Conviction

What follows is an email that I sent to a coworker of mine essentially in response to a conversation we had earlier in the day.

Okay, so I do not think that Ron Paul is a wingnut, quite to the contrary in fact. I do believe that he is viewed by both those in and outside of the Republican Party as an extremist, much the way that Ayn Rand was viewed both in her lifetime and now. He is a man of conviction who says what he means and means what he says, a quality not often seen in politics. Chris Christie may be along similar lines but I do not know where he stands on things outside of the New Jersey budget.

You made the comment earlier today that Republicans, in order to succeed, need to go back to their core values. My question to you is, what are those values? Low taxes? Hands off government? Balanced budgets? Small government? Even Reagan, great as he was, did not manage to remain true to those values. The problem in today's Republican Party is the very same that has haunted the party since Reagan left office, what does it stand for? This question has been raised many times by the media and it almost always comes back to Republicans are the party of "no." They are great are saying what they are against without truly articulating what it is they are for. And for this, I believe that the Republican Party must define itself or die. It's that simple.

Despite how it is portrayed, there is a great diversity of thought within the party. On one side of the spectrum you have John McCain, the great moderate waffler. On the other side you have the libertarian Ron Paul. The colors of the Republican Party's diversity umbrella does not have the bright vivid colors of the Democratic Party. No, the Republicans, for the most part are pastels all kind of blending together.

I got off track a bit there. The point I was trying to make is that the Republican Party is in the midst of an identity crisis. Is it old guard Republicans, Progressive Republicans, Tea Party Republicans, or some variation there of?

The other point I was trying to make earlier is that the vast majority of Republicans care some level of guilt for having the beliefs that they do. The example I used was Rand Paul. He made the statement that he did not agree with everything in the Civil Rights Act. He obvious had a conviction, enough to make such a bold statement, but when the follow-up question came, he got dodgy and retreated which did nothing to help his cause. Now, people are left to wonder, "Well, what did he mean by that?" I do not know what it was that he didn't agree with, but he should have stated his reason and explained why he believed it. Do I believe the Department of Education should be eliminated? Absolutely and here are a couple of reasons why I believe this:

• Since its inception in 1979, American children have fallen further and further behind in regard to what they walk away from school with after twelve years of education.
• The Department is little more than a sinkhole of bureaucratic largess. $X billion are spent every year by this Department and what has our return on investment been? Absolutely nothing. I challenge anyone in this room to give me 3 concrete and positive great things that have been the result of the Department of Education.
• Education is, ultimately, a local issue. It should be left to the individual school districts to determine what and how they should educate their children. Look at the Department itself when it comes to the creation of curriculum. One would think that a primary purpose of the Department would be to establish a list of things all children within a certain grade should know. Our children cannot name the presidents of the United States. Can a typical high school student carry on an intelligent conversation about World War One? Who is Ernest Hemingway? Who was Frederick Douglas?
  

Either eliminate the Department or redefine its purpose so that its stated objectives are results driven. The Department, if spared, should be vastly reduced in size and scope, its chief purpose to aid the states and their children achieve. How much money is wasted absolutely on the federal level and never filters down to the children. Return the money to the states where budgetary controls are better monitored.

Okay, I know that my example with the Department of Education was a bit scattered in thought, but I specifically put down whatever came to mind, as if I were sitting in front of a camera having to defend my argument that the Department of Education should be eliminated. My point is, my premise, to many, is controversial. I made the statement, stood by it and provided reasons why those are my beliefs. Where are the Republicans that do that? No man should be in conflict when it comes to his beliefs. Never. If you cannot speak with conviction, you shouldn't be making a statement. It's just that simple. When people make seemingly random and unsupported statements, that is when they run into trouble. Rand would not be mired in controversy, he would not be wasting precious time and resources if he had simply said exactly what he meant.

Okay. I have to walk the dogs. Feel free to respond if you like. Also, if you want to bring in additional people, feel free to do so.

Let's keep the conversation going.