New E-Book from (and for) Young Conservatives Hits “Shelves” Today

A brand new e-book is now published and available for purchase on Amazon, and is compatible with Kindle, Nook, iPad, and any other e-reader format.

The book, aptly entitled Young, Conservative, and Why It’s Smart To Be Like Us, contains 14 individual chapters written by 14 young conservatives. Each of the authors tells their personal political stories; why they believe what they do, and why it makes sense for the reader to as well. Each is unique, and exemplifies the “different paths to the same destination” approach designed by Liz Wheeler, who conceived the idea, headed up the project, and herself wrote a contributing chapter (and introduction).

Liz wants America’s young people, college students in particular, to see that their professors and the media’s portrayal of conservatives and conservatism isn’t necessarily accurate.

“I hope the book helps bust the stereotype that conservatives are one group of identical people with identical beliefs.” Liz notes. “In reality, we are individuals with different beliefs, different priorities, and different backgrounds. We all chose conservatism because it’s the best way to protect the freedom to live our lives the way we deem best…to believe, prioritize, and live how we want.”

Barack Obama won 67 percent of young voters (ages 18-26) against Mitt Romney, and increased his vote total from that bloc by more than 1.25 million over the 2008 election. Conservatives must account for this thrashing and work to turn the tide if they hope to have a future in the American socio-political landscape.  To this end, this book seeks to jumpstart a discussion and lead critically-thinking young people towards understanding the importance and validity of conservative policies.

Inside Young, Conservative, and Why It’s Smart To Be Like Us, the reader will find both anecdotal memoires and tales of the various life experiences that lead each author to conservatism, as well as impassioned and reasoned arguments for free markets, capitalism, limited government, traditional American values, and American exceptionalism.

I was honored to be included as a contributor for the book, and hope to join my co-authors in opening the hearts and minds of America’s millennial generation to the practical and logical appeal of conservative values.

Here’s the link to the book on Amazon (it’s only $3.85!): http://bit.ly/YoungConservativeAndSmart

If you don’t have an e-reader, you can download a free Kindle app for your computer here:  http://bit.ly/YCS-ReadingApps

Young, Conservative, and Why It’s Smart To Be Like Us co-authors:

Dina Fraioli, Dan Webb, Liz Wheeler, Allen Ginzburg, Kevin Eder, Liz Thatcher, Liberty Betts, Erin Brown, Brady Cremeens, Gabriella Hoffman, Kate Shaw, Brandon Morse, R.J. Moeller, and Mary Climer-Chastain

America’s Worst Monsters

This post originally ran at The Right Sphere on 4/11/2013.

Putting aside for a moment their staggeringly abhorrent vox populi, it’s nonetheless somewhat refreshing when the Left reveals in full clarity the breadth of its intentions.

That is exactly what’s taking place on two related fronts in the war over so-called abortion rights: Planned Parenthood’s oral argument for “post-birth abortion” in Florida, and the continued unveiling of the gruesome details in the Kermit “The Butcher of Philadelphia” Gosnell case.

The first, Planned Parenthood’s plea for “post-birth abortion” is as gut-churning as it is incomprehensibly illogical. While still clinging to the charade of “women’s reproductive rights”, it seems Planned Parenthood is hoping with “post-birth abortion” that the thus-far legal and public acceptance of the last word causes people to somehow skip over the atrociousness of the first two.

Twitter aficionado @hale_razor nailed it with this gem: “They say our right to bear arms ends when it interferes with another person’s right to live. The right to “women’s health” should end at the same place.”

I wrote a piece back in May 2012 pointing out that the pro-aborts have already acknowledged what they’re endorsing ends a human life, but just don’t care. Further evidence is mined from this stunning Slate column entitled, “So What If Abortion Ends Life?” where the author makes an argument in favor of the practice regardless. In what is certainly a removal from the pseudo empathic cajolery of the past, Democrats have exchanged their 1990′s abortion mantra of “safe, legal, and rare” for “as many as you can, at any stage, for any reason.” A removal, yes, but an altogether unsurprising one.

Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger, who started the business with the goal of eliminating “inferior races”, believed “Eugenics is the solution of racial, political and social problems.” Sanger would be proud to see her dream of the rampant use of the ultimate “Birth Control” realized. African-Americans comprise 13% of the U.S. population but have 30% of the abortions.  Hispanics represent 17% of the population but have a quarter of the abortions. The most dangerous place for a minority in America is a mother’s womb.

And lest you think Planned Parenthood was founded by a Nazi-sympathizing genocidal racist but has since moved past its roots and denounces its original underpinnings, know that in September of last year a Planned Parenthood spokesperson called Margaret Sanger the organization’s “hero.”

As for Kermit Gosnell’s trial, far be it for me to attempt opining on the carnage with more brutal elegance than Mark Steyn.

“This is a remarkable moment in American life: A man is killing actual living, gurgling, bouncing babies on an industrial scale – and it barely makes the papers. Had he plunged his scissors into the spinal cord of a Democrat politician in Arizona, then The New York Times, ABC, CBS, NBC and everyone else would be linking it to Sarah Palin’s uncivil call for dramatic cuts in government spending. But “Doctor” Kermit Gosnell’s mound of corpses is apparently entirely unconnected to the broader culture.”

You might yet be unaware of the goings on in Pennsylvania, because as Steyn points out, the media is largely turning its blind eye. Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, is on trial for the murder of a woman in 2009 while trying to perform an abortion. He killed the mother while trying to kill her unborn baby. He also faces the death penalty if convicted of first-degree murder for killing numerous newborns. Yes, newborns.

In a scene one of Gosnell’s employees described as “raining fetuses and blood everywhere,” over 100 living, breathing, crying human beings were either stabbed in the skull or had their backs punctured with scissors and their spines severed. Or both, for good measure.

This is not the typical back and forth over appropriate pregnancy termination lines or the clashes of rhetorical superiority of baby versus fetus. There is no gray area here. Whereas most births are followed by a cleaning, check of vitals, and then a return to a relieved and happy mother, Kermit Gosnell and his band of merry executioners ended human life “while the babies where still screaming,” said another employee.

According to the AP’s story, Gosnell is pleading not-guilty, and “insists that he helped many vulnerable women and teens get medical care, including later-stage abortions.” “Later-stage abortions,” as in a stage so late the babies were breathing real air and crying real tears.

Apparently, as long as a child hasn’t teethed and developed motor skills yet, his life is fair game to be destroyed as a blood-thirsty “doctor” sees fit. Or perhaps even later in life than that. Whilst still crusading for third trimester, partial-birth, and “post-birth” abortions, the Left has yet to designate at just what point it is too late. One might guess they’d draw a quick line whenever a person starts to consider voting Republican.

The argument over when life begins (at conception or some point later) is entirely irrelevant when the other side believes you can kill Johnny up until he can catch and throw a ball.

The Left and their media cohorts (pretty much everyone but Fox News) raised a much bigger huff over the North Dakota legislature voting to axe abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy than over the extremely disturbing and coinciding stories about Planned Parenthood and Kermit Gosnell.

It’s almost as if liberals don’t take much offense at the reality of mass infant slaughter.  It’s almost as if they demand taxpayers subsidize it, and run entire campaigns demonizing Republican politicians who wish to, at the very least, withdraw government funding.  It’s almost as if they want more babies dead than alive, as both then-Senator Barack Obama and now Planned Parenthood have argued against laws protecting the lives of babies who survive botched abortions.

Remember, liberals are the ones who want government involved in every aspect of our lives: health and dietary choices, coerced insurance purchases, and promoting “fairness” through progressive taxes and wealth redistribution.  They think banning pet goldfish in San Francisco is for the greater good, but working to prevent the murder of 3,000 lives a day is an infringement on personal freedom.  These are the people who want to outlaw plastic bags and large Cokes, but put their liberty-loving foot down at pre-abortion ultrasounds.

When one is on the side of extensive government oversight in every area except saving babies’ lives, it’s high time for self-reevaluation.

