Recently Obama attacked CEOs of firms that have received bailout money from the government, for taking their usual enormous salaries and bonuses.  He wants to cap their salaries at $500K.

A large number of conservative commentators have, in typical knee-jerk fashion, immediately screeched that this is about nationalizing these companies, or that the government has no right to set limits on salaries, etc.  Others warn that executives will leave their posts, because they will be able to make much more elsewhere.

Thinking this through to the next level, though, I support the cap.  Why?  Simple: because I don’t believe the government should be bailing out these firms in the first place.

If they are going to get taxpayer money, the firms should not expect to be able to spend it without government strings attached.  This is ALWAYS the case with public money.  So conservatives complaining about these caps need to first check whether they supported any bailouts of these companies with OTHER people’s money.

Second, it sets in place a powerful disincentive for the execs at these firms to request a bailout unless they really need it.  Lately, it’s been bailout mania.  Everyone has had their hand out, it seems.  No one wants to be left behind.  Even if they don’t need it, they want to get a piece of the pie lest they fall behind competitively, or just out of pure greed.

But if it hits the execs where it hurts, then they will think twice about asking for a bailout for their firms.  I hope the end result is that far fewer firms actually come to the taxpayer with their hands out.

I have been very busy, too busy to keep up with a blog. Well, I won’t make any excuses for this.  To make it easier to write, I am changing the focus of this blog a bit.  Instead of following Weyrich’s series as my primary focus, I’ll just post thoughts as they occur to me, like a regular blog.

First, though, I want to take a moment to mourn the passing of one of my favorite conservative leaders, and the original inspiration for the theme of this blog: Paul Weyrich himself.  He passed away December 19, 2008.  He was active and writing, it appears, up until the day before he died, in spite of great sickness and pain.  Not sure if you knew, but he had to have both his legs amputated a few years back, and was in a wheelchair.    But he didn’t let that stop him from writing prolifically and being active in conservative circles for the last few years.

Read a tribute to Paul Weyrich and his life at the Free Congress Foundation website.

I will likely revisit some of Weyrich’s writings in the future.  As I mentioned, however, for now there are other things on my mind, and it’s become pretty obvious that the only effective way for me to keep a blog is to write thoughts as they come to me.

The second installment in Weyrich’s series is entitled The Centrality of Culture.

I believe our cultural and moral battle is the CORE problem facing conservatism, and indeed, our nation, at this time.

Weyrich’s basic point here is that while the “conservative movement” was busy racking up ideological and actual political wins,  the “counter-culture” of the 1960’s became firmly entrenched as the culture of our nation.  Political correctness reigns, and we have ceded many important battles on the cultural front.  Relativism and moral decay leave us with no compass, no societal sense of direction other than “please me NOW.”  We have become so overwhelmed with the trends that in many cases we have simply thrown up our hands in despair.

Many of our own “conservative” leaders seem to have lost their fervor on these social and moral values.  They pay lip service to them but do not take leadership in protecting and furthering these values.  Unfortunately, many of them have their own moral failings.  And many “thought leaders” in the conservative movement seem to be influenced more and more by libertarianism than true conservatism, particularly social conservatism.

Weyrich proposes a radical solution.  We can fight it in our institutions, but he suggests this is a losing battle.  Instead he suggests we create our own separate institutions that are founded on our cultural values; implicitly, it seems he is suggesting the institutions taken over by the cultural left will decay and fall under their own weight.

In other words, create alternatives, and then people will see and understand how decrepit the “mainstream” institutions have become.  Just as the “new media” is an alternative to those who have become fed up with the old, “mainstream” media, so also we can create our own alternatives in other areas.

I was thinking about this in concrete terms the other day.  I want the local schools to be positively affected and improved, and one way some people propose to do that is to keep their kids in the local school and just make sure to train their kids well at home so they can be a positive influence on others at school.  I agree with this in part, but I think it’s a bit naive.  I also am not willing to put my own kids at risk during their vulnerable years for the sake of this cause.  When they are adults, yes, they should engage the culture around us.  But when they are young they are much busier ABSORBING the culture and its ideals, not influencing it.  In the schools, in particular, they are in a vulnerable situation, with the often liberal teachers in the authority position.  There is little they can do to change that environment for the better.

