Kenyan expectations also overblown

Roger and Kate, friends of mine from Denver who are Christian missionaries in Mozambique, happened to be in Nairobi, Kenya, for a conference the first week in November, during America's election. Their report in an email to me not only illustrates the contrast of cultures and customs from there to the US. It also points up how not-Kenyan our next President is in some of his ways. Roger wrote as follows:

Everyone in Kenya wanted to know for whom we would vote. Where we were staying lacked television and internet, so our son had to text message us from elsewhere with news about the election. Among those at the conference who favored McCain, it created a pall over the morning, but the Kenyans were elated.

The following day was declared a national holiday - Obama Day. Obama poster-size calendars were passed out in the newspapers as the "Year of Obama." They all think that it will be easier for Kenyans to get visas to the U.S. and/or the U.S. will now solve all of the problems with the Kenyan government.

After all, in Africa, this is what family does. If one comes into wealth, he is expected to share that wealth and opportunity with the rest of the family. They don't see nepotism in quite the same light as we do. Now one who is considered one of their own has just "inherited" the wealth of the richest nation on earth and they are expecting great things.

It makes me both proud and sad - proud that they think so highly of the U.S. that we can solve all of their problems - sad to think that there is going to be great disappointment one of these days. Fortunately, by the time that I was leaving, cooler heads in the newspapers were trying to explain to the people that countries like the U.S. are subject to rules about what they can and cannot do.

So "in Africa, this is what family does... share that wealth and opportunity with the rest of the family." On the one hand, this would help explain the redistributionist views Obama has expressed, as well as the starry-eyed expectations of some supporters in this country -- notably Florida's famous Peggy the Moocher, who told a TV camera all the expenses she counts on him to cover for her.

But on the other hand, elated Kenyans need to remember the President-elect's cool disinterest in being a sugar daddy even to his own blood relatives, including the half-brother living in a hut near Nairobi on $1 a month, and the destitute aunt in public housing in Boston (who is apparently not even a legal US immigrant). He hasn't lifted a finger to help either of them. Good luck to everyone else in the old country.

It sounds as though Nairobi media were already starting to cool the locals' overheated hopes by the time Roger and Kate left in mid-November. But just to be safe, maybe Kenya should be added to the itinerary of those Obama press spokesmen who have been working to dampen stateside expectations about his administration.

The future of the Republican Party

(To the editors, WSJ, Nov. 17) The 11 letters to your newspaper today read like they were churned out of a Democratic talking points focus group. So, the Republican party will become a successful enterprise whenever it abandons its core principles? All this while "going back to its roots?" Anyone who thinks that abandoning the powerless unborn children and the endangered institution of marriage is somehow in line with Republicanism knows nothing about its true roots. Back in 1854, when the ruling Democratic Party committed itself to aiding and abetting the spread of slavery into Western territories and, in principle, to all states, old as well as new, North as well as South, the anti-slavery members of the Democrat and Whig parties coalesced into what soon became the Republican Party. If ever there was movement which appeared to be unlikely to succeed, this was it. A Democratic President, a Democratic Congress and, yes, a Democratic Supreme Court were poised to make slavery national.

Contrary to the naive theory of "progress" so alluring to many of our elites today, the Negroes' prospects for justice were worse, not better, than they were in 1776 or 1789. The reigning opinions and even the science of the day had decreed that blacks were inherently inferior and could never be accorded the same civil rights as whites. Leading Democrats like Sen. Stephen A. Douglas were amazed that Republicans would cause such a fuss for the sake of the rights of "a few miserable Negroes."

But Republicans in the beginning stuck to their guns and prevented the nation from acquiesing in the triumph of the slave power. Today's Republicans should be no less steadfast. As the Republican Party of 1856 declared its opposition to slavery and polygamy, those "twin relics of barbarism," so should the party of 2008 stand for the natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness against the threats posed by the cultures of death and immediate sexual gratification.

Will BHO tack to center like Sarko?

