People's Candidate Initiative | Globalization Research | National Security Research

For a Republican Future

Linda Goldthorpe
Goldthorpe for U.S. Congress
May 6, 2008

As you may have seen, ads are airing nationwide featuring Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich, side by side. They each announce their firm support for a website called "wecansolveit.org," which promises to help solve the climate change crisis. The message is clear: whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, you should support action to stop climate change. What sort of action? I visited the website to see.

It doesn't take a long visit to see that this is a liberal-oriented website. Reports from the Sierra Club and United Steelworkers are cited; signing a petition to protect polar bears is urged, as is a petition to "call on the elected leaders of the world to sign a global treaty that will solve the climate crisis."

Pause for a moment and try to imagine what a global treaty on global warming will mean. There are only a two things a environmental treaty can do: re-distribute wealth to "greener" nations, or impose direct force of law. In either scenario or both, this will mean more regulation, more corporate welfare, and possibly even land confiscation.

This is certainly not the only way to protect the environment. Even if such measures were implemented by Congress without an international treaty, at least national sovereignty (ours and that of others) would not be infringed upon by whatever international organization a treaty would create. I do not support legislation on this issue, because the 10th Amendment reserves such power for the state governments. Were the issue addressed at the state level, we would see a tremendously more rapid improvement, since at least states have the incentive to run more successful programs than other states and draw business.

For that matter, as a free market advocate, I'm not sure any regulation is needed at all. Even if we accept as certain (I do not) that human activity is definitely the only major cause of global warming that will melt the ice caps and bring in a new ice age, basic supply-and-demand laws assure that as the market for "greener" energy grows and the supply of fossil fuels lessens, market prices will change to reflect what consumers want as free people. We're already seeing this process at work with the advent of more fuel-efficient and lower-emissions vehicles. If climate change becomes a serious nuisance, the market will reflect change in demand.

There are a multitude of factsheets and arguments that clear up the global warming hysteria. Here's one from Vin Suprynowicz, and another from the London Telegraph, if you're seeking a place to start.

Yet here is Newt Gingrich, architect of the greatest conservative Congressional take-over in recent memory (54 seats in the House alone), advocating for the Green Left? Gingrich's explanation attempts to clarify:

Conservatives are missing from this [environmental policy] debate, and I think that's a mistake. When it comes to preserving our environment for future generations, we can't have a slogan of "Just yell no!" I have a different view. I think it's important to be on the stage, to engage in the debate, and to communicate our position clearly. There is a big difference between left-wing environmentalism that wants higher taxes, bigger government, more bureaucracy, more regulation, more red tape, and more litigation and a Green Conservatism that wants to use science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs, and prizes to find a way to creatively invent the kind of environmental future we all want to live in. Unless we start making the case for the latter, we're going to get the former.

"Science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs, and prizes?" The only policy-specific term on the list (prizes) can only mean "subsidizing industry with tax dollars." The antithesis of the free market.

More importantly, Gingrich appeared in an ad for a website that does not seem the least bit interested in debating policy goals. Here's how one conservative blogger explains it:

Conservatives want nothing more than to be part of the debate but the left has declared the debate OVER and brands any and all who don't completely agree with their position to be unworthy of consideration. Capitulation and compliance are NOT debate.

Folks, we are in trouble. The Democratic Party has made environmentalism their flagship issue this year. ("Vote for us, or the ice caps will melt and we will all die!") One of the GOP's top strategists sits with the Democrat who has the job he once had—itself a painful reminder of how much things have changed—to urge Republicans to join a Democratic lobby. John McCain's environmental rhetoric is hardly different: the value of free markets and property rights are ignored; the Democratic "more environmental laws will improve the economy" logic is echoed.

What could possibly be more dangerous to the health of the Republican Party than conceding to the Democrats on the issue they hide behind the most!

Heck, if we're going to do that, we might as well go all-out. Let's get John McCain to do a commercial with Ted Kennedy about illegal immigration. Let's get Rush Limbaugh to do a commercial with Al Franken directing people to the Brady campaign's website, to encourage conservatives to "take part in the debate."

Wait, I have a better idea. Let's defend our positions, by showing how they derive from our principles and by showing factual evidence that supports them. Let's define the terms of the debate, that the Democrats should be on the defensive to justify taxation and regulation, rather than us defending our positions from their bogeymen.

It surprises me that Gingrich hasn't thought of this alternative strategy. After all, that was precisely how he engineered the take-back in 1994!

The 1994 sweep happened because conservatives engaged and defeated liberal myths. People were sick of the Nanny State and wanted less government. The Republican Party offered the people our solution: less government! We won more than we have since. George W. Bush's and Ronald Reagan's victories were derived from promises of less government. Today Bush's approval rating is lower than ever before. No surprise—he broke his most important promise, that of shrinking government. Americans want less government and the more that the Republican Party promises it and keeps its promises, the more successful we will be.

This brings me to my race.

Bart Stupak is the quintessential liberal. Regulate land, sea, and air. Regulate the Internet. Regulate the economy. Regulate firearms. Regulation is bliss. Eight times, this man has been elected on this platform.

I have spent the last several months speaking with voters about the government, as happens in a race. Most say they want the government to get out of their lives as much as possible. Yet we continue to elect this governmentalist. It isn't because people like taxes and regulation. It's because the Democrat has convinced people that taxes and regulation are justified in certain situations (for which there is always an excuse), and the Republican opponent fails to show the voter how he is being manipulated and what the "unintended" consequences of the taxation/regulation will be.

For our part, Republican candidates can't do it ourselves. We depend on the enthusiasm of the grassroots to get the message out. No campaign is successful without that. Which Republican candidate in the Presidential race drew literally tens of thousands of new activists into the party, activists who are now filing to run for precinct delegate and getting involved for the long haul? (Hint: he endorsed me the other day.)

If we sacrifice our principles for political expedience, we are left with neither. We need to be informed and outspoken. I concede nothing to the Democrat Party, other than the skill with which they've taken over the legislature. Now it is time we sharpen up, we get the facts on global warming and other modern Democratic gimmicks ("network neutrality" legislation is another big one) and through practice and patience, inform the voters what is really going on, as quickly as possible.

For a Republican Future

Related Content