HALEY AT CPAC

I thought Haley Barbour acquitted himself well on Saturday, February 12, 2011, at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) when he delivered a thoughtful speech in Washington to the large annual gathering of conservative activists. Predictably, he stated at CPAC (and on the next day on Fox News Sunday) that he was exploring the possibility of running for President of the United States; but he also showed me a glimpse of what his message would be if he does take the plunge.

Basically, Haley stated that the country is in deep trouble and is crying for a new leader. “The main thing is electing a Republican President”, he said. “We cannot put America on the right track until we elect a Republican President in 2012 and a Republican Senate to join the Republican House.”

While most other potential presidential candidates were vague at CPAC (and on the next day’s talk shows) on how to cut spending, POLITICO correctly observed that Haley “spent considerable time explaining how he had governed as a conservative and not just given lip-service to small-government principles.” He explained to the national audience (carried on C-SPAN) how Mississippi eliminated its $720 million budget short-fall in two years without raising anyone’s taxes; and how he found “cost savings in Medicaid” over the objections of the usual suspects - the “liberal media elite”.

In concluding his remarks on fiscal issues, Barbour made a statement which, to me, reflected a clear understanding of the fiscal problems that the next President will face after 2012: “you can save money on entitlements, you just gotta have the will to do it.”

In his speech, Haley also made an appeal to social conservatives by noting that “Mississippi [is] the safest state in America for an unborn child. And he also paid his respects to the Tea Party movement by stating that Tea Partiers are concerned about the same policy issues that Republican volunteers and leaders are concerned about. “Rather than divide us” Barbour said, “these are the issues that unite us, unite us as conservatives, unite us as Republicans and unite us as Americans.”

Some, like Walter Shapiro of POLITICS DAILY, thought Haley’s speech was “clunky” and “boring”, while praising an equally “boring” speech by Indiana Governor, Mitch Daniels, as an “intellectually compelling call to arms against the red-ink forces of the nationals debt” which required “listening rather than pep-rally applause.” Others, like the GOP strategist quoted by the POLITICO, thought Haley’s address “was a speech full of signifiers and markers for primary.” As I listened to my fellow Mississippian, I agreed with the strategist: here is a candidate who has “walked-the-walk on spending, restricted abortion, and welcomes Tea Partiers”. As a Southerner, I also saw another signifier and marker when Haley closed his speech by stating that Lincoln was the father of the Republican Party; and that the Republican Party stands for freedom in today’s society. As Reagan once said, “Not bad, not bad at all.”

As I have stated in this space before, if the voters are as aroused as they were in the last congressional elections and are looking for a presidential candidate who is capable of steering the national ship of states through troubled waters, Haley Barbour will assuredly be a “top-tier” candidate for President in 2012.

The Southern Elephants

A recent article in the January 27, 2011, edition of the Madison County Journal took note of the recent conversion of two more members of the Mississippi State House of Representatives to the Mississippi Republican Party. On the previous Thursday, both Russ Nowell of Louisville and Margaret Rogers of New Albany announced at Republican Party Headquarters that they would run for re-election as Republicans. I was especially pleased to read about the decision of Margaret Rogers, who I came to know well during my tenure as Republican State Chairman.

As noted by the Journal, Russ and Margaret “are the fourth and fifth former Democratic representatives to change to the GOP since January of 2009…” and “nearly 30 Democratic elected officials have switched to the Republican Party in that time.” The reality is that Republicans now claim 53 of the 122 members of the Mississippi House of Representatives with 62 being the magic number for Republicans to be able to elect a Speaker of the House without having to negotiate for Democratic votes.

Mississippi Republicans rejoiced and were justly proud of their achievements in November, 2011, when a sea change occurred in the national congressional elections. That is when Republicans Alan Nunnelee and Steven Palazzo were sent to Congress to replace two able and well-financed Democrats. The defeat of long-time Democratic “Blue-Dog” Congressman Gene Taylor was especially startling and gratifying. I was quoted in the January 27, 2011, article in the Journal as attributing “the recent turnovers to the divergence of Democratic and conservative ideology” and the fact that many local Democrats “have found themselves at odds with the National Party’s message.” These incontestable facts, together with hard work of outstanding Republican leaders over the years, beginning with Wirt Yerger in the 1950’s, have brought the Mississippi Republican Party to a position of unprecedented political dominance that would have been hard to imagine as late as the year 2001, when the Party had only one statewide office holder, Auditor Phil Bryant.

