The free market is what has kept our nation in shape.  If it were not for the free market, capitalist economy founded by the founding economic thinkers, like Alexander Hamilton, our nation would not be the worldwide superpower that it is today.  At the same time, though, there have always been those opposed to this effective free market system.  Those who have whole-heartedly fought against the capitalist nature of our economic system.  This has long been the economic struggle in our nation, and now, more than ever, we see this war once again being waged in our country.  With Liberals poised to increase government’s economic power, and with Conservatives doing their best to stand up for what’s right, we witness once again the struggle between those who oppose our capitalist economy, and those who support it.  Last week Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi demonstrated her stand, along with the stand of the rest of the Liberal ideology, on this issue in an ABC interview with George Stephanopoulos.  The Politico reported:

Stephanopoulos asked Pelosi whether it would be a “good idea” to have “nationalization or partial nationalization” of banks. ??

“Well, whatever you want to call it,” Pelosi said. “There has to be — if we are going to put money into the banks we certainly want equity for the American people. In other words, if we are strengthening them, then the American people should get some of the upside of that strengthening. Some people call that nationalization. I'm not talking about total ownership, but we're just saying.”

Wait a minute.  Did I read this properly, or did the third most powerful person in the land just say that she wouldn’t mind it if the banks in this country became nationalized?  Unfortunately the answer is yes.  On top of this, Nancy says that this policy she is promoting is merely "whatever you want to call it."  "Whatever you want to call it"?  If I was Nancy Pelosi, I would be a lot more particular than just letting my policies be equated with socialism!  Why is she not being particular?  If it is not socialism Nancy, please, I beg you, tell us!  Of course, if it is nationalization, maybe, she would rather Stephanopoulos say so, than say it herself.  But wait, there’s more…

“Now how big that investment becomes is — would we have ever thought we would see the day when we'd be using that terminology? ‘Nationalization of the banks’?

“You see the impact it has on the stock market. Just terrible in terms of the bank stocks going down. ?Because if you're a shareholder and you see what would be a dilution of your investment because now the federal government — if we're putting — if the taxpayer is putting money up, the taxpayer should have equity.” 

In other words, Nancy Pelosi believes that nationalizing the banks is the best way to help the taxpayer out.  She states here, and in the previous quote, that the goal of nationalizing the banks is to help the tax “have equity.”  In my humble opinion, I don’t think that doing business transactions with a nationalized bank is the best way to boost your personal economy. Nationalizing banks hasn’t helped in any way anywhere else, why should it work now.  Unless we want to have an economy that will easily crumble and become even worse than ours, like the one that used to be maintained in the USSR, than nationalization is no way to solve our economic problems.  Good luck Nancy, but nationalizing the banks will not boost the economy.

            Barack Obama has been talking a lot recently about “bipartisanship.”  More precisely, we have heard him talk about the need for a more “unified” nation. Speaking of a recent White House meeting President Obama held with Congressional leaders, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stated that the new President, “stressed the importance of bipartisan support for his economic stimulus plan…” (“Bipartisan,” of course, being the key word here.)  Even during the campaign Obama supporters touted the message of national “unity” that was frequently touched upon by their candidate.  In his “Closing Arguments” Speech, Barack Obama strongly emphasized his message of so called “unity” saying, “It’s [“the American story”] about rejecting fear and division for unity of purpose…Yes we can argue and debate our positions passionately, but at this defining moment, all of us must summon the strength and grace to bridge our differences and unite in common effort…” Unity, as we see here, was a mantra commonly promulgated by the Obama campaign, but now that the campaign is over the question still remains, is Barack Obama going to attempt to unite the nation?  Well, in the first days of his administration we have begun to see the answer unfold.

            In his first meeting as President with Congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle, President Obama gave us a taste of the kind of “unity” his administration will uphold.  President Obama’s stimulus plan was the topic of the lively discussion and soon the fine line between the Conservative and Liberal fiscal message emerged, the Wall Street Journal reported,

“…Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona…challenged the president and the Democratic leaders over the balance between the package’s spending and tax cuts, bringing up the traditional Republican notion that a tax credit for people who do not earn enough to pay income taxes is not a tax cut but a government check.”

