November 26, 2006
THE THIRD WAY IS STILL ONLY ABOUT A THIRD OF THE WAY HERE:
Putting Parents First: A new approach to domestic policy for conservatives. (Yuval Levin, 12/04/2006, Weekly Standard)
We are beginning to get used to national security elections in America. The 2006 election cycle was the third in a row focused almost exclusively on the war on terror and Iraq. Apart from immigration and the vague odor of corruption, it is hard to find a single domestic issue that candidates consistently stressed on the stump this year. Indeed, neither party has campaigned on anything that might be called a domestic policy vision or platform since September 11.But there is reason to think the 2008 election will be different. The war on terror will surely still be crucial, but if we are indeed in a generational struggle, then concerns of war and peace will come to coexist with more familiar social and economic issues in the public's mind, as was the case during the Cold War. And in the absence of George W. Bush, the next presidential election will also be less taken up with disputes over the minutiae of every administration decision. Polls already show voters increasingly concerned again with familiar domestic priorities like education and health care.
For conservatives, this presents a challenge and an opportunity. It is a challenge because conservatives today lack a coherent domestic policy vision that would either build upon or move beyond the Bush agenda. Those who approve of "compassionate conservatism," or of Bush's tax or education policies, are hard pressed to point to a logical next step. And those who complain about the president's direction--about spending, government programs, a new entitlement, and so
on--have been short on realistic alternatives.
The GOP did indeed lose because of its focus on national security, which is passe, but the next steps for compassionate conservatism are very clear: privatized SS; pre-funded retirement accounts; universal HSAs; voucherizing federal education money; immigration amnesty; transition from income tax to consumption; abortion restrictions; etc. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 26, 2006 10:35 AM
I cannot believe the Dems are so short-sighted. We visit all over the country, and everywhere the subject os SS comes up, invaribly it's the 70- and 80-somethings who rail about "...SS is a contract between us and the government and it cannot be broken...", while the teen and 20-30 year old store clerks who roll their eyes and say, "yes, that's fine for you because it's ME that is paying huge taxes to support your retirement. But we all know that when we get to retirement age there will not me any SS money for us."
The oldsters are dying off and will oly be voting for the next 10-15 years, whereas the youngsters will be voting for another 50-6- years. Can't the Dems see that their voters will soon be disappearing? Why are they basing their entire position on a vanishing cadre of voters????
Posted by: ray at November 26, 2006 11:21 AM