Follow the author on Twitter: @brady_cremeens

The Republican Party’s Path Forward on Gay Marriage

This post originally ran at The Right Sphere on 3/27/2013

I wrote in my last piece that the government should not define what constitutes a marriage. This is true, but assuming the government will not divorce itself from defining marriage anytime in the foreseeable future, the Republican Party must have a revival strategy that encompasses its position on this issue.

If America has not yet reached the point where the only stern opposition to same-sex unions comes not from the Right but the religious Right alone, she will soon. This poses a conundrum for the Republican Party, which is trying to ascertain a direction that will expand its voter base rather than shrink it.

It’s foolish to deny both parties are trying to figure out how to navigate this issue without alienating required demographics on election day.  Reflecting their consistent obsession with mandates, Democrats are, of course, crusading for legalized gay marriage at the federal level.

The Republican Party has a much trickier bridge to cross.  Similar to the debate over immigration, its predicament presents two key questions: what is the principled position, and how can the party proceed without endangering a voting base it desperately needs to grow?

The answer lies in the 10th Amendment, in transferring the responsibility from the federal government to the states. The GOP must stave off an inevitable loss battling this issue at the federal. Conservatism is nothing if not based in reality, and the tide of public opinion has already broken on this issue. Recent polls show even a majority of self-identified Republicans support the contested right to same-sex marriage or government-recognized unions.

Principle and policy are not inseparably synonymous, but neither are they mutually exclusive.  Rather, policy is achieved by negotiation and balancing competing principles: in this case, reconciling a limited government approach to a hotbed cultural issue where the ideal solution (governmental abstention) is politically unviable with the imperative need to win elections.

Conservatism is about more than ideological staunchness; it must focus on persuasion.  Arguments must be articulated in a way that broadens the base, not by abandoning timeless beliefs, but by convincing outsiders that conservative ideas and ideals are superior, and why.  Winning elections requires converting voters, or the broad benefits of economic and social conservative principles remain on the shelf collecting dust.

Individual states should be sovereign over the federal government in defining marriage.  While conservatism does not generally lend itself to direct democracy, the Republican Party is able to win this angle of the argument, and this is the hill on which it should fight.

Relegating the decision to the states is the most principled and politically executable option against a federal redefinition of marriage the Republican Party has at its disposal. As columnist Jonah Goldberg is fond of saying, “Federalism is the greatest idea we’ve have had for maximizing human happiness, for it allows as many people as possible to live the way they want.”

This accords the GOP the opportunity to convincingly contend for the eradication of the federal government’s role in defining marriage without alienating large swaths of conservative voters who oppose homosexuality from a religious and/or moral standpoint.  The importance of this sensitive meshing of original principles with political survival cannot be understated.  Conservatives cannot simply abandon all semblance of traditional values in an effort to pick up votes. Trading minor increases in gay community support for perhaps drastic decreases in long-time evangelical support is a losing formula.

What the Republican Party must guard against above all is miscalculating the affect that shifting values will have on the end game.  Misjudging the net gains of “evolving” their position on same-sex marriage (or immigration, for that matter) will serve only to make Republicans more tolerant losers.

It is not bigoted to believe a line should be drawn between what marriage means and what it doe not. After all, humans cannot legally marry animals or multiple humans or humans who don’t want to marry them back. The gay marriage debate is essentially over where to draw the line.

Gay marriage proponents insist the federal government expand the definition previously reserved for consenting heterosexuals to include homosexuals. I’ve yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for why, after marriage between couples of the same sex is state-ordained, the battle for state-permitted polygamy or any number of other non-traditional contracts won’t follow.  Slippery slope arguments are always dismissed until the lone opposition is looking up from the bottom of the hill.

The beauty of the federalism solution for the GOP is in its adherence to the conservative principle of states’ sovereignty while remaining more politically acceptable across a wide spectrum of voters.  The party cannot simply oppose gay marriage at every level outright anymore.  That is a battle it will lose, and lose big.

Republicans can take a lead on the marriage debate by advocating as a matter of official platform the federal government’s remotion from defining marriage and let voters in each state decide for themselves.  In the name of consistency, this should include supporting the overturn of the Defense of Marriage Act.

