by Scott Ott
[Audio Version Available at ScrappleFace.com]

When it comes to his "fellow citizens", President George Bush has two words: Trust and empower.

The refrain of the first half of his State of the Union address called on Congress to "trust" the American people, and yet to spend a lot of tax money to "empower" them in almost every area of life. The president professed to trust in the "collective wisdom of ordinary citizens", but through his proposals he portrayed us as moderately wise, but ultimately helpless. In other words, we Americans know what to do to secure the blessings of liberty, but we cannot do it without government intervention, taxpayer dollars and a federal safety net to protect us from failure.

He told Congress to trust us with our own money, our own health care choices and to trust our children to learn if given a fair chance at decent schools. He said Americans are smart, skilled, innovative, creative, financially-savvy, hard-working and good-hearted.

Flattered as we are by his assessment of our gifts and abilities, we might wonder why such bright, industrious, thrifty people can't manage our own lives in a free-market economy, in the greatest harvest field of opportunity the world has ever seen. If we're so clever, why do we need so many new injections of government-controlled redistributed wealth, which is exactly what the president repeatedly proposed.

For starters, President Bush believes we need the short-term shot in the arm of tax rebates, because we suffer short-term economic "uncertainty", ostensibly because we don't understand the cyclical nature of markets.  We need a new $300 million Pell Grant for Kids to "help liberate poor children trapped in failing public schools," as Congress continues to flood those same public schools with cash under the guise of 'No Child Left Behind' reforms. We need to bail out people who make bad mortgage choices, rescue and retrain those who cling to jobs in declining industries as they ignore the obvious, pump more money into our struggling university laboratories for research that private industry apparently won't fund, and we must make sure that faith-based charity groups have a place at the public trough alongside their godless counterparts.

By his own description of trust, if President Bush trusted you to ride a bicycle, he would never let go of the back of the seat. It's his hand on the seat that empowers you. Without it, you would fall, never to rise again. We've finally discovered what's connected to Adam Smith's "invisible hand" -- it's the long-arm of the federal government.

"We believe that the most reliable guide for our country is the collective wisdom of ordinary citizens."
-- President George W. Bush, January 29, 2008

It's an odd turn of phrase for a man who professes faith in the superintending grace of God, and who regularly reads the Bible. But odder still, since, in all of our "collective wisdom", we've still made such a mess of the economy that President Bush and Congress must ride to the rescue, bearing bags of our own cash to empower us.

This Neo-Market Capitalism is "compassionate conservatism" in full bloom. In a word, it's cruelty.

From his first presidential campaign, then-Gov. Bush established a dynamic tension, and embraced the false dichotomy, between conservative principles and compassionate living. His misunderstanding of conservatism and capitalism leads him to believe that something must be added to each, in order for them to be loving, gracious and kind.

Conservatism doesn't need an adjective to complete it. Properly understood, conservatism is the most compassionate, and empowering system of government ever devised.

Conservatism empowers because...
-- It champions liberty and respect for law, without irony or contrast.
-- It acknowledges man's responsibility and God's sovereignty with equal vigor.
-- It preserves the dignity of man by allowing him to feel the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat, without government scraping off the proceeds of success, or pouring on the pity when prospects seem dim.
-- It recognizes that risk, reward and failure must all exist for the achievement to be worth the toil.
-- It fosters charity at the community, church and individual levels where money changes hands with more accountability, and where benefactor and recipient get to know one another as persons.

President Bush, if you trust us, stop trying to empower us. We have all the power we need from a source beyond the beltway.

Your well-intentioned meddling can only foul the propeller of our progress. And the people all said, "Mr. President, sit down. Sit down, you're rocking the boat."

[Audio Version Available at ScrappleFace.com]

Scott Ott is editor in chief of ScrappleFace.com, the family-friendly daily news satire site, contributing author of the forthcoming book "The New Media Frontier" (Sept. 2008, by Crossway), and a dynamic public speaker available through Premiere Speakers Bureau.

by Scott Ott

As Hillary Clinton slunk out of South Carolina last night, under cover of darkness, having parlayed the world's greatest political brand name into a 2-to-1 primary pounding by a relative neophyte, the exit polling reveals a possible way forward for the former First Lady.

