'76 Blog

(Denver Post, Jan. 1) “Let us eat and drink,” said the beautiful people at last night’s glittering parties, “for tomorrow we shall die.”  Maybe they thought their insouciance fitting as 2011 ticked away, but they could not have thought it original.    It was Obama’s favorite economist, John Maynard Keynes, the original Mr. Stimulus, who remarked coldly in the 1930s that in the long run we’re all dead.  And Keynes was echoing the dissipated elites of ancient Israel 2700 years ago, says the prophet Isaiah.  Fatalistic irresponsibility endures though nations rise and fall.  Our fall may now impend, as 69 percent of those polled believe America is in decline and 57 percent expect our kids will live less well than we do.  Yet you saw little evidence of that somber outlook in the prosperous holiday bustle at suburban malls and downtown theaters.  A psychologist might call it cognitive dissonance. I’d call it either rank denial or good old American gumption.  But which? On this first day of a fateful election year the choice is entirely ours – and I choose gumption. Notwithstanding our fiscal and economic woes, political polarization, slumping demographics, nukes in Iran and North Korea, global jihad and sharia, the USA has the potential to come roaring back in 2012 and onward to 2020.  It starts with deciding we can. True, historians warn that great nations seldom make it to age 250, and we’re now 235. “Pessimism, materialism, an influx of foreigners, the welfare state, the weakening of religion, the love of money, and the loss of a sense of duty,” Sir John Glubb’s checklist for a country in decadence (from his 1976 book “The Fate of Empires”), fits us all too well.  Our advantage, though, is that there has never been an America before. Are we exempt from the undertow of history and the underside of human nature?  Absolutely not.  We do possess, however, resilient free institutions and an indomitable fighting spirit.  From this fortunate combination – representing for our generation a trust to keep, not a charm to boast on or coast on – a victory for the United States over decadence and decline, against the odds, remains possible. I’m no Pollyanna. Our state and nation are ill-led by Democrats and Republicans alike.  Judges flout the Constitution, producing tyrannous rulings like Colorado’s Lobato school case, and making it unlikely the Supreme Court will annul the disaster that is Obamacare. The spiritual poverty in today’s public square would appall the pioneers who put “Nil Sine Numine,” nothing without the Spirit, on our state seal. We face a stormy year.   But like many Christian and Jewish conservatives, I enter 2012 with a survival kit of ideas and ideals that keep me buoyant, storms or not.  Here on the shelf by my desk are wisdom-books giving timeless encouragement in the toughest times.  Enemy attack, economic crash, electoral defeat?  I hope and pray not.  Still in such volumes as these, there is sustenance to persist regardless. Of course my list of ten titles, compiled years ago for a friend, won’t match yours.  But I do recommend compiling your own.  It will ground you on bedrock and make 2012 go better. And what are the books on my shelf?  First is the Bible, alongside Chesterton’s “Everlasting Man” and Lewis’s “Mere Christianity,” for an anchor in eternity.  Next, “The Federalist” for politics and Bastiat’s “The Law” plus Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” for economics.  Weaver’s “Ideas Have Consequences” and Goldwater’s “Conscience of a Conservative” diagnose America’s travails since 1945.   From literature, though a hundred come to mind, I complete my ten with Bolt’s “Man for All Seasons” and Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings,” epitomizing moral integrity.  We’ll need a lot of that, and divine help besides, as beleaguered America turns the calendar page.  Happy New Year.   

