Why is the Kansas Senate Leadership so Gutless?

Last week, we wrote about the historical actions and display of courage by the Kansas House and Governor Sam Brownback in our piece, “A Governor with Guts.”

In assessing the Kansas Senate, we can only arrive at the opposite conclusion – its leadership, backed up by a 21-member coalition of liberal Democrats and Republicans-in-name-only, is also achieving history of its own - but not for courage and shrewdness, but for arrogance and gutlessness.

Sound harsh?  Perhaps.  But, their arrogance and gutlessness was on full display today and discussed in this article “Let there be blood” in the Kansas City Star.  Two key excerpts from the article:

Arrogance:
Accused of playing politics with the maps, Sen. Tim Owens angrily said he was tired talking about that "garbage" and stormed out of the committee room.

Gutlessness:
Meanwhile, conservatives were agitated because Senate President Steve Morris and Senate Majority Leader Jay Emler did not attend the meeting to discuss to the maps.

Sadly, as the article goes on to discuss, this debate over maps has spoiled over to the budget, taxes, and school funding.  Basically, the children are in charge, and Kansas is being held hostage in the process.

Now, before we go forward, let’s be clear – there are many in the Kansas Senate working diligently to actually improve Kansas.  Senators like Mary Pilcher-Cook, Julia Lynn, Ray Merrick, Rob Olson, Ty Masterson, Steve Abrams, Garrett Love, Rob Olson and others are using every tool in their toolbox to attempt to overcome what is a narrow, shrill, desperate liberal majority forged together by 14 RINOs and 7 of the 8 Democrats.

Politicians with courage would pass a respectable map as close to the current districts as possible in a timely fashion, close out the session quickly, and move onto the campaign trail and actually try to defeat their opponents by defending their votes and beliefs.

Not this bunch.  Instead, they have opted to stand in defiance and blatantly and shamelessly draw a map which protects their power by radically redrawing some districts while at the same time gerrymandering out their own political opponents!

Come to think of it, this coalition of cowards may want to consider forming their own party with a chicken as its symbol.

In all seriousness, their actions do beg the question-- what exactly are they afraid of?

At its surface, this debate over maps seems nonsensical.  Remember, it is Senate conservatives who have attempted to pass a map that is quite close to the current map – a configuration which has brought us two decades of moderate-to-liberal leaning leadership.

Therefore, if Kansas really was the moderate state that Morris, Emler, Vratil, Owens and their allies claim it is, and its citizens really embraced their views – wouldn’t their reelection be virtually assured?  Particularly given the fundraising advantages that come with being in power, conventional wisdom, history and a basic political analysis all say that Morris and friends should be able to crush most any challenger.

Or, could it be that after two decades of failure, on everything from school finance to job growth to our excessive rate of taxation, and after the 2010 election which ushered in four conservative congressmen, a conservative House and five conservative statewide officials, that Senate leadership is afraid they might be turned out of office?

Could it also be that after 20 years of using the “fund education” strawman as their chief political weapon, the people of Kansas have caught on to the notion that doing the same thing repeatedly doesn’t produce different results?

Could it also be that the Kansans want their government to actually be smaller?

Could it be that Kansas is truly a pro-life state?

“YES”, of course, is the answer to each of these questions – which is exactly what Steve Morris, Jay Emler, John Vratil, Tim Owens and their friends are afraid of – they fear they will actually lose, and lose big, and the only way to stop the oncoming conservative train is to succeed at gerrymandering their way to victory.  

But, there’s more to it – because if conservatives were as extreme as the Senate leadership claims, wouldn’t Kansans just turn around and usher us out of power in four years, thereby setting back conservatism in Kansas for a generation?

Or, perhaps not.   Perhaps Kansans might like what they see, and our place as a truly red state will be cemented for a generation.

See, conservatism, on a grand scale, has never really been tried in Kansas.     Prior to Sam Brownback, we had 8 years of a liberal Republican governor followed by 8 years of a liberal Democratic Governor.  While the House for points in that history was modestly conservative, the Senate has always been quite moderate, even when it had a large GOP majority. 

The consequence of this has been liberal policies.   We’ve been the abortion capital of the world.  We’ve been taxed to death.  There is no choice in our school system due to a death grip by the NEA.  Our government, until recently, grew each and every year.  Our bizarre judicial system, handpicked by trial lawyers,  is the most liberal of any state in the union.   We couldn’t even pass the Health Care Freedom Amendment out of the Kansas Senate, for heaven’s sake.

Now, those things are starting to unravel, and Kansans are getting a taste of the opposite and they like what they see.   They imagine Kansas as a place of economic prosperity, where sales and income taxes are low, where jobs are created, where regulations are few, where government is limited, where competition thrives among schools, where liberty is protected, and where the sanctity life is cherished.

That, of course, is what Morris and company are afraid of:  Kansans, as a whole, will like that “new” Kansas, and once they get a full taste of it, there will be no going back.