In his excellent autobiography A Courageous Cause, Wirt Yerger describes his role as the first Chairman of the modern Mississippi Republican Party and how he worked with other young Republican Chairmen in the surrounding southern states to help Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona defeat eastern establishment Republicans, led by Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York, in 1964. The differences between Rockefeller and Goldwater were philosophical, and Goldwater’s conservative economic message in 1964 appealed to conservative Mississippians of those years. As a result, the Mississippi Republican Party began to grow in the face of stern and sometimes vicious opposition from Mississippi’s Democrats. They claimed that a split in the “white vote” in Mississippi would lead to integration of the races and wide-spread black voting in local elections. Not withstanding this type of racial argument, Mississippians elected their first Republican in modern history (Mack McAllister from Meridian) to the state legislature in 1963. The rest is history

The overwhelming Republican victory in the Congressional elections in 2010 was also driven by differences in ideology and a rejection of President Obama’s economic policies . In Georgia, Republicans carried every state-wide race from Governor to Public Service Commission for the first time in the state’s history; and in Arkansas, the headlines on the editorial page of the Benton County Daily Record from heavily Republican northwest Arkansas, stated “ARKANSAS TURNS RED”. The newspaper took note of the fact that Arkansans (who, like Georgians, were voting not only for members of Congress but also in their statewide elections) defeated a sitting United States Senator, Blanche Lincoln, and also elected two new Republican Congressmen leaving only one Blue Dog conservative in office to represent the interests of the Democratic Party. In addition, Arkansas Republicans elected a Secretary of State and a Lieutenant Governor, which was, according to the Daily Record, “unheard of for Republican candidates in down-ballot elections – until now.” On the state level, the Arkansas House Republican caucus grew from 28 seats to 44 seats with similar gains in the state Senate, which means that House Democrats in Arkansas will no longer be able to garner the required three-quarters of the votes in the House necessary to raise taxes.

Summing up the election results in Arkansas in November, 2010, the Daily Record concluded:

“The last Southern state the Democratic Party had left voted Republican Tuesday night. The shift took 20 years longer than other states in the region. It took a lot of blind determination by the Democratic Party’s national liberal base. It took a lot of persistence by the outnumbered, outgunned Republican Party of Arkansas. While we believe voter frustration with both parties drove the results, that doesn’t change the new political reality in Arkansas. The Democratic spell here is broken.”

The Democratic spell is indeed now broken throughout all of the southern states and the Benton County Daily Record correctly gave us the reasons why. May all southern Republicans remember the reasons for our successes and never abuse the trust that the voters have placed in us. My sincere thanks to Reta Hamilton, the excellent Republican Nation Committeewoman from Arkansas, and Sue Everhart, the outstanding Chairman of the Georgia Republican Party, for furnishing me the data as to what happened in their states on November 3, 2010.

HALEY BARBOUR AND RICHARD RUSSELL

On November 2, 2010, the voters in the United States Congressional elections delivered a smashing victory to the Republican Party, augmented by the tea parties. It is now well documented that not only did the Republicans gain significant seats in the Senate, they also gained an outright majority in the House of Representatives, removed Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, and reduced her to minority leader status. All in all, election day in November, 2010, was a great day for those who fervently believe that government is at its best when it governs least, thereby giving all citizens maximum freedom from the boot of government on their necks as they pursue the American dream for themselves and their families.

In 2010, Americans were clearly focused, like a laser beam, on rejecting Obama’s socialistic solutions to the 2010 economic recession, on cutting spending, and on reducing the size of government. They were disturbed and genuinely frightened by the massive bailouts and other spending initiatives of the Obama Administration, and they watched with horror as the federal government literally went into the automobile business through the takeover of General Motors, an authentic American icon (the nation’s Secretary of Defense once said “what is good for General Motors is good for the country”). They watched the government’s bailouts of quasi-federal financial institutions like the politically active Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which openly supported Congressional candidates of their liking, even though their financial operations were backed by the federal government. Finally, they watched, with fear and trembling, what appeared to be the teetering of the nation’s financial system, with the demise of Lehman Brothers and billions of government dollars loaned to Morgan Stanley, Citibank and other investment banks and banking institutions across the country in an effort to avoid a financial crash similar to the l932 crash which resulted in the Great Depression.

The voice of the people was heard in 2010, but the 2010 elections are now in the rearview mirror, and the 2012 Presidential elections loom down the road. The single most important question now facing the American people is whether they can maintain their focus for the next two years on the issues they voted on in 2010; or will their thinking be diverted as President Obama attempts to “triangulate” his agenda and, all of a sudden, stresses “bipartisanship” and compromise with Republicans on the great issues of the day. His strategy, of course, is to regain the trust of independent voters that once supported him as he prepares to run for a second term as President in 2012.