Centennial Institute honored Mike Kopp, former Colorado Senate Minority Leader, with the Zebulon Pike Award for Colorado Leadership in Fidelity to Jeffersonian Principles at a ceremony on Dec. 6.   The award will be presented annually to an outstanding conservative who has set a high example for Coloradans, providing a landmark as Pike's mountain did for the 1806 exploring party sent out by President Jefferson, said Centennial Institute director John Andrews. Kopp, who led the Senate Republicans from spring 2010 until his resignation for family reasons in 2011, spoke as follows in accepting the Zebulon Pike Award:  Thank you for this honor. The idea of this particular award is an intimidating one.  I hope my attempt to justify my being its first recipient will not fall short.  Many of my former legislative colleagues are here, and if I embellish too greatly they’re likely to call a caucus and censure me for perjury.  So it is intimidating to me to receive this, especially from people I so deeply admire, for two reasons: First, Zebulon Pike himself.  The man truly lived an extraordinarily courageous life, while it lasted just 34 years.  Pike was always ready to risk for the country he loved. He led men in the exploration of the resources of an unknown land.  The pattern of his life and leadership was to habitually trade away personal safety in order to accept uncertain leadership assignments fraught with real peril.  This compulsion of his to do his country’s bidding ultimately drove him to the battlefield at York where he gave his own life for a fledgling republic in the War of 1812. Secondly, to be recognized for conservative leadership in a time when Coloradans want reassurance that our best hopes about America can still be gamely pursued, assumes that this recipient has played a significant role in leading that pursuit.  A role? Perhaps.  How significant? Certainly a small one.  In any event, that question can’t be the important one for any leader to ask. No, the important question is this: what problems in society am I presently analyzing in order to apply trustworthy conservative wisdom to so that conservatism can lay claim on the future just as it has in the past? If we don’t ask this question of ourselves, regularly, are we not thereby forgetting that the future of a free and prosperous America is both the birthright of our children and a vapor that can quickly vanish if conservative leaders don’t prevail? And what is conservative leadership if it’s not accompanied by the courage and appetite for risk that Pike’s life so beautifully epitomized?  It is nothing.  It is only words. It won’t do.  And besides, there’s plenty of people already engaging in it. Words do not the future make. Actions do. But our actions, friends, need to be bigger than we’ve ever dared. Decisive. Persistent. Wise. Timely. Consequential. Ambitious. Not just ambitious, transformational. Because anything less has us acting as mere managers stuck in a system we feel powerless to change.  Let’s not be that generation of conservatives. Pike may well have been the kind of transformational leader we need today.  Why not think of ourselves as scouts just as he was? In all situations, let’s force ourselves to look beyond our circumstance.  Let’s grasp the whole context, not just a few of the interior parts, and further assume that it can be shaped by us into something different than it is as the moment.  Something that more closely aligns with a conservative worldview. This is the legacy of a Pike, or a Madison, or a Lincoln, or Goldwater or Reagan.  That’s the shadow that we have been blessed to labor in and that we ourselves now must help enlarge for the sake of our posterity. Yes, just imagine if each us leaned into the belief that the Almighty is actually concerned with how we govern ourselves.  And imagine the outcomes if we further embraced that understanding as a sign of our personal leadership responsibility to claim the future? I think that is the work of CCU and the Centennial Institute.  That is why I am humbled to participate in some small way with them in that endeavor.  It is why we should all be very proud indeed of the quality leadership that is guiding that ship. In conclusion, while I feel unworthy of an award like this, I do lay claim to Martin Luther King’s brilliant leadership proclamation, when he said: “I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsam and jetsam in the river of life, unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him.” Fellow conservative leaders, may it be so with us, too.  Thank you.  