So, rather than defending their votes and beliefs on a battlefield of ideas -- the coalition of 21 Senators is essentially conceding defeat in the hearts and minds of the electorate, and instead clinging onto their power through some clever displays of geography on a map that Kathleen Sebelius would love.

In the process, they’re embarrassing the state and exposing themselves as what they are – arrogant leaders who lack the courage – the guts -- to take their case to the people they claim to serve. 

A Governor with Guts

Today, the Kansas House, in coordination with Governor Sam Brownback, showed great political courage in moving to concur on a previously passed measure to reduce taxes, a motion which passed 64-59.

This high-stakes dramatic political maneuver, which we will explain in a minute, will certainly draw criticism and will frustrate those on the left to death -- but it is was a move that was nonetheless necessary, if you believe elections have consequences and if you believe people in power, elected to take decisive action, must seize opportunities before them, even if politically risky.

It also signified a clear victory for conservatives in what had been a parliamentary and political game, with liberals and conservatives trying to out-smart the other, while also trying to score political points in the upcoming elections, which will be the most critical in the recent history of the state.

Most of all, though, it showed what true legislative success, the outcome of political success, can be achieved when you have a Governor with guts -- and a House with a backbone.  Truly, today's action was one of the shrewdest moves in Kansas history.

To recap, here is the story:

Step 1. Governor Brownback originally proposed a plan to lower the state income tax, with the eventual goal of reducing it to 0.  That plan included the removal of certain deductions, such as the home mortgage deduction.

Step 2. The Kansas Senate Tax Committee, in a "gut and go" style amendment to a different House bill (previously passed, which is critical here), added the Governor's proposal, with some changes.

Step 3. The full Kansas Senate, in March, added a "Christmas tree" of amendments, keeping the tax cuts, but restoring the deductions, as well as the sunset of the sales tax passed two sessions ago.   This made the bill much more expensive -- and at current levels of spending, unsustainable -- than the original.   However, conservatives, in order to keep the bill alive, voted for it.   However, the Senate originally killed it, though, on a vote of 20-20 --  but then on a motion to reconsider, passed it 29-11.  Among the 29 votes in favor were several left wing Republicans, including President Steve Morris, Majority Leader Jay Emler, Terrie Huntington, and others -- all voting for it so, come August, they could say they were in favor of tax cuts -- thinking that this version would eventually never pass.

Step 4. Because that version of the legislation was too expensive, House and Senate negotiators have recently been engaged in a conference committee which put the bill (same bill #) more in line with the Governor's original plan (some changes, however).  That plan -- much less costly than the original passed by the Senate -- was then forwarded to the Senate today for debate. 

This is where things get interesting.

See, liberal Senate Republicans, along with Democrats, don't like Governor Brownback, and they don't like tax cuts.  They like tax increases, big government, and political damage to Governor.  So,  despite the conference committee having forwarded the compromise plan to the floor, it was highly unlikely that the full Senate would adopt the plan -- thus potentially, given this late date in the session, pushing off tax reform -- a critical thing needed in Kansas -- to at least next year.  Throw in the redistricting mess and the general uncertainty of elections anyway, there is no guarantee tax cuts would ever be seen.

Oh, but wait.

Remember the tax cut bill that the Senate passed in March?  It, since it was technically was passed by the House and was amended by the Senate, could still be passed by the House and sent directly to the Governor.   How?

On a motion to concur.  If such a motion passed, the bill would go directly to the Governor, and the debate in the Senate over the revised version would die.

BUT, if the Senate killed the revised version first - then the action in the House would be void -- because it would nullify the previous vote which passed it.  

The simple question was -- who would act first?  That brings us to Steps 5 and 6.

The answer was the House, which passed the motion to concur on the more expensive version of the bill on a vote of 64-59 before the Senate could act.  But that was really "Step 6".  Step 5 was Senate conservatives who kept the debate alive on the revised version (which again, the Senate was going to kill) long enough to pass.

The vote sends the bill directly to the Governor, who, when it's officially presented to him, will have 10 days to sign it, veto it, or let it become law without his signature. 

Governor Brownback said today he would sign the bill, but urged legislators continue to work on his ideas.

In essence, that 10 day window -- really, 12-14 days by the time he receives the bill -- gives House and Senate negotiators time to pass a different version of the legislation that is closer to the version that the House and Brownback want.

If negotiators can get 63 (majority of the House) and 21 (majority of the Senate) to pass a new bill in that window, the Governor will sign that bill and veto the version passed today.

If they don't, then the Governor will sign the version passed today -- and work to fix the unsustainable parts of it in a future session.

The result of this gusty move by the Governor and House is two-fold:

In the short term, it puts the pressure on a few squishy Senate Republicans to either pass the tax reform package desired by the Governor and House -- and thus settle the issue, without having to worry about fixing the budget gap later through fixes to the plan passed today.

In the long term -- and this is the most important part -- today's action guarantees that there will be significant tax cuts signed into law, ensuring we will be on our way to fundamental tax reform and economic prosperity in Kansas.

