"Fair Share"

I truly believe the rich should pay more taxes than the middle class or the poor. A guy who only earns, say, $1,000 a month should only have to pay $100 of it in taxes. A rich guy who gets a million dollars a year should be forced to send $100,000 to the government! That way the rich pay a lot more!

Right?

If you do the math you'll see that this is both absolutely fair and a very conservative argument. In fact this is the argument we must make, and win, for the sake of restoring our country to the principles of individual freedom on which it was founded.

Winning hearts and minds to this point of view would have several immediate and practical effects:

1. Everyone would have a stake in the well-being of this country.

2. Everyone would have a reasonably equal shot at what used to be called "The American Dream." (...which, by the way is not just wealth; it's prosperity. But that's a topic for another blog post.)

3. And if everybody's got a chance to prosper,

and if we agree that paying in to the system $100,000 is much more than paying $1,200,

and if having more income is understood to equate to shouldering more of the burden in terms of actual dollars,

then success wouldn't be called "unfair." It wouldn't have the stigma it's beginning to acquire in our current politically correct culture (e.g. the hated "wealthiest 1%" of the population.)

Let's get it straight: "The Rich" should, and do, pay more taxes than the rest of us. 1 In fact, this will continue to be true even if we successfully replace the current system with a "fair tax" or a "flat rate tax." We should applaud them for it, and attempt to join their ranks!

What Does Being Right Have To Do With Anything?

It's not enough to be right. Don't get me wrong; it is necessary, but it's not enough.

Any ideologically driven observer of events in our nation would be understandably baffled by the question: How could the same nation elect two such diametrically opposed presidents as Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama in such a short time? It is axiomatic that Reagan was a limited-government, pro-business, anti-socialism, peace-through-strength conservative, and Barack Obama is a government-owns-everything-INCLUDING-YOU, America-is-so-self-centered-she-deserved-to-be-attacked, peace-through-apologizing-for-capitalism socialist.

To what shall we attribute the fact that this country has exalted both these men to the highest office in the land? The phenomenon can't be legitimately attributed to turnover in voter rolls. I voted for Reagan twice. Soon I will have voted against Obama twice. And I intend to vote in 9 or 10 more presidential elections. My point is this: these two were elected well within one lifetime, mine. And I am far from a unique member of that club. So you can't blame it on a complete turnover of voter rolls.

What, then? If you argue that there is a pendulum effect at work here from conservatism to liberalism and back again, as is common throughout American political history, the stark ideological contrast between these two men would turn your argument into an accusation that the American people are schizophrenic. Some of us may be, but not all.

What do you remember about Ronald Reagan, the candidate? Ronald Reagan, the man? He was an actor. He was quick-witted. He was good-looking. Articulate. Optimistic. Funny.

What about Obama? Good-looking, check. Articulate, check. Optimistic? Sure! His 2008 campaign could be summed up in two words, the first of which was "Hope." And his campaign slogan was "Yes we can!"

So what's the point? What's the bottom line?

If fellow ideological purists want to gain any traction with the general public they had better work hard at being LIKABLE.