(CCU Student) What is conservatism? Why are YOU conservative? These questions were asked of students attending the Young America’s Foundation National Conservative Student Conference this summer in D.C. (August 1-6, 2011). The conference was an opportunity to explore conservatism today and apply it to our own lives. The media today is overwhelmed by liberal talk shows, news anchors, and bias; so it’s a good idea to know what you believe and why. This rationale is exactly why I desired to attend NCSC this year. The political realm is an area that I have only recently dared tip my toes into, but I’ve always been a conservative, albeit a confused one at times. I grew up on Biblical principles, often the foundation of conservative thought. But I also attended a public high school, where I learned that Nixon was good and Reagan was bad. The liberal and conservative ideologies were never explained to me or my fellow students, and no policies were ever debated, so I never quite knew what was considered conservative or liberal. The speakers at NCSC spoke about the values of conservatism through the lens of current events. They helped me to understand the debt ceiling debate, foreign issues, and other current affairs from the conservative perspective. Also, the opportunity to discuss these issues after the sessions with other attendees provided arenas for debate on what the speakers spoke on and solutions for current affairs. Some of the speakers and topics covered: ·         KT McFarland, FOX News’ National Security Analyst– Flash points around the world ·         Senator Mike Lee, Republican U.S. Senator for Utah – The debt crisis and a Balanced Budget Amendment ·         Joseph Phillips, actor from “The Cosby Show” and syndicated columnist – Current affairs of race today and its implications ·         Dr. Robert George, Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University – Immigration and American Exceptionalism ·         Matt Richardson, Executive Director of the Young Briton’s Foundation – Healthcare in the UK Now, I have solidified in my own mind what conservatism is and what I believe in. My lack of knowledge has been replaced by a sense of awareness of my own beliefs. I stand with many other conservatives and believe that moral relativity is not an option, that national security and defense is one of the biggest priorities for our nation, and that a capitalist free market system is the best way to boost our economy and create jobs. As Bay Buchanan, former Treasurer of the United States under President Reagan, said in her session, “Do not ever feel inadequate because you do not know. You are inadequate when you are on the sidelines.” Before, I felt as if my lack of political knowledge meant that I could not be an active participant. But that participation is exactly how I learned more about what I believed. So even if you don’t feel like you know much, go out and get involved in politics, whether through campaigning for your favorite candidate or simply discussing current political issues with your friends. You’ll be glad you did!

As conservatives, we feel that we are right. We feel as though the leftist agendas have been practiced to failure, exhaustion, and are not even viable solutions. However, many conservatives lack the ability to communicate with those of opposing viewpoints. I have been to countless conservative speaking-engagements, summits, think tanks, classes, et cetera, but these venues shed a “preach to the choir” ambience. What about those who are different, who vehemently disagree with conservative policies, and/or who label us evil, bigots, fear-mongers, callous, immoral, and barrages of other words? If conservatives’ pervasive trait of “realism” is to be tapped, we must realize these are the real people who need to be reached—and the way we communicate with them is crucial. Now, in the wake of a climacteric political race, conservatives need these skills more than ever. I write this not to accuse conservatives, because all of us are different in many ways, but merely bring some thoughts to attention that may help augment our platform. First, know that tone and listening are two invaluable communication tools. I once had someone tell me, “You have two ears and one mouth. Do the math.” Listening twice as much as you speak and keeping your tone to an acceptable, “non-threatening”, and un-condescending volume is a great way to carry yourself throughout a dialogue with a Leftist. Just as the left seems to enjoy discerning faults in the world, they also will find fault in your communication if done improperly or “threateningly”. Second, understand what differentiates Left from Right. Conservatives believe in less government whereas the left believes in more. This is simple but must always be consciously remembered. Third, be ready for an isolated example. Leftists consistently highlight the unfortunate scenario of a small number. For example, people in favor of Obama-Care, socialization of healthcare, and/or other variances of healthcare entitlement programs often use the “cancer-ridden homeless man” story. Essentially, there is a homeless gentleman who is diagnosed with cancer and goes to emergency rooms (since he cannot be turned away) regularly for some sort of panacea because he cannot afford an oncologist (which is what he needs). Two things are routinely pulled from this story by the left: (1) thousands of dollars are being spent treating the wrong problem and (2) this is an atrocity no one should have to go