There is nothing abnormal about this. Quite frankly, this kind of criticism by the opposing party is part of what a President should here in his meetings with Congressional leaders.  It was not John Kyl’s remarks so much as President Obama’s response that was astonishing. As President Obama so eloquently phrased his response,

“I won.”

I won.  I won, John Kyl, and you better take that in stride.  I won Republicans, so you better except it, and fall in line behind me.  I won Conservatives, so now you must conform to my Liberal agenda.  I won, so now you must accept my ideas as is.  That doesn’t sound united! Is this “the change we need,” or is this the same partisanship that we have had forever in Washington?  Is this the “unity” Obama promised?  To answer both questions “I won.” sounds more like a snobby Liberal politician then a crusader for unity, and maybe us Conservatives were right in saying that this is the kind of man the new President is.  The only kind of unity the new President is calling for is that of drawing the Republicans closer to the Democrats, and that is the problem that the Republican party has been brought to shame by. In fact, this kind of so-called “unity” is part of the reason the Republicans and the Conservatives lost the election!  Barack Obama’s form of unity is nothing more than turning the Conservative view further left.  WE CANNOT LET THIS HAPPEN!  If this happens our ideology will be blurred and the Conservative ideology will be crippled, forced to bow down to the alter of Liberalism.  Conservatism lost this election because its ideology was not promoted strongly enough, we cannot afford to make it weaker.  Maybe the only kind of “unity” the new president wants is a combination of Liberalism with Conservatism, flushing out Conservative views till they are gone.  Maybe the new President would be happier to divide, then to really unify.

            Yesterday we inaugurated the 44^th President of the United States.  We inaugurated a strong Liberal to the highest office in the land.  The former Senator from Illinois has now taken an unimaginable burden upon himself, and only the future will tell us if he executes the office effectively.  At the same time, whether you agree with the President, or strongly disagree with his policies like I do, today is, undeniably, his day.  So today I tell Barack Obama, congratulations, and it is my hope that you will listen to the leaders of the Conservative movement and take to heart the policies that they promote; policies that have, and will, better America.

            Yet, though this is his day, one must continue to look at the new President under a scrutinizing light.  The inaugural speech given this morning was an attempt to describe his Liberal views.  Obama’s statements this morning solidified, at least in my mind, the fact that the next administration is going to be decidedly Leftward leaning. One such example comes from his statement on the big government vs. small government issue.  Here President Obama stated that “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works-whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement program that is dignified.”  This doesn’t make any since!  Barack Obama from the start wants us to believe that we should not be worrying about small government or big government, but should be worrying about a working government, and yet the “working government” as defined by him believes in big government policies.  In other words, Barack Obama’s “working government” is nothing more than a rhetorical substitute for the term big government.  The root of the “working government,” unlike the 44^th president would have you believe, is not a denial of the big vs. small government competition, but the competition itself!  At the same time, the former Senator from Illinois tried to make amends with Conservatives, saying that we have to “…spend wisely…” and “…reform bad habits…” Yet, one has to wonder, are these things the Obama administration honestly wants to do?  I don’t think so.  If you look at the things that Obama repeatedly mentioned during his speech, and things that he has talked about recently, especially those policies that are important to him (things such as universal healthcare, and his new economic program, loaded with spending projects) one can easily see that his plans are not necessarily the ideal examples of spending wisely, but throwing money at our problems.  In other words, the day might be his, but that doesn’t excuse the new President from being excused from scrutiny, and when his inaugural is put under the magnifying glass, it is clear that Barack Obama’s Liberal politics permeate through the speech and rhetoric.

            As 2008 comes to a close, the season for New Years resolutions begins. People are vowing to lose weight, stop spending so much money, and other people are coming up with pledges to do (or to not do) a number of things.  Because this season has come upon us, I find it necessary for Conservatives to come up with their own set of political New Years resolutions.