What's ironic in all this is that several of the politicians who were trying to harm the Governor -- Morris, Emler, Huntington, etc. -- voted FOR the version of the tax reform that they are now complaining passed the House today.   So, while trying to protect their own hides by originally voting for tax cuts that they didn't really favor on a version they didn't think would ever really be signed into law, they kept the bill alive -- setting up the possibility for what happened today, which is that tax cuts will be signed into law, but only because they voted for it to begin with.

So, what happens now?

Do the left wing Republicans in the Senate cave and vote for a version more in line with Brownback's original package, in which case conservatives -- and the state of Kansas -- win?

Or, do left wing Republicans refuse to act and not pass anything, which means that the version passed today is signed into law, in which case conservatives -- and the state of Kansas -- win?

Of course, in the latter case, some will say "oh, but the budget deficit!"  No worries here, folks.  Brownback and the conservatives in the legislature know that whether it be next session or in a special session, that the issues in the bill passed today -- will be fixed, and the nightmare scenarios outlined will be avoided.

Now, are there risks in this?  Yes.   There always are in politics, but those who don't take risks don't get rewards.

But, in our view, the risks are not particularly high:

Given the Democrats were universally opposed to the bills, they could perhaps make hay of it and try to say that Republicans are being irresponsible -- but, the fact is Democrats are very weak in Kansas and that risk is minimal -- and Republicans could always justifiably charge in return the Democrats have zero interest in tax reform in Kansas.

As for the August primaries, which will largely take place in the Senate, the risk is also minimal - given that many of those moderates being challenged voted for the original version -- so they really can't complain about it passing.  Plus, if challenged, the conservatives who voted for it can simply say that they will fix it --  but that it was necessary to pass in order to achieve tax reform -- and in doing so, point out the games played by the moderates who voted for the expensive version but were going to block the budget-sound planned favored by the Governor.

So, in one political maneuver, conservatives called the bluff of the Senate liberals who voted for the plan and passed significant tax cuts on behalf of the people of Kansas.

In the end, a weaker Governor wouldn't have achieved this -- he would simply watched his bill die or be so severely weakened it would be categorized as a loss, both politically and legislatively.

However, because Kansas has a Governor with guts and legislative conservatives willing to back him up, today Kansas achieved a great victory -- and we believe that history will look back on today's actions as one of the most bold and courageous in Kansas history.

The Importance of Respect in Building a Conservative Movement

As the calendar approaches Labor Day, one could say that politically speaking, we are in the calm before the storm.  With people taking their last opportunity at vacation, school starting, and football games occupying people's time on weekends, politics is taking a bit of a back seat.   This is a good thing, because in politics as in all areas of life, people sometimes need time to breathe and relax before things intensify again.

And, things will indeed ramp back up soon.  On a national level, with Rick Perry just entering the race and Sarah Palin considering a bid, things are going to heat up quickly with five debates in six weeks beginning September 7.   Over the next few months, candidates will begin to emerge for U.S. Senate races and the newly drawn Congressional seats all across the country, including here in Kansaas.  At the state level, battle lines are currently being drawn for what will surely be an historical attempt by conservatives to take the Kansas Senate, with a slate of exceptionally strong conservatives taking on both Democrats and the most left wing of the Republican caucus.  Here at Kaw & Border, we will of course be covering this.

Given the heated nature of those races just over the horizon, we should take this down time not only to relax, but to look more broadly at the future of the conservative movement in Kansas -- for if conservatives are indeed successful in both August and November of 2012, a "new normal" will emerge in Kansas like none we have ever seen before -- one with conservatives in control of the House, the Senate, the Governorship and most every statewide office save Insurance Commissioner.

Yes, conservatives will have finally won, and likely achieved victory in a political reality in which the fromer-moderate wing of the Republican Party is essentially killed off and where the Democratic Party is so weak it has little to no means of growth, at least in the next few years.  Of course, nothing in politics is permanent but if the conservatives should be successful of defending their 63 in the House and achieving 21 in the Senate, it they will likely have control for at least four years, if not longer.

However, while indeed such a victory should be cause for immense celebration because of the decades of blood, sweat, tears and prayers that would have taken to achieve, it will present new challenges as well.  Much like the dog who catches up with the car, conservatives will have to decide how to handle themselves once they achieve full control.

One of the realities of "absolute power" is that when you don't have anyone to beat up in the opposition, your opposition often becomes each other.  Certainly, disagreement is healthy and welcome, but if and when conservatives obtain complete control in Kansas, one of the key challenges will be to ensure that such disagreement is communicated with respect -- both from those communicating a disagreement and from those who would seek to stifle disagreement for the sake of unity.

We are raising this point because of a couple trends that are starting to creep into the political lexicon:

1. Overuse of the term "RINO".  Make no mistake, there are RINO's -- John Vratil, Tim Owens, Terrie Huntington, etc.   The list is not short.  However, too often, both at the national and local level, certain folks within the conservative movement are beginning to toss the "RINO" label at anyone who dare takes a different view on a particular issue, or even when there is an agrement on an issue and there is just a slightly different strategy for getting there.  

