Originally written for and posted at: www.thesub-urban.com

2010 is going to be a big year for Republicans.

I’m talking huge.

Colossal.

Oprah’s waist size big.

Obama’s ego big.

Ted Kennedy’s liver size big (too soon?).

Very few people are debating this point at the moment. There are different reasoning’s and explanations that have been thrown out there, along with a general inquisition as to who is going to lead the party in 2012, but very few aren’t in agreement when the question is asked: Who is going to win big in these in 2010, Republicans or Democrats? Now, there are many different reasons why R’s are going to dominate, and I’ll avoid the usual snark responses like, “We’re smarter,”, or, “We’re better at just about everything,” in order to come up with a real coherent understanding of the political realities that we are tied to this coming election. To start with, it’s the midterm elections, and those classically sway to the right anyways. Statistically speaking, a good chunk of the Democratic voters just don’t come out on midterm elections. Sure, they’re bussed in in droves during the presidential election (a little joke there, I’m here all night) but for whatever reason they don’t show up the following year (possibly because the homeless don’t stay in one area for longer than a couple years? All right, all right, I’m done…) . That block is typically younger voters and African American voters. Sure, there has been a very positive looking uptick in both youngsters and blacks showing up at the polls at all, but unless that uptick really rises, there will still be a dismal showing.

The House and Senate both have Democratic majorities, with a Democrat in the White House, and historically when that sort of situation is presented, the American independent voters level the playing field a bit. This pretty well goes for either party, and has been a more recent trend (relatively speaking, because it’s more of a trend that has developed more since the past couple of decades) where independent voters may vote in a D or an R President and then during midterms replace a D or an R in the House or Senate seats. It happened in the 90’s by putting Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in control of the House while Bill Clinton and the Democrats had the Presidency. It happened again in the 2,000’s when Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats dethroned the decade of Republican House rule while George Bush was President, and it will probably happen again this year with the major Democratic dominance in government.

Also, there is the stagnant economy, an overall disenchantment with government, and a whole lot of grass roots activism on the right that has never been so vocal or active. Right now Republican’s are battening down the hatches, working together, and, for the most part, placing good candidates in important races. Yes, 2010, even admitted by most political scientists of a more liberal persuasion, is going to be an unstoppable Republican year (unless some cover up to massacre children is found, which is very very unlikely). A lot of this has been happening at the more local levels, since although members of Congress are often looked at nationally, at the end of the day they aren’t voted on by everybody in America but rather those that live in their individual districts. This is the reason that Nancy Pelosi can continue to be reelected, even though her national approval rating hovers around 15%. Just from my own experiences here in my little corner of Northwest, Indiana, the party has been pristine with their organization and the candidates have been hitting the road hard, knocking on doors rain or shine, handing out pamphlets, and involving the grass roots with their campaigns, showing their recognition of the hard work these groups put in and showing that the groups are energized and happy with the over all lurch of the party back to the right (otherwise, these same very helpful grass roots organizations would turn on the party, and would be pulling for a third party candidate or fielding their own primary opponents. While we’ve seen a little of that with the libertarian sects, it hasn’t been an unusual amount because the libertarians, no matter how far to the right the Republican party goes, will always peg the party as not sufficient for their libertarian means. Ron and Rand Paul are more the exceptions that prove the rule than anything else, and even though they have R’s after their names, a lot of Republicans won’t claim them, including this one. And in any effect, if Ron Paul hauled any more pork back to his district while constantly preaching economical efficiency, he’d have change his profession from doctor and Congressman to butcher and hypocrite.)

However, on a national level right now, there is much to worry about. During this period of Republican re-invigoration, there’s an onward battle between many different faces, sects, and aspects of the party to be the leader and, subsequently, the 2012 Republican nominee for president. This next year and half, depending on presentation and determination, will decide if it will be Sarah Palin with her espousing of traditional conservatism, Mike Huckabee with his Christian right and evangelicals, Ron Paul and his libertarianism, or John McCain again with his moderate views. Granted, there may be an “out of the blue” candidate that could jump into the race (perhaps a John Thune or a Mitch Daniels) but as of right now, that seems to be the most likely handful. The only reason I didn’t include a Romney or a Giuliani in this mix is that neither one has been as vocal, and neither one have done a very good job of putting themselves out there for conservatism, especially when conservatism is the key word this year with Republicans. Of course I’m sure their names will end up the ballot, but I don’t think they will get far in the primary and so, for the sake of keeping this mostly about the possible nominations, I’m not going to dwell on them nearly as much.