through. The conservative generally responds in a manner viewed as callus and insensitive in the leftist’s eyes—therefore, how can we, as conservatives, avoid less of these unsuccessful conversations? The answer is simple: articulation, tone, and engagement. Thomas Lock’s “Second Treatise on Government” suggests that no civilization will ever be perfect as a result of the fall of man—sin. Sin corrupts all humanity. Therefore, if two humans cannot exist in a perfect Utopian society, how can 320 million? Bring something like this to the Leftist’s attention using tone and calmness and ask, “What do you think about this?” Leftists will generally respond uniquely, since, let us be honest and genuine, every person has a slightly different worldview, another detail that must be kept in mind. All differences accounted for leftists will generally not find it moral to allow the “atrocity”. Maybe then suggest what NGO’s can do for these people and why pry at why this has to be the government. From here, use discernment and follow similar principles. Not using leading questions only, per se, but helping the leftist see how many of these Utopian dreams are merely unfeasible and that conservatism seeks to implement what works best as nothing will ever be “perfect”. Fourth, strive to instill a sense of trust of humanity as opposed to the government. For absolute power corrupts absolutely. Always keep an understanding that leftists are going to consistently be compassionate, Band-Aids to the broken, and speaker forthe unspoken-for. Leftists may have a stronger desire to be humanistic, humanitarian, and philanthropic than many conservatives. Although this is not true in most cases, it helps going into a dialogue with a leftist assuming that is their perception; helping the Left understand that conservatives consistently fund non-profits but merely prefer the right to choose where their money goes if the next step.  Leftists routinely argue that “corporate greed” will prevent money from being distributed and that humanity’s proclivity to sin inhibits our giving, hence why the government is needed. Here, I suggest the theories of expectancy and dependency. For example, a teacher wrote into the O’Reilly Factor saying (paraphrased), “I had a student today respond to what he wants to be when he grows up with, ‘live on welfare and get free healthcare’”. Unfortunately, the “hard-worker” who receives entitlements becomes lost amidst those who treat it as free-money, entitlement, and eventual dependency. Perhaps continue this conservative-leftist dialogue by catechizing a leading question such as, “Obviously this is not right, yes? What would work better?” Last, as a conservative, you already feel as though self-responsibility is becoming a disappearing attribute of the common man and is being juxtaposed with a nurtured sense of entitlement and being “owed something”. Face it! We are owed NOTHING except life, liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness. Entitlement comes with an innate sense of “owed”, and entitlements breed dependency more often than not. The government of the United States of America was not established with the mission statement of granting happiness to all. Fellow conservatives, when you return to your lives, embark with a sense of understanding toward the Left. Understand they want to help, fix, provide, and save but many their ideas are simply unrealistic. Telling them they are unfeasible is impractical and ineffective—as is throwing accusatory statements or putting them on the defensive. When Pilate accused Jesus, Jesus did not respond with the ferocity of the common-Roman-man’s perception of Him. I rest my case in that it is not what you say, it is how you articulate, engage, word, and say it.

The Colorado Family Institute is truly on the frontline of the battle for our values and principles and we thank you so much for your work. Today, I wanted to share two things with you: my narrative and how this narrative relates to our work at the Centennial Institute. Editor: How can conservative groups in Colorado help each other? What is the unifying vision for their efforts?  Centennial Institute director John Andrews asked staffer Karthik Venkatraj to address those questions on Pastors' Day at the State Capitol, April 29, sponsored by the Colorado Family Institute.  This is what he said. My mother and father are my inspiration. My father dreamt of coming to America and conferred with his family about his desire. His sister agreed to sell her gold to purchase a ticket for the young couple to come to America in addition to some spending money - -one hundred dollars. They started their life in the mire of poverty in one room of an apartment in Brooklyn, New York City, where I was born. Eventually, my father found a job in the subways of New York City ferrying x-rays between hospitals and my mother found a job as a nurse’s aid in a busy Manhattan hospital. Ten years later, my father would be graduating from New York University as a PhD in Molecular Biology and my mother would be finishing her MD. This position was a far cry from their struggle to make ends meet each month as well as raise a child. Indeed, I can distinctly remember the culmination of a month’s paycheck in a splurge of eight dollars at a run-down Chinese buffet in Brooklyn. Once again, this narrative would be possible in no other country, within the context of any other ideals than that of our nation. Indeed, these values and ideals that propelled my narrative and