Will the American people somehow become convinced once again that President Obama is fit to be the Commander in Chief and leader of the free world for four more years? Or will they conclude that the future well being of America depends upon electing someone who genuinely believes in the genius of the American free enterprise system; one who believes in American first; and, significantly, understands and embraces the concept that the most important job of the next President is to protect the homeland?

The answer to these questions depends in part, of course, on who the Republicans nominate to oppose President Obama in the 2012 Presidential election. If the Republicans field a well-meaning but weak candidate – one who is not a strong leader, has difficulty in communicating with the American people, or has difficulty in effectively presenting the Republican economic alternatives to Obamacare or the massive Democratic spending programs, then it is likely that Republicans will lose in 2012. On the other hand, if the Republicans field a candidate who is a strong, steady leader, one who can communicate his message, and one who is clearly capable of running the government and of stabilizing the ship of state in hazardous waters, then the GOP has a clear chance to defeat Obama, cut the massive deficit, and win the War on Terror.

If Republicans nationally do not tear themselves apart in the Presidential Primary season leading up to the 2012 elections, and if they decide that they want to field an opponent to Obama who is an accomplished leader with a record of achievement, who can effectively communicate the Republican message as an alternative to Obama and his socialistic agenda, then Haley Barbour clearly has a chance to gain the Republican nomination for President in 2010. His record of accomplishment as Governor of Mississippi, as Chairman of the Republican National Committee and as Chairman of the Republican Governor’s Association is well documented and his actions have been widely praised. His spectacular performance in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina clearly demonstrated that he knows how to lead in times of crisis. Still, as the Presidential election of 2012 is now entering its preliminary stages, Barbour has been criticized for remarks made by him that some local and national pundits, as well as backers of other potential candidates, have deemed to be racially insensitive.

There is no doubt, as stated in the December 22, 2010, edition of the Wall Street Journal and as acknowledged by Governor Barbour and his legion of supporters nationwide, that Mississippi’s civil rights history is sure to be a topic of wide discussion if he runs for President. Thus, he obviously must choose his words carefully on the topic of civil rights and be well-armed with the facts as he answers questions on that subject in the months ahead.

I think Haley Barbour, like his fellow Yazoo City resident and author, the late Willie Morris, is genuinely proud of the fact that Yazoo City integrated its schools without violence in the 1960s; and I also believe that Republicans nationally will not turn their backs on Haley in a Presidential contest because of events that occurred when he was a teenager. He knows, however, that there are many that suffered and lost their lives during the civil rights struggles of those years and that Republicans nationally will not grant him the Republican nomination for President if he appears insensitive to what occurred fifty to sixty years ago in Mississippi and elsewhere. I am betting that Governor Barbour, despite intensive efforts to deflect the thinking of Republicans nationally, will transcend the issue of race in the upcoming Presidential campaign, and that Republicans will focus on who can best present and communicate the Republican alternative to Obama in 2012.

In his brilliant work, “Master of the Senate”, the third volume of Robert A. Caro’s account of the years of Lyndon Johnson, the author spends considerable time writing about another famous and highly capable southerner who grew up on Georgia, Richard Brevard (Dick) Russell, whose family was plunged into poverty in the aftermath of the War Between the States. He became a member of the legislature at an early age and Speaker of the House of Representatives as his traits of integrity and independence became apparent. One Georgia legislator said, “Dick Russell is the closest thing I’ve ever seen to be an honest politician.” Not only would he “tell you it’s impossible to get what you want,” he would “tell you if he doesn’t think you should be asking for what you want.” “He also had the ability . . . to persuade men to cooperate and unite behind his aims. . . .” “He always gave credit to others”, and they came to “love him and trust him.” (Master of the Senate, pp. 170-171).

Dick Russell ran for Governor of Georgia in 1930 at age 32, and his brother, Robert E. Lee Russell, was his campaign’s public relations man. At age 33, in 1931, Russell became the youngest Governor of Georgia in the state’s history.

During his brief tenure as Governor, Russell read and re-read War and Peace and the works of Greek historians and Roman historians to learn how emperors and other government leaders handled issues. As Governor, Russell attacked Georgia’s woeful financial situation eroded by the Great Depression. The state at that time could not meet its obligations to public schools or public institutions, and he reduced the state’s debt by one-third. During his tenure as Governor, he reduced the number of public agencies in Georgia’s bloated government from 102 to 18, created the state’s first central purchasing agency, and required “sealed bids” for all state purchases.