On a public level, you don’t hear a lot of in-fighting and baring of claws as of yet (which is good, I think it would make the party look disorganized and petty if that were to happen so far away from 2012) but when you look at the grass roots level, whether it be through blog sites, Facebook and MySpace rantings, or even rhetoric at different events, an internal warring of ideologies is eminent and real. For example, while I do believe that there are indeed RINO’s in the party (Republican’s In Name Only), not EVERY moderate Republican is a RINO. I don’t believe John McCain to be a RINO. I don’t think that every member of Congress should be thrown out and publicly exonerated. Yes, there are members of Congress that are inadequate for the job, at least in my eyes, however that is ultimately up to the voters in those districts to take care of that situation. Regionalism in politics is a very real thing, and the voters in Tennessee don’t influence, say, the voters in Arizona.

Another prime example is the constant usage of the term “neoconservative” to describe any Republican that doesn’t tow a certain libertarian line. Every Republican that is in support of the Iraq war, or that agrees we need a more hawkish foreign policy, is not automatically a “neoconservative”. There has been this odd fascination with libertarian leaning R’s to weed out the hawks under the guise of eradicating the “neocon’s”, and though it isn’t going to happen any time soon, there is a small danger of losing the elderly vote that has a much more hawkish foreign policy (but I could rattle on about that all day, I’ll save it for another piece). There are hundreds of others that I could speak of, different ways of looking at things, different ideologies, however I think you all get the point. There is some fighting with in the family for the head of the dinner table, and only one man/woman can carve the bird.

This isn’t too uncommon, though. The Republican party has always been the “Big Tent” party because it incorporates so many (needed) elements. The different ideologies are there to counter balance each other and to (usually) come up with the best possible legislation for the most people as possible. We need the libertarians to keep us fiscally sound, but we have to be weary of their protectionism and often nutty foreign policy platforms. We need the traditional conservatives, not just because it’s such an enormous block of votes, but so that we don’t become knee jerk reactionaries and take things slow and steady, like most conservatives universally agree is the best, most effective method of passing good legislation. And we need some moderate voices in the party as well, because not everyone is politically tied down to one ideology or the other, and in fact more and more people consider themselves independent voters.

Also, this isn’t uncommon for a party that is in the throes of reconstruction, either. During the long stretch of Democratic President’s (FDR, Truman, an eight year break of the trend with Eisenhower, who was a rather moderate conservative, following by Kennedy and LBJ) there was worse infighting than now. Rockefeller represented the liberal wing of the Republican party, Nixon the moderates, and Goldwater the conservative wing, and many more dirty tricks and underhanded things were done back then compared to now because we didn’t have 24 hour news channels, cell phones with camera and video recording capabilities, or shock news hounds that wanted to dismantle politicians with a rather unhealthy passion (this changed with the Watergate scandal, of course). Hell, wire tapping itself was commonly ordered from the White House, and the Kennedy and Johnson administration had ordered at least double the wire tappings that Nixon had, not to mention the dirty Chicago politics that probably got Kennedy elected, or the dirty deals that Johnson was known to cut in order to get what he wanted. Politics was different then, less transparent and less accountable to the American people. There was a lot less “sun light” on the politicians, and so not only were they less accountable when in office, but the in fighting was less publicly known during that time or even in election cycles.

Right now the Republican party is like a giant game of king of the hill. Every ideology has their hat thrown in the ring, and they are all scraping to end up at the top and be able to mold the party as they each individually see as the best fit. It’s one of the reasons that I love politics. The different people with different ideas battle it out and the person who has conveyed his/her thoughts on the issue, and has done a good job hitting the streets, and has…well, just been lucky, runs and becomes de facto leader of the party for that period of time. Hopefully at the end of the day they can all do what past politicians have been able to do: shake hands and smile. Because while they may all be vying for power, they have to realize that the over all goal is better, if not good, government that does well for our nation and is supported by the people. If any one of them begin to lose sight of that over all goal, and I’m not convinced that any of them have, then all is lost.

Here I sit, a 24-year-old husband and father of a 15-month-old son (with another on the way as well, thank you very much). I have a mortgage, a car loan, and probably too many credit cards. I work 40-plus hours a week, plus attend school full time, plus my plethora of hobbies and commitments with politics. I can be drafted, I can be called on for jury duty, and I’m expected to pay my taxes.

Yet I’m deemed so stupid and apparently childish that I can’t make my own decision as to whether or not I wear a seat belt. I can only buy so many cans of beer at a time, and certainly not on a Sunday. In some cities, I’m not even allowed to salt my food! And God forbid a want a few tasty trans fats on my burger.