Sometimes I think the best thing we can do is to show people a better way of living.  Show them our healthy, happy families.  Show them families that stick together through the hard times.  Let them see the higher grades and success achieved in private schools and home schools.  Show them integrity at work, at play, and in business dealings.  In some cases this may require some degree of separation to build and preserve all these values, but ultimately we must come back to re-engage society from a firm foundation.

OK, so it’s been a long while since I wrote on this blog.  Yes, life got in the way, and my zeal just kind of petered out.  But this being an election year, I decided to start blogging BEFORE the election instead of after it.

Here is a link worth looking at.
A Call for Greening of Conservatives (Review of Newt Gingrich’s book A Contract with the Earth)

It seems that more conservatives are coming around to the importance of environmental issues. Now, most of us don’t want to go to the extreme that some environmentalists take it, such as banning the internal combustion engine, or blaming all climate change on human activity. But far too many of our conservative pundits have taken the opposite extreme. Of course they all say they are for clean air, water, etc. but the way they completely disparage their opponents on environmental issues leaves many with the impression they don’t care a bit about the environment. And frankly, judging by their actions, it is obvious they don’t care.

True conservatives should show a conscience about the environment, and seek to “leave it better than we found it” while still balancing that with the needs of humans for housing and basic necessities.  Conspicuous consumption and runaway materialism are just not compatible with conscientious conservatism.

As someone who has lived and traveled extensively overseas, one thing I miss the most in the “good ol’ US of A” is a decent public transportation system. In many countries of the world, it is quite comfortable to get around without owning a car. But here, especially where I live, it is next to impossible to get by without one.

Although I appreciate the wealth and the freedom we have in this country to own cars and drive where we like, when we like, I feel we take this freedom to an extreme. Or perhaps I should say, our urban environment forces us to use cars far more often than is necessary or prudent. I don’t put the blame on any one group, person or factor. But clearly, our city planning has evolved in an environment where cars, gas and land were cheap, and public transportation seemed too costly because our cities are too spread out.

Paul Weyrich has long been an advocate of public transportation. In his most recent commentary entitled Conservatives and Many Voters Support Mass Transit, Paul Weyrich makes a very convincing case that voters in the 2006 midterm elections, including conservatives, support the construction of more mass transit. Paul views mass transit as just another public utility, like water or garbage collection– an analogy I find useful.  Extending the analogy, aren’t roads themselves funded and maintained by public funds?  So why not mass transit?

Where I live, the city is eager to subsidize the light rail lines, even though they operate at an overall loss. Many conservatives object to this. However, consider the alternative: if you take all the people that currently ride to work on the light rail, and dump them on the main artery road to downtown, the traffic would be horrendous. The city would be forced to spend FAR MORE on expanding this road, which was just expanded seven years ago and is already built as wide as it can go. Any more expansion would basically require digging a tunnel or making a multi-decked road.

One common objection of conservatives is that whenever government does something, it does it less efficiently than the private sector. I share this observation in general. However, why not apply this argument to the public road system as well? Everyone is familiar with the Big Dig in Boston, how much that went over budget, and the safety problems it has had. The real solution to this objection is for the government to solicit competitive bids from private contractors, as has been done successfully with many major road projects in the area where I live.

When I lived near the rail line, I rode it to work every day. Given the choice, I would ride the rail even though it took 40 minutes instead of 25 in my car. It was time I could spend reading or relaxing, instead of shouting at the other drivers as I navigated rush-hour traffic. I benefited from the daily exercise, walking to and from the rail station. And if I factored in the depreciation on my car, and not just the price of gasoline, I was saving up to $150 a month by riding the train! I pitied the vast majority of folks who lived too far to take advantage of the one or two rail lines available. Now, in the recent elections, local voters have spoken: they want the city to expand the lines even farther. The expanded service will not reach everyone, but it will make a huge difference for those it does reach, and ease the load on the highways for everyone else.

In conclusion, I strongly believe the next conservatism should support mass transit, to conserve our precious resources, decrease urban sprawl, lower the blood pressure of every commuter who rides it, and help relieve the heavy load on many of our roads.

