How the Republicans can win the White House

OK, it's time for me to do what I've been threatening for some time now, and that's to write a post about the issues (as I see 'em) in the upcoming 2008 presidential election. Before I get there, just a quick digression...

I've been following the democratic race as avidly (perhaps more so) as I have the Republicans. Now, I'll never be able to vote for a Democratic candidate because they're completely at odds with my own beliefs in small government, but I just love the passion and personality embodied by Barack Obama. I've never cared for either Hillary or John Edwards, but I've always had a soft spot in my heart for Hillary's hubby, Slick Willy. That's why I have been so surprised at the totally uncharacteristic behaviors I've seen him exhibit on behalf of Hillary in the last few weeks. Bill has turned out to be just another piece of sh*t political hatchet-man, and I think we're somewhat lessened for it. I know that he has been diminished by this role, and, if Hillary can't win on her own, does she really deserve the nomination? I won't detail all of the Democratic leaders who were calling for restraint, but suffice to say that Teddy (the Chairman of the Board) Kennedy's uncharacteristic endorsement yesterday of Obama should send a strong message to the Clinton campaign.

Also, at the time I'm writing this, it appears as though John McCain has won the Florida Republican primary, effectively ending the Giuliani campaign. At this time, it appears to be a 2-horse race between Johnny Mac and Mitt Romney, although Huckabee, like herpes, refuses to fade. Full disclosure, I'm supporting John McCain.

At this time, it feels as though the Democrats do have all the momentum. It also feels as though the Republicans will have a Sysiphean effort to overcome the damage that President Bush and the last Republican congress have done to the party. Still, for the right candidate, there's an opportunity; Republican candidates do possess some innate strengths that they need to capitalize on if they are to retain the White House. First and foremost though, before we get to the issues, here are the nuts-n-bolts things that the nominee has to do in order to win:

1. (Re)-Introduce himself to the electorate - coming out of the primary, the focus has been in many ways on playing (some might say pandering) to the party base. The candidate needs to allow the American public to get to know him on a personal level
2. Clearly enunciate his stand on the issues. No ambiguity, no pandering, no bullsh*t, what you believe in, and why. Hire good staff to help explain it and message it appropriately. Study the opposition arguments and for God's sake, understand them. Be prepared to explain in a simple, folksy way, why his position is superior. Don't fall into the trap that Bush did with personal Social Security accounts (just an example); be prepared to go blow-for-blow with the Dems as far as explaining your position, and please, please be prepared to modify your message as required - nobody wants to hear a robot. Note that this is largely the reason Huckabee is so popular and likable.
3. Don't be evasive - or coy, or act like you have something to hide. If you're John McCain, get your act together on economics and be able to speak intelligently about it. If you don't know something, hey, admit it - people respect honesty, but make damn sure that the next time you're asked, you have an intelligent response. While we're at it, let's agree to let Ronald Reagan rest in peace. The 80's were a different time, and while I love Reagan, the challenges we face today aren't necessarily going to be addressed by the prescriptions of the Reagan administration
4. Be very careful about going negative - I know it works, but a lot of people frown on it. There are good ways to contrast your positions with your opponents that don't involve mudslinging; try like hell to stay away from it. Demonstrate a willingness to depart from business as usual in Washington. Showcase the ability to build bipartisan support - and in a related note that all Democrats are not evil (with perhaps the exception of John Edwards, Harry Reid, and Charlie Rangel).