that of my parents hearkens to those ideals and values that informed the Declaration of Independence as well as our Constitution. And that is why I am here at Centennial institute, because I want a better nation for my children and their children, a nation with values and a solid moral compass. I am here because I am convicted that it is the duty of all Americans to preserve our republic and I am very concerned that we are losing that duty. I, like most Americans, do not want to see an America of 2076 as an irrelevant nation that has passed the torch of global leadership to another country, but as a nation renewed and convicted in its role as a global leader. Let us not be naïve to the great challenges our nation faces. Our nation is hurting and her people are shouldering the hurt. Families are having to make tough choices, cut out any expenses that are not completely essential, hold on to their jobs, or begin the most arduous task of finding a job. Worst of all, our nation’s children and their children are already mired in debt after years of government spending. Some may ask: “Where is the Spirit of 1776? Where is our nation going?” I would answer that the Spirit of 1776 is here: it’s in the coffee shops and diners, it’s in the dinnertime conversations of families, it’s in the ranches and farms of rural America, in our servicemen and women, and in the pastors writing their sermon for their Sunday service. In short, it’s in all Americans who love and care for our republic. The way this spirit will manifest and direct our people will determine 2076. Let us not forget the absolute providence that has guided our nation since its conception. Let us take solace in the fact that this spirit in conjunction with providence has and will always lead to miraculous events and glorious beginnings. It is why I am convinced that even though my generation will face the greatest challenges we have witnessed since World War II; we will also see our greatest triumphs. But let’s face it. In the end, we as an Institute can only do so much. To be clear, we live in a fallen world and in a nation in the context of this fallenness. The only salvific and redemptive element of our society is the church. That is why I exhort each and everyone of you to keep doing what you’re doing. Without it, our efforts lose meaning. God Bless you and let us pray that God continues to bless our great nation.

(Centennial Graduate Intern) Working in the Pentagon this summer, I ran into several Obama appointees. One was a field director for Hillary’s Presidential campaign in Iowa. During the campaign, he spent his time meeting all the senior citizens in the community and reaching out to other community leaders. He went to the local high school once during the primary campaign. On the fateful caucus day, the entire senior class of the high school in Iowa showed up and a solid Hillary district was locked into Obama. Thus, began the 2008 primary that eventually culminated with the election of President Barack Obama. My generation, the millennials, are one of the first generations to go to school in a very diverse environment, making our generation extremely inclusive. However, within this inclusiveness is a sense of moral relativism that has permeated our mentality. Within such a context, an ideology predicated on principle is far more difficult to hold ground than a nebulous, rapidly evolving mentality. Our survey of several different youth leaders has shown that there are several trends within engaging the youth within the conservative movement as well as solidifying a far reaching movement inculcating the changes our nation embodies demographically. The lessons learned/trends are as follows: • Focus on jobs and economy  – Entry level jobs for recent college graduates – Loss of perpetuity of the wellbeing of our nation – Tuition and Fees  – Student loans(now federalized) • Grassroots organizations predicated on ideology rather than necessarily party • Youth Coordination accessible and prominent during campaigns • Avoiding alienation due to party positions • Inclusiveness of conservative movement; preservation of American values A brief anecdote from my college days captures the aforementioned trends. I had the blessing of working on a pro-life movement on Texas A&M’s campus on a grassroots level. Our focus was on countering the introduction of FOCA, which would lift almost all regulations on abortion. Our goal was to utilize the already mobilized pro-life movement around the legislation and increase the number of signatures of a petition being sent to preclude the legislation’s introduction.  Our campaign began with traditional groups such as Aggies for Life and the Young Conservatives of Texas; however, due to our ability to articulate the commonality of the sanctity of human life, we were able to garner support from several different faith groups typically not associated with the pro-life movement. It is the strength of semantics within a campaign as well as an appeal to universal human values that allowed us to build an inclusive, dynamic movement. It is this sort of mentality that we can bring to our larger conservative movement in order to engage the youth vote as well as build a lasting conservative movement for the 21st century. Above all, the American values that we have been blessed with give me confidence that even though my generation will face the greatest challenges our nation has witnessed since the post World War II era , we will also find our greatest triumphs.  

