Mike Shanin

It’s mostly amusing, but also a little bit irritating, when some callers refer to me as a RINO, a Republican in Name Only.  I’m at a loss to know how I qualify for the appellation.  Let’s see I’ve voted for every GOP candidate for president starting with Barry Goldwater, I’ve given money to the party and to individual Republican candidates.  Through my 20 years or so of involvement with opinion journalism, I’ve spoken frequently on behalf of Republican candidates and Republican positions.  And I’ve attempted to remain true  to the principles of conservatism that attracted me to the Republican Party.  Those principles include a profound belief in individual liberty, limited government, low taxes, and strong national defense.  To succeed, the Republican party must feature a broad tent.  It must welcome people with a variety of views on some issues knowing that there are basic fundamental beliefs on which we all concur.  The philosophy is Ronald Reagan’s and I doubt anyone ever called him a RINO, even when in 1976 he announced that if he won the GOP nomination in Kansas City, his running mate would be Dick Schweiker, a liberal Republican from Pennsylvania.

I’m persuaded GOP supporters don’t need to be very worried about a lot of RINO’s.  We need to be worried, instead, about a lot of Bull.

I thought it might be a good idea–and a welcome relief for many of you–if I used someone else’s words today and not my own. Recently, I enjoyed looking through a book of quotes about politics that has been on my bookshelf too long.

I picked a few that seem to have relevance in today’s environment. Political scientist Hannah Arendt, whose name rings a bell from my college days, once wrote “The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution.”

The great humorist, Will Rogers, who was killed in a plane crash in 1935, often talked about the politics of his day.  Even then, Rogers observed that “Politics has become so expensive that it takes a lot of money even to be defeated.”  He should see us now.

How often we hear talk of capitalism versus socialism these days.  In his day, Sir Winston Churchill offered this tidbit: “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”  No wonder he’s considered a great man.

Finally, this observation from Cicero in the days of the Roman Empire. “The national budget must be balanced.  The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled……People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.

Obviously, a lesson we’ve yet to learn.

When people say the federal court has no business ruling against some portions of the Arizona immigration law, they frequently argue that most people are in favor of it and, after all, the majority rules.  But, no it doesn’t.

There are numerous examples in our governing system where the majority doesn’t have the final word.  In presidential elections, the candidate who gets the most popular votes (those cast at the ballot box) does not necessarily become president.  (See Al Gore for details.)  The winner is the candidate who gets the majority of electoral votes cast by representatives of each state.  We vote for presidential electors, not presidential candidates.

In the U.S. Senate, a technical filibuster holding up the discussion of a bill can occur with forty votes.  Forty out of a hundred!  Many filibusters are never broken!

The majority of the congress and a majority of people in the states may want to pass a constitutional amendment.  Won’t work.  It takes two-thirds of each house and three-quarters of the states to approve a change to our governing charter.  In other words, a super majority.

Perhaps the better expression for our system is the majority rules as long as the rights of the minority are not trampled.  A majority of citizens can’t suddenly decide to return slavery or return Americans of Japanese ancestry to internment camps.

Our government—despite its many faults—has survived and flourished for over two centuries.

Often those who complain about the system simply don’t understand it.  And I don’t mean complex aspects of our Republic.  I’m talking about the bare essentials, the fundamentals.

All of us–myself included—could benefit by taking a quick refresher course in American Government 101.

Recently, I discovered that one of the cable channels is running half-hour segments from the old “Tonight Show,” presided over for 30-years from 1962-92 by Johnny Carson.  The segments include edited sketches and routines from the Carson repertoire, well-known to those of us who were fans, including “Tea Time Movie,”  “Aunt Blabby” and “Carnac the Magnificent.”

Carson often relied on current events for his material, mainly in his monologues, but also in the more elaborate sketch segments.

Now to the key point.  In a recent segment I saw, Carson’s punch lines involved an oil spill crisis, high unemployment and trouble in the auto industry. Remember all these shows were taped before May, 1992.  As I often am, I’m reminded of a French expression.  I can’t say it or write it in French; however, I do know the English translation.  ‘The more things change, the more they stay the same.”

What would Reagan really do?  That’s the provocative title of a story in a recent Newsweek magazine.  The article claims some Republicans want to impose a Reaganite purity test on candidates this year that Reagan himself would fail.  Andrew Romano claims conservatives and Republicans can still learn a great deal from the 40th president, but he says they’re learning the wrong lessons.  They should study, he suggests, the pragmatic Reagan.  The Ronald Reagan who was willing to compromise and even, on occasion, agree to tax increases.

The writer asserts that “Reagan was the most successful Republican president since Teddy Roosevelt and the only effective conservative leader of the last half century.  Republicans who think Reagan is truth (and truth Reagan) may be overdoing it.  But he’s still the GOP’s best model of how to win and how to lead.”

To which I would add only this:  Reagan’s enduring legacy is due in no small part to his ability to make Americans feel good about themselves and their country’s future.  Despite the economic woes of the time, Reagan’s promise was that America’s best days are still ahead.

I wish we had a leader today who could (and would) make that promise.  And that we could (and would) believe him or her!

You’ve likely heard the recent news that the Power and Light District downtown is not paying for itself.  That is, the tax revenues from the district–sales, earnings, property–all go toward  paying off the city’s bonds that financed the district.  When the plan was being presented to the public, it was “sold” as a self-sustaining project.

Now, the estimate is that money from the city’s general revenues that would normally help fund other projects will be diverted for bond payments.  It’s estimated the amount will range from 10-15 million annually for the next 20-plus years.  (Could go higher! Or lower.)

Mayor Mark Funkhouser warned of this before he ran for mayor when he was Kansas City Auditor.  Now, as mayor, he must have mixed emotions.  On the one hand, he can point to his prescience.  On the other, he knows that yet another portion of next year’s budget is removed from use on projects he proposes and promotes.

When the mayor joined Scott and me last Monday, I reminded him that most, maybe all, local pundits, are saying he can’t win a second term.  Funkhouser‘s retort:  “Those who claim I can’t win re-election are the same folks who said the P&L District would make money.”

Scott and I had the opportunity to visit with US Senator Jim DeMint last Friday, a man said to be among the most, if not THE most, conservative member of the US Senate.  Shockingly enough, after being told by some callers in recent weeks that I’m not a conservative, something I thought I’d been since the Goldwater era, I found that DeMint and I are in agreement on several key points.

First, DeMint says while he thinks Obama’s policies are ruinous, as do I, he does not believe Obama or his associates are evil people hell-bent on a mission to purposely destroy this nation.

Second, DeMint says you can’t—it would be impossible!–to just round up illegal immigrants and send them to whence they came.  He wants border security first and then some type of arrangement with illegal immigrant who are already here.  That arrangement would not include citizenship.

Finally, DeMint seemed to suggest that there are varying definitions of “Conservatism.”  One can be a conservative without agreeing on everything with every other conservative.

DeMint was an impressive guest.  He was in town campaigning on behalf of Congressman Moran’s bid to win the Kansas GOP Senate nomination.

Now when callers accuse me of being demented, I’ll take that positively to mean “DeMinted.”