I have commented several times about geopolitical strategist George Friedman's discussion of a conflict between elite intellectuals and common sense.

I am ready for one political party to cast itself as the party of common sense, and I am ready to commit fully to support of whichever party does that. I am pretty sure it won't be the democrats, because they are pretty much in bed with the intellectual establishment. But republicans don't seem to be interested. Why not?

It seems to me that a republican party that championed common sense would have a huge opportunity for success in the USA as it currently stands. Obviously, the intellectual establishment is not leading the country in a direction that is finding either success or approval. And a dedication to common sense would provide a philosophical underpinning for conservative principles across the board.

After all, I thought conservatism was supposed to be about what works instead of theories. In the words of that great philosopher, Lawrence Peter Berra, "In theory, theory works well in practice; in practice, it doesn't."

Just spitballing some random things that strike me as common sense.

In health care, instead of Obamacare, go with what the best systems as measured by world standards use, Bismarck.

In welfare, go with the social democrat idea of a floor, instead of using massive redistribution of income and wealth to buy votes. Expose the welfare plantation hypocrisy in, "Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor, keep 'em depending on handouts, and you will keep 'em voting democrat."

In conjunction with those. borrow from Europe the idea of lower and flatter income taxes across a broader base (fewer or no non-business deductions and exclusions) plus a national consumption tax with a Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund--in order to make the USA more attractive for investment, growth, and resulting job creation.

Have the strongest military in the world (target stronger than the next two countries combined) but don't bog it down in quagmire limited wars, because nobody dares pick a fight with us and we don't go around picking on them.

(04-02-2023 01:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I have commented several times about geopolitical strategist George Friedman's discussion of a conflict between elite intellectuals and common sense.

I am ready for one political party to cast itself as the party of common sense, and I am ready to commit fully to support of whichever party does that. I am pretty sure it won't be the democrats, because they are pretty much in bed with the intellectual establishment. But republicans don't seem to be interested. Why not?

It seems to me that a republican party that championed common sense would have a huge opportunity for success in the USA as it currently stands. Obviously, the intellectual establishment is not leading the country in a direction that is finding either success or approval. And a dedication to common sense would provide a philosophical underpinning for conservative principles across the board.

After all, I thought conservatism was supposed to be about what works instead of theories. In the words of that great philosopher, Lawrence Peter Berra, "In theory, theory works well in practice; in practice, it doesn't."

Just spitballing some random things that strike me as common sense.

In health care, instead of Obamacare, go with what the best systems as measured by world standards use, Bismarck.

In welfare, go with the social democrat idea of a floor, instead of using massive redistribution of income and wealth to buy votes. Expose the welfare plantation hypocrisy in, "Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor, keep 'em depending on handouts, and you will keep 'em voting democrat."

In conjunction with those. borrow from Europe the idea of [lower and flatter income taxes across a broader base (fewer or no non-business deductions and exclusions) plus a national consumption tax with a Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund--in order to make the USA more attractive for investment, growth, and resulting job creation.

Have the strongest military in the world (target stronger than the next two countries combined) but don't bog it down in quagmire limited wars, because nobody dares pick a fight with us and we don't go around picking on them.

Looks like all of your examples of Not-common sense are Democrat policies.

(04-03-2023 09:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Looks like all of your examples of Not-common sense are Democrat policies.

The left is big on academics and theory. Become the party of what works in practice.

The goal would be to keep the base while adding independents.

Bismarck is universal health care. Obamacare is not. And Bismarck actually has a smaller government footprint in healthcare than Obamacare does. So you appeal to those who want universal care and those who want smaller government.

The prebate/prefund concept actually puts money in the hands of poor people more efficiently than the current welfare plantation, and does so with far less bureaucratic overhead. So again, a winner with those who want a better safety net and with those who want smaller government.

The tax policies are basically what both the Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin panels recommended when they looked at reducing the deficit and debt. It should be pretty easy to put together a Ross Perot-type PowerPoint presentation showing the middle class how they would be better off under the combination of flat tax with consumption tax and prebate/prefund.

A stronger military appeals to the base, and a reprise of the Jacky Fisher-era two power standard (or JFK's 2-1/2 wars, which is similar) provides objective metrics. And a non-intervention foreign policy appeals to everyone who has knows someone who has sacrificed life or limb in a war we were not trying to win.