Why is it so appealing to be “progressive”? I think this question deserves further scrutiny. Our nation is manifested in a multi religious, multi racial, multi ethnic demographics, which will only be changing further as our nation progresses to its next centennial. In fact, within our next centennial, this country will become a majority minority nation, much like several states in the south have already become. The “progressive” movement has already embraced this reality. To elucidate, the progressives have captured the youth vote to the tune of 66% turning out for Obama in 2008.  The votes by race resulted in similar statistics with African Americans at 95%, Latinos at 67%, and Asians at 62%. In short, the conservative movement struggled with both youth and minority vote. It can be argued that McCain is not indicative of the conservative movement; however, even with the most visceral of assessments, these statistics serve as wakeup call for the future of the conservative movement. So the question remains: How do we create a dynamic conservative movement that is inclusive? Garrett Sweitzer, Bryce Bender and Heath Mayo are the newly selected leaders of Students for Mitt and are working to engage youth within the Romney 2012 campaign. When I posited the question (asked of other young conservatives twice before in this series), they responded: “The conservative movement needs to articulate a message that promotes inclusiveness. Increasing levels of immigration make it imperative the conservative movement maintain flexibility so not to alienate large population segments. "In particular, I would like to see the conservative movement, and its accompanying ideology, focus on the destructiveness of a large federal government that positions itself as the prevailing authority in every aspect of society. We need to constrain the growth of government so not to lose our fundamental freedoms. "I fear that some citizens fail to recognize that a dependency on the federal government slowly erodes free-will as a crucial determinant of one's life decisions. I believe that an ideology that stresses the importance of maintaining personal autonomy as independent of an overbearing central government will attract adherents for foreseeable future.” This concludes our three-part series on building a dynamic conservative movement on the 21st century. We will have one more summary and lessons-learned blog to capture the trends in our series. Garrett Sweitzer, Bryce Bender, and Heath Mayo are the student leaders of Students for Mitt and can be reached at garrett.s.sweitzer@vanderbilt.edu , Heath.Mayo@responsibleyouth.org , bbender@tamu.edu.  

(Centennial Staffer) How can we build a robust, inclusive, and dynamic conservative strategy and agenda, conducive to the 21st century?  This blog is the second in a three-part series exploring that challenge.  I invited some comments from a friend of mine, Jim Banks, who currently serves as Executive Director of the Responsible Youth PAC. The two questions I posited to him are: 1) How should conservatives appeal to our generation? and 2) How can conservatism be dynamic, so as to appeal to our generation when we come to maturation in 2050, with all the demographic change between now and then? Here is the reply from Jim Banks: 1) How should conservatives appeal to our generation? This question is simple when considering the status of our country right now. The debt our country is incurring will be a financial burden on our generation for not years, but decades to come. If you need any proof, just take one look at our debt on www.usdebtclock.org. When we're tens of trillions of dollars in debt, it's going to take a whole lot more than the 112th Congress to fix things. So our generation faces a decision. We can choose to support the ways of past congresses and maintain a dedication to spending, government handouts, and irresponsibility, or we can choose to actually tackle this debt head on. Our generation is still fairly young, but the sooner we realize what a financial storm is on the horizon should we not confront this debt, the likelier we are to be able to handle it. It is the responsibility of the conservative movement at large to inform our generation of what is on the way. There are many people our age who can't relate with what the debt means to our country and the sooner they learn the better. Conservative, Liberal, Moderate, Libertarian, apathetic, it doesn't matter who it is. We need to begin this conversation now so that we are prepared for what's to come when we come of age. Liberals and progressives are the ones who are perpetuating this spending and thus cannot be expected to be the ones who commit to resolving it. We need to send this message of fiscal responsibility far and wide and people will come. That is not to say that social conservatism or national defense based conservatism is less important. But I know people who have recently graduated and are about to graduate. While they may be passionate about pro-life causes or what's going on in the Middle East, their one commonality is that they are all looking for jobs. And in this tough economy jobs are hard to find. In a perfect world, we could convincingly market all the branches of conservatism to the youth and expand the movement as a whole. But with what is going on financially in the country we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good and we must prioritize promoting fiscal responsibility first to grow the conservative movement youth. 