The Civil Servant Refuted

Since today is Labor Day, I thought I would take some time to write about some of the labor issues we face today. Specifically, I want to, as the title indicates discuss the Civil Service. Given that this is one of the few areas where Labor Unions are seeing membership growth, it is appropriate to, given the Union influence on Labor Day, discuss the Civil Service.

For my Public Administration class, I was assigned an article entitled The Value of Public Service. In this article, the author, a County Manager in Florida, seeks to make the case that Public Sector employees are caring citizens who, through their profession, seek to better the communities we live and work in.

To someone who does not follow politics or interact with Civil Servants, his case might be compelling. He states general platitudes about the good that Civil Servants, at least on paper, are supposed to do. However, when real life examples of the Civil Service are held up against Mr. Reid's platitudes, his voice begins to ring a little hollow. Through a paragraph-by-paragraph cross examination of his arguments, I will demonstrate, using real life examples, why what he claims to be the nature of Civil Servants and the service they provide is not, in reality, true.

Let's start with the first paragraph. In this paragraph, he claims that

Thanks to the actions of our citizens thru public programs, the natural beauty of our countryside remains intact and protected and our economy is rebounding.

Our economy is rebounding? Really? That's news to me. I guess that unemployment is getting better and that O% Job Growth in August means that good times are right around the corner.

On the other hand, and in all fairness to him, it is entirely possible that by the phrase "our economy" he meant the economy of the Civil Service. If this is the case, then he is entirely correct. Under Obama, we have, between a $1T 'Stimulus' package, a $1T 'Healthcare Reform' bill and mind boggling appropriations and Omnibus spending bills, seen an unprecedented growth in the size, scope, and cost of our government. No doubt all that Federal spending is good for Civil Servants, which explains why 60% of Washington D.C. residents think that the economy is getting better. No doubt Civil Servants all across the country are experiencing a similar spending induced sugar high right now.

Moving on to the second paragraph, we see a patently false and misleading claim about Ayn Rand's classic novel, Atlas Shrugged:

Public sector employees are not the “non producers” of the currently popular Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” worldview.

Clearly, he has not read Atlas. If he had read it, he would know that Rand was concerned with "Second Handers," that is, people who define themselves by those around them. An excellent example of this type of person from the book is James Taggart, the primary antagonist. James is incapable of making a decision unless one of his cronies has made it for him, or he thinks it part of his company's "social responsibility." All of the antagonists in the novel dislike themselves and are afraid to stand on their own, which is contrary to her individual-centered philosophy.

In addition, Rand is not the anti-government wacko that Mr. Reid portrays her. Rand recognizes that there is a role (albeit a very limited one) for government to play. Where she becomes anti-government is when governmental power is used to compel individuals to act in a certain way, buy a certain product, or to take property from one individual for another individual's benefit.

In addition he is entirely wrong about the nature of the benefits provided by the civil service.

The public sector serves a three-fold vital role as the provider of public goods, guardians of the commons and promoters a civic life essential to our communities.

What is a public good? As any microeconomics textbook will tell you, a public good is one that is both non-rival, that is, it can be enjoyed at the same time by an infinite number of consumers, as well as a good that is non-excludable, that is, a good where it is not possible to prevent people who have not paid for it from accessing it. Let's take a look at some of these "public goods" provided by our civil servants:

Is, for example, a police force a public good? No. First of all, it is rivalrous. There are only so many cops on duty at any one point in time, and as a result, they cannot serve all "customers" at one time. Also, they like to sit around on the side of the road and find "customers" to "serve." In addition, private security firms can provide similar protection services. Granted, everyone benefits from having a police force, namely in lower crime rates. It is non-excludable, although whether or not they respond to your call is up to their dispatcher. In that sense, an argument can be made based on the availability of this service that it indeed actually is an excludable good. This is but one example.

Second what does he mean by the commons? Parks? Highways? The airwaves? Public employees are not the "guardians" of these. They enforce the laws, but that is subsumed by law enforcement. Therefore, this "guardianship" of the "commons" is completely dependent on the previous function.

What is "promotion of civic life"? Operas? Symphonies? East-Asian lesbian underwater basket-weaving troupes? What business does government have in funding or promoting these private organizations?

It's odd that he wants to promote a private organization, especially given his views on them:

Private sector organizations while effective community partners, can be trusted to desire to do so only to the extent they can commercialize it for profit or create positive branding through their actions.