After serving as Governor for only 18 months, Russell ran for and was elected United States Senator at age 35 and became the youngest Senator in the United States in 1933. He went on to become a powerful leader in the Senate (Chairman of the Armed Services Committee) exhibiting the same traits that endeared him to his fellow Georgians. “He told the truth” said Senator Sam Erwin of North Carolina – “what the contents of a bill were or what the effects of that bill would be.” (Master of the Senate, p. 178). The Russell Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. was ultimately named after him.

Dick Russell’s influence in the Senate became so great (and the respect and affection for him by his fellow Senators so heart-felt) that he became the acknowledged Democratic leader in the United States Senate. He indignantly defended himself against implications of racism, and his biographer reported that Russell did not deliver racist diatribes on the Senate floor. “He aimed to educate and convince northern senators that the south should be left alone to handle racial problems.” (Master of the Senate, p. 185). And he did convince them, for a time.

1952 was the year Richard Russell ran for President. His opponents in the Democratic Primary were Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee (not well-liked in the Senate), Vice-President Alben Barkley (too old at 74); New York’s Governor Averill Harriman; and the reluctant Governor of Illinois, Adlai Stevenson (backed by retiring President Harry Truman).

At the 1952 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, it took 616 convention votes of the 1230 delegates to win the nomination. Russell had a solid base of 262 votes (every southern state except Tennessee) and he won the Florida Primary, to great fanfare. However, when he ventured north, he met the following reaction from New Jersey: “My God, Senator, we’d like to support you. You’re the best man around, but we can’t vote for a southerner.”

Russell received no support from Maine, Pennsylvania, or any other northern or western state to which he traveled. In the end, the diminutive and reluctant Adlai Stevenson was nominated and went on to be soundly defeated by the Republican, Dwight David Eisenhower. Russell got only 268 votes after the second ballot. (Master of the Senate, pp. 465-470)

The message of 1952 was clear. The candidate who had the leadership skills to run the country lost the Democratic nomination because a southern segregationist could not win during the civil rights struggles that were beginning in that era. The Supreme Court decision of Brown vs. Board of Education was rendered in 1954.

Today, integration is a reality, and the issue for Republicans to decide is whether they should select, as their candidate to face President Obama in 2012, that person who is best capable of solving the nation’s problems and who is best able to communicate the Republican message. Or should they be diverted by sectionalism or fear that their candidate might be criticized, justly or unjustly, for events that occurred fifty years ago?

Haley Barbour was spectacularly successful as Chairman of the Republican National Committee. He knows the Republican message and how to deliver it. He would be a spectacular Republican nominee for President as well; and an honorable representative of the Party of Lincoln.

THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF ZEUS AND KINGS OF TORT

I have now finished reading THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF ZEUS by Curtis Wilkie, who teaches journalism at the University of Mississippi, and is a fellow at the Overby Center for Southern Journalism and Politics at Ole Miss. Mr. Wilkie has been a prominent journalist for many years, serving early in his career as a reporter for the CLARKSDALE PRESS REGISTER during Mississippi’s civil rights struggles that received national attention. During that time, he formed a fairly close relationship with the late Aaron Henry, one of the leaders of the civil rights movement in Mississippi and now a historic figure in Mississippi history. Later, Wilkie was a national and international reporter for the BOSTON GLOBE, during which he covered everything from presidential elections to the seemingly endless Arab-Israeli conflicts in the Middle East.

In 1993, Mr. Wilkie returned to the South and lived for a period in New Orleans, near his childhood home in Pike County, Mississippi. Upon returning to the South, he wrote a nostalgic autobiographical account of his life in an excellent book entitled DIXIE, which I re-read in preparation for writing this review of ZEUS. In DIXIE, Mr. Wilkie wrote about why he left his home state after his stay in Clarksdale, although he loved Mississippi, and why he eventually felt the call to return home to be with “his people”, as did Willie Morris. After re-reading DIXIE and now having read ZEUS, I am convinced that Curtis Wilkie does indeed love the Magnolia State and wants the best for its people, although he may disagree with many of us as to what is best. He strikes me as a person with whom you may disagree, but he is not disagreeable in the process. I also perceive that as a citizen of Oxford and in preparing for and writing ZEUS, Mr. Wilkie was struck by the great personal tragedy that occurred in the rise and fall of Dickie Scruggs (called “Zeus” by his childhood classmates).