2) How can conservatism be dynamic, so as to appeal to our generation when we come to maturation in 2050, with all the demographic change between now and then?This is an interesting question. One thing I think must be realized before I address this question is the fact that I honestly cannot tell you what this country will look like in 39 years. And anyone who tries to tell you that they do is either lying, has an agenda, or is honestly a genius well ahead of their time. I don't say this out of spite, but because our world is ever changing. Nobody during the space race of the late 60's and early 70's could have predicted that in 40 years we wouldn't have been back to the Moon since. If you watch a movie from the 90's you'll see the old mobile phones which look like a massive block of plastic and electronics. Now you have touch screen phones with internet access which exceeds the capabilities of some of the computers of the time.What conservatism brings to our country's culture and heritage is an appreciation of our nation's roots. The conservative movement is based on a respect and reverence for our Constitution and the beliefs of the Founding Fathers. This gives us a perspective on the issues of the modern day which is grounded in what made our country what it is today. These traditional beliefs and values are universal and convey the message of freedom, limited government, personal responsibility, and a pride in our unique system of government. This is a message which can appeal to anyone of any age, of any demographic. There is a reason people immigrate to the US to start a new life. You don't tend to see citizens leaving the US for opportunities in other countries and there's a good reason for that.Conservatism is dynamic in its nature in that it is solely based off of a universal philosophy which does not put one demographic above another. Everyone has an opportunity to succeed, and it is up to them to choose how they want to use that chance. We need to do outreach to people of all backgrounds not because we need those people to make us a legitimate movement, but because there are many people who are conservative, but have been taught otherwise. Our ideals transcend demographics and we must make people realize that. Not only would it give us new opportunities to expand our movement, but it would give new life to the discourse about what makes us conservative and the issues of today. And this is just as true for 2050 as it is for today. Note: Jim Banks currently serves as Executive Director of the Responsible Youth PAC and is a sophomore at American University. He can be reached at jim.banks@responsibleyouth.org and (973) 600-5457. More information on the Responsible Youth PAC can be found at www.responsibleyouth.org.  Eric Garza of Texas contributed the first blog in this three-part series.  Read it here. The culmination of the series will be commentary from the Students for Mitt campaign.

How can we build a robust, inclusive, and dynamic conservative strategy and agenda, conducive to the 21st century?  This blog is the first in a three-part series exploring that challenge.  I invited some comments from a friend of mine, Eric Garza, who currently serves in a dual capacity as vice chairman of the Latino National Republican Coalition of Texas and executive director of a group called CONSERVO (Council on Service, Education, Representation of Values, and Opportunity).  The two questions I posited to him are: 1) How should conservatives appeal to our generation? and 2) How can conservatism be dynamic, so as to appeal to our generation when we come to maturation in 2050, with all the demographic change between now and then? Eric Garza responded: Being a conservative in American has never been as popular within the last decade. Since the time of President Reagan, America has seen its share of both a liberal and conservative agendas. Yet never before, has the United States seen so much unprecedented growth of the federal government and such an increase in our federal debt. Our generation, from the 1980s - early 1990's, and though still young, finds itself right in the middle of the economic turmoil caused by the current liberal agenda in Washington. Many in our group lack employment or have endured long periods without sustaining income. This generation of Americans is full of incredible potential and a true hope for our nation's future. As the future leaders of the both the public and private sectors, conservatives have their work cut out in appealing to this unique group with policies that cultivate economic growth and sustainability. Fiscal responsibility, a high point of conservatism, needs to be practiced in order for our generation to live by example and adapt. After all, an economically sound country opens room to deal with other domestic policies such as education and health care that directly affect this generation. Conservatism that is far-right leaning regarding social and economic policies and that does not take into account a wider range of ideas, will merely grow the distance between our generation and conservatism.  Conservatives need to realize the rapidly changing population in the American electorate and in our own generation. Hispanics are the largest increasing demographic and while conservative at heart, they often vote for liberal agendas and candidates because of the lack of appeal from the conservative arena. Far-right rhetoric that refuses to come center on issues such as immigration alienates this important sector of the population and in large part our whole generation of young Americans. Apart from Hispanics, our generation has seen growth in young professionals who have already begun to cultivate their own belief systems. The most crucial aspect in appealing to this generation is to put a walk to our talk. No longer is conservative rhetoric enough to entice our generation but a conviction to act on our behalf and implement initiatives we can live with and that in the long turn, benefit us. Conservatism is a good thing when used appropriately to draw in voters of all ages, more specifically of our generation. We often times mistake conservatism for a far-right agenda. Yes, at times it can mean that, but more importantly it means a way of life that many can adapt to and ensure this ideology remains alive and well for generations to come. Limited government, fiscal responsibility, and strong national defense, are all significant facets of being a conservative. Lets embrace a dynamic shift in these ideas like never before, live by them, and then, only then, will we watch our generation (comprised, in large part, of Hispanics) come into the fold and remain well past 2050 and beyond. Eric Garza can be reached at ericgarza09@gmail.com or (956) 465-8499. The Latino National Republican Coalition of Texas’ website is www.lnrctexas.org.  My next blog in this three-part series will explore the same questions with young leaders in Students for Mitt Romney.