What’s happened?

I remember thinking when I was in high school about all the freedom I’d have when I became an adult, how I wouldn’t feel like I was being treated like a child anymore. I don’t want to go as far as calling this a “big brother” society just yet; there are quite a few other liberties that would need to be eroded before I’ll be willing start espousing such quips. However, with the direction that we’ve been moving as a country, I wouldn’t be surprised if such a horror could become a reality.

“Adult kids” are becoming more of a norm than the exceptions to the rule. It’s one thing to live with mommy and daddy while attending school, or saving up some money, or because an individual is just dealt a few bad hands in life and needs some recoup time. It’s another when no too little effort is put forth to become a productive member of society.

While this is ultimately a job of the parents to give the “adult kid” a good swift kick in the behind for some motivation, and granted not enough parents are willing to do this and so the fault falls on them in a major way, the laws that we’ve been passing are not helping out at all.

Take this latest health care reform bill, for instance. All other parts aside, agreements and disagreements and politically charged debate aside, the worst thing we could do is to extend the age to 26 for “adult kids” to stay on the insurance of their parents.

Now, a college student? I could understand that. But there are no such stipulations. Should I, as a husband and father and adult, be able to piggy back on “daddy’s” insurance? Absolutely not! At age 26, one is supposed to have some kind of direction, some goals of one sort or the other. They aren’t supposed to be given even more incentive to leech off of their parents.

But these are only a few of the instances where we, as society, are treated like children, and they are only the symptoms of the greater problem — that so many in government truly believe we should all be taken care of, with no regard to the examples being set and incentives that make people in society shrug their shoulders and let their proverbial diapers be changed.

I can clean up after and take care of myself quite well, thank you very much, Mr. and or Mrs. Politician. I already have somebody to tell me what to do: she’s called my wife.

On a legal basis, there isn’t much to be said against it. Private groups can privately buy property and put up whatever the hell they want to. The permits were all approved, and really, that’s that.

I understand the opposition, however. While I can’t see anything that can be done about the mosque being built, it does give me an uneasy feeling. Not because it’s necessarily a “celebration mosque”, although I can’t say for sure it’s not, but because it just…doesn’t feel right.

Let’s say that I decided to build a museum dedicated to the most successful white people in Gary, Indiana. It wouldn’t be right, and the predominately African American community in that city would be rightly pissed off because it would seem like a slap in the face.

Or, let’s say that I decided to buy property and put up a KKK historical museum next to the building that Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in. It would be a huge slap in the face, and there would be a LOT of negative reactions.

Granted, this is a LITTLE different, since it has to do primarily with freedom of religion in our country that allows anyone and everyone to worship however he/she feels, but it’s a little bit similar as well because it involves an uneasy clash between cultures that has resulted in violence and death.

Now, some may read this opinion and immediately jump on the “he’s a bigot” bandwagon. That’s a shame. I would have hoped that we were a civilized enough society where people could intelligently speak to each other and express concerns. Sure, there are some bigots that have a somewhat similar view as me. I’m also against abortion, and so automatically fall into the “male chauvinistic pig” category to some. That’s o.k. with me, really. I know what I am and I know how I feel about certain things, and as I showed earlier on in this article, I know how to separate my feelings from my intelligence, something that far too many liberals aren’t capable of doing.

As noted at the beginning, there isn’t anything anyone can do about it. What I would love to see is the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomburg, a pretty liberal Republican, take the initiative and arrange a meeting between the people that are trying to build the mosque and those in charge of the Anti-Defamation League, the nations largest Jewish civil rights group and most vocal opponents of the mosque, along with, perhaps, some of the family members of those that died during 9/11, and work out an agreement. Hell, have a beer summit!

In fact, I think President Obama would have been better off taking this approach as well rather than simply coming out in support of the mosque. I agree with his stance on religious freedom (although it would be nice if liberals had this same zeal for it during Christmas time) but he really pigeon holed himself and allowed for an “open Obama season” to spring up, and especially with the general election coming up so soon, I’m sure a lot of moderate Democrats are shaking their head right now and wishing he would have taken a more moderate approach.