What about non-profit groups, such as charities or faith-based organizations? What about private organizations that get people involved in civic affairs or volunteer work? Are they eeeevviiilll as well?

And what is wrong with making a profit? Thanks to the ridiculageous profits made by Big Evil Corp., it's employees can afford to provide food, a roof, and clothing for their families. Thanks to Big Evil Corp. and its employees,  the city/county/state/federal government now has tax revenues to pay civil servants, like the author.

Word to the wise: Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Government revenue does not exist but for taxes, and taxes do not get paid if companies aren't making money. Think about that the next time you go to demonize corporations.

Having shown the civil servant to have no understanding of economics, let's examine his principles:

...first, as practitioners, we must strive to preserve in this era our fundamental belief in democratic government.

We live in a Republic. Democracy is tyranny dressed up like Pamela Anderson.

Secondly, we must believe that a civilized society cannot function effectively without “effective” government and we make that effectiveness a reality each day to the degree we can attain it.

Government, by its very nature, is ineffective, and thankfully so.

Thirdly, we must believe that those dedicated employees around us working in government are not the problem as much as the bureaucratic systems in which we are to this day forced to work in that are the principle problem with government.

As my friend Rachael over at undoctrination might say: "lolwut?" These "bureaucratic systems" are as much the product of the personnel who work within them as they are the processes that occur within them. The two are mutually inclusive, and cannot be separated from each other. The clerk at the DMV License counter is only as good as the workflow for processing the paperwork. The same principle applies to any employee working within any agency with standardized processes and procedures. Which is to say, all of them.

Fourthly, we must believe that neither traditional liberalism nor conservatism has much relevance to the problems that our governments face today and there exists a need for pragmatic and non ideological solutions.

Of course ideology is relevant to problems faced by our governments. Did all of our elected officials just suddenly decide to ditch any principles they may or may not have, join hands, and sing 'Kumbaya'? The fact of the matter is that our policy processes are, by their very nature, and at all stages, ideological and partisan. They always have been, and always will be. To think otherwise is to miss both the trees and the forest.

Finally we must commit to provide equal opportunity for all of our citizens to prosper and reach their potential.

Which is why discriminatory policies such as affirmative action and Title IX are so gleefully implemented by university officials? Which is why public schools are so good? Just to name a few policies and institutions that do the exact opposite of providing equal opportunity to our citizens.

Next, I am going to examine the civil servant's view of his co-workers and their attitudes.

In my experience, our public sector peers start off each morning with a totally different set of fundamental questions in their minds than our private sector counterparts in community life, who must measure their profit margins and commercial viability.

Again, what's so wrong with being able to make a profit? And what about those "peers" in charitable organizations? Is your mindset different from theirs?

Many of our public employees start every day with the well-being of the entire community in mind and specific issues essential to community prosperity and health they must grapple.

Such as, how much longer until I can retire and get that cushy pension?

Questions considered by the private sector are tangential or seek a nexus to community problems only if they can commercialize the opportunity, profit off the commons or assist their corporate branding by association to community building efforts.

What about social entrepeneurs? Are they evil profiteers as well?

Corporate loyalty to a specific place is a dying value in today’s global or absentee businesses ownership.

I honestly have no clue where you've been all your life. In case you needed a wake up call, it has always been this way. Businesses have always sought to be located in the best possible location.

One recurring theme throughout history has been the seeking of better ports and better supplies of raw materials, so as to make one's business or nation wealthier by improving its commerce. We see this in the motives of the kings and queens of Europe who financed explorers such as Columbus, who sought a better route to India. We see this as the driving factor behind the colonialism of the 18th and 19th century, with the European powers vying for control over the best islands in the Caribbean (which incidentally was one of France's motives for helping us during the Revolutionary War.) We see this in the decline of the American auto industry, where wages and regulatory compliance got to be too costly for Detroit and Flint to remain as viable manufacturing centers.

The civil servant's lack of business acumen accounted for, we also find that he supports government mission creep:

Public employees ask humane questions such as if anyone is going hungry today? Are citizens in danger because of temperature extremes? How can we help keep citizens healthy? Is someone in despair because of illness but unable to afford treatment? Is a veteran feeling lost and isolated? Does a victim of violent crime need assistance? Can a non-profit organization help tend to those in need? Did a person’s race prevent them from renting a home?