Dead birds have lately been falling from the sky all over the place and if you wanted to be as inane in locating a cause as some have been about fault-finding in the tragic Arizona shooting, you would blame the tea party, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Sarah Palin -- anyone to the right of Lenin. Problem solved. It's a laughable thesis, but if you ventured it, maybe some sober soul would gently explain that there isn't any discernible causal connection between political commentary and the demise of some of our feathered friends. Perhaps he would even politely advise you that, in the absence of contrary evidence, shutting up would be useful. Some such layman's therapy seems needed to help soothe the fevered brows of Paul Krugman of the New York Times and others contending that "hate-mongers" on the right prompted the shots that left six people dead and 14 wounded, including an exceptional congresswoman struggling for her life. One way to start is to describe what we know of the shooter. He is clearly some kind of psychopath more driven by inner voices than outer voices. We have no reports that he ever paid any attention at all to those accused of shared culpability. He does not seem to have been particularly political, although he read writings by both Hitler and Marx. One observation indicates that to the extent he is political, he is a leftist. He used marijuana and he ranted about grammar, although in a confused, blurry way hard to figure out. Given the facts, speculating about right-wing influence makes even less sense than speculation that he was led to killing by the killer weed. That argument would be an especially fit analysis for someone wanting to outlaw marijuana, which brings us to the subject of political purposes informing theories. It's interesting that much of the yelping about the violent language of conservatives comes from leftist sources that wish these conservative nuisances would quit hindering their policy aspirations. Not the least such source was a Krugman blog calling Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and others "hate-mongers" when Krugman himself is an ad hominem-attack artist whose misuse of facts and figures was once bemoaned by an official Times ombudsman.  Liberals have been beating up on Palin because she once said conservatives had certain Democratic congressional seats in their "crosshairs." It was a metaphor. She meant nothing endangering by it. Democrats have talked of Republican seats as being the "bull's eye" they were aiming for, and even President Obama talked metaphorically duringt his 2008 campaign about bringing a gun to a confrontation. So what? Limbaugh gets bashed more than he bashes, but whatever the critics say about him, they should grant him a sense of humor and then find the humor in this screech from one leftist basher, Chris Matthews on MSNBC.  "You guys see 'Live and Let Die,' the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody's going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp." That's reprehensible stuff, although it hardly makes Matthews complicit in any shooting. "It's worth pointing out that, at a time when political speech has gotten much more violent, political assassinations have not increased," said commentator David Brooks on the PBS NewsHour the other night. There seems to be no strong science that tells us differently. Along with just about everyone else, I think political discussion should be civilized -- please, no more e-mails wishing me death -- but I am hardly against rambunctious, lively, passionate discourse that will only disappear when the democracy has disappeared. No one should try to further that day by the pretense that something terribly awful and terribly sad was a consequence of people simply saying forcefully what they believed. Jay Ambrose, formerly Washington director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard newspapers and the editor of dailies in El Paso and Denver, is a columnist living in Colorado and a Centennial Institute Fellow. He can be reached at SpeaktoJay@aol.com.