Sen. Barack Obama defeated Sen. Clinton in every age group and every income cohort, among college grads and non-college grads, among males and females, self-identified liberals and conservatives, those who focus on issues and those for whom personality is paramount, the Iraq cut-and-runners and they who wish we would stay indefinitely. 

Sen. Clinton can claim only one clear victory niche. Among those who think the country is "not ready" for a black president, she won handily (48-23).

In other words, Sen. Clinton runs strongly among those who judge a person by the color of his skin rather than by the content of his character, or who believe that America is still too racist to elect a black candidate, though they might personally harbor no such prejudice.

Although she got more support among whites than Sen. Obama did, she didn't win the white vote -- John Edwards did (at 40 percent). She only won the "America's not ready for a black president" vote. Call it Hillary Clinton's Confederate coalition.

Columnist Dick Morris, the disgraced former adviser to the disgraced former president, has already written that the Clintons will play this loss for all the "white backlash" they can get. However reprehensible, Mr. Morris thinks it's a winning strategy.

Of course, no one is talking about a "male backlash strategy" for Sen. Obama, but then he beat Mrs. Clinton soundly even among those who said the country is "ready" for a female president (50-33). In order for a backlash strategy to work, you have to get whupped, and only Sen. Clinton succeeded in doing that.

The big unanswered question of the day is "Where have all the white Democrats gone?"

In a state where 29.5 percent of the population is black, the racial minority comprises 50 percent of registered Democrats, and they turned out at the polls in that proportion. It's sad to see the party of equality and Civil Rights unable to get ebony and ivory to live together in perfect harmony.

There's ample evidence that the mainstream media has already bought the Clinton campaign spin that South Carolina served only to establish Sen. Obama as "the black candidate," an attempt to marginalize him as the Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton of our day.

The Clinton presidential duo plays this tune at their own peril. (If she had won South Carolina, would her partisans have said "Hillary triumphed despite the high black turnout"?) Methinks Mr. Morris and the mainstream media misjudge most Americans, even most Democrats.

Remember, Sen. Obama won the Iowa caucuses, where blacks represent a mere four percent of the population. He lost New Hampshire, another land of Wonder Bread and Mayonnaise, by only two points. He actually won more delegates in Nevada, though the media played up Sen. Clinton's victory in the meaningless statewide popular vote. Sen. Obama's race for the White House is not racial.

The Obama campaign, unlike those of the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton, has not run on traditional tracks of Civil Rights and social justice. The problem for Sen. Clinton is that, on ideology and policy questions, most voters cannot distinguish between her and Sen. Obama.

So, Democrats, of all races, now ask themselves, whom would I rather see striding to the podium to stand behind the presidential seal? Whose voice would I rather listen to for the next eight years? Which candidate makes me proud to be a Democrat, nay, even proud to be an American?

Team Clinton should recall that they, and their white Democrat ancestors have been pandering to blacks for 40 years by telling them they deserve not only a place at the table, but a fair shot at the big chair in the Oval Office.

The time has come. Democrats are ready. Only Sen. Clinton and her Confederate coalition stands in the way of this significant fulfillment of Martin Luther King's dream.

Scott Ott is editor in chief of ScrappleFace.com, the family-friendly daily news satire site, contributing author of the forthcoming book "The New Media Frontier" (Sept. 2008, by Crossway), and a dynamic public speaker available through Premiere Speakers Bureau.

by Scott Ott

If John McCain ever wants to hear 'Hail to the Chief' played in his honor, he must do something that he, among the remaining GOP candidates, is particularly ill-prepared to do: carry a conservative coalition into Congress on his coattails.

Mr. McCain, who fought President George Bush's tax cuts and now supports making them permanent, professes a desire to slash federal spending, eliminate wasteful programs and sneaky earmarks, and find new ways to reduce taxes. Be still my blood-red beating heart.

However, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid each would greet President McCain's vision with four words: "Over my retired body."

In other words, it takes a Republican Congressional majority to cut spending and taxes.

