My worry has long been that if Senator McCain didn’t win the 2008 election and failed to bring more moderate, less socially conservative, ideals to the Republican party that it would go the way of the Federalist and the Whig parties of the past.  We’re failing to connect (both figuratively and literally) with the younger side of the party in favor of the older side of the party, who are the most socially conservative.

If we are to avoid our impending doom, we need to change our rhetoric.  Barack Obama, like Ronald Reagan was for the Republicans, is setting the standard for the Democratic party.  College and High School students who would not have been involved in the process, were more so then ever (even if they did not or could not vote), leading me to predict a generation of people who will think they are Democrats for their superficial support of Obama.

Now, in 2009 and the immediate future, we have a unique opportunity to change the dismal forecast for the Republican party.  It is time for us to drop three issues that the loudest and most annoying of us are pursuing so loudly and annoyingly.

1. Abortion – I do believe that the Republican party is on the right side of the abortion issue because I believe human life to begin at conception, but we need to drop this issue because, to independents and moderate Democrats, we are increasingly being viewed as a party where only one issue really matters.  The choice of Governor Palin as McCain’s running mate, really boiled down to one issue: abortion.  When the idea was floated that McCain might pick a pro-choice running mate like former Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge or Senator Lieberman, all hell broke lose in the authoritarian social conservative branch of the party.When it comes down to it, abortion is really a philosophical debate and not a religious debate as ’so-cons’ would have you believe.  No religious texts, including the Bible, mention abortion… at all.  Fanatics stretch the meaning of words and passages to follow their belief abortion is a sin against God.  But when it comes down to it, religious texts are silent on the issue… because abortion did not really exist at the time in which they were written. The issue is strictly a philosophical debate because it poses a question religion is mute on, and science can never answer: when does human life begin?  Does it begin at conception, birth, or somewhere in between?  This issue is like the old rhetorical question “‘if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”, because the answer depends upon the beliefs and thoughts of the person.  Science can tell you the boiling point of water, but it can never answer a question the humans themselves interpret so drastically differently.

   Furthermore, religion should never be used as justification for making something legal or illegal.  I can recognize that people think that their religious beliefs guide them on this issue, but every single person has a different belief.  If somebody can come up with a non-religious argument about why we should make abortion illegal, I would probably support it (and support the Republican party supporting it).  But until then, we should keep quiet on this issue and raise our children with whatever belief set to which we subscribe.

   Also, it is important that the issue of abortion be separated from the issue of embryonic stem cell research. On the issue, they look to be very similar, however it is my assertion that they are not because abortions are a waste of precious human cells that could, theoretically and in practice save millions of lives. Most importantly, it would be possible for researchers to use the thousands of leftover embryos from procedures like in vitro fertilization that otherwise get thrown away.

2. Gay Marriage – Republicans, though few will admit – perhaps logically so, are already on the wrong historical side of the issue of gay marriage.  Opponents would argue that only two states have gay marriage and that a major victory was achieved in liberal California with the passage of proposition eight.  This is true and currently makes the issue look like social conservatives are winning the war over marriage but a few things are going to happen that are going to drastically change the tide of this argument.  Firstly, Obama and the Democratically-controlled Congress is going to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996.  This will force the federal government and every state to recognize same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and Connecticut meaning that laws against gay marriage in the other 48 states will be effectively meaningless because all gay couples will have to do is take a trip to New England to get married.  I would guess that eventually, states will just give in and allow gays to marry in their respective home states.
3. Creationism/Intelligent Design – Opposition to teaching evolution in science classrooms is one of the most ridiculous things that many in the Republican party still trumpet.  While it is the right of any person to believe whatever they want, our schools need to be educating students in the fields of science to be competent with students from other countries. Indoctrinate them at home and in church; let the schools give them real science.

Hopefully, with these issues no longer at the forefront of our party platforms, we can begin to forge a new path for ourselves.  I strongly believe that by “staying-the-course” with social conservativism the Republican party is creating its own downfall.