Like many other Mississippians, I had been looking forward to reading THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF ZEUS, which also has a subtitle: “The rise and ruin of America’s Most Powerful Trial Lawyer”. As an attorney, a former judge, and as one active over the years in Mississippi politics, I am personally acquainted with many of the principle characters who appear in ZEUS, and I found it painful at times to read. It is of course a book which chronicles the now familiar rise and fall of Dickie Scruggs and those around him. According to local new articles, the film rights to Wilkie’s historical account of the illegal activities of Scruggs and others, including a brief sketch of Scruggs’ early life, how he became a wealthy trial lawyer, and his later criminal convictions after participating in two separate attempts to improperly influence legal rulings of two Mississippi trial judges in two separate cases, have now been sold to a producer and author, Sam Haskell, with the blessing of Mr. Scruggs and family members.

About one year ago, I also read KINGS OF TORT, by website owner Alan Lange and Tim Dawson, the 36 – year federal prosecutor who served as lead counsel during the investigation and prosecution of the now famous Scruggs cases. ZEUS and KINGS OF TORT give similar, yet strikingly different, accounts of the efforts of Dickie Scruggs and others to corrupt Mississippi’s judicial system. As an interested observer, I was naturally anxious to compare the two books, one written from the vantage point of the prosecutor who brought Scruggs and others to justice, and the other written from the vantage point of a prominent journalist and acknowledged friend of Dickie Scruggs. After carefully reading the Wilkie book and reviewing my notes after reading the Lange/Dawson book, I have concluded that both ZEUS and KINGS OF TORT are important works. However, one cannot grasp the full implications or the gravity of the events described by the authors without reading (and studying) both of them, one right after the other. Both books should be required reading by every law student and certainly by every lawyer who aspires to practice law or serve as a member of the judiciary. Finally, these two well-written books, which deal with the intricacies of human frailty and which clearly demonstrate how the lure of potential wealth and/or power can corrupt the best and the brightest among us, should also be read by anyone who votes in a judicial election or who has any influence over who is selected as a judge in any setting. The saga described in these books demonstrates, in crystal clear fashion, that who we allow to practice law or serve as judges is important and matters greatly.

The differences in these two books are also crystal clear. One was written by a journalist and reflects his healthy skepticism of society in general and the motives of those who live among us. Thus, those who are portrayed as heroes in the Lange/Dawson book (i.e., Judge Henry Lackey, the prosecutors, etc.) do not come across as quite so heroic in the Wilkie book. On the other hand, the Lange/Dawson book (written from the vantage point of the prosecutor) chronicles the sordid events and the attempted bribes in black and white fashion, and it focuses on the major events as they unfolded legally. Wilkie ‘s account, while historically accurate, also draws heavily on his personal interviews, not only with Dickie Scruggs, but with the members of his family as well. The reader obviously gets to hear the Scruggs side of the story in much more detail when reading Wilkie’s book, because Wilkie conducted personal interviews with the Scruggs family, while Lange and Dawson were denied access to them. It is noteworthy that Wilkie also conducted an interview with Tom Dawson and that several photographs inserted in his book were supplied “as a courtesy of the Scruggs family”.

It is also noteworthy that KINGS OF TORT focuses not only on the Dickie Scruggs cases, but also spends a considerable amount of time focusing on the cases involving Paul Minor (a wealthy trial lawyer on the Gulf Coast) and on the federal charges against him involving his attempts, through financial contributions, to improperly influence the decisions of Gulf Coast Chancellor Wes Teel and Circuit Judge John Whitfield. THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF ZEUS spends little time on the Paul Minor cases, other than to describe Minor’s relationship with Scruggs.

Both books spend considerable time describing the ultimately successful efforts of Scruggs, attorney Joey Langston, former State Auditor Steve Patterson and former Hinds County District Attorney Ed Peters to corrupt Hinds County Circuit Court Judge Bobby DeLaughter and to improperly get him to issue a favorable ruling for Scruggs in an important case involving the division of legal fees. Wilkie, however, focuses much more clearly on the shadowy activities of P. L. Blake in assisting Dickie Scruggs, and spends more time describing the relationship of Scruggs with his brother-in-law, former Senator Trent Lott, Senator Roger Wicker, and others who Scruggs described as being a part of “the force”, an allegedly shadowy network including P.L. Blake, that exists in Mississippi and Washington. Significantly, Wilkie also writes extensively about the political involvement of then Senator and now Vice-President Joe Biden with Steve Patterson and Joey Langston.