The fact of the matter is, one of those questions contains the answer to all of the others. I'll give you one hint: It contains the evil "p" word, profit. Whether a local, faith-based organization or a nationwide secular charity, organizations exist at all level to assist in these problems.

Aside from taking care of our veterans, when did these problems become the responsibilities of the government? Government does not exist to provide senior citizens with air conditioning in the summer, it exists to secure the fundamental rights and liberties of individuals.

It also appears that the civil servant is an advocate of some form of Central Planning:

Public employees plan for a better future for their communities. They plan for the benefits of their citizens and preservation of historical places while balancing the impact of new development.

Because public planning has worked wonders everywhere it has been tried?

We ask what our communities will look like in fifty years.

Miss Cleo is a civil servant? No one can know for certain what a community will look like five years, let alone 50. Take, for example, the town of Empire, NV. A company town, it's main product was Gypsum, which is used in the manufacture of drywall. Before the housing bubble burst, no doubt it's prospects looked good: More houses being built means more drywall is being ordered. More drywall being ordered means more gypsum is needed. Now that the housing bubble has burst, thanks to imprudent policies made by people thousands of miles away, it has literally become a ghost town. The point here is that there are thousands of variables that affect what a community will look like in the future, and it is absurd to sit around and think that some planning office can state with certainty what community x will look like in z years.

After asking some more questions that are really just excuses for government mission creep, the civil servant then goes on to describe the manner in which he believes civil servants must operate:

Public employees ask if we have responsibly enhanced our democratic ideals and sufficiently gathered citizen concerns on important issues.

Again, and I know this is a really hard concept to grasp: we are a Republic, not a Democracy. Democracy is tyranny dressed up like Daisy Duke.

Have we made our government more accessible to all people?

Thankfully, yes, government has become, at least on the surface, more transparent and accessible. For example, FOIA has made most Federal records accessible to individuals and organizations interested in the actions of a particular agency. Likewise, most states have adopted a similar law opening up their records to scrutiny. The one drawback is that not all documents are available upon request, nor is every request complied with. A lot of the time, these requests just sit and sit, or there existence is never even acknowledged. As can be seen, the government has a long way to go in making itself transparent and accessible.

Have we responded to citizen questions in a helpful and timely way?

Not often. Usually, all that is received is a lot of jargon or bullspit. A lot of the time, officials just dodge or refuse to take the question. Take, for example, Los Angeles County's perpetual war against the residents of Antelope Valley, a high desert plateau. Under guise of abating "...the more difficult code violations and public nuisance conditions on private property" County officials have been raiding, in full paramilitary gear, individuals of little to no means whose houses, while technically in violation of building codes, are nowhere near being a threat to anyone else. When asked about it, Mike Antonovich, the County Supervisor in charge of this project refused to take the question.

While this is just one case, certainly this scene and others like it occur on a daily basis with agencies and officials all across the country refusing to answer for their actions and the consequences of those actions.

Are we providing civic education opportunities and forums for civic conversations, as well as formal public hearings and processes?

Yes, but are you guys listening?

As ethical public managers and employees we need to listen to our critics closely and respectfully as citizens and concentrate on fiscal accountability, effective governance and outstanding performance at each of our public tasks and responsibilities.

Go tell that to the Public Employee Unions (PEUs) in Wisconsin. Unless, of course, this is what is meant by listening closely and respectfully to critics.

If we work hard, treat our elected officials, peers and our citizens with respect and civility, we can answer any question and respond to any challenge our communities face.

See above.

As I have shown, there is a stark contrast between the claims made by the civil servant as to his profession, and the reality of his profession. Are all civil servants grossly incompetent? No, but the ones that you deal with on a day-to-day basis are. Nor is this post intended to disparage the seemingly competent ones. It is my hope that on this labor day, you will go and discuss the issues we face as we head into the 21st century, and that you won't shy away from controversy, especially when it comes to the hot, controversial, and necessary topic of civil service reform.

Treasury Secretary Hamilton

On this day, in 1789, the United States Department of the Treasury was founded. At it's helm was a most capable individual by the name of Alexander Hamilton. As part of the first cabinet, he had the opportunity to significantly influence the direction of the young Republic. And influence it he would.

Hamilton was the perfect fit for the job. Although President Washington had enough experience and knowledge that he was capable of serving as his own Secretary of State or Secretary of War, he knew next to nothing about the subject of finance. Hamilton, on the other hand, had a profound grasp of the subject, as well as experience working in the area. When he was nine, he went to work as a clerk at a counting house in St. Croix. During the Revolutionary War, he would read in his spare time any book on the subject he could get his hands on.