1.              NO MORE BAILOUTS!

With the bailout mentality already at an alarming height, our government has an unlimited influx of bailout ideas.  Cities, companies, banks, and more, will, and have, asked for a piece of the proverbial pie.  Conservatives need to say that they have had enough.  Conservative politicians need to show, through their vote, that they have had enough.  Our market has gone through steep ups and downs in the past, and, minus the Great Depression, seldom has the bailout mentality actually set in.  (And even when the bailout mentality did set in, it was not to the extent that it is now.)  The bailout mentality of today can only lead to a deeper bailout mentality tomorrow.

2.              No More Compromising Conservative Views for “Moderate Views”

Conservatism is not a viewpoint for wimps.  Conservatism is a viewpoint of hardcore values.  We cannot give into the sway of moderate views. This ideology, lack there of, is creeping into the ideological camps of both Liberalism and Conservatism.  We must not give into the ideological pressure of moderates and, thereby, dilute our viewpoint.  A watered down version of Conservatism does not inspire the same flame as the viewpoint itself, in its entirety.  A Conservative revolution is impossible, unless Conservatism is left intact.  An influx of moderate views into the Conservative camp can only be destructive of Conservatism, and will only contribute to creating a bleaker future for the Conservative movement.  In sum, Conservatives must stick to their values, and never change those values.  Conservatism is Conservatism, and it must not be changed by moderate views.

3.              We Must Be Prepared

The Boy Scouts are plain enough, “Be prepared.” Similarly Conservatives should be plain.  We must be prepared.  Prepared not always for diplomatic bipartisanship with the other side, but for the battles that will ensue like wildfire across the country because of the sharp divide created by strong opposition from one political ideology, towards an incoming stronghold of power on the utter opposite end of the political spectrum.  The inevitable clash of these two political opposites will most certainly be deep and, seeing that Conservatism is going to be the minority opposition, we must come prepared.  We must know what we stand for and stand by it.  We must not stop fighting for our values and fighting for the principles that we know are right, especially when they seem impossible.  The struggle that the 2008 elections will bring upon us, will be a trying time for our viewpoint.  If for no other reason, we must be prepared to combat and ward off Liberal policies. In sum, Conservatives must prepare themselves for the inevitable fight that will come in this year.

4.              We Must Promote Conservative Fiscal Policy

In an economic climate of this kind there is a cure, Fiscal Conservatism. Fiscal Conservatism, is based upon three chief pillars, less government spending, lower taxes, and a free market approach.  Barack Obama campaigned upon these pillars, making himself look like the fiscal Conservative that he certainly was not.  His fiscal policies, while entirely contrary to the Conservative fiscal approach, where set aside, being exchanged for soaring rhetoric on how he was going to “lower taxes for 95% of Americans.”  Americans love fiscal Conservatism and Obama won because of, not in spite of, the fact that Americans, on the whole, are fiscal Conservatives.  It is time that Conservatives take Fiscal Conservatism back for themselves, and for the average American.  As we soon will see, Liberal Economic philosophy has been loosed in Washington, and it is clear that Conservatives across the country must promote the economic views that they hold dear if the American economy is going to stay safe.  It is also clear, that if Conservatives are not strong in their economic views then America will be taken down a path of fiscal socialism.  Fiscal Conservatism, in a Liberally dominated government, will not be popular, but fiscal Conservatism is not about doing what might win you political points; it is about doing what is right for America, for her economy, and, most importantly, for the citizens of this great nation.  In a time of economic turmoil let’s turn to the things that have been tested, and are known to better America.  Let's better our economy, and let's make our government more fiscally responsible.  Let’s take one for the people; let's promote fiscal Conservatism.

As the Conservative movement heads into 2009 it is time, we must go in strong. These four things, in the humble opinion of this political analyst, will be crucial elements as Conservatism moves forward.  Conservatism must be rejuvenated and ready for the fight, and these four keys will be necessary in order for this to occur.