Case in point on this front is the recent debate over the debt ceiling hike.  We at Kaw & Border preferred the stance that Tim Huelskamp and Kevin Yoder took in voting no on debt hike.  However, Paul Ryan, Allan West, and others who voted yes are NOT RINO's, yet there were attempts by some in the conservative movement to label them as such..  Neither is John Boehner, Mike Pompeo, or Lynn Jenkins.  Wherever the "RINO line" is, those individuals are on the right side of it, not the RINO side.  We're all headed in the same general direction.

Now, this does NOT mean that conservatives can't or shouldn't express disagreement with those individuals over a particular issue such as the debt ceiling -- in fact, they should do so and do so in an EFFECTIVE and respectful way.  On the flip side, those who voted "less conservative" (using that term loosely) -- often referred to as the establishment -- should not seek silence or "penalize" those who voted no and take a more firm position on those issues.  What should happen is that there should be a vigorous debate and then we should keep marching forward. 

The point here is that if we overuse the term RINO to mean anyone who doesn't agree with a certain conservative take on an issue, we cheapen the term.  A RINO is someone who is truly not a Republican in any shape or form, and is only running as a Republican because they could not get elected as a Democrat in a state like Kansas.  The aforementioned Johnson County Senators are perfect examples. 

However, there are many great conservatives who may take a different stance on one issue or another but are NOT RINO's -- and we do a dissservice to the movement when they are labeled as such.

Again, it's all about respect.


2. Trying to Define Certain Positions on Issues as "THE Conservative Position".   This trend is a little harder to define but is likely to play out once conservatives gain control of a state's branches of government.   Conservatives will theoretically have the votes to pass anything they want, but there will be disagreements on how to move forward, and there will be natural tendencies -- tendencies that need to be resisted -- for some to call their own position as "the" conservative position, when in fact there may be two or more different approaches to the same issue, with both viewpoints representing solid conservative princiles.

Now, there will be some issues -- the life issue for example -- where people are generally unified, and where conservatives should be expected to largely hold the line.  We mentioned the life issue.  We also believe that the same should hold true for marriage, a general reduction in spending, a general movement towards lowering taxes, etc.  And, certainly there will be a need to ask for those principles to be adhered to and to encourage legislators to not drift with the political winds for fear of re-election.   However, there WILL BE disagreements, sometimes strong ones, over the particulars of such legislation and we'll need to be respectful of those disagreements.  There is a large difference between voting a different way on a particular bill or issue because of political reasons and voting a different way because you legitimately have a disagreement -- and we need to learn to distinguish the two.

Here are a few issues where we could see this playing out:

1. Alcohol Sales.  There are some conservatives who want to allow hard liquor to be sold in grocery stores and convenience stores, as they see it as a free market issue.  There are some conservatives who want to keep the laws as they are, who see that the "liquor store" model for such products to be a good compromise between easy access and consumption.    There is also the separate economic argument about not harming liquor store owners who have been used to the laws in this state for decades.  The core issue here is how conservatives approach both economics as well as social policy on alcohol.  Those on the more 'libertarian side' should refrain from calling those on the other side as extremists who are backwards thinking, and those on the more 'anti-booze' side should refrain from labeling those on the more libertarian side with similar unfair terms.  There are two sides to this issue -- both with merit, both coming from conservative principles, and that debate needs to be held with vigor, free from labels which demean deeply held viewpoints.

2. Taxes.  There is not one conservative approach to tax reform.  Generally, we all want lower taxes.  However, there will be disagreement on tax REFORM and how to get there.  Some want a FairTax model, which moves away from the income tax and more towards sales taxes.  Some prefer a flat tax model which throws up the caution flag on moving to a sales tax model for fear of regressiveness, stifling sales in general, and increasing government involvement in transactions between individuals and business and between two businesses.  Some want to lower both sales and income taxes, keeping both in place but both at a lower level.  All of these positions deserve a hearing and vigorous debate.  Those promoting a FairTax like model should not call those opposed to the FairTax RINO's because they support retaining the income tax (though a lower one) and those who oppose the FairTax shouldn't label FairTax people as crazy or unrealistic, because they bring a well thought out position to the table. 

 3. Libertarianism vs. Traditional Conservatism.  This is a broader concept, but it's one that could likely start to play out over time as libertarian thinking begins to make its way into the conservative movement.   While we believe any efforts to undermine the definition of marriage should be resisted, there is room for disagreement on other issues, particularly economic type issues.  Now, this blog is generally going to lean towards the traditional conservative line of thinking, but we also believe that the libertarian thinking shouldn't be excluded or shunned -- but welcomed.  Let the debate play out.

Again, it's all about respect and being able to debate issues without tossing labels at each other within the conservative movement.  Remember, there are long term consequences if we don't go this path -- the movement could splinter, which could lead to a lack of progress on issues we care about while also providing an opening for our liberal opponents to regroup and make gains in a direction none of us want.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't ever have a conservative vs. conservative primary, but it also doesn't mean we should ever completely fracture either.  Our disagreements need to be communicated with humility and reason, not emotion or vindictiveness.