I’ve said for two years that conservatives can be victorious over abortion eventually, but will surely be beaten on the gay marriage debate. That appears to be what is happening right now. I agree with the hypothesis that within a decade this conflict over whether homosexuals may be granted a marriage license from the state will be over, but I disagree that the Republican destiny is doomed because of it.

The pro-life movement wasn’t silenced after Roe won her case, nor will the struggle over marriage conclude with the Supreme Court’s decision this summer. That decision, incidentally, would not grant across-the-board “marriage equality” rights, rather it determines who gets to decide – the federal government or the states.

The latter is where the GOP should aggressively push its support.

The Conservative Approach to Same-Sex Marriage

This post originally ran on The Right Sphere on 3/26/2013

The political and cultural friction over same-sex marriage in America is both undeniably important and hotly disputed. The divisions, for once, don’t fall strictly between party or ideological lines. Even within conservative factions, same-sex marriage is a wedge issue. So what is the appropriate approach?

While society should be concerned with the growth of strong families, the state should not be an active voice (legislatively intrusive) in this matter. This is why conservatives are right to cry foul when Michael Bloomberg tries to limit sugary drink consumption in New York City or the state of Illinois bans smoking inside privately owned businesses. Even if society might be incrementally healthier were the government able to control its citizens’ decisions, government relinquishes that role in a free society. (Although it’s doubtful that the same government who can’t pass a budget for four years can successfully make me lose my gut.)

The crux of the same-sex marriage quarrel centers on whether the government has the authority to grant social contracts and dictate social behavior.

The answer was no when the Founders drafted the Constitution and remains no today.  When the government oversteps its bounds into matters of societal eudaemonia, it creates consequential political battles where personal responsibility previously prevailed.

Contrary to popular opinion, the individual liberty angle is an argument against federally-recognized same sex-marriage, not for it. The limited government for which conservatives and libertarians pine is far better achieved by its removal from participation in the rhetoric of marriage than by expanding it to include a broader definition.  For this is a debate over language, not equal rights. The argument is not over who one can love, live with, or enjoy a committed relationship with. It’s not even about spousal rights like medical proxy or property partnership.

The current clash is one for a piece of paper acknowledging an institution that should not be within the government’s dominion. The “equal rights” brigade is mostly smoke and mirrors for those who want to subvert the religious liberty and property rights of churches and other religious organizations.

The consistent limited government stance advocates the elimination of state determination of the marriage definition.

This position requires a complete overhaul of the tax structure, which the Right desires anyway. A flat income tax without deductions or credits solves the problem of marriage incentives for both the state and families while returning the tax system to its original purpose: government revenue for essential services.

This path is a win for the state, families, singles, and businesses, as the simplification of the tax system enables economic growth and is inherently fairer to each of the named parties than our current progressive system.

David Harsanyi at Human Events recently wrote well on this very topic:

In the 1500s, a pestering theologian instituted something called the Marriage Ordinance in Geneva, which made “state registration and church consecration” a dual requirement of matrimony.

We have yet to get over this mistake. But isn’t it about time we freed marriage from the state?

Imagine if government had no interest in the definition of marriage. Individuals could commit to each other, head to the local priest or rabbi or shaman — or no one at all — and enter into contractual agreements, call their blissful union whatever they felt it should be called and go about the business of their lives.

I certainly don’t believe that gay marriage will trigger societal instability or undermine traditional marriage — we already have that covered — but mostly I believe your private relationships are none of my business. And without any government role in the institution, it wouldn’t be the business of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, either.

The opposition to this argument sites the political convenience of a stance that was mostly unheralded by anyone on the Right until confronted with the issue of gay marriage. Their contention is that very few conservatives were calling for an end to state involvement in marriage before, and are looking for an easy way out now. This is a fair criticism, but that doesn’t make Harsanyi’s stance invalid.

It’s true, conservatives have been more than happy to accept state involvement in marriage for many years because the state’s definition aligned with their own – that the institution is one between a man and a woman (and Christians maintain, ordained by God).  Liberals have too, until recently when it became politically advantageous to make grandiose announcements to the contrary. Now with that alignment in dispute, it is not hypocritical nor even unreasonable to reevaluate positions. If it is, someone please tell Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and a myriad of other Democrats.