Regardless of what SHOULD be done, what HAS been done, and what WILL be done, regarding this mosque, people shouldn’t immediately label those with opposing view points bigots. All that it shows is that that individual either doesn’t want to take the time to have an intelligent debate on the subject, or doesn’t really care about the matter anyways. By backing people into the corner of “racist”, or “bigot”, or “hate monger”, all that does is get the attention of those that don’t have a proverbial horse in this race and cause them to start being sympathetic to those that are being labeled wrongly. If you really want to make a point regarding such touchy issues as those mentioned in this article, take a breath, realize that everybody has a different viewpoint and a different slant on every issue, and calmly begin to assert your opinion. You’ll be surprised how much could be achieved.

“America has to have the highest share of graduates compared to other nations. But Texas, I want you to know, we’ve been slipping,” Obama said on a visit to the University of Texas.

“In a single generation, we’ve fallen from first place to 12th place in college graduation rates for young adults. That’s unacceptable, but it’s not irreversible. We can retake the lead,” Obama stressed.

“What I’ve tried to explain to people, education is an economic issue, education is the economic issue of our time,” Obama insisted, arguing: “The countries that outeducate us today will outcompete us tomorrow.”

The US president said first-rate education must be a top priority for the US economy to flourish.

“The single most important step we must take is make sure that every one of our young people (…) has the best education that the world has to offer. That’s the number one thing we can do,” Obama said.

Now, first thing first. Of course the President is going to say this at a college graduation. The politics of this and any other speech is prevalent in every administration of every President, R or D. He isn’t going to step onto a college campus and tell them:”You guys aren’t going to find a job. Sucks to be you.” It’s just not going to happen.

With that said, what caught my attention is that the President is saying that college graduates are our future. And I believe and agree with him. However, are the college graduates the future, or is our industry our future? Democrats (more specifically union supported D’s) constantly talk about our lack of work force with the steel/manufacturing industry, and honestly, to a degree, I agree. As a younger male who works at the steel mills, I can honestly tell you that on my shift, I’m probably the youngest person out there. This isn’t very telling since I’m only 24, however, the gap between my age and the next youngest is. The average age of the steel worker is mid-late thirties and above. Young people aren’t filling the positions that are left by those that retire. We just aren’t.

And really, that’s a good thing. More kids are going to college, more kids are getting a good high school education (which, in turn, negates the argument that we need more funding for schools, but regardless…) and more kids don’t have to go work at the mills to make a living. I do, because I was a jackass when I went to college. I didn’t apply myself, and I’m paying for it by working hard, long hours, while paying for my school myself now. But most kids aren’t stupid like I was, and are getting the education they need to not have to work at a steel mill.

But regardless, the point is this: in one sentence you hear politicians tell us that we have to be more self reliant as a country, and in the next they tell us that we have to send more kids to college. In order to achieve the first, the second can’t happen. We already have a shortage of people to work in the mills, and subsidizing even more kids’ education won’t achieve that.

My thoughts? Why, I’m glad you asked!

Political rhetoric aside, we need to stop subsidizing as many kids’ college. I know this sounds heartless, but if we don’t, we’ll have a nation that is all manager, and no worker. There are kids coming out of school by the dozen, every day, with no work experience in a 10% unemployment economy who can’t find work and went to school on our tax dollars. That’s fine and dandy to pay for these kids’ school, assuming they have no means of payment and decent grades, but that’s not always how it works. Too often grades are set aside because of race or poverty and that isn’t right, nor is it efficient when one thinks about the purpose of subsidizing college students.

The hard truth about life is that sometimes a person has to work a manual labor job for a while, or even at McDonald’s, or some other form of employment that is not altogether “coveted”, in order to work his/her way up and away from those that deserve to be in those spots. It’s the way it is. Life’s a…well…you get my drift. Get a helmet.

The point of all this rambling? As far as political fodder, Obama got it right. As far as reality? While we are losing manual labor job after job overseas, we are encouraging and paying for people to go to college. At some point, however, we have to face reality. And that reality is that some people are janitors and manual workers, and some people design the buildings that janitors and manual workers work in. Just because we pay for them to go to school and barely pass with all D’s doesn’t mean that it’s right or that it is what’s best for our country.If we want to be more self sufficient, we have to start letting the worker bees work, and not try to push them through college just for statistical purposes. I think it is important to help out poor children who have excelled and simply can not afford college. All for that. And the government helping out with some student loans? Sure. But a line a has to be drawn, and we have to realize that we need some of these kids to work hard labor if we EVER expect to be a self-sufficient country again.

Britton has been running a great grass roots campaign in his attempt to oust the historical relic that is Leahy, and despite his fair share of negative press from the lefty’s (hey, if there’s an R after your name, it’s GOING to happen) his numbers have been looking better and better with each passing week.