The Economy

This is going to be a tougher issue for the Republican nominee. There's a rising tide of populism throughout the nation that makes the message of tax cuts and smaller government a difficult one to get out. Bottom line is that the candidate needs to buckle down and come up with an economic package that embraces tax cutting and then be able to explain why it's important. You probably don't want to go after estate tax repeal, but a few years back there was some bi-partisan support for raising the estate size exclusion; revisit that. If you meet resistance, get family farmers/small-business owners up on the pulpit with you and put a face on the issue. Tax reform is too difficult to campaign on; any reform you propose (Fair Tax, Flat Tax, etc.) will have you fighting the left with little gain. You may however have to go there to show you have original ideas and to further distinguish yourself from the status quo. The other potential reason to espouse tax reform is that there's a growing segment of the population that pays no taxes at all - guess how they vote. It becomes increasingly less difficult for the representatives of the non-taxpaying class to raise taxes on the remainder of the populace who do. I mean, talk about class warfare - there should be a way to frame an argument for everyone paying their fair share, but it's gonna be hard.

More importantly than taxes, the Republican candidate needs to wage ware on spending. He needs to put Congress on notice that earmarks are done. He should make a passionate argument for returning the line-item veto. If the candidate is Romney or Giuliani, there were already some good ideas; especially Rudy's idea about not hiring back 50% of the federal workforce that's slated to retire over the next few years. This isn't an overt cut, it's just not re-hiring; what a great idea. Assuming Romney has gotten over his urge to experiment with government-sponsored healthcare, we assume as a former Bain official that he has some decent economic ideas. Romney would potentially be a great Treasury secretary. McCain will have the toughest problem on economic issues; and he's going to have to do a lot of damage control to repair the incredibly stupid admission that he "Doesn't know that much - but has Greenspan's book...". At least he's a hawk on spending. He'll need to get some old-time religion on tax policy to beef up his bona fides.

Trade

Republicans have always been the party of free trade; even Mr. Clinton embraced NAFTA. I think it's appropriate at this time though, to be prepared to broaden the discussion a bit. The days of "fast-track" authority on trade agreements for the executive branch are gone and won't be returning any time soon. Any agreements that are made in the future are going to require bipartisan support, and I'm not sure this is a bad thing. Now, I'm a long way from my ECON classes in college/grad school, but I read recently that the theory of comparative advantage may need to be tweaked somewhat. I think that the last 15-20 years have also shown us that there are winners and losers from free trade, and that U.S. workers are not necessarily on the winning end in most cases (compared to U.S. consumers who most assuredly are). Republicans need to understand this, and work to help shrink the skills gap that emerges as unskilled labor flees offshore. While this most certainly means increased spending, the longer term increases in revenues from an increased salary base (resulting from a more skilled labor pool) should provide an appropriate return - look what happened after WWII with the G.I. Bill.

Also falling into the Trade category, is the concept of federal subsidies. This, as with many other topics is inextricably tied to spending. The subsidies for farmers that we've passed over the last 2 decades are shameful. Something like 80% of farm subsidy dollars go to corporate mega-farming operations (think ADM, Tyson, etc.) and to "family" farm operations with annual incomes in the millions of dollars. We're also in constant trouble with world trade organizations because of these subsidies, and for Democrats who consider themselves the protectors of the poor, these subsidies directly harm poor farmers in other nations who do not share our economic and technological advantages. In a similar vein, the Republican candidate has to work to kill Ethanol subsidies. If it can compete with oil, then let it sink or swim on its own merit. Same for sugar (one of the more egregious subsidies out there).

Energy

Here's an area where we really need to depart from "politics as usual". We cannot ignore what has happened with fossil fuels in the last 4 years. Global demand is surging, as a burgeoning middle-class in India and China have moved from an agrarian subsistence to an urban one. We need original ideas, that focus on both the supply and demand sides of the equation. On the supply side, we need to look at common-sense approaches to opening new areas (ANWR, offshore) to exploration. We need to look at ways to helping expand refinery capacity. We need a plan to counter Chinese influence in Africa to help lock up trade agreements with these newly found centers of oil wealth. Ethanol may play a role in our energy policy. If so, let's drop tariffs on Ethanol imports; let the domestic players compete as they can, but drop the damn subsidies. We need to embrace nuclear power - this needs to be centerpiece of the policy. Europe has been deploying nuclear safely for over 40 years; we need to get by the fear and understand that it's an effective way to generate power.

