preserving long-standing values while being flexible with change and figuring out how to intelligently apply traditional values with new challenges.