An Analysis of the Ideas of Sam Brownback
GrassTopsUSA Exclusive Commentary
By Gennady Stolyarov II
05-29-07
To further
educate voters about Republican contenders for the presidency, it is
fitting to examine the ideas of Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, a
generally reliable social and economic conservative, many of whose
suggested policies are in accord with the principles of limited
government. Here, I will examine the strong points of Brownback’s
platform, as well as the positions where his vagueness hurts him and
hinders voters’ understanding of his true intentions.
Brownback has
strong conservative positions on the issuesof marriage, abortion,
and tax reform. His support for the traditional definition of
marriage as an institution between one man and one woman is
unambiguous. Brownback’s official position on the subject declares:
“Make no mistake, a society that undermines marriage and the family
is undermining itself, and a government that attempts to supplant
rather than to support the family and marriage is bent on its own
destruction.” Senator Brownback thus vigorously opposes any efforts
to give government support to the oxymoronic idea of “gay marriage.”
Brownback has
also firmly denounced legalized abortion, calling the murder of
millions of fetuses in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade a
“holocaust.” He staunchly opposes any further tax increases,
advocating a flat tax and a simplification of the tax code; he has
even suggested using Washington, D. C., as a flat tax laboratory to
see how the proposal might work in practice before implementing it
nationwide.
A prominent
opponent of judicial activism, Senator Brownback believes that the
objective of judges ought to be “to interpret the law, not to create
it.” He has expressed vocal opposition to the federal judges
redefining the laws of the country and the meaning of words in the
Constitution to suit their own political biases.
Brownback’s
professed opposition to socialized medicine is grounds for hope,
especially in the face of such champions of state-funded health care
as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The senator believes that “the
socialized medicine model has shown to deprive consumers of access
to life-saving treatments and is downright inconsistent with the
spirit of the American people to be free from unwanted government
intervention.” This suffices to suggest that Brownback, if elected,
will not further plunge the American healthcare system toward
statism.
Another
strength of Brownback’s platform is his strongly worded support
toward Israel, a country that in his words “serves as a beacon of
freedom and hope in an otherwise troubled region.” If elected,
Brownback is not likely to follow the present administration’s
approach of giving half-hearted endorsements of Israel while
preventing the Israeli military and settlers from defending
themselves against the terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah.
While
Brownback is generally a convincing and principled social and
economic conservative, he is weak on issues where his positions are
vaguely expressed. He recognizes, for instance, the crisis faced by
the current Social Security system, but his response to it lacks
specificity. Brownback writes, “We must firmly resolve to keep our
commitment to current retirees and those preparing to retire.
Further, we must modernize the system to ensure that Social Security
is financially sound for our children. I believe every American has
a stake in this debate, and I will continue to keep the dialogue
open as we work toward a solution.”
Few candidates
or voters will take issue with Brownback’s first statement; whatever
the deep flaws of the Social Security system might be, the
government needs to keep the promises it made to individuals under
that system. But how does Senator Brownback propose to
modernize Social Security? What kind of solution does he want
to work toward? There is no mention of either partially privatizing
or gradually abolishing this failed system, so readers are left with
no guarantees that Brownback will not simply perpetuate the status
quo.
Brownback’s
stances on agriculture give a further illustration of how vagueness
in his positions hurts the Kansas senator. He writes, “I believe in
agriculture innovation and remain committed to efforts that will
help enable farmers to embrace the production of biofuels such as
ethanol. I will continue to support America’s agriculture industry
by bolstering rural communities and the efforts of America’s
farmers.” The question advocates of limited government ought to ask
about this position is: how does Brownback want to support
the production of biofuels? Is it through tax credits to
farmers who produce them—which takes money away from government and
puts it into the private sector—or is it through taxpayer-funded
subsidies that are nothing more than a concealed coercive
redistribution of wealth?
In truth, the
policies Brownback historically advocated to promote alternative
fuels are not at odds with limited government. His 2006 Dependence
Reduction through Innovation in Vehicles and Energy (DRIVE) Act took
the approach of offering extensive tax credits to developers of
ethanol fuels, as well as hybrid and electric cars. Since taxpayers
are not additionally burdened by the granting of tax credits, this
is not an instance of redistribution of wealth, nor does it grow the
scope of government; it is just the giving back of a certain
percentage of those manufacturers’ tax contributions. But
Brownback’s vague wording makes it unclear to voters whether the
senator opposes increased agricultural subsidies on principle;
there are still no guarantees that a President Brownback will
not give alternative fuel manufacturers a portion of everybody
else’s hard-earned money.
Another
worrisome part of Brownback’s platform is a passage that seems like
advocacy of a national ID card: “A
secure, fraud-resistant ID must be the foundation of a robust
worksite enforcement system that requires every new employee to be
screened for valid work authorization.” If there is any quick, easy
way to strangle a robust economy, it is by adding more bureaucracy
to the employment process. The costs in terms of time and resources
of searching for and finding a job are already astronomically high.
Adding an additional layer of “screening” will not only delay the
employment of qualified individuals; it is certain to lead to
law-abiding Americans being denied jobs for which they are
qualified, based on the false suspicions and mistakes of even
well-intentioned government bureaucrats. Any measure which imposes
inconveniences on all people in America will do nothing to
solve the problem of illegal immigration; it will only stifle the
freedoms of people who have done no wrong. But does Brownback truly
want that kind of screening, or a different, less intrusive
sort? Again, his words do not make that clear.
Is Sam Brownback a
truly worthwhile choice for the presidency? He is certainly worthy
of consideration, and his consistent, resolute stances on issues
such as marriage, abortion, and judicial activism place him well
ahead of other contenders. However, Brownback’s sometimes
inscrutable language conceals his true intentions in areas like
Social Security, alternative fuels, and IDs for employees. It is
vital to have pro-freedom stances on each of these subjects, and
whether Brownback qualifies remains to be seen.
Gennady Stolyarov II is
Editor-in-Chief of
The Rational Argumentator, a magazine championing the principles
or Reason, Rights, and Progress. His works have been published by
Le Quebecois Libre,
Enter Stage Right Magazine, the
Ludwig von Mises Institute,
Rebirth of Reason, and other organizations. Mr. Stolyarov can be
contacted at
gennadystolyarovii@yahoo.com.
GrassTopsUSA is a 501c4
not-for-profit organization. Contributions are not tax deductible.
Copyright
GrasstopsUSA.com 2007