The distinction here resides in intentions.  Both sides are burgeoning positions for political reasons, but only one is proclaiming to be holier-than-thou in doing so. Obama was against same-sex marriage until three months before voters hit the booths for his re-election bid. Please spare us the charade of earnest evolution motivated by self-enlightenment.

Numerous studies have proven beyond reasonable refute that children fare best when raised in a household with both a father and mother. This doesn’t mean the government should require this environment any more than it should mandate children eat a certain amount of broccoli or limit TV consumption. But broadening the state definition of marriage is furthermore unnecessary.  Remove the government’s authority on this issue entirely, and minimize the struggle between traditionalists and progressives.

Conservatives and libertarians are fond of robustly proclaiming that our rights are not government-granted, but are natural, inalienable, and God-given. We should carry this mantra through to its logical conclusion regarding marriage as well.

Happy Birthday Ronald Reagan

Today would have been Ronald Reagan’s 102nd birthday, and I felt it appropriate to share a few of my favorites.  I’m of the opinion that Reagan was the best president since Calvin Coolidge, and amongst the top five presidents America has ever boasted. He was smart, empathetic, persuasive, firm, and made the case for American opportunity and exceptionalism – and thus conservatism by default – better than most before him and any since. He toppled Soviet communism, probably preventing a third world war, and cut marginal tax rates here in the states, which ushered in an era of wonderful economic growth and prosperity for the vast majority of Americans.  After inheriting a recession from Jimmy Carter, Reagan’s economy bested it in the first two years of his first term.  He won 44 states in 1980 and 49 (49!) in 1984. His lasting legacy is, above all, that limited government conservative values – a morally concerned culture and free market economics – work and can win, both in message and in implementation, when both are managed correctly and persuasively.  His approach to politics and leadership was endearing and his ideas are enduring, he was truly a unique example of what the holder of the Office of the President of the United States should look like. America was better off because of him and worse off now that he’s gone. “A rising tide lifts all boats,” and America flourished under the watch of Ronald Reagan.

My favorite Reagan quote:

“Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today’s world do not have.”

My favorite Reagan speech, which was actually a televised campaign speech on behalf of Barry Goldwater’s run for the presidency in 1964:

Reagan was also very funny and witty, which never hurts. It was part of the reason people liked him so much:

Merry Christmas

The following is from the 12/24/12 edition of Ben Domenech’s daily politics and culture email The Transom (I highly recommend subscribing). It’s specifically for Christmas Eve, but is really the perfect Christmas message for our time.

“On Christmas Eve 1941, in Washington on a diplomatic mission to organize the support of Britain’s American allies in the efforts to stop the Nazi menace, Winston Churchill was offered the opportunity to address the American people from The White House. America as a nation had been attacked like never before just weeks earlier, and the horrors of Pearl Harbor were on the minds of every patriot. How does one set such concerns aside to celebrate Christmas? Churchill told us how, in words that contain a message which is just as meaningful today for all with family far from home, fighting on the front against America’s enemies half a world away, or facing challenges here which are enough to make you give up hope. His message rang true then, and it rings true now. And so, more than seventy years since he said it, I share it with you.

Best wishes to you all, and to all a Happy Christmas.”

CHURCHILL ON CHRISTMAS EVE:

I spend this anniversary and festival far from my country, far from my family, yet I cannot truthfully say that I feel far from home. Whether it be the ties of blood on my mother’s side, or the friendships I have developed here over many years of active life, or the commanding sentiment of comradeship in the common cause of great peoples who speak the same language, who kneel at the same altars and, to a very large extent, pursue the same ideals, I cannot feel myself a stranger here in the centre and at the summit of the United States. I feel a sense of unity and fraternal association which, added to the kindliness of your welcome, convinces me that I have a right to sit at your fireside and share your Christmas joys.

