Political Triangulation Done Right

Dick Morris is well known for the politics of triangulation. For those not privy, triangulation is the act of a candidate presenting his or her ideology as being "above" and "between" the left and right sides of the political spectrum. It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one's political opponent. The logic behind it is that it both takes credit for the opponent's ideas, and insulates the triangulator from attacks on that particular issue. Opponents of triangulation consider the dynamic a deviation from reality and dismiss those that strive for it as whimsical. Put me in the latter category.

While I affirm the traditional Dick Morris sort of triangulation as political suicide, that is not to suggest that a triangular (i.e., three prong/point) approach isn’t a viable prescription for success within the Republican party. In fact it is.

But, while the likes of Dick Morris, former Bush speechwriter turned Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson, William Kristol, and the other apparatchiks at FOX News and within the Republican party, think that we ought to adopt the watered down solutions of our adversaries, a much more sensible approach is to implore conservative solutions which revolve around three key issues (thus imploring three prong/point triangular approach previously mentioned). Now, the other issues will come up undoubtedly. Address them and let it drop. Say no to the Farm Bill and let it drop. Say no to the Barney Frank housing bailout and let it drop. Say no to appeasement abroad and then let it drop.

True there may very well be some discrepancies in response to the three key issues which are of most importance to you and the rest of America. However, I think that the overwhelming response at present is likely to center on energy, healthcare, and retirement. These three things have and will continue to define the cost of living. I’m quite certain you could go anywhere across the country and undoubtedly you will find that to be the primary concern amongst Americans. So, then it is on these three issues the GOP ought to set their focus.



Energy:

Energy is the engine which moves us and the world. It is unconscionable then that anyone would suggest we use less of it. Certainly we can look to other parts of the world where energy consumption is virtually non-existent for a picture of what such a practice might look like. Since we need energy in a productive industrial society, we should look towards whatever means necessary to obtain it. However, in this quest for energy, what is often left by the wayside is our sense and sensibilities. There is a fundamental reason why “alternative” sources of energy are so wildly popular at present. Subsidies. Remove the subsidies and let the market work. And, when you allow the market to work, you will find that the cheapest, most efficient, and most reliable sources of energy still come from fossil fuels. Now, this isn’t to say we should completely ignore alternatives. Certainly, Nuclear is a viable option which Republicans ought to tout much more as well (thereby exposing the hard core Environmental movement who are not so much in favor of cleaner energy in so much as they are opposed to American progress). But, while we embrace logic and reasoning to assert that we cannot be forever dependent upon fossil fuels, so too must we then adopt the same premise in recognizing that we cannot be dependent upon alternatives at the behest of our food source and the American taxpayer. Unfortunately, we’re not yet there. As a provision in the recent bloated Farm Bill, were the price on a bushel of corn to recede back to it’s previous price before congress made it a profitable business venture, the subsidy to corn growers increases to make up the difference. If our pursuit is one of “green” technology, then why are so many in the political class less than enthusiastic in their support of clean coal technology (of which I’ve had the pleasure of doing Patent work for and which is a truly remarkable endeavor), or new technologies in oil drilling which require less intrusion and a lighter footprint upon the landscape, or opposed to lifting the $.54 per gallon tariff on the much more efficient Brazilian ethanol? If for no other reason other than the fact that Republicans have no energy policy. What they have is an environmental policy. They have essentially put the proverbial cart before the horse. The Republican leadership needs disabuse themselves from thinking they’ll win over environmentalists and their powerful lobbying efforts. Instead, they need to assert that A) we need cheap, sensible, and reliable energy. And B) we’re not going to preclude ourselves from getting it when it’s sitting right in our own backyard.

Healthcare:

Get the government and the employer out of the healthcare business. Put healthcare back where it rightfully belongs; with the individual. Change the tax code so that individuals get a tax credit or reduction so that they can then go out and buy a plan on the open market; a market which ought to be wholly free-market based thereby allowing the individual the ability to cross state lines and shop for the plan that best suits them.

Retirement:

SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM! Allow younger workers to allocate a percentage of their earnings into a 401(k) or equivalent where the government can’t get their hands on it.

If the Republicans are adamant on a triangular approach, they ought to do well to consider the aforementioned. Because clearly for the present day Republicans…the Dick Morris sort of triangulation has led to nothing more than political strangulation.