While Sen. McCain has demonstrated a proclivity for reaching across the aisle, his bipartisan spirit has only worked to advance causes dear to Democrats -- campaign finance reform (read: free-speech restraint), immigration reform (read: illegal alien amnesty), and what might be called 'Senate Majority reform', when Sen. McCain's back-room "Gang of 14" deal squandered the main benefit of a 55-vote majority -- the ability to confirm the president's strict-constructionist judicial nominees.

Sen. McCain can build consensus, he just can't seem to build it around conservative principles. And while he presents himself as a straight-talking maverick, he has succeeded in little but talking himself into compromise with people who think "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" would be better concepts if the federal government were completely in control of their distribution.

The man who has made a PR career out of bucking the right wing of his own party must suddenly transform himself into the leader whose bedrock conservatism inspires a new generation of Congressional warriors (elected in 2008 and 2010) who fearlessly and relentlessly wield the sword against the budget Hydra. If you believe that will happen, I have bridge to nowhere I'd like to sell you.

The next Republican presidential nominee needs to use his positional authority to reform the GOP into a party that vigorously recruits candidates based on conservative principles, personal integrity and demonstrated ability to lead, rather than the party's current myopic practice of doing whatever it takes to get 'R' people elected, regardless of their adherence to the ideology that once made this party great.

Sen. McCain's bomber jacket has no coattails, and conservatives will deliver a little straight talk to him.

In a word: "No."

Scott Ott is editor in chief of ScrappleFace.com, the family-friendly daily news satire site, contributing author of the forthcoming book "The New Media Frontier" (Sept. 2008, by Crossway), and a dynamic public speaker available through Premiere Speakers Bureau.

by Scott Ott

No sparks. No attacks. No clever sniping against fellow Republicans. What kind of presidential debate was that?

That's the tone of the mainstream media coverage of last night's Republican presidential forum in Boca Raton, Florida. Journalists and pundits have decided that what America needs in a president is a guy (or gal) who really knows how to verbally eviscerate his opponents. When the candidates fail to do that, the pundits describe the debate as "soporific" and lacking "fireworks".

Last night, five dignified men treated each other with respect as they spoke with sincerity about what matters in our Constitutional republic. Good for the country -- bad for journalists.

People who make their living crafting clever phrases (journalists), naturally relish the entertainment value of political sock puppets mouthing the witty rejoinders prepared by people who make their living crafting clever phrases (speech writers, often former journalists). The point of a debate, for them, is not for all the candidates to cogently state their positions on the issues that define our day, and to politely draw contrasts with the stances of their opponents.

The purpose of televised debates is to produce entertainment for journalists and columnists. Perched on the edge of their seats, poised for the gaffe, they hold out their pails to catch the dripping vitriol. To them, this process of selecting the leader of the free world is little more than a video game.

Points get awarded for nastiness, and sarcastic comic timing; points subtracted for careful Constitutional exegesis, calm explanation of ideology, and due deference granted to one's opponents (who, after all, represent vast numbers of one's potential voters). Bonus points go to the candidate who does the best job of dividing the Republican party, to the benefit of the future Democrat nominee.

But if a debate helps us decide which candidate we want to hire for the job, shouldn't we look for the kind of performance we wish to see in the White House?

While the press slams President George Bush for his supposed 'cowboy diplomacy" -- a lack of subtlety, polish and consensus building -- then why do they want debates to look like calf-wrestling at the rodeo?

Imagine going in for a job interview and spending most of your time attacking the other candidates for the position, making wisecracks that you hired someone to write for you in advance, and being combative with your interviewer.

Is this the kind of person we want meeting with Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas to untangle the mess in the Middle East? Do we need a witty wag cracking wise at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-Il, Rep. Nancy Pelosi or Sen. Harry Reid?

Search the leadership book section at Barnes & Noble or Amazon. How many books do you find with titles like "How to Ridicule Your Way to the Top," or "Mastering Win-Lose Management", or "The Effective Executive Jerk"?

The mainstream media's mission is to cultivate those whose personality tends toward turmoil. That's why The New York Times today endorses Hillary Clinton and John McCain. (Any guess as to which one of those they'll endorse in November?)

