"I know there is a God, and I know He hates injustice. I see the storm coming, and I know His hand is in it. But if He has a place and a part for me, I believe that I am ready." -Abraham Lincoln
The good Lord has carried me through many journeys, and I have often wondered: What is my place and part? I have had the opportunity to work for NFL Hall-of-Famer Paul Krause in helping him get elected as a county commissioner in Minnesota. I helped former U.S. Senator Rod Grams get elected to the U.S. Senate in 1994. I have crossed paths with, and met, many interesting and wonderful people. As a disabled veteran, I have witnessed first-hand the corruption and misfeasance of bureaucracy. I know what it feels like to have a department of the government lie about you.
Being from Minnesota, I grew up playing a hockey. There was nothing like having the Star Spangled Banner played before a game. It gave me chills and made me feel so proud to be an American. Since those days, the American soul has been damaged. It is time to renew it.
When I was in the Marine Corps, I had the opportunity to make a once-in-a-lifetime trip to the island of Iwo Jima. I had the opportunity to go to the top of Mt. Suribachi and see the monument at the exact spot where the flag was raised almost sixty-five years ago. I can truly say that I have been to the mountaintop. As I reflect on that experience, I am reminded that those serving in the military don't fight and die for political parties.
Monument on top of Mt. Suribachi. Photograph taken by me.
Let me say that the Congressional race in Nevada's 3rd CD isn't about personalities. Tragically - and as a great disservice to the voters - as both parties have triangulated in on the worst of the other's positions (viz., interventionism at home and abroad), politics has necessarily been reduced down to a personality contest in an effort to embellish the contrast between the two major parties. This race is not about Dina Titus; it's about her policies.
That said, I wish to offer some advice to the Republican candidate. Rather than plagiarizing myself, I will paste the text from a blog post I made several months ago:
HOW THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CAN HEAL ITSELF
I would like to preface this by noting that I speak as somebody who first got involved in Republican Party politics when I was 16-years-old. I worked on a plurality of Republican campaigns while I was in high school. I am now 32-years-old.
Rank-and-file Republicans have been conned into believing that, in order to get elected, they must surrender conservative principles. Party consultants have candidates and party members convinced that there is a formula for winning an election, and that winning the election is everything.
There is no formula for winning an election. If there was, somebody would have patented it by now. The Republican Party has followed the formula of compromise and surrender, and where has it gotten Republicans? Republicans haven't been winning very many elections lately. And winning elections isn't everything. It does no good to win an election but lose the country. The second you surrender principles, you have already been defeated.
Let me clue the Republican Party in as to why it has become inconsequential: the party has abandoned conservative principles. Party consultants argue that Republicans must behave like Democrats in order to "steal" Democratic votes. It doesn't work that way. If somebody wants big government, they will vote for the authentic socialist, and then blame all of our problems on "laissez-faire" Republicans. By abandoning conservative principles, Republicans give conservatives no compelling reason to show up and vote. The Republican Party has been hemorrhaging conservative votes, while simultaneously discrediting authentic conservatism.
With a FY '09 budget deficit - not even counting off-budget outlays - that will come close to $2 trillion, and a Federal Reserve that has more-than-doubled its balance sheet since September of '08, now is no time for pseudo conservatism. Sterile platitudes are insufficient. We need conservative positions with meaning. Spending less than the Democrats is without meaning. Curtailing "wasteful" government spending is a platitude. Aren't all politicians opposed to "wasteful" spending? And where has that gotten us?
If the Republican Party wants to atone for its past and rebuild its lost credibility, it must work towards electing conservative candidates. It must give conservatives a compelling reason to support Republican candidates. It is a long road ahead, but the Republican Party can start down this path of redemption in 2010.
This won't be an easy road. But to travel it, we must not only elect truly conservative Republicans, we must also elect Republicans who can articulate the virtues of the free market. This is the only way to short circuit demagoguing Democrats, who appeal to the masses by convincing them that the government can spend us out of poverty.
It shouldn't be hard to put an end to demagoguing Democrats, so long as we understand economics. With the government as big as it is, would it not be reasonable to assume that most people who are very wealthy are so because of government interference in the market? Does big business not use the government to manipulate the market in its behalf? And with the government as big as it is, would it also not be reasonable to assume that many people are poor precisely because of government interference in the market? It is called the cost of lost opportunity.
Political crossdressing Republicans won't cut it. Republicans must admit their past sins, by acknowledging that they haven't been governing as true conservatives for the last several years. Until then, the free market will continue to be the scapegoat. If the party fails this test, it will become a party of irrelevance, sentenced to the same fate as Sisyphus.
The problems that we are going to be facing will require more than quarrels over transitory issues such as earmarks and nominal cuts in tax rates. Earmarks shouldn't be conflated with spending, as 100% of earmarks could be abolished, but government spending still increases. There can be cuts in nominal tax rates, while the overall tax burden rises.