If they choose the right approach, conservatives, should they continue to win, could be in power for a long time to come and we'll have a better state and nation as a result.

A Fractured Party? Hardly.

This week when I received my Johnson County Sun in the mail, I initially thought that perhaps I had been sent a paper from 2001, not 2011.  The reason was this headline:

Some fear GOP could fracture

Naturally, as a blog writer which focuses on area politics, this headline grabbed my attention -- what inside story was I missing, perhaps? 

The article by Loren Stanton, which focused on what was a 1990's/early 2000's era mantra that the Republican Party, particularly within Johnson County, was hopelessly split along conservative/moderate lines , though written fairly well, deserves an "F" for its analytical and factual value. 

The chief clue that Stanton had a particular purpose in mind -- to "create news" that there was discord within the Republican Party and make conservatives look terrible -- was the picture that accompanied the article:  that of "Republican" Senator John Vratil, who was quoted extensively within the piece.  Stanton -- and the editors at the Sun who approved the piece -- are clearly trying to create controversy around the fact that Vratil and what's left of his remaining liberal friends who are still technically Republicans -- are being targeted by conservatives in hopes of turning the liberal-leaning (despite its wide Republican majority) Senate more conservative in 2012. 

By making these conservatives look "radical" (as Vratil calls them), Stanton and company are attempting to build up a strawman that a bunch of right-wing wackos are going after "reasonable" moderate Senators, and in doing so, they might "destroy" the party.

However, there are several holes in this made-up theory that the party is fractured -- specifically election results as well as the voting record of the so-called "moderate" members in question.  Stanton would have done himself well to interview elected officials other than John Vratil and Tim Owens -- there are 20 conservatives in the Johnson County delegation, yet Stanton didn't quote one -- only two party officials (Ronnie Metsker and Clay Barker) and Steve Shute, head of the Union of Patriots.

Stanton's article would have been more relevant if it was written ten years ago, back when then the Republican Party still had large segments of so-called moderates.  If one remembers, it was in 2002 that the liberal members of the party made an aggressive push against conservatives over education, sending a few home in primaries.  Moderates still made an aggressive push in precinct committee races, and the control of the party was always in question.  It was also at the tail end of the Graves Administration, a moderate Governor, and at a time when no conservatives held statewide office.   A look at the Johnson County legislative delegation in 2003, indeed, revealed a moderate majority, as liberal Republicans masquerading as moderates had taken over previously held conservative seats in Districts 16 and 18, and won a newly created seat in District 38, and held many other seats throughout the county except in Olathe and southern Overland Park.   Mark Parkinson, of all people, was State Chair for a period of time.  Phill Kline did win in 2002, but only by a narrow margin.

However, a lot has changed since the early 2000's, which Stanton falls far short of explaining to readers:

- Many of the so-called moderate Republicans holding office ten years ago have switched to the Democratic Party -- Lisa Benlon, Paul Morrison, Delores Furtado, Cindy Neighbor, Ron Wimmer, not to mention former GOP Chair Mark Parkinson -- trying to take advantage of the brief-but-fake (they went up to 6 House seats in JoCo in 2008, only to fall back to 1 in 2010) Democratic wave in the mid-2000's due to the popularity of Kathleen Sebelius and lack of a credible GOP heavyweight to challenge her.  The fact that these "former moderates" felt comfortable in the left-wing Democratic Party should be worth mentioning -- as should the fact that not one of them remains in office.  Stanton might have a point if these figures were replaced by "moderate Republicans" -- but every office formerly held by a Republican-turned-Democrat is now held by someone considered at least reasonably conservative, if not very conservative.

- Furthering that point, conservatives, in the last ten years, have expanded beyond their former strongholds of Olathe and southern Overland Park.  In 2003,  conservatives only held House Districts 14, 15, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 48, and 49; while holding Senate Districts 9, 10, 23 and 37, as they do now.  In 2011, conservatives hold 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 38, 39, 43, 48, and 49,.  They fell 30 votes short of reclaiming District 29 and didn't field candidates in the other seats.  In the seven Senate seats, which elects all of its members every four years, the split is 4-3, but hasn't had an election since conservatives have been on a surge -- hence, the effort to take on the remaining moderates in 2012.  Statewide in Kansas, conservatives now control every statewide office except Insurance Commissioner -- and so-called "lightning rod" and the bogeyman of the left, Kris Kobach, won with nearly 60% of the vote, and did carry 60% in supposedly moderate Johnson County.   Kevin Yoder campaigned as a conservative and crushed Stephene Moore by a ridiculous margin.