Back to the central theme of this blog, which is to discuss my thoughts and reactions to Paul Weyrich’s series entitled The Next Conservatism, and explore how this movement can go forward.

The first part of his series was published on 2005-07-18 and was entitled The Next Conservatism. I recommend you read it before continuing.

This first part introduces the concept of the “next conservatism,” and explains why conservatism, which emphasizes principles that do not change, needs a new movement. It gives a brief history of conservatism as a movement that, while maintaining a stable core, has changed its focus on certain issues in response to the changing times.

Even back in 2005, when George W. Bush was still looking fairly good, Paul Weyrich was thinking about the post-Bush conservative movement. This seems especially prescient in the light of the outcome of the 2006 midterm elections (which, to be honest, are what spurred me to start this blog!).

Now, in the wake of those elections, it seems all the more appropriate to start the next phase of conservatism, refocusing our core principles to apply to the current state of the world. To do this, we need to review the core issues which really define conservatism, and re-evaluate our positions, our movement, and everything that revolves around the core. We should keep an open mind as we do so, being prepared to jettison or at least modify peripheral, non-essential or secondary positions if they are not consistent with our essence.

The loss of Republican power in the elections can be at least partly attributed to their abandonment of core conservative principles, and their clinging to such secondary, non-essential positions. Even now, Republican leadership is not taking the steps necessary to correct this. It is becoming apparent that the best (and possibly only) way for this to change is for the next conservative movement to rise up from the grass roots and force change on the leadership. I aim to be part of this movement, and to help persuade my fellow conservatives to stop clinging to non-essential issues and refocus ourselves on what really matters.

It seems that the company United Nuclear is on the verge of delivering practical, if a bit expensive, hydrogen conversion kits for our gasoline cars! Their main site for this product is http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/.

Don’t be put off by the “nuclear” in their name– apparently they originally were a scientific equipment and supplies company, including shipments of small samples of uranium for university and lab research.

Now, they are testing a practical hydrogen storage system for cars. Practical, because it can safely store enough hydrogen for over 300 miles of driving, in about the same volume as the equivalent amount of gasoline. They use a metal hydride compound to store the hydrogen with high density and safety. For the hydrogen source, the conversion kit includes 4 solar panels, although you could probably also use power from your outlet to “charge” up the hydrogen tanks. The car can also continue to run on gasoline if the hydrogen tanks run out.

The product is in its final testing stages. The catch– and there always seems to be a catch– is the price, at $7,000-10,000 per conversion. Even so, I am eagerly awaiting the results of their research, and will be watching their page to see if anything comes of this.

How does this relate to the Next Conservatism? Well, if you read the About page, you will know that conservation is one of my big issues. I strongly believe we need to get away from our addiction to fossil fuels, whether for national security or environmental reasons. The best way to do this without crippling our economy will be through practical and innovative new technologies such as this. So from time to time, I may highlight new technology like this, if it catches my interest.

UPDATE:

A little more digging around reveals some reasons to be skeptical. Bob Lazar, who runs United Nuclear, is apparently a UFO quack. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has shut down portions of his business and even performed a raid on his home. However, in this case, the CPSC does seem to have overstepped its bounds and may not have a good enough reason for their action. United Nuclear’s supporters say the effect of the ban on certain chemicals in question is simply to get rid of children’s chemistry kits.

I hate conspiracy theories, but in the area of alternative energy, it is almost irresistible to conclude that something is going on behind the scenes.  Either way, I am a whole lot more skeptical about United Nuclear’s claims than I was yesterday when I first found the link.  However, I don’t think they deserve the treatment they have gotten, for whatever reason.

Welcome! Being my first foray into blogging, I’m sure this will seem very amateurish until I get the hang of it.

The theme of this blog is the next conservative movement, or the next conservatism, inspired in part by a series by that name written by Paul Weyrich and others. Of course, this blog reflects my own opinions and not those of Paul Weyrich.

In the months to come, I hope to post my thoughts about Weyrich’s arguments, as well as anything else that strikes my fancy and is consistent with the central theme.

To start, I have posted links to all of the articles in the series on the About page. This complete list is hard to find anywhere on the Web.

Technorati tags: Next Conservatism | Conservation | Conservatism | Politics | Lifestyle