For all of his accomplishments and admirable qualities, Sen. McCain's TV ads tout the fact that nobody likes him, and that we need a president who ticks people off. Look up the word 'polarize' in the dictionary, and you'll find Sen. Clinton's picture. Clinton-McCain is the mainstream media dream team, guaranteeing nine more months of vicious sniping. It's how they keep us from focusing on the issues and ideology that matter.


Scott Ott is editor in chief of ScrappleFace.com, the family-friendly daily news satire site, contributing author of the forthcoming book "The New Media Frontier" (Sept. 2008, by Crossway), and a dynamic public speaker available through Premiere Speakers Bureau.

by Scott Ott

For two decades, conservatives have sought in vain for someone to lead the movement. As the years peeled away, and the long-awaited champion failed to descend from the mountain, those in elected office who bore the conservative label sat down to eat and drink at the public trough, and rose up to dance to the popular tunes of the big-government band.

Wandering in the ideological wilderness, their allegiance to principle faded, supplanted by mere loyalty to The Party. Electability became their mantra, and they whittled away at the conscience of a conservative until that mighty oak became a toothpick dangling from the lower lip.

Some said the revolution, like Krakatoa, had gone dormant.

But what would happen if that mythical leader of conservative dreams were to arise today? What characteristics would set him apart?

•     He would talk of principle more than policy, ideology more than issues.
•     When asked about government solutions to human problems, he would betray broad and forceful skepticism.
•     He would be blunt about truth, honest about complexity, thoughtful in responding to questions, and hard to capture in seven-second sound bites.
•     He would be serious about serious things, light-hearted about his own human fallibility.
•     He would not suffer fools, nor reporters, gladly. (But I repeat myself.)
•     He would approach elected office with a sense of respect, because the power of it flows from God, through the people, and not from any one man's personality.
•     He would love America because of its matchless history, and its magnificent promise.
•     He would call for firm borders and a strong military, because he loves justice and peace.
•     His every public pronouncement would pulse with ideas drawn from the rich veins of the Declaration, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the like.
•     He would speak of aggressive capitalism united with love and mercy, without contrast.
•     He would carry freedom like a burning coal, diligent to keep it glowing hot and bright.
•     In the sideshow atmosphere of political campaigning, he would look less like a carnival barker, more like a funeral director reluctantly passing through, unable to hide his grief over what it has become.
•     And yet, to those with ears to hear, he would convey a positive, hopeful vision of American greatness, calling us to man the battlements and to fight to reclaim her glory.

Who now displays these qualities?

We might better ask: If such a one walked among us today, would we even recognize him?

And who would recognize him?

Would the professional cynic, the one wedded to an ideology that sees humanity as god and yet sees individual men as ignorant, helpless dependents: Would he see?

Would the vigorous partisan, whose overriding ambition is to paint the town red: Would that one pause from his pep rally long enough to listen?

Would you recognize him? Or would you would brush him aside, thereby endorsing the message of the media, and comforting the hearts of your political opponents? Nothing is more frightening to them than a man of principle.

By all appearances the revolution has gone dormant -- no flame of fire, no flowing river of molten rock, not even a wisp of smoke. But has it really?

The power of true conservatism is not best conveyed by a tongue of flame, but by a persistent smoldering burning within...yes, even a 'fire in the belly'.

But please understand, the conservative movement, unlike modern liberalism, does not require a leader to remain strong. That's because its core values continue to burn brightly among those who know this land, and love her. They don't need to be cajoled or corralled or plied with the sweet elixir of entitlements.

The role of the next leader of the conservative movement is to channel this majestic force in ways that maximize freedom, that protect the innocent and, ultimately, in ways that pay tribute to the ceaseless and immutable fountain from which these principles flow.

Like Krakatoa -- though it lay dormant for decades -- yet it will rumble again, and then explode with a force beyond expectation.

Scott Ott is editor in chief of ScrappleFace.com, the family-friendly daily news satire site, contributing author of the forthcoming book "The New Media Frontier" (Sept. 2008, by Crossway), and a dynamic public speaker available through Premiere Speakers Bureau.

by Scott Ott