In the “Preface” to his book, Mr. Wilkie described the Scruggs saga as perhaps “the story of my lifetime.” I believe that Mr. Wilkie correctly concluded that the Scruggs story “was a remarkable story of personal treachery” with “ramifications that extended to high levels in Washington.” However, I question Wilkie’s implication that “enormous professional hatred within the legal community” and a “zealous prosecution” were somehow contributing causes of the tragedy that is so clearly outlined in his book.

The epic legal battles between Scruggs and his opponents, Charles Merkle, Alwyn Luckey, Bob Wilson, Johnny Jones, and Grady Tollison, which are portrayed by Wilkie, as well as by Lange and Dawson, were, to be sure, high stakes and ugly affairs. However, such competition and personal enmity among legal participants are not unique in American jurisprudence. In fact, they are played out at various levels in courtroom dramas, in big towns and small towns, all across America every day. It is not unusual for a defendant to complain that he has been the subject of a “zealous prosecution” or that the judge was too harsh and unbending during the sentencing phase of a criminal trial. The American legal system is well-equipped to protect the public interest and the rights of a defendant in these trial situations, so long as fair, impartial, well-grounded, and courageous judges preside over such trials.

What makes the Scruggs cases such high drama is not only the big money or the political ramifications involved, but the fact that those that went to jail mounted brazen, full-scale assaults (not once, but twice) on the American judicial system by attempting to bribe judges to achieve desired results. Just as John Grisham’s novel, THE APPEAL, is disturbing because it unveils the seamy side of judicial elections in Mississippi and elsewhere, THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF ZEUS fully exposes the activities of a group that totally lost respect for the American judicial system. It is noteworthy that Lange and Dawson in KINGS OF TORT expressed their belief that Scruggs, Paul Minor and the others around them convinced themselves that their opponents were “evil incarnate”, and that their ends justified their means. However, in the eyes of those who believe that the American judicial system is worth saving, those described by Wilkie, Lange and Dawson, who attacked and tried to compromise that system, are the ones that became evil in the process.

Redemption is always possible in this world, and it is true, as stated by Sam Haskell, that all of us make mistakes. However, the lessons of the Scruggs cases are greater than what will ultimately happen to Dickie Scruggs or the others. In order for our fragile system of justice to remain intact, and in order for the general public to maintain the vital and necessary confidence in our judicial system, people like Dickie Scruggs must be dealt with harshly in order to discourage others like him from attempting to bribe judges.

Hopefully, any motion picture that is produced based upon THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF ZEUS will primarily dwell on the tragic assault on our judicial system which was perpetrated by Dickie Scruggs and his associates, rather than adopting a storyline emphasizing the tragic human interest story also described in Mr. Wilkie’s book.

THE CONSERVATIVE RESURRECTION

Shortly after Barack Obama’s inauguration as President following the 2008 elections, the conventional wisdom of the political pundits was that conservatism had “not only been defeated but discredited” as a result of Obama’s election. (Sam Tanenhaus’ The New Republic). Tanenhaus also believed that Republicans further damaged their “brand” by opposing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the $814 billion stimulus package designed to lift America out of the recession. (Today, the U.S. unemployment rate still hovers around 10 per cent).

In his 2009 book, Clinton political consultant James Carville predicted that the Democrats would rule the “next generation”, because Democrats had identified themselves with the hopes and dreams of young people, women, and Latinos (the nation’s fastest growing minority). Conversely, according to Carville, Republicans were only appealing to a limited, mostly southern base.

It is now clear, to paraphrase Mark Twain, that the demise of conservatism and the Republican Party in America was “grossly exaggerated”.

As I wrote this column on an early Wednesday morning, still sleepily giddy over historic 2010 midterm elections and fending off telephone calls from friends who naturally wanted to share their jubilation and share their opinions on why Republicans won such a resounding victory, the realization finally set in that a tidal wave has occurred and that Republicans had picked up at least 63 seats in the House of Representatives, the largest swing of Congressional seats since the midterm elections of 1938, during the Roosevelt era and during the heart of the Great Depression. It set in that the new Republican Congressional seats are not only located in Mississippi, where the GOP took back seats once held by Senators Roger Wicker and Trent Lott, but also included five Congressional seats in New York and Congressional seats throughout the northeast, the midwest, and all across America – even in California.