This is a strange Christmas Eve. Almost the whole world is locked in deadly struggle, and, with the most terrible weapons which science can devise, the nations advance upon each other. Ill would it be for us this Christmastide if we were not sure that no greed for the land or wealth of any other people, no vulgar ambition, no morbid lust for material gain at the expense of others, had led us to the field. Here, in the midst of war, raging and roaring over all the lands and seas, creeping nearer to our hearts and homes, here, amid all the tumult, we have tonight the peace of the spirit in each cottage home and in every generous heart.

Therefore we may cast aside for this night at least the cares and dangers which beset us, and make for the children an evening of happiness in a world of storm. Here, then, for one night only, each home throughout the English-speaking world should be a brightly-lighted island of happiness and peace.

Let the children have their night of fun and laughter. Let the gifts of Father Christmas delight their play. Let us grown-ups share to the full in their unstinted pleasures before we turn again to the stern task and the formidable years that lie before us, resolved that, by our sacrifice and daring, these same children shall not be robbed of their inheritance or denied their right to live in a free and decent world.

And so, in God’s mercy, a happy Christmas to you all.

-Winston Churchill

Two Competing Views on a Christmas Classic

I’d invite you to read these two unique and competing views on the Christmas classic It’s a Wonderful Life.

Carson Holloway at The Witherspoon Institute makes the case that the legendary Frank Capra film is a great example of conservatism, traditional American, and even Christian values:

It’s a Wonderful Country: Pottersville or Bedford Falls?

“…Bailey is not driven to serve his fellow citizens, at the cost of his own ambitious dreams, simply by love for his fellow men. Bailey is certainly a decent and humane person, but his decency and humanity alone cannot overcome his deep desire to escape Bedford Falls, which he regards as a rather insignificant place, and to make his mark on the larger world.

What prompts Bailey to stay and serve his fellow citizens is a most conservative impulse: filial piety. The Building and Loan, the business that allows Bailey to help ordinary people realize their dreams of home-ownership, was built by his father, Peter Bailey. His father asks him to consider taking over the business, explaining to him the importance of its work in the community. George Bailey resists, but changes his mind after his father’s death, especially when the business faces liquidation if he does not stay to administer it. Out of love and respect for his father, the younger Bailey keeps a photograph of him at his desk years after his death to remind him of his motive for maintaining the Building and Loan.

This kind of filial piety—the sense that one should weigh heavily the wishes of a father against one’s own ambitions, and perhaps even sacrifice the latter to the former—is utterly alien to and relentlessly undermined by contemporary liberalism’s cult of individual autonomy, understood as freedom from all traditional authority, even and especially the authority of fathers.”

Read the rest of the argument here.

On Doug Mataconis’ blog, he highlights large sections of Boston Talk Radio Host Michael Graham’s contention that It’s A Wonderful Life is “not only the worst movie ever made, but basically anti-American”:

It’s A Socialist Life?

“The fact is, “It’s A Wonderful Life” is a movie that only an Occupod could love. The story is sweet, but the message is truly awful. Consider George Bailey. In your mind, you see him after a lifetime of poverty, grief and bad luck, running through Bedford Falls shouting “Merry Christmas you old Building and Loan,” just happy to have a family he loves.

Well I agree that having a loving family can help us all get through crises. (Remember the stewardess in the disaster-film spoof “Airplane?” “At least I had a husband . . . ”) But the name of the film is “Wonderful Life,” not, “Well, Things Could Be Worse.” And in George Bailey’s case, things are truly tragic. Smart, ambitious George gets stuck at the modest Building and Loan back in Hickville when his brother marries into a cushy corporate gig and his father dies. After years of dreaming of going off to college, traveling the world and becoming a top engineer or architect, his life is spent scraping by, and helping others do the same. Somehow the movie — like the Occupiers of today — tries to turn that into a virtue. Despite his wife and kids, George turns down $20,000 a year so he won’t have to work for that “evil banker,” Mr. Potter.

Occupy Bedford Falls!

Then disaster strikes. His addled Uncle Billy accidentally drops the daily deposit into Potter’s lap and guess who happens to show up that day but the bank examiner. As usual George is broke and, well, that’s when the movie really falls down.”

Read the rest of the argument here.