But hey, I’m just a talking head who writes opinion pieces. Check out the video for yourself, and then cruise on over to his web site, to find out what this guy is all about. I wasn’t disappointed, and if you aren’t either, give him a few bucks to keep making great campaign videos and put some life (literally!) back into the Senate.

Hayworth was in the House of Representatives for a time and served on the Ways and Means committee,  and was instremental in the Bush tax cuts. He’s undoubtedly an earnest believer in conservative principles, and at times I think one could say an ideologue.

Currrentley, he is far behind in the polls, partly, I think, because of McCain’s over all popularity with Republicans and moderates alike, the fact that McCain was the past presidential contender for the R’s, and because McCain has been there so long and has worked hard in the Senate.

Whatever ones opinion about McCain (and I have had several pieces that have been critical of him, and several that have been very kind to him), he has served his country dilligently for decades. He has literally given up the proper use of his body for this country, and does, I believe, truly work across the aisle to craft (what he thinks to be, at least) good, bipartisan legislation. I admire McCain, and after recently reading his book about his grandfathers, fathers, and his own Navy career, including his capture and torture, I respect him even more. Sure, there have been bills that he has crafted that I have not been a fan of, a good number of them, actually, but at the end of the day, he does what he thinks is best for the country and isn’t afraid to challenge the party when he thinks it needs challenged.

So, which is it? Hayworth or McCain?

Not only because I think McCain WILL win, but also because I think he deserves to, I choose McCain. Do I think that Hayworth will probably craft and sign on to more conservative legislation than McCain? Yes. I think that Hayworth can and should be in Congress, just not in McCain’s seat, at least not yet. There is going to be a huge uptick of Republican representatives in the House, and the way that the trends are going, as far as those winning the primaries, most of them will be very conservative/libertarian leaning R’s. While that’s good, there IS a need for some moderate voices to keep them from over working the good footing that they will have. It’s pointless to take the House and maybe the Senate, cram through the most extremely conservative legislation that is possible, and then lose the House in two years time, having everything turned back. After all, that’s one of the biggest follies of the Democrats this year. They are trying to push through as much as possible, and have pissed off a lot of I’s and moderates in the process. That’s why we aren’t seeing a lot more extreme liberal legislation: I have no doubt in my mind that liberal leadership is having everyone slow it down a few notches to help stave off casualties.

There is a place for moderates in the party, and while McCain may sometimes be moderate almost to a fault, what better moderate than a war hero who was the last presidential contender to help rope in the further right aspects of the party? Think big picture here. It does us no good to be extreme and get all we’ve ever wanted legislation-wise only to have it blow up in our faces and lose us seats. That’s a major reason I consider myself a conservative anyways. I don’t believe that major, sweeping reforms are always necessary, going either way, and that it’s best to move slow, see what works and what doesn’t, and proceed with caution. After all, the tortoise beats the hare, right? Shouldn’t an elephant move slower than the jackass?

The pictures a little fuzzy, but featured to the left is me, my son Gage, and Senator Dan Coats.

My family drove out to the Porter County fair to meet Sen. Coats, and I have to say, I was impressed. He had a commanding presence, seemed like a very amiable fellow, and seemed sincere about needing our help (and appreciating the help) here in Porter County. He gave a little speech to a group of us (mostly candidates, and then me, lol) and then we all filed out in a little mini-parade down the board walk. I thought it went well, everybody seemed to either be appreciative of Coats being there, and the ones that didn’t weren’t being annoying and yelling and screaming at us. All in all, a fun little time, I got to meet Dan Coats for the first time, as well as John Costas.

So imagine my surprise when I read this comment from some 17 year old kid in the Post Tribune today complaining that he didn’t get his hand shook: “It’s kind of upsetting. He probably doesn’t think youth matters.” A LOT of people didn’t get their hand shook, buddy. There was a pretty good number of people there, don’t worry about it. If you were really that interested in meeting him, you could have easily just walked up to him and introduced yourself. It’s not like there was security guards all around us (although God have mercy on the man that messes with Ralph Levi, that’s a big guy). It sounds to me like he just wanted to whine about Coats to the press, who is never reluctant to criticize a Republican (not that I’m complaining. It’s a fact that as Republicans we are going to get press coverage that is often less than optimal. It doesn’t happen ALL the time, but it happens enough that it is pretty noticeable, especially with a paper like the Post Tribune, excluding Davich) but maybe I’m wrong. If you really did feel like you got unfairly left out, let me relay my own first experience meeting Dan Coats.