In looking closer at the Congressional results, I found that two African American Republicans were elected – one in South Carolina (where Indian/American Republican Nikki Haley was also elected Governor) and another in South Florida near Miami. Moreover, Republican voters effectively “fired” Nancy Pelosi and took over the leadership of the House of Representatives by electing a healthy majority of the House’s 435 seats. As Ronald Reagan once said in summing up his Presidency, “Not bad. Not bad at all.”

While the Republican takeover in the House of Representatives was the big story of the 2010 midterm elections, the ecstasy does not stop there. In the 37 Governors’ races decided on November 2^nd, Republicans needed to pick up only three gubernatorial seats to win a majority of the governorships, nationwide. Instead, thanks in part to extremely effective leadership and fundraising by the Republican Governors’ Association and RGA Chairman Haley Barbour, new Republican Governors were elected in Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Wyoming. These new Governors will play an effective role in making sure that the Democrats do not “gerrymander” the new Congressional and state legislative lines to be drawn by the states in 2011, based on new census figures. In all, Republicans picked up at least 6 or 7 new Governors on Tuesday evening, and 17 state legislatures “flipped” to majority Republican, including Texas and Alabama for the first time in American history. Again, not bad at all.

To complete the election results, Republicans also picked up at least 6 new seats in the United States Senate, with the Senatorial results in the States of Washington, Colorado and Alaska yet to be decided at this writing. Republicans needed to gain 10 new Republican Senators to win a majority in the Senate, and they failed in this effort (Harry Reid retained his Senate seat in Nevada and served free food near the voting precincts). However, Republicans were significantly elected to the Senate from unlikely places like Wisconsin (where Johnson defeated the prominent Russ Feingold); Illinois (by taking President Obama’s old Senate seat); and in Pennsylvania (where Toomey of the Club for Growth took Democrat switcher Arlen Spector’s seat). I predict that Republicans will cobble together a working majority in the Senate on many key votes in 2011 and leading up to 2012 Presidential elections.

The question for the morning after the 2010 midterm elections is what caused the tidal wave and the major governmental shift that has now occurred? Laura Ingraham said on Tuesday night that the vote represented a repudiation of Obama’s policies since his being elected President. Sarah Palin said that the message of the election was that people do not want an “over-reaching government” to take over their lives. Charles Krauthammer opined that the repudiation of Obama on Tuesday night represented a “return to normalcy” and a rejection of a brazen attempt to move America to a socialist-style European form of government.

I agree with all of the above. I also believe that public dismay with the slow pace of the nation’s economic recovery; the ineffectiveness of the stimulus; the public reaction to Obamacare; and of course the outrage and energy of the Tea Parties, all played significant roles in achieving the results that were realized in the wee hours after the midterm elections on Tuesday evening. I am sure all of us need more time to fully digest what happened as a result of this historic election. May we all hope and pray that our state and national leaders will learn from it. The future of our great nation depends on it.

NOVEMBER 2, 2010 AND HAYEK'S ROAD

During the past several months, we have been discussing the upcoming Congressional elections which will be held on November 2, 2010. At this juncture, it is safe to say that our country is in a state of upheaval - and that many, many people are angry. Many of those who supported President Obama are angry because he has not completely transformed America into a European-style democracy that is heavy on government services and "fairness" to those that fall below a certain income level. Many on the right (and many in the middle) are genuinely disturbed and afraid that we have elected a President who really believes that the agenda of the radical left would be best for the land of the free and the home of the brave. While a substantial majority of Americans still believe that a capitalistic system of government is best for the country, a recent poll concluded that an astounding 38% of our citizens believe that a "socialistic" system would be preferable.

Simply stated, the issue all Americans must decide on November 2, 2010, is whether we want to preserve the free enterprise system in America (at least for two more years) or whether we want to travel "the road to serfdom" described by F. A. Hayek in his famous book years ago in 1944. "In that year - when Eleanor Roosevelt supported the efforts of Stalin, Albert Einstein subscribed to the socialist program, and the British Labour Party was planning for a future Labour government" to replace Winston Churchill after World War II, Hayek's The Road To Serfdom "was seen as heretical for its passionate warning against the dangers of state control over the means of production".[1]

What Americans face on November 2, 2010, is a clear choice. Americans who vote for any Democrat on that date will, directly or indirectly, give a vote to the political party that is clearly traveling Hayek's Road. If the Democrats maintain the majority in Congress, the Speaker of the House and also every committee chairman that controls legislation will be Democrats that sign on to the theory that a collectivist society is best for America. Therefore, the assurances of many "Bluedog Democrats" that they will not vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker if they are elected really mean nothing because their Party will remain in power, and they will, at the very least, be giving aid and comfort to those that travel Hayek's Road.