So long as Congress' spending orgy remains intact, we will not have had an overall net tax decrease. All government spending must be paid for one way or another. Whether it is through direct taxation or inflation (i.e., creating the money), it's a tax. There is no objective difference between the government taking the money you have in your pocket and duplicating the money you have in your pocket, consequently reducing your money's purchasing power. It is called the inflation tax. It's a stealth tax, but a tax it is.
Right now, the Congress is running huge deficits. Some may think the way to solve this is through higher taxes. Some have argued for a nicer sounding consumption tax. But let's not forget that producers must consume in order to sustain the process of production. (That is why investment can only come out of savings.) Thus a consumption tax is a tax on production. We do not suffer from insufficient taxation. We suffer from excessive government spending.
This means we have to make dramatic cuts in government expenditures. This also means that sterile platitudes will be insufficient. If one favors reducing the tax burden, the question is: how do we get there without re-assessing the role government ought to play in our lives? Unless we can arrive at a much lower, explicit target for the government's role in our lives, all talk about tax cuts will be meaningless.
I strongly encourage Republicans - as well as the prospective 3rd CD nominee - to re-think the policy of interventionism and foreign entanglements. Let's not confuse withdrawal with surrender. Nobody that I can think of is advocating ceding U.S. territory to Iraqis or Afghanis. We are so heavily indebted that the very troops who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are going to come home and then have to pay for these wars for the rest of their lives. Furthermore, we haven't the resources to keep the promises that have been made to veterans. When we are incapable of keeping promises made to veterans - which is a corollary of this out-of-control spending orgy - then we have no business sustaining a war policy which is creating more disabled veterans.
The most politically feasible place to cut government spending is on the overseas empire. If we can't cut there, then we will be politically incapable of cutting anywhere.
Congresswoman Dina Titus has voted against an exit strategy for Afghanistan and for the ongoing occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. If Dina Titus supports this nation building stuff, how can nation building be a conservative position? I believe that the Republicans have an excellent opportunity to capitalize on Dina's votes on this issue if they would re-assess the party's position, and then embrace the Taft position.
I entered the race for Nevada's 3rd CD not because I was enamored with the idea of going to Congress. It isn't me that the voters need. I entered the race to try to insert and inject real issues into the debate, because it is the ideas that matter, and it is liberty that people need. Let me just say this: I love people. I want what is best for everybody in the long-run. As Lord Acton said: "Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end."
As I have weighed what I would like to do vs. what the best thing I can do to advance the cause of liberty, I have decided, without reservation, that the best thing is for me to support Dr. Joe Heck. It's time to give Washington some Heck. Therefore, I am withdrawing from the race for Nevada's 3rd CD. I also encourage Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and independents to support Dr. Joe Heck.
While I certainly believe that Rob Lauer is a decent and well-intentioned person, from reading his position statements I don't get the impression he understands the gravity of the problems we face. While Dr. Heck may not have been perfect at all times (who is?), I do get the sense that he understands the gravity of the problems we face. I also believe Dr. Heck's heart is in the right place. As a physician and a full-bird Colonel, I believe Dr. Heck will make a much more effective candidate than either I or Rob Lauer. Dr. Heck is the right man for the job. That said, I look forward to helping out whoever receives the Republican Party's nomination in whatever capacity I can.
Presently, we are being driven towards a cliff. If we don't take back the Congress in 2010 and change current policy, we are going over that cliff.
I wish to thank all of those who supported me. Any and all contributions that I have received will be returned to the contributors. While I made sure to not reach the filing threshold, and thus I didn't actively raise funds and solicit endorsements, I am proud of, and thankful for, the endorsement of Professor of Economics Barry Brownstein. Professor Brownstein knew one of my heroes: the late UNLV Professor of Economics Murray Rothbard.
I would like to leave you all with a video of President Reagan's 1981 Inaugural Address, which I believe is very timely. Dina Titus - and I know you or somebody in your office reads my commentaries - you should watch this:
Mark served honorably for four years on active duty in the Marine Corps infantry, and was a Libertarian endorsed candidate for a municipal office in 2002. He has held the NFA Series 3 license (commodity futures and futures options broker) which he did a voluntary withdrawal on so that he can trade futures for his personal account. Since the year 2000, he has spent much of his free time reading the great minds of the Austrian School of economics, such as Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, et al.
Cover
•
Commentary
•
Books & Reviews
•
Climate Change
•
Site Links
•
Feedback
Mark served honorably for four years on active duty in the Marine Corps infantry, and was a Libertarian endorsed candidate for a municipal office in 2002. He has held the NFA Series 3 license (commodity futures and futures options broker) which he did a voluntary withdrawal on so that he can trade futures for his personal account. Since the year 2000, he has spent much of his free time reading the great minds of the Austrian School of economics, such as Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, et al.