It doesn’t surprise me much when older Republicans give me a second look up and down. I have one arm fully sleeved, the other arm scattered with tattoos, and gauges in my ears. I don’t look like the everyday, golfing, country club Republican. I’ve had it happen, especially with older R’s, and it’s just a fact. I chose to have my body look like this, and I like the way my body looks, but it does deter some people who haven’t always had positive experiences with people with tat’s and piercings. So I usually try and go out of my way to show that not all of us are a-holes. Regardless, with my first meeting of Coats and Costas both, I was happily surprised. Both looked directly at my eyes, and if they gave my arms a second look, I didn’t notice it. I didn’t get the feeling that it mattered to either of them, and neither one hesitated to shake my hand, pat me on my back, and ask me about my son (who was screaming most of the time. Hot weather and babies do not mix.) The same goes for my wife, who has a similar appearance. If the 17 year old really did think that Coats not shaking his hand was a slight, I hope he reads this account and realizes it wasn’t. There were several people on the midway, and just because you got passed up doesn’t mean that Coats or any of the other candidates don’t care about your vote or your voice.

I know on facebook today, regarding that same article, there was some complaints about the term “teabaggers” being used to describe TEA Party members. Some of the people said they were going to ask for an apology from the Post, and great, I hope they do ask, and that one is printed. It’s not the place of the papers writers, excluding op-eds, to allow their personal views to affect the content of the story. But there was a much bigger, full page of bias towards that back that I was surprised nobody else picked up on: Rich James’ piece on Gary Mayor Rudy Clay.

Yes, the piece was critical of Clay and critical of the many “grand plans” (or schemes, as I like to refer to them) of Clay to boost the city of Gary back up to where it used to be. However, I shook my head at the tone and wording of the article itself. “Despite your best intentions, Rudy…” and “The heck of it all, Rudy, is that I know you are passionate about Gary…” and “I don’t like being critical of you, Rudy…”

I have read some glaring pieces from James where he doesn’t mind being critical AT ALL…as long as it’s about conservatives. Yes, it is a rarity that he writes bad about a Dem. at all, and I guess in some small way it’s at least a victory that he wrote the piece in the first place, but STILL. James, if you want to have a reputation as being a tough as nails commentator on political doings and government employees, go right ahead. Hell, I encourage it! It’s needed! But please, let’s show some fairness. I know it’s a commentary piece, and by all rights you should write whatever crosses your mind, but it’s a glaring bias that is unbecoming of you, and I think you are too good of a writer to fall into that kind of political softball.

The answer: working on my book. I have been taking some much needed time off focusing on my book that will be a collection of works by young Republicans about the future of the party. On top of that, I have been enjoying the summer with my wife and child and doing other local things.

I am in the process of revamping my radio show as well, so that it will be more organized and easier to listen to, with more thought out guest spots.

Judging from my stats part of my page, many people have been checking daily, and I apologize for keeping you all in suspense. This week I will again begin writing about politics and starting with a radio format that will be run bi-monthly (every other week). Thank you again for all you patience.

Travis Gearhart

I was supposed to do a radio interview with Brian today, but of course things don’t always work when you want them to (I’m still not sure why it won’t let me record audio right now, but regardless, it’s something I’ll be sure to fix in the future).

However, I still wanted to do my part to help support the Can Do Conservatives besides the contribution that I gave yesterday. It is a great group with an inspirational leader, and tomorrow they are having a money bomb to help propel Brian across the country to keep doing what he does best!

Please, visit the Can Do Conservatives and give as much as you think you can afford in this tough economic climate, then tell at least four of your friends to as well. If a mere 400 people donate 10 dollars, that’s 4 grand! And if 4 THOUSAND PEOPLE donate 10 dollars, that’s FORTY GRAND! (I’d continue to do the math from here, but I’d need to take off my shoes so I could use my toes).

My responses are in italics, while Mr. Hallmans are in bold.