The only alternative to traveling Hayek's Road on November 2, 2010, is to "throw the rascals out" and restore control of the Congress to the Republicans. To be sure, many elected Republican officials have compromised their values in the past, and their actions led to the creation of the Tea Party movement. If Republicans do regain control of the Congress in 2010, they act at their peril if they do not heed the angry voices of their constituents. Those constituents are trying to tell them that they want no part of Hayek's Road.

As we approach November 2, 2010, I remain optimistic about America. I see new young leadership slowly emerging within the Republican Party, with new ideas and new energy that will help us take our country back. These potential new leaders are articulate and have the communication skills that will be needed to warn our citizens against the dangers of collectivism in the Twenty-First Century.

---

[1] Introduction to Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom"" (1994, U. of Chicago)

CHRISTINE O'DONNELL

This past week, the fault lines within the Republican Party were laid bare as Tea Party forces, led by former Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska and Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, stormed the barricades during the Republican Primary elections held on September 14, 2010, and nominated Christine O'Donnell as the Republican nominee for the United States Senate in Delaware, a state that has trended Democrat in recent years and where Vice-President Joe Biden had served as Senator since 1973. Ms. O'Donnell defeated Mike Castle, a well-known moderate Republican who has been a member of Congress since 1993 and was a two-term Governor. Congressman Castle was much better financed than Ms. O'Donnell and was the heavy favorite to win the Republican nomination.

The primary election contest between O'Donnell and Castle was bitterly contested with Castle and national news media pundits, including Fox News contributors Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer, raising serious questions about the truthfulness and integrity of O'Donnell, as well as her financial difficulties with the Internal Revenue Service and financial institutions. She responded by criticizing Congressman Castle for voting for President Obama's stimulus packages and proposed Democratic "Cap and Trade" legislation; and also called upon him to put on his "man pants" after engaging in "un-manly tactics" during the campaign.

After losing the primary election, Congressman Castle has now declined to support O'Donnell in the general election in November. On election night, Karl Rove pronounced that Republicans, although previously favored to win handily, will now likely lose the Delaware Senate seat and with it, the majority and committee chairmanships in the Senate to Harry Reid and the Democrats. Krauthammer recently opined on the BILL O'REILLY SHOW that O'Donnell has only one chance in ten to win in November, although adding: "I hope I am wrong." Senator Jim DeMint responded by saying that he would rather for the Republicans to nominate a losing candidate that stands for something, rather than to nominate a winning candidate that does not embrace conservative values. O'Donnell, for her part, taking note that she had been branded a "wacko", denounced her critics as "anti-American" in one of her speeches following her primary victory.

After all of this drama following the September 14, Republican Primary election, one can legitimately ask whether divided Republicans can nevertheless win the November Senatorial election in a blue state, or whether traditional conventional wisdom applies - that a divided political party traditionally loses (following the logic and advice that Ben Franklin once gave to his colleagues during the American Revolution - that "we either hang together or we will hang separately").

Although the Delaware Senate race was really not on my radar screen until a day or two before the primary election, what has happened since O'Donnell's victory is in many ways reminiscent of what happened during the Congressional race in North Mississippi (MS-01) during a special election held two years ago. In that race, after the appointment of Congressman Roger Wicker to replace Trent Lott as United States Senator, several prominent Republicans ran in a heated and ugly primary to take Wicker's seat in the House of Representatives. The race became so heated that the defeated candidate in the run-off election refused to publicly support the new Republican nominee. The result was that a Democrat was elected to Congress in MS-01 for the first time in many years. Now, chastened Mississippi Republicans are united in a spirited effort to regain Wicker's old House seat.

O'Donnell supporters correctly state that these are not ordinary times and that frustrated Americans, especially conservatives and independents, seem ready to "throw the rascals out" during this election season. If this is true, O'Donnell still has a chance to win in Delaware where her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons, is a far-left attorney and county executive who has fully supported the Obama agenda and now downplays a piece he wrote for the Amherst College newspaper - "Chris Coons: The Making of a Bearded Marxist." However, it would help O'Donnell's chances if Castle would fully embrace her candidacy and she would graciously accept his support.

Jim DeMint is correct that Republicans want new and different type leaders who are not perceived as RINOs - Republicans In Name Only. If Christine O'Donnell is elected Senator, Republicans will certainly have found a different type leader in Delaware