- "Moderates" have largely stopped fielding challengers against conservatives who are incumbents, or even in open seats -- they took a pass on every House seat in 2010, for instance, except the seats they held.  They largely have given up fielding a large field of candidates for precinct committee races.  Even in open seats, when they do field someone, they get crushed.  In 2008, a Democratic year overall, Mary Pilcher-Cook crushed Sue Gamble, a well known moderate, in the primary.  Some thought she might be at risk in the general, with the so-called coalition of moderates and Democrats coming together to defeat her.  Instead, she won again -- securing 55% of the vote, doing 1% better than the supposedly more-acceptable Terrie Huntington and Tim Owens.  Senator Julia Lynn (a two year incumbent but she had not yet been on the ballot), who campaigned aggressively as a conservative, won 55% against a former Superintendent and "icon" Ron Wimmer, who had switched parties after losing to Lynn in 2006 in a special convention to replace Kay O'Connor. 

- Moderates have even started losing ground in areas they held for a long time.  District 17 is a perfect example, held by left-wing Republicans Lisa Benlon, Stephanie Sharp, and Jill Quigley.  It's partially in older Lenexa, where moderates have historically done well.  Kelly Meigs, a political newcomer, challenged Quigley and won handily, for a primary challenge.    Districts 19 and 20 are held by members considered to be conservative.  Democrats considered "moderate" by the media are losing -- Cindy Neighbor lost 59-41.  Gene Rardin lost 55-45.  Milack Talia lost 54-46.   Conservative-with-no-money Jason Osterhaus defeated moderate icon Larry Winn in a general election in a seat previously held by Ed Eilert and Delores Furtado.  The list goes on and on.  If "conservatives" were "destroying" the party as Vratil claims, they would be losing seats -- in fact, as the party goes more to the right, it is gaining seats.  That fact is ignored in the article.

- As Johnson County grows, it is becoming more conservative.  The growth areas are Olathe, western Johnson County, and southern Overland Park -- completely dominated by not just conservative legislators, but very conservative legislators -- all whom won general elections in 2010 by margins approaching or even surpassing 70% of the vote.   There will likely be 4 new House seats and 1 1/2 new Senate seats in 2012 -- all will be from the newer, very conservative areas. 

- Finally, and this is the most important point Stanton ignores, the individuals he calls "moderates" are anything but -- and the public is catching on.  Vratil and company have a decidedly liberal voting record by any reasonable standard, and the public, when it has a chance, is largely rejecting that record.  Make no mistake, during the Sebelius regime, there was no greater friend of the Governor than John Vratil and his friends.  Now, under the relatively "mainstream" governorship of Republican Sam Brownback, Vratil and Owens have done their best to criticize or outright block his initiatives.  They are, by any reasonable standard, as left wing as Democrats, but they are now back to the reality that one must be a Republican in JoCo to hold a seat, despite notions a few years ago that being a Democrat had long term viability in Kansas.

Indeed, in the article, Stanton talks about the math, which Vratil recognizes -- the moderates, when combined with the 8 Democrats, have enough votes to control the chamber on a host of issues, stopping quality conservative legislation from being passed.  What Stanton omits, however, is what that legislation was, in an attempt to have the public believe it was extreme.  The legislation was largely around income tax relief for businesses and individuals, as well as judicial selection reform, where Kansas sits anywhere but the mainstream, being the only state in the country to have the system it has.   The 'conservative' legislation that did pass -- such as several pro-life bills, etc -- was largely opposed by Vratil, Huntington, and Owens -- the three figures mentioned in the article.

The point of this is to say that the party is anything but fractured -- unless you are one of those remaining liberal relics of the past who is being targeted.  In fact, any reporter who did actual research and had his "ear to the ground" would pick upon the fact that the vast majority of Republicans, even those not super conservative, are completely tired of trying to make room in the "tent" for those like John Vratil and Tim Owens, because if the tent were that big, it would have no meaning.   In fact, if there is one thing that unifies most in the party, it is a desire to see the party actually be more than a group of people running for office -- it has to be defined by a set of common beliefs -- and while differences will be respected and occur, the larger principles are largely headed the same direction.   Vratil, Owens, Huntington, and the remaining six moderates/Dems in the House from JoCo are wanting to go a completely opposite direction, which is why they are being "targeted".

Indeed, what is happening in Johnson County is a shift -- no longer is the split between individuals who call themselves moderates but are indeed liberal and conservatives, a split which existed because the gap was simply too large to bridge.  How can one bridge a gap between those who want to increase taxes and those who want to cut them?  How can one bridge a gap between those who want abortion on demand and those who are very pro-life?   We could go on and on -- the point is, Kansans, or at least Kansas Republicans, slowly, election by election, are making clear where they stand -- and it's not with left wing Republicans.

Instead, what is replacing the past political reality is one where there are still differences, but the differences, as noted before, are largely on details but not on the overall principles.  For example, one could certainly argue that Lance Kinzer is more conservative than say, Rob Bruchman, but there is no question BOTH are conservative and both largely agree on most issues.  One is just more aggressive in conservative advocacy than the other.

Another slight "difference" emerging is between more "libertarian" conservatives and those who are less so -- again, however, they are both largely in agreement on overall principles.  The result on both of these fronts is maybe a simple disagreement on Issue A or Issue B, but none of the past fractures that Stanton is trying to create. 