In addition to being one of the most influential delegates at the Philadelphia Convention (Article II, the Executive Branch, was his doing) and the ratification (The Federalist Papers were his idea, he wrote the bulk of them, and he was influential in persuading New York to ratify the Constitution), he also had a profound impact on our financial system.

In January of 1790, he delivered the First Report on the Public Credit to Congress. In this report, he argued that it was necessary for the United States government to pay off it's Revolutionary War debt at it's face value. In addition, he proposed that the Federal government assume the debts that the states had left over.

He also advocated a central bank, with the argument being that it would be easier for the government to perform day-to-day financial operations via a central bank. At the time, this was a very controversial proposal. Thomas Jefferson (wrongfully) doubted the constitutionality of it. Even today, the idea of central banking is controversial, with many economists and politicians advocating for the abolition of the Federal Reserve Bank and a return to the gold standard.

Despite arguments against the bank at the time, the United States become a leading economic power during the 19th century, with our financial system having a profound impact upon Otto von Bismarck's Germany and the Meiji Restoration in Japan. Because of Hamilton's system, the United States is one of the most, if not the most, economically prosperous countries in the world.

Class

My first class, "Civil Rights & Liberties" starts in a couple of hours. From what I've heard, the professor is a big fan of the liberal hero Thurgood Marshall. This will definitely get interesting. Especially if we talk about my favorite amendment, Numero Dos.

What to do about Rick Perry? - Part 2

In my previous post about Rick Perry, I looked into his record as a Democrat in the Texas House of Representatives during the 1980's, as well as noted the fact that he was a prominent activist for the Democrats in the 1988 Presidential Election. The next logical step in inquiring as to whether Gov. Perry is a "true-blue" Conservative or an opportunist is to examine his tenure in statewide office as a Republican during the 1990's, as well as the conditions which may or may not have led to his decision to jump ship. Since the latter predates the former, I will start by examining the changing political environment in Texas at the time.

Texas has not always been the GOP bulwark that it is today. In fact, even as recently as 1980, Republicans held only four of the US House of Representatives seats, and had virtually no say in state and local politics. How could this occur in, of all places, Texas? Up until the 1970's, the Texas Democratic Party was a conservative, rural party. During the 70's, the Democratic Party in Texas, like Democratic organizations elsewhere, got hijacked by the moonbat left. These nutcases were so convinced that their candidates and ideas could win general elections - even in Texas - that they started "primarying"more moderate or conservative incumbent Democrats for the sake of maintaining ideological purity.

An ideological shift alone, however, is not enough to produce a massive shift in a state's voting behavior.  A more likely factor, and the one that Rove* argues is most significant, is a massive shift in Texas' demographics. As an examination of census data shows, Texas' population skyrocketed between 1960 and now (1960-1990 data available here, 2000-present available here.) As can be seen by examining Presidential election returns (available through the Texas Sec. of State here), as the state's population grew, the Republican candidate generally did better and better, until, starting in the 1980's, the state became a Republican stronghold.

Both trends - voting more Republican and a boom in the population - accelerated throughout the 1980's and into the 1990's. This is around the time that the subject of this post, Perry, switched parties.

Is it a possibility that this was all a coincidence? Yes, it certainly is. As was noted above, the Democratic Party had started to be hijacked by the loony left back in the 1970's. With a bunch of old-line Democrats retiring, space was made for new blood, which would have been batsh*t crazy progressives. So yes, it is entirely possibly that Perry took a look around, saw that this wasn't his daddy's Democratic Party, and, with a little persuasion, started sitting on the right side of the aisle since his party had left him.

It's also possible that he took a look around, saw the changing demographics, and decided that he could pass a Republican. Without knowing what exactly drove his decision to change parties, nor the conversations he had, it is impossible to determine the exact reason why he decided to switch parties. However, a look at his record while in statewide office should provide a useful look into whether or not he is actually a conservative.

In 1990, Rick Perry was elected to the post of Texas Agriculture Commissioner. The Texas Department of Agriculture, of which Perry was the commissioner between 1990 and 1998, oversees several aspects of the economy, providing services such as the regulation of commercial weights and scales, and providing farmers and ranchers with financial assistance. In addition, it helps to promote nutrition and Texas' agricultural products. As such, Perry's background in ranching made him an ideal candidate for the job.

