Because I subscribe to some magazine or journal that sells its subscription list, I now receive a varying degree of fundraising letters from the Republican National Committee. By far the most frequent letters I receive are of the infamous “push-poll” variety. The premise of this fundraising pitch is that the RNC wants to know what I think of various political issues so they can allegedly formulate their policies to take my views into account. In the letter RNC Chairman Marc Racicot writes in a breathy, stutter paragraph style,
“Make no mistake — without your answers to the REPUBLICAN PARTY CENSUS DOCUMENT questions . . .our leadership will not know how you and other Republicans at the grassroots level of our Party feel about the critical issues facing our nation in the next century.”
And, as long as they have my attention, please would I be so kind to write them a check so they can poll other Republicans. Yeah, right. Not knowing my stand on an issue never stopped the RNC before. Why change now? That these letters are patronizing goes without saying. So who buys their premise then? Well, as a public service, today, I will. As a loyal Republican, I will take the questionnaire and place my answers below. And I’ll even write out my position beyond answering “yes,” “no” or “undecided.”
DOMESTIC SECURITY
Do you support President Bush’s initiatives to promote the safety and security of all Americans? ANSWER: Yes. And I am highly irritated at President Bush’s lack of initiative by failing to identify by name that it is Islamic militants and the nation-states that sponsor them that threaten the safety and security of all Americans. US policy should be more nuanced that being against “evil-doers.” It’s like the Saturday morning cartoons. George Bush–He’s against evil.
Do you support the creation of an Office of Homeland Security? ANSWER: No. The security of the US does not require the establishment of a new cabinet-level bureaucratic arm to protect the nation from Islamic militants. Defense Department bombs work just fine.
Would you support increasing the amount of security at airports, train stations and all government buildings including monuments and museums? ANSWER: No. I support taking the battle to the enemy by destroying his ability to project force. The battle against terrorism should be fought in its breeding ground: the nation-states that support terrorists.
Do you feel safe in your home? ANSWER: Yes. I own a pistol. Now as for my cooking. . .
Do you feel safe traveling in this country? ANSWER. No. I do not think the US is aggressively destroying the terrorists and the states that sponsor them.
Is your answer the same for international travel? ANSWER: Unless I’m heading to Iceland by boat, no. See above.
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
Do you support economic sanctions against nations who do not actively support and provide assistance to Operation Enduring Freedom (The Defense Department’s name for all military actions related to the September 11th attacks?) ANSWER: No. I support the US acting unilaterally in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. If a critical nation in the strategic theater of operations fails to either destroy the terrorists themselves or fails to allow the US freedom of movement to destroy the terrorists, I support the use of more punitive measures than mere sanctions.
Do you support the use of air strikes against any country that offers safe harbor or aid to individuals or organizations committed to attacks on America? ANSWER: No. I do not believe that the US force package in the war against terrorism should be arbitrarily limited to solely air power. I support the use of any and all force operationally necessary against any country that offers safe harbor or aid to individuals or organizations committed to attacks on America.
Do you support increasing the use of covert operatives in targeted areas? ANSWER: Yes. I also think that people shouldn’t eat babies.
EDUCATIONAL ISSUES
Should we make our schools accountable to taxpayers and parents in order to improve our educational system? ANSWER: No. We should make schools accountable to parents who pay for their children’s education by abolishing the public schools. Look, Ma: education, the real third rail of American politics. I touched it.
Do you support President Bush’s plan to make our schools more accountable to parent’s and restore local control of education? ANSWER: Yes. I think we should have a national plan for local control. Or is that a local plan for national control? I must still be foggy from touching that third rail.
Do you support reforms proposed by the Bush Administration to improve curriculum, invest more in training teachers and create safer schools for our children. ANSWER: No. That’s the national plan for local control question again, isn’t it? Besides, spending more money on the public schools only builds bigger bureaucracies, not smarter kids. See any large city public school system for blinding proof on that one.
Do you think that teaching our children to read and increasing literacy rates should be a national priority? ANSWER: Alright, at this point you’re just frigging with my rigging, right? Isn’t this a the same question as asking if I think eating babies should be made a crime? Oh, I forget. Making something a “national priority” means using the coercive power the state to do something that isn’t a proper government’s job. In that case, no. Any pair of idiots who breed and yet fail to teach their children how to read deserve kids who on Father’s Day and Mother’s Day can only give them the middle finger to express their affections.
SOCIAL ISSUES
Do you support President Bush’s initiative to allow private religious and charitable groups to help those in need through faith-based initiatives? ANSWER: No. The President’s plan is not to merely “allow” private religious and charitable groups to help those in need; they already have that right. Rather, it is a plan that would use the coercive power of the state to compel citizens via their tax dollars to fund private religious and charitable groups to carry out the government’s redistribution of wealth scheme. Somehow I think putting Jerry Falwell and Pat Robinson in the welfare business would only encourage them. Redistributing wealth is already wrong; the Bush plan would make it worse.
Should we take the next step in welfare reform though faith-based programs? ANSWER: No. The proper “next step” in welfare reform would be outright abolition, including all corporate welfare, and a commensurate reduction in taxes. The Bush plan is shrewd–it seeks to unite the left’s love for redistribution of wealth with the right’s affection for religion. The Bush plan should be opposed on both levels.
DEFENSE ISSUES
Do you think US troops should have to serve under United Nations’ commanders? ANSWER: No. Not even if they get nice blue berets to go with the army’s black ones.
Do you think that the US should modernize our national defense to meet the challenges of the 21st century–such as building a ballistic missile defense system? ANSWER: Yes. And I think the US should expand the US airlift and sealift capabilities so as to allow it to protect American interests in any part of the world without reliance on regimes of dubious legitimacy (such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, to name two.)
Do you support the President’s plan to increase military spending to meet our defense needs? ANSWER: Yes. And then some. And then some more. (But I’d get the US out of Europe. I’m not a complete pushover.)
REPUBLICAN PARTY
Do you support the election of Republican candidates across the country and rebuilding our majorities over the next ten years. ANSWER: Right, the question that gives Objectivists the shakes come every election. I’ll commit to this: I’ll support a Republican as president and I’ll support Republicans in the House, but given Republican’s mixed record in actually defending things I value, I will shed no tears if the Democrats control the Senate. Frankly, in a world of confused political premises, gridlock works best for me.
Will you join the Republican National Committee by making a donation today? ANSWER: Sure. When the first Objectivist runs for congress and the party supports him. Until then, to quote the old Smith’s song, “You just haven’t earned it yet baby.”