Rush Limbaugh’s giddiness since the Republican election loss has proved infectious among French advocates of American conservatism, admittedly a rare breed but a committed one nonetheless. Why the Gallic mirth? Well, consider this. During the French presidential campaign back in early 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy pledged that, if elected, he would bring profound change to economically sclerotic France. “La rupture” he dared call it to liberal and even some center-right catcalls and hisses.

About 18 months on, those previously doing the catcalling and the hissing are now cheering and blowing kisses to their Nemesis-turned-fellow-traveler. How come? Well, in France’s predominantly leftist political culture, President Sarkozy has realized that his approval ratings as well as his chances of reelection in 2012 depend to a large extent on his ability to tack to the left.

Judging by his social and economic record so far, his reelection campaign started about a year ago. He calls it “pragmatisme”. Let’s take it for what it really is and call it Socialism, the “spread-the-wealth” kind of Socialism America voted for more than a week ago. Even on foreign policy, Sarkozy is turning out to be a typically French fair-weather friend, gesticulating against America’s Missile Defense just to placate his KGB pals over in the Kremlin.

Given la rupture’s slim hopes of survival in post-election worlds, President-elect Obama’s “Change we can believe in” may well follow Sarkozyesque revert-to-cultural-type political meanderings after all.

In other words, in a (still?) predominantly center-right country like the United States, Obama may well realize that sticking to some lite version of pro-family-strong-defense-tax-cutting conservatism is his best political option.

Even Rush himself not so facetiously let the cat out of the electoral bag a few days before the vote. In a brief exchange with Rudy Giuliani over Joe Biden’s Obama’s-gonna-be-tested-gaffe, Rush hinted that Biden’s pleas to liberal faithful for support of Obama’s response might actually imply that the next president would be as tough as George W. Bush.

Nothing for conservatives to worry about then? Maybe so, unless a majority of the American people, including 20% of conservatives, are so enamored of Sarkozy and Socialistic France that they are prepared to take their cue from Tocqueville’s ill-advised descendants and ditch freedom for the smothering embrace of Welfarist paternalism.

In that case, freedom will have been no more than one election cycle away from extinction. Conservatives, French and American alike, would then all be laughing on the other side of their faces.

Note: “Paoli” is the pen name, er, nom de plume, of our French correspondent. Monsieur is a close student of European and US politics, a onetime exchange student in Colorado and a well-wisher to us Americans. He informs us the original Pasquale Paoli, 1725-1807, was the George Washington of Corsica.

The blueing of Arapahoe

There were hints in October that Arapahoe Republicans were in for another bad year. My precinct in Centennial, once as red as they come, blossomed with Obama yard signs. Then County Clerk Nancy Doty announced at the weekly GOP breakfast that voter registration in the county, which had tilted heavily our way until recently, now showed an edge of about 400 for the Dems.

According to the Clerk's official website, that edge is now almost 6000, and the new normal is depressingly evident in vote tallies from Nov. 4. The following summary is from a talk I gave to the Aurora Republican Forum last Saturday.

ARAPAHOE COUNTY VOTING TRENDS, 2002-2008

2008 Obama-D over McCain-R by 55-43% for President Udall-D over Schaffer-R by 54-42% for US Senate

2006 Ritter-D over Beauprez-R by 60-40% for Governor

2004 Bush-R over Kerry-D by 52-48% for President Salazar-D over Coors-R by 53-47% for US Senate

2002 Owens-R over Heath-D by 69-31% for Governor Allard-R over Strickland-D by 53-47% for US Senate

Another troubling indicator for Republicans is the erosion of their formerly unquestioned dominance of the Arapahoe County Board of Commissioners. A switch of just 565 votes in Commissioner Rod Bockenfeld's narrow reelection victory this year would have given the Dems 3-2 control of that board.

When I came to the State Senate in SD-27 in 1998, SD-28 to the east of me and SD-26 to the west of me were both Republican seats and taken for granted as safe. No more. Sen. Nancy Spence, who succeeded me four years ago and won again comfortably this year, is it for Republicans from our county in the upper house.

First, Democrat Suzanne Williams took 28 from Bruce Cairns in 2004 and was easily reelected this year. And now, subject to a recount, it appears Democrat Linda Newell has won 26 from Lauri Clapp, who was seeking to hold the GOP seat for retiring Sen. Steve Ward.