Evidence of this -- Shute's Union of Patriots and other groups aren't targeting Senators or Reps who are not as conservative as they are -- they're targeting liberals hiding in Republican clothing.  If the party was truly fractured, they would be fielding candidates against incumbents who weren't towing the exact line.  Yes, there are some elements of the conservative movement who don't trust Brownback completely, but such talk is limited and only among a few -- and even those individuals, if you truly asked them, would admit the Governor is doing a great job and is a breath of fresh air over the entire history of Kansas Governors.

Of course, the reason the Johnson County Sun and John Vratil ignore these facts is very basic -- they don't like them!   Which is clear if you read between the lines of the last three paragraphs of this article:

Senate Minority Anthony Hensley of Topeka said he agrees with Vratil (K&B: Shocker!) that a more conservative push would lead to policies most Kansans would oppose. (K&B: If that is the case, Kansans wouldn't elect them, would they?)  Of course, Democratic legislators must rely on forming a coalition (K&B: As they have for decades) with Republican moderates (K&B: liberals) to achieve their goals.

"We have a mainly moderate majority in the Senate.  Our role is not to push an agenda that is right or left, but to prevent things (from either extreme) from becoming law," Hensley said. (K&B: Since when is Hensley a road block to extreme liberal legislation?)

The U.S. Congress, Hensley believes, could take a lesson from Kansas Senators in how to form an effective bipartisan coalition.  If the next election shifts the Senate to a conservative majority, however, Hensley fears that example of cooperation will be lost.

Hensley's fear-- that a conservative majority may be coming -- flies in the face of his contention the public doesn't want it.   It can't come if the public doesn't want it, particularly if the media is continually pushing against it, as it is in this article.

One of the first rules in politics is if you don't like the truth of what's going on, try to change the narrative to fit your agenda, and hope the public buys it.  One way to do so by is inventing fear-mongering headlines (Some fear GOP could fracture) by creating a storyline where there is none (the party is being destroyed!!), done by erecting the biggest strawman you can find (these conservatives are radicals and want to take out reasonable "thinking" moderates), and then beat that strawman up like there is no tomorrow. (we must save the state by stopping them!)

Which stands to reason, because the problem for liberals like Hensley and Vratil is absent this false narrative, and when their liberal record is exposed and the electorate weighs in, there will be no tomorrow.

A Bad Yet (Increasingly) Popular Idea: Ending Government Licensing of Marriage

This post is the second in a series of ten -- five covering "good but unpopular ideas" and five covering "bad but popular ideas" -- all with the theme at looking at the long term direction of the conservative movement.

A few weeks ago, at the first Republican Presidential debate, Congressman and Presidential candidate Ron Paul was asked about his stance on marriage -- and his answer was an unusual one -- rather than outlawing gay marriage or supporting gay marriage, he wanted to simply get government out of the marriage business completely.  Here is what he said:

"Well, as a matter of fact I spent a whole chapter in a new book I’ve written on marriage, and I think that it’s very important, seeing that I’ve been married for 53, 54 years now. But I think the government should just be out of it. I think it should be done by the church or private contract, and we shouldn’t have this argument — who’s married and who isn’t married. I have my standards, but I shouldn’t impose my standards on others. Others have standards, and they have no right to impose their marriage standards on me. I just don’t like it."

Basically, that's the ultimate libertarian way out of the marriage debate.  Rather than endorse gay marriage, say that you have your "own standards" and that you want to do with government involvement in marriage completely, that everything should be by private contract.

It is an attractive viewpoint for the social libertarian or the personal social conservative who doesn't want to "impose their views" on others -- a way, in a sense, to be a moderate while at the same time supposedly maintaining your own personal moral beliefs by relegating these decisions to churches and "contracts".

This is a viewpoint, in the eyes of this blog, that is slowly creeping its way into more libertarian aspects of the conservative movement -- those who want to disassociate government from anything that they see as not the role of government or involves government placing a definition or limits on what is a personal act that doesn't impact the rights of others.

This should not be unexpected, as this worldview can be found on the specific issues of drug laws, gambling, drinking laws, sexually-oriented businesses, and other areas where the government places a limit on personal behavior.   Given that the "definition of marriage" is now apparently up for debate, rather than being a fundamental truth, this line of thinking has now found its way to the issue of marriage.

So, in Ron Paul's world, if Jack and Jill want to get married, they can sign a contract or have a ceremony, but there would be no obtaining of a marriage license, no actual government recognition of their marriage -- in the eyes of the state, they'd be two individuals. 

Others who may believe in traditional marriage or even restrictions in other "behavior-related" areas of state law may also be susceptible to the "slippery slope" argument -- that is, if we pass a law on something like marriage or sexually-oriented businesses, therefore it is harder for us to defend opposing laws on limiting things such as soft drinks and fatty foods. 