Perhaps the biggest issue that President-elect Obama will face in his tenure as President is the issue of the future of energy.  Many problems have begun to arise with our current system of energy, primarily:

• Unfriendly energy suppliers – many are concerned that our own money may end up going to fund terrorist operations that act out against American and American interests throughout the world.
• Some scientists believe Earth’s stores of fossil fuels are beginning to become depleted.
• While I’m not sold on the idea yet, many people believe that carbon emissions are not only contributing to global warming but are its direct cause.

While it has become obvious to nearly all that we will have to make changes the ways in which we power our country, many people disagree on the appropriate path to follow.  Some argue that we should rely exclusively on passive and renewable sources of energy like solar or wind based power while others argue that it would be far more effective to fall back on to tested and readily available sources of energy, namely nuclear power.  Others yet advocate for the holding off of switching the power sources in the hope that promising research and theories will flourish into actionable solutions to our energy crisis.

But the only way that we can effectively transition our sources of power is to utilize all the different types of energy that are available to us.  Our leaders need to be able to understand and take advantage of market forces to create the energy change, but they also need to recognize that the dire need to transition and have to be willing to use governmental power to help aid the process along.

While I am by no means an expert on energy, I would argue that I have at least the similar level of understanding of the issue that most of our elected officials that will be in charge of the process have.  Here is my plan:

The Next Five Years (Cost-saving, intelligent conservation)

New systems don’t implement themselves overnight so it is very unlikely that any source of alternative energy will emerge in the next five years.  Therefore, the best way to proceed for both the government and the energy advocate is to encourage conservation.

Many people might cringe when they think of conservation because they think it means that they will have alter their lifestyles, but the kind of conservation that should be advocated is the intelligent kind.  Americans cannot and will not change their lifestyles, but most do not have too much of a problem changing a light-bulb.  Replacing incandescent bulbs with compact-florescent bulbs saves time (CF bulbs do not need to be changed as often), energy (the CF equivalent of a 60 Watt incandescent bulb uses about 15 Watts) and money (because CF bulbs use less energy and does not need to be changed as often).  Plus if you think that Global Warming is caused by human activity, then you’ll be happy to learn that compact-florescent bulbs emit less CO2.

Other changes may require minor changes in lifestyle, but at least in my opinion they are worth the money they save.  For instance, turning off electric devices (including lights) that aren’t in use or carpooling when possible.

And while most people are not thinking about purchasing a new vehicle during this time of economic uncertainty, when it is time for a new vehicle, people would do themselves a favor if they purchased a smaller, more fuel efficient car.  Most people with big trucks and SUVs don’t even use them to their full extent and thus they become a waste of money as well as a waste of gas.  If you can afford the upfront cost, I would recommend going for the hybrid cars.

The Next Ten Years (Implementing pre-existing technology)

While many technological advances will be made in the next ten years, for the most part it is unlikely that they will be actionable, meaning that the best thing that can be done is to build and refortify our system with the less effective, already invented technology.

Hydropower, although already used extensively, should be further implemented wherever possible.  New nuclear power plants should also be used, both to replace aging plants and to provide alternative and additional energy.
Other renewables such as wind and solar should be utilized.  I don’t know what ten years will do to the expense of these technologies, but if they are not economically feasible a decade from now, the government should issue tax credits to stimulate their usage.

If wind and solar power are going to be used as part of a large generation and distribution system, experts say upgrades will need to be made to our power grid so that power can be transmitted over a much wider area.
By this time the government should have taken steps, if necessary, to ensure that high fuel efficiency cars and hybrids dominate the market.  One would hope however that the change would be entirely powered by the free market and the government would not need to step in.  Electric “town” cars should also begin to become feasible for above average, but not exceedingly rich, markets.

