E Pluribus Unum
The following is an open letter to all my politically liberal friends. A large number of my friends, quite possibly a majority, are actually of the liberal political persuasion. These are good people, though terribly misguided. I love them dearly, and simultaneously sincerely pray they are never given the reins of power.

I am a Republican. Why? The funny answer, courtesy of Aaron Sorkin, is, "Because I hate poor people." Hee hee. Seriously, though, we all know the Republican Party is evil; so, why throw my lot in with these monsters? A complicated question. First of all, it is important to understand that we are all villains to each other; the way you guys feel about President Bush, a lot of people, myself included, felt about President Clinton. Thus, it is entirely possible that Republicans are not the monsters you believe them to be, just as you may not be the idiots they believe you to be. Second of all, I call myself a Republican, but I do not agree with everything in the official GOP Platform. I am pro-choice; I favor gun control; I did not approve of either recent tax cut, excluding those provisions which eliminated the Death Tax/Estate Tax. What I do believe in is the two-party system. Seriously. You show me a well-functioning democracy, I will show you a two-party system. (For an education in multi-party chaos, please see: the State of Israel.) Third parties in America soley play the roll of spoiler: Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, Ross Perot in 1992, and even arguably Ralph Nader in 2000. Thus, as the patriotic fellow I am, I felt it necessary to identify with one or the other major political party. Based upon a wide spectrum of issues and ideas, including examination of the rise of each party's present doctrine, I chose the Grand Old Party. Thus, I am a Republican.

That wide spectrum of issues and ideas I was talking about, here they are in a nutshell. Well, two nutshells: NAFTA and welfare reform. The North American Free Trade Agreement is a pact between the United States, Mexico, and Canada that all but eliminated tariffs and associated trade barriers between the three countries. Free trade is a good thing. Why? Because free trade has historically meant more jobs and higher GDP for all involved. The high tariffs and other protectionist measures of the Great Depression? Yeah, they made things worse. The single greatest thing President Clinton did in his entire administration was go against most of his own party and ally with Republicans to push NAFTA through Congress. Have there been job losses associated with NAFTA? Obviously, yes, but there have also been significant job gains. (Another benefit, worthwhile even at the cost of short-term American job losses, NAFTA is good for Mexico. The US and Canada are both members of the G-8, meaning they have two of the eight largest industrial economies in the world. Yet, just south of two of the world's richest nations is a third world economy. Why has Mexico, which has a longer history than either of the norteamericano nations, not achieved the same level of economic development? That's a question with a very long answer, i.e. the entire history of the New World from 1492 to the present. Regardless, if we can raise the standard of living in Mexico, we can sell them things. Things that may be made in Mexico, but by American companies, which means the profits come back home. There are only thirty million Canadians, but we do more trade with them than any other nation. A Mexico as relatively rich as Canada would be a major boost to the US economy.)

The 1996 Welfare Reform Act was a flawed piece of legislation, but it did offer one irrefutable benefit: it represented a coherent ideological framework. As conceived in the Great Society, what exactly is the exit strategy of the welfare system? If people are allowed to stay on public assistance indefinitely, and earn more money by having additional children than they would in the job market, where is the incentive to leave the public dole? The argument could be made, and is, by me, that over the first thirty-one years of its existence, the welfare system did naught but actively encourage the perpetuation of an American underclass. In the short-term, the Republicans appear to be harsh and uncaring, but they are trying to get people to stand on their own two feet in the long run. To use a very appropriate piece of common wisdom, the status quo approach favored by Democrats involved giving people fish; the Republicans want to teach people how to fish. FDR said, and I'm very much paraphrasing, "When you are confronted with a problem, try to fix it. If what you try doesn't work, try something else. But do something." The Democrats were quite content to ignore the words of their own patron saint and do nothing.

And now, the pie-in-the-sky part. In very, very ideological terms, which are sometimes lost in the maestrom of politics, the basic underpinning of Republican philosophy is that people can achieve any goal if they work are smart, work hard, and seize opportunities when they present themselves. Democrats seem to lack that basic faith in people to be able to take care of themselves. Of course, these are just broad philosophical strokes and certainly do not encompass every member of either party. My sister is a Democrat because she hates the Republicans; as much as anything else, I am a Republican because I hate the Democrats. But in all of our mutual loathing, we must not lose sight of that fact that most of us truly do love America, especially when we disagree; if not the America we see around, then the America we believe can be.

Let me close with two thoughts regarding the 2004 presidential race. a) Please please please please nominate Howard Dean and b) run, Ralph, run!