While, indeed, conservatives are wise to think through the consequences and wisdom of passing any law, particularly those which, at their core, do involve the government in social policy, that does not mean it is not wise to do so in all cases.  In our view, conservatives should be capable of adopting a case-by-case approach to such laws and not an all-or-nothing one.  That is, in our eyes, the definition of good legislating -- there may be good reasons to restrict alcohol sales but not restrict soda sales, for instance.  Legislators will, of course, have different views depending on the particular issue being discussed, but the judgment should not be "get government of social policy completely."

Specifically related to marriage, it is our view that though increasingly popular with libertarian-thinking conservatives and likely to be an increasingly popular view among younger Americans, we should avoid any notion of getting government out of the marriage business completely, as Ron Paul advocates.  Such a movement is problematic for several reasons:

1. Marriage is not just a private matter -- it is a public matter as well.   Government does have a role in reflecting the mores and values of the society it governs -- i.e., establishing some notion of law and order.  Marriage is a critical part of that, as it should be and historically has been over centuries, backed up by cultural evidence that healthy marriages are an ideal for which any society/civilization should aim to promote and cherish.  By getting government out of the marriage business entirely, the civilization which that government represents is essentially saying marriage does not matter in the organization of a civilization -- a notion that in our view, would lead to cultural anarchy.

2. Marriage is marriage -- it is not just an evolving concept.  Marriage IS between a man and a woman.  It always will be.  No government, church, or contract can change that. Yes, they can create laws and ordinances and pieces of paper that say otherwise, but that doesn't make it so.  Truth is truth.   Moreover, marriage also exists as an institution in which families are created and prosper.  Now, that doesn't mean that all marriages must produce children or that all children are produced out of great marriages, but certainly ample evidence exists to show that children are raised best in a household involving a married man and woman.  That is the ideal, and that there is nothing wrong with having an ideal, even if sometimes we fall short.  Government, of course, has an interest in ensuring that its populations prosper and that children grow up to be productive adults.  Marriage is a part of that, and it should be encouraged and defined as what it is in law, not what some think it should be, nor should it be dealt away with completely simply because some don't want to define it in law. 

3. Strong marriages help keep people off government dependency.  Broken families are unquestionably one of the chief reasons for poverty in this country, and poverty leads to dependence on government services, both for children and adults.  If government were to get out of the marriage business, it would be endorsing a society in which it has no stance on the structure of families -- which could lead to the further erosion of the family and marital unit, even beyond what we have seen up to this point.  Social anarchy will lead to dependence on government will lead to welfare states which will lead to busted budgets -- look no further than Europe for an example of such.

4. It is fiscally conservative to support marriage.  This is related to our previous point -- many libertarian-leaning conservatives primarily focus on fiscal responsibility and government spending.  While those efforts are important, one key component in reducing spending is reducing the outcry from the public for such spending.  While again, marriage is certainly not an automatic ticket to prosperity, broken families certainly increase the likelihood that a child will end up in poverty or, at least, in a position where they are at one point, reliant on government for one service or another.  Stronger families -- backed up by strong marriages -- will lessen the likelihood of such dependence and thus, provide less of a demand for public services.

5. No one is forcing anyone to marry.  One thing Ron Paul and other advocates of getting government out of marriage is that no one is forcing anyone to marry "legally" in the first place.  If Jack and Jill or Jack and John want to have a relationship, no one is saying they can't.   Moreover, for "covenant marriage" laws such as the one that exists in Arkansas or that was proposed in Kansas previously -- no one is forcing anyone to enter into those either.  It is a choice, but in our view, it is a choice that should not be taken away.  Some, like Dr. Paul, like to often state that government shouldn't impose marriage on everyone -- when people are free not to marry -- but isn't doing away with marriage laws entirely essentially amount to Dr. Paul and company imposing their libertarian no-marriage-law worldview on society?

Essentially, we feel strongly that doing away with marriage laws would be a dangerous step for governments -- at any level -- to take, because government, whether we like it or not, does and in our opinion, should, reflect the culture it represents and should seek to encourage a culture in which families prosper and children thrive.  Marriage, even if imperfect, is a part of that -- and it would be a sad day if the state of marriage reached a point where government essentially threw its arms up and said "it just doesn't matter anymore".

It does matter.  We all know it matters.  There is too much empirical and statistical evidence to suggest otherwise.

In fact, in our view, there are stronger arguments on the side of enhancing and strengthening marriage laws, and embracing a culture in which the man-woman marital union is embraced as ideal, and not treated as one of many array of lifestyles one can choose from, almost like trying to pick out car insurance.  We'd like to see states from coast-to-coast adopt covenant marriage laws, in which divorce is more difficult.  We'd like to see culture, in general, both in schools and churches, embrace the institution of marriage between one man and one woman.  We'd like to explore the reasons why marriages fail, and seek ways to ensure that rate drops.

The reason is simple -- a civilization in which marriage is the social and cultural centerpiece is much more likely to prosper, both economically and culturally, than one that does not.  Conservatives of all stripes should embrace this -- and avoid advocating for a profound change in social policy that would undermine everything we are fighting for.