Yes, I suppose it’s fair to say that at least in this “Ayn Rand Paul” piece, for lack of a better summary, I’ve allowed myself to get sucked into the current meme narrative: that the “right,” in general, is being taken over by this particular wing of libertarianism.  The truth is a whole lot more complicated than that — and spatial metaphors begin to break down.  Both the “left” and the “right” are broad umbrellas of possibility, and, truth be told, the very far right and the very far left might be surprised to discover that they have more in common with each other than either does with the center.  Which means that you and I probably have more in common with each other than either of us does with the far right or left, respectively.  That’s an easy thing to forget, I think, as our society sinks further and further into a bifurcation that damages it.  Suffice it to say, my book does not suffer from the same short-sightedness as my article!  That is to say, I think the book contains portraits of both earnest conservatives and those I find extreme.  The first is a portrait of capitalist utopian Knut Kloster Jr., one of the founders of the modern cruise ship industry — his visions of cruise ships serving an important societal service by fostering cultural exchange among nations is one that not many on the far left could empathize with, but I had to at least admit, on meeting him, that he meant it earnestly.  Not so with the founder of the gun utopia I interviewed — a guy who hoped to build a master-planned community around a gun school in the same way neighborhoods surround golf courses.  Him I found to simply be a “greed is good” conservative, which I can’t accept as anything other than a rationale for, well, greed — which isn’t good.

To my mind, as I was writing IN UTOPIA, it all boiled down to whether one truly believed the world could be actually egalitarian.  I have further thoughts on that, but I’ll let you respond before I go into it…

I’ll certainly agree that there is a large flux of libertarianism that has recently been brought front and center to the Republican party, and while I share some of the libertarian ideals (smaller, more effective government and fiscal responsibility, for example), I differ with them on many of their staples (foreign policy being perhaps the biggest, for me at least). I agree, as well, that many on the far right have a lot in common with the far left. That is, with me considering the furthest right to be an anarchic state with the far left being despotism, whether that be a form of Communism or Marxism or whatever form it would appear in, because one can not achieve despotism with out anarchy and disorder first. A despot can not overtake a nations government with out having the initial trust of the people, and is always voted into power. Another fine example, if one looks back at the contrasting history between Marx and Disraeli. Both were Jewish people in about the same time in history in Europe who disliked liberalism and what it entailed (particularly, in both cases, the lack of ideology and principles that plagued liberalism of that time), and worked to change “the game”, as it were. Marx, as most know, started work on his “Communist Manifesto”, while Disraeli joined up with the Tory party of England and worked to make it more conservative. Disraeli achieved some major reforms that are still present in England today, and…well…we know what happened with Marx’s Communism. Regardless, those two reformers at the time may have been polar opposites, but they had a common liberal “enemy”.

Regardless, however, my own thoughts on utopias stems from the fact that, while I may be a “conservative with a handful of libertarian tendencies” (which is how I usually classify myself politically), at heart I’m a realist. Realistically, utopias, at least on a grandiose scale, are unachievable because no two people have the exact same utopia in mind. Even if one were to have a utopia that would be perhaps “more right” or “more left”, sort of a middle ground utopia to make more happy on one side or the other, ultimately government would have to break it up. This is my reasoning: Let’s say, for example, there were a left leaning utopia established in America at the ballot, and the majority could craft the country however they see fit. If one of the biggest staples of government, pretty universally accepted, is that the job of the government is to protect the minority who doesn’t have a voice, wouldn’t that cause the ballot measure to be bunk because the governmental duties to protect the minority would have to be applied? I don’t believe we could have anything like an egalitarian government, because realistically, capitalism is the only system that can establish free states, and with capitalism there are always going to be people who make more money (mainly because those people are the ones supplying the jobs for the others) and once true Egalitarianism is implemented, there is no reason for the job suppliers to supply the jobs at all. Not “greed is good”, but rather “you can’t get something for nothing”, or perhaps “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is”.

Now we begin to depart from each other!  There are a few assertions here that I feel ought to be addressed — I’ll try to take them on methodically.

Finally, I think you make a big leap in suggesting that only capitalism can create free states.  Capitalism has certainly emerged as the winner of the -ism battles of the twentieth century, though it hasn’t succeeded in supplanting the others entirely.  The problem with capitalism is that a system based entirely on competition ensures that there are those who “lose,” whose businesses fail, who are beaten by those who figure out how to make their businesses run better, or offer better prices, or whatever.  The question for capitalism has always been this: what level of squalor can we accept for those who lose?  Consider Detroit, consider deep Appalachia.  Even Obama describes himself as a free market guy — yet what do we do for those who lose?  Retain faith in the pull-up-the-bootstraps mentality?  Some of us can’t stomach that, or don’t believe that opportunity will provide for all who give it a good effort.  Some succeed because they are lucky, and some fail because they are unlucky — and those latter people should not suffer.  It seems to me that the entire debate on the size of government boils down to this question.  Even your note makes an uncomfortable assumption — that somehow liberals WANT big government.  That’s not the case at all.  I don’t know anyone who wants a huge government.  What people want is a government that is large enough to actually fulfill the promises our society makes to its people — and there’s nothing wrong with that.  The real “utopian” belief, in the derisive sense of the word, is that any -ism will somehow magically provide for a significant portion of its populace that is living in conditions we cannot, morally and ethically, accept.