I'm not a huge fan of targeting a single industry (automobile), but a minor increase in CAFE standards seems appropriate. The Republican nominee needs to take a stand against California's "rogue" plan for legislating automobile efficiency - state rights don't trump the EPA. It might be appropriate to increase the gas tax; it has held steady at (I believe) 18.4 cents/gallon for 25 years. God knows we need the infrastructure investment. And yes, I realize the inconsistency with my normal anti-tax message - but here's an issue that cries out for bipartisan solutions, and increasing the gas tax isn't wholly regressive (unlike say, increasing the cigarette tax).

Finally, tax policies need to favor investment in alternative energy sources (wind, geothermal, battery technology, etc.). We need to harness the entrepreneurial engine of our economy and challenge them to come up with new ideas. Proper incentives will help spur this investment.

National Security

A Republican candidate needs a plan for Iraq. It doesn't necessarily have to involve an exit, but it certainly needs to address the inability of the Iraqi government to hit certain milestones. Again, in the interest of full-disclosure, I'm against the war, but for a different reason than most. I'm not morally opposed to it, although I think in general that the American public has lost it's stomach for war. I'm opposed to war because of the cost, and the fact that there doesn't seem to be an end in sight. A Republican candidate must understand that while the surge is working, it's not a long-term strategy, and eventually we'll start cycling home those additional soldiers. I think we need to define an acceptable security presence and start radically reducing the U.S. footprint.

We need to categorically disavow torture. The Bush administration has diminished us greatly by refusing to do so, and this needs to be addressed. We must regain the moral high-ground in this argument. It's OK to give everyone from the previous administration a "get out of jail free card" on the past, but from this point forward it stops. On a similar note, we need to close Guantanamo. Give the detainees access to lawyers, and let's get the process rolling. It needs to be closed down in the first 2 years of the next president's term.

Finally, we need to start rolling back some of the powers accrued to the executive branch over the past 8 years. We need to repeal major versions of the Patriot act, an assault on civil liberties that would make Stalin happy. I don't care if Osama Bin Laden himself is calling me at home, you better by God have a FISA warrant before you wiretap my phone. We need to move beyond a culture of secrecy, and embrace transparency. We need to quit using signing statements to reinterpret the laws that our representatives pass on our behalf.

We need to communicate to the American people the balance that must be struck between civil liberties and convenience, and protecting our citizenry. Nothing is free, but we are perhaps, paying too high a price for safety now. In any case, we need to broaden the debate and make it public. I know that I'd be willing to give up some protection to make flying bearable again - there are others who'd disagree with me, but we should have the debate!

Immigration

Personal disclosure time - I'm all about fairness. When I was a kid, my younger brother was diagnosed as being allergic to, well basically everything. What this meant was that he got an allergy shot every week and a free pass when it came to yard work as he couldn't be around cut grass. I never got over the fact that I still had to do my share of the work, while he sat inside watching TV. I've carried this fairness doctrine around my whole life, so, naturally when I see any immigration plan that doesn't deport anyone who's here illegally, or punish employers who hired these illegals, I get righteous about it.

However... Trying to address immigration by departing approximately 13 million people is about as practical as a fish on a bicycle. It ain't gonna happen, and Republicans on the far right (Tom Tancredo) need to get over it. McCain endorsed a bipartisan plan that called for illegals to:

• Return home
• Pay a substantial fine

Only then would they receive a shot at citizenship. This seems reasonable - it ain't perfect, but it's reasonable. Look, the Republican candidate cannot afford to alienate the hispanic vote. They're a natural constituency - conservative and religious, and they represent an increasing percentage of the electorate in more states than you'd imagine. The proper immigration policy can go a long way to locking these voters up for a generation, especially if a Republican president leads the way.

Immigration needs to be controlled. A national ID card is probably worth pursuing, as is English as a national language. The ID card plays well with the Security crowd, and I can't understand those opposed to the English language argument, so push it.