HD-38, covering part of the same Littleton area as SD-26, went to Joe Rice and the Democrat in 2006 when former Republican House leader Joe Stengel was termed out.

What has caused the blueing of Arapahoe? It's obviously some combination of new residents moving in as others leave, younger voters coming of age as seniors pass from the scene, and superior competitiveness of Democrats among unaffiliated voters.

Only that third factor is in Republicans' control, but it needs to be a focus of soul-searching and new efforts, or Colorado's oldest county will continue changing its political complexion in a way that leaves conservative old-timers shaking their heads.

Practices, not principles, hurt GOP

After being routed at the polls for two consecutive election cycles, Republicans are turning introspective, asking how the party fell out of favor so suddenly and how to correct course. That introspection includes the inevitable catharsis that exacerbates tensions within the existing right-center political coalition.

Conservatives say moderates were too squishy, especially on spending matters. Moderates say conservatives were too rigid, particularly on social issues. Libertarians say both conservatives and moderates are correct in their diagnoses but wrong in their prescriptions.

The reality again harkens to Lord Acton's admonition about the corrupting influence of power. Contrary to advertising messages in the recent campaign, Republicans are people, too, which renders them just as susceptible to allure of authority as their Democrat counterparts.

Sen. Tom Coburn, first elected to the House in the 1994 "Republican revolution," observed in his book, Breach of Trust, that former Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Majority Leader Dick Armey, vanguards of the 1994 Republican revolution, quickly became too focused on retaining power rather than advancing the agenda that brought them victory.

With a few exceptions, like reforming welfare and balancing the budget, Republicans' track record proves Coburn right. Now that Gingrich and Armey have escaped the vortex of elected office, they have re-emerged as leading advocates for governance guided by conservative standards.

Similarly, George W. Bush did not win election by promising to expand Medicare entitlements or by declaring that his chief foreign policy goal would be to "make the world safe for democracy." While those policies may have produced some short-term political gain, their long-term results eroded the public's confidence in his ability and his party.

So, were the last two elections a referendum on the Republican Party's core principles or its ability to deliver?

Numerous polls taken close to Election Day confirm that voters simply lost faith in Republicans but remain strongly supportive of core conservative tenants like limited government and low tax rates.

Rasmussen found that 59% of voters still agree with Ronald Reagan's assessment that, more often than not, government is the problem, not the solution. Another survey, taken immediately after the election, found that 63% believe that tax cuts are the best economic stimulus, compared to just 20% who want more government spending.

Those tenets illustrate the challenge confronting Barack Obama who, as president, can no longer be all things to so many people, and the frustration confronting voters whose only choices were Republicans who failed to produce and Democrats who promised "change."

A Club for Growth survey targeted 12 congressional districts -- including Colorado's Fourth -- that voted for President Bush in 2004 but overwhelmingly elected Democrats in 2008. That survey found:

** 81% of voters said "Republicans used to be the party of economic growth, fiscal discipline, and limited government, but in recent years, too many Republicans in Washington have become just like the big spenders they used to oppose."

** By a margin of 66% to 23%, those surveyed preferred a candidate who would cut federal spending to one who would increase spending in order to bring home more federal pork.

** 73% said the best economic policy is giving everyone the opportunity to create wealth through their own efforts rather than using the tax code to "spread the wealth."

** 71% said government should not guarantee mortgages to help people avoid foreclosure.

** 66% want the death tax to die in two years, as scheduled; just 20% want to see it resurrected.

**61% said the highest tax rate anyone should pay is 35% or less; only 18% supported higher rates.

These positions are overwhelmingly supported by Republicans of all varieties, but somehow our leaders in Washington lost their focus.

Before Republicans spend too much time boldly pointing out each other's warts -- which persuades no one -- we must remember that the principles that unify us are also the principles that, when backed by action, have produced electoral majorities and will continue to do so.

Mark Hillman served as Colorado Senate Majority Leader and State Treasurer. To read more or comment, please go to www.MarkHillman.com