I figured at some point we’d find some areas of disagreement, ha ha, otherwise this would have been far too easy for either of us.

As far as capitalism creating freedoms, time and time again through history, capitalism has been the only thing to allow such liberties as we enjoy today. That’s not to say that absolutely no reforms or rules are to be allowed (I believe I had referenced Ayn Rand’s piece on child labor laws not being necessary, which of course they are, for example). Certain rules against things like insider trading and fraud are of course necessary. However for every bad thing we witness on television about the supposed “evils of capitalism”, there are a million other businesses, both large and small, thriving and playing the game by the rules to supply cheaper goods for the poor/middle class and provide jobs with decent wages, all in the name of self interest and making a buck, while simultaneously benefiting every other member of society as well. Sure, there are reports of some people whom “go hungry” (in an age where a double cheeseburger at McDonald’s only costs a dollar, I’m not sure why there are hungry people at all, but regardless) and there are those that are homeless. However, when you look at the statistics for the poor and the amenities that they have, it’s staggering. Most have at least one television set. More than half have a vehicle. I just get tired of the whining, really. Look, don’t get me wrong Mr. Hallman, I wasn’t exactly born with a silver enema or anything. I had a good period where I lived out of my truck. There have been times where I’ve lived off of Ramen so that my wife can eat better than me. I know what it’s like to have rough times. Hell, even decent times in my household doesn’t mean we can eat steak and drink white wine every night! Are there those that fail, for their own fault of other peoples? Sure. And I, and many others in America, don’t have a problem with welfare and food stamps to help those people out, with in reason. As a whole, however, capitalism does more good than bad, and it allows people to have a freedom to work for their money, buy whatever they want, and not be messed with by the government. And if they work extra hard? Well, maybe the boss may give them a raise and he/she can even take a little vacation to a commune spa as well. Let me ask this, Mr. Hallman: do you think your books and articles you have written (and are paid royalties for, I’m sure) would even see the light of day if you lived in Cuba?

Your last point is a good one — and it’s a point I think I make in my second book (about William James, ardent defender of religion) when I examine modern Atheism, categorizing it as a religion in and of itself, and pointing out — as atheists know well — that they can only profess open atheism in a society that stresses religious freedom.

The religious question is a bit different.  You’re right to point out that communal efforts that emphasize a common religion have tended to be more successful.  But (probably because I’d just written a book about religion) I wanted to look at utopias — architectural, conceptual, even communal — that were not religious, but which seemed to be working on some level.  (Even the cruise ship I mentioned earlier, a capitalist utopia, lacks religion.)  And this would apply to the United States, as well.  Again, it’s something we’ve struggled with over the years, but the United States has survived and thrived without stressing a common religion (and it was the downside of a common state-sanctioned religion that set people running from Europe and the UK in the first place).  Other modern societies — countries in Scandinavia, Japan — are fully functional states that are far more secular than the United States.  So while religion can in fact serve as a bonding element for a society, it’s not the only one that can work — and it’s one that, like utopian ideas, has the potential to create problems even as it solves them.

The reason that I think countries such as the before mentioned Japan can thrive with a more secular society is that they have a very solid traditional system. It’s not just religion that can create a common bonding of principles for people in a society: after all, I had mentioned the Tao Te Ching, and that isn’t a religion, more of a means of enlightenment. It’s the societal sense of knowing what is right and what is wrong and is what sets people and governments apart from pure, unadulterated anarchism. Religion is what worked for this country, and many other countries across the globe to instill those values, and I think it’s natural for people to crave a higher power, be it God, Allah, or simply “the force”.

I typically try and stay away from strict ideological arguments, because so often they turn nasty, although I must say it’s been a pleasure conversing with you, Mr. Hallman, and I look forward to reading your book “In Utopia”. Is it going to be found, say, in Borders or a Barnes and Nobles, or will I and my readers need to order it from a separate online source?

Yes, I’ve enjoyed it too.  Utopia is a great example, I think, of how the opposite sides of a debate can talk a lot “at” each other when they’re not even agreeing about the basic terms of the debate.  But we’ve made some progress here, and perhaps that’s all anyone can hope for.

And, yes, the book should be available widely — Border, B&N, Amazon, of course, as well as, probably, independent bookstores just about everywhere.  Thanks much.