Immigration is important for our country. Our birth rates have fallen for the last quarter century. We need immigrants to replenish the workforce as the baby boomers retire. Immigrants also will increasingly take service sector jobs in healthcare that assist in caring for our aging population. We need a guest worker program that accepts the imbalances that exist in certain wage sectors. We need to work with our neighbors (Mexico) to help them address the corruption and economic problems that force their citizens to flee to opportunities in the U.S. And yes, we do need to secure the border, but let's do it as part of a comprehensive reform package, not as some prerequisite for reform.

That's the illegal side. Now, let's chat briefly about the legal side, specifically H1visas that allow high-tech workers to come into the country to work. Every year, these are exhausted quickly, and papers like the Wall Street Journal consistently align with companies like Microsoft, etc to increase the number of these visas due to perceived shortages in these high-skilled positions. Gotta tell you, having been in high-tech for almost 25 years, this is pure bullshit. The reason we love the H1 visas is that we can pay those workers less money than our own citizens. Most of these people are not employed directly by U.S. companies, rather they are hired by foreign consultancies with a U.S. presence who then provide them as contract personnel to U.S. firms at a fraction of the hourly cost charged by their native counterparts.

I realize this is somewhat of an anti-business argument, but I lived through the dot-com implosion of 2001, and I know that hiring never really recovered in high-tech, and I've always felt that we could do a better job protecting our own high-tech workers. Let's have a plan for providing tax relief/credits/incentives for retraining and rehiring U.S. high-tech workers. I feel very strongly about this.

Healthcare

Something has to give here. I fear the rising populist cry for government-sponsored care. As of this writing, a $14 billion plan for universal care was shot down in California. The reason? It costs too damn much. States are (mostly) required to balance their budgets. Most of them cannot come up with ways to reconcile the cost of these universal plans without debilitating tax increases to pay for them. Even (state) Democrats realize that the magnitude of the required tax burden would kill growth as surely as the red-shirted guy in a Star Trek landing party.

The feds have no such balanced budget requirement (see the deficit of the last 8 years), and will show no restraint whatsoever in order to pass Universal healthcare, the Holy Grail of liberals - call it the New, New Deal. The Republican candidate will really have his work cut out for him here. He will need a great set of advisors to come up with a free-market approach to help counter the Democratic plan. Personally, I loved the plan that Bush touted last year about giving $15K deductions for healthcare to families to account for the benefit received by workers. Fundamentally, I feel healthcare needs to:

• Be personal - not free, and not necessarily employee-sponsored. I'd much prefer an additional $10-15K in income and be responsible for purchasing my own insurance than having my company do it on my behalf. You can bet that under such a system people will become more price-conscious pretty quickly
• Be portable - although if it's personal, it's portable by definition
• Be competitive - we need to get rid of the restrictions that don't allow selling of policies across state lines. This allows states to dictate benefit terms which drive up prices. If I don't need chiropractic care, I shouldn't be forced to buy a policy that includes it. New Jersey has some of the highest mandated coverage requirements in the country; I guess an average policy is around $7500/year. Why shouldn't an individual in NJ be able to buy a policy from, say, Wyoming if it provides the appropriate coverage for his/her situation
• Provide a catastrophic backstop. Some small payroll tax could be levied to provide catastrophic (last resort) illness/injury insurance, which would help keep prices down for certain user-populations
• Provide coverage for children. With limits. SCHIP is a good program, and I believe that the income limits set by the federal government are good ones, but we may need to be flexible here.

Whew!

Well, 3200 words later, I'm all talked out. I don't expect everyone to agree with what I've advised here, but remember, I'm trying to frame the issues for someone like a John McCain to take on someone like a Hillary Clinton. Personally, I feel that if Obama gets the Democratic nomination, the Republicans could run Jesus Christ and lose. At least Hillary is beatable; a polarizing figure with huge negatives. If nothing else, it sure as hell won't be boring!