Finally, over the next decade, the government should begin to revitalize public transportation as we know it.  It should be possible for people to quickly travel between regional large cities by train.  Major changes need to be made to the ways that existing train systems (Amtrack) operate to make them quicker and more punctual.  It should also be mandatory that every city over a certain population invests in some sort of a train/subway based public transit system.

The Distant Future – Twenty+ years (Discoverying and Implementing New Technologies)

Most people would like to see the results of the promise of new technology, like hydrogen based cars, today, but it can take a long time to work ideas into something tangible and real.  Of course progress has already been made in areas like hydrogen or methane energy generation but major problems still face these technologies.  They just aren’t realistic in the present, but they could be in the future.  Therefore, we should never give up our research on this issue.

A Final Word

I have no doubt that innovative American spirit that has given the world all the comforts of modern life will be able to find new energy solutions to power the next century and beyond.  While many have doubts about whether this generation will be able to maintain and improve the American lifestyle, I believe that it could not be more clear that our country and our world stands on the brink of a new golden age.

My attitude before the election was that anything less than a Republican win for the Presidential and the Second Congressional race would be a complete disaster.  I thought that if Americans elected Obama to the highest office of the land that any shot at putting partisanship behind us would ultimately be lost.  Since that night, I’ve come to better understand a few things about American politics and America.

The first is that, while it is too soon to completely know, my pre-November 4th judgments about Barack Obama were mostly incorrect.  I compared the prospective Obama to the partisanship displayed under the Bush administration, worrying that under Obama we would have nothing but the last eight years under the guise of a different President from a different party.

But Obama has done something that in my estimation is really good for the country.  He’s made a real effort to reach across the aisle in a similar way that I think McCain would have done.  President-elect Obama is still a Democrat, and many of his choices reflect a more liberal approach to governance, but many also reflect a level of moderateness that I did not expect.  A lot of his cabinet and administration are people who served in the relatively moderate Clinton administration.  Obama has even chosen a couple Bush administration officials like Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

Nobody can know until President-elect Obama becomes President Obama on the 20th of January exactly how he will govern, but if his cabinet selections are any indication of the true Obama then I don’t think the next four years will be as dark for the country as I predicted.

While I have come to believe that the country is in good hands (even if they aren’t the hands I would have chosen), the same cannot be said for the Republican party.  Our party faces some serious challenges in the coming weeks, months and years and some serious changes are going to have to be made; changes that I am not yet confident people will accept.

There are people like Kim Lehman (one of the people widely credited as responsible for hurting Mariannette Miller-Meeks with false propanganda) all over the Republican party, from the very roots all the way up to the top.  Will the party be able to weed out those who seek to damage others for minor political philosophy differences, whether real or imagined?

While I do not wish this to be true, it might entirely be possible that the Republican party will have to lose a few more elections before it finally realizes the necessity of getting in touch with 21st century.  With any luck we can resolve our problems in two years so that we may capitalize on the Democratic party’s lack of resolution of their problems.  Having an extremely charismatic and talent candidate allowed them to win despite their problems.

Finally, I urge Republicans not to act like the Democrats in their treatment of a President of the opposite party.  I actually had a Democratic friend tell me before the election that she didn’t believe President Bush was her President.  Beliefs like that are truly a precursor to the end of our republican democracy.  We all need to accept that Barack Obama will be our President on the January 20, 2008.  Without a doubt we’ll have disagreements with the President and his party, but echoing Senator McCain, we are fellow Americans, and nothing means more.

America! Go out and vote!

And please choose carefully because our country is far to important to waste on beautifully delivered speeches, and charismatic rhetoric.

Choose the candidate who can help heal the divide caused by partisanship.  Choose Sentator John McCain as the next President.

Iowans are especially privileged to have a chance to elect somebody just as capable of fixing the bitterness in Washington in Dr. Mariannette Miller-Meeks.  I hope that we can make the right choice.

All voters need to see this site: http://professorpacman.com/ .  Learn the truth about Congressman Loebsack… and vote for Dr. Mariannette Miller-Meeks on November 4th!