Like most Ag commissioners in Texas, and probably across the country as well, not much happened under his watch. However, it is interesting (and revealing) to note his farm related finances.

According to an article in the Austin Statesman, Perry has received quite a bit of farm subsidy money, despite is railing against it. Between 1987 and 1989, Perry received around $72,700 in farm subsidies from the Federal government. In addition, he received about $9,600 from the Federal government to not farm while he was Ag Commissioner, which is kind of like how a welfare queen receives money from the Federal government to not work. In addition, he wrote off ~$17,700 on his 1998 income tax returns when he sold his farm at a loss. In all, Perry has personally benefited to the tune of about $100,000 as a result of Federal policies and spending.

His statements regarding agricultural policy paint the perfect portrait of a political paradox. On the one hand, he has advocated for ethanol subsidies. In December of 1993, he, acting in his official capacity as Ag Commissioner, supported EPA requirements that Ethanol be used in gasoline, claiming that such a requirement would be beneficial to Texas. In 2007, however, as Governor, he reversed his position, arguing that ethanol subsidies were driving up the price of livestock feed.

Why does a certain Senator come to mind on this one?

In addition, Perry, as Ag Commissioner, campaigned for the 1995 farm bill, all whilst saying that we "...must carefully but thoughtfully move our farmers and ranchers away from a subsidized system to a market-driven system..."

Why am I reminded of a certain kind of shoe?

In 1998, Perry ran as (then) Gov. George W. Bush's Lieutenant Governor. As Lt. Gov., Perry didn't do much, at least that I can find. There is, however, one incident I find to be troubling.

In 2000, Perry's state vehicle was pulled over for doing 20 miles over the limit. Based on footage from the citing officer's dashcam, it appears that he attempted to use the influence of his title to talk the trooper out of writing his driver a ticket, claiming that he was late for a meeting.

Let's think about this a little. A prominent elected official attempts to use his public post to avoid having to take responsibility (albeit, indirectly) for violating state law and possibly endangering other motorists.

What kind of a person does something like that? Moreover, from the audio, it appears that the trooper was going to let his driver off with a warning, which is basically a slap on the wrist compared to the alternative (trust me on this, I know from firsthand experience how expensive traffic tickets can be).

You can bet that Obama (of all people to do so) will be replaying this incident all throughout the general election if Perry is the nominee.

Based on my examination so far, Rick Perry is a man who says one thing, and does another. He rails against Federal spending, but gladly takes it when it is beneficial. He talks about free markets, but has supported subsiding industry in the past. He talks about law and order, but tries to influence those enforce the law when he's broken it. His record as Governor, which shall be the subject of my next post should provide further evidence of this trend.

The Real Meaning of the Straw Poll

Yesterday, one of those uniquely American political oddities took place. No, it wasn't Rick Perry's announcement of his patently obvious intent to seek the GOP Presidential Nomination. Instead, it was the Straw Poll at the Iowa state fair in Ames.

Before I delve too deeply into yesterday's results, I will start off with a bit of background on the Straw Poll.

The straw poll has been a "tradition"(and I use this term loosely) since 1979. Why 1979? This is because the Straw Poll occurs in the year before an election cycle where there is not an incumbent Republican president who will be running for re-election.

Often, the straw poll is seen as an assessment of each candidate's organizational strength in Iowa. Since Iowa is a caucus state, organization is more important than it normally is. As a result, the Ames straw poll is often seen as a predictor of who will win the Iowa caucuses the following January.

As political spectacle, the straw poll is useful. It makes people ask questions such as "why does this one tiny state have so much influence over a very important election?" As a prognosticating tool however, the straw poll is less useful than a set of tarot cards and a crystal ball.

Since it's inception in 1979, the straw poll has predicted the winner of the Republican nomination twice, and the winner of the general election once. It's track record at predicting the winner of the Iowa caucuses has, however, is a bit better. Out of five straw polls, it has predicted the winner of the Caucuses  three times.

So, who won yesterday's straw poll? Rep. Michelle Bachmann (MN) did, with a ~200 vote margin over Ron  Paul. The losers? Rick Santorum and Herman Cain.

Where did the perceived front runner, Mitt Romney, place in all of this? He didn't, but only because he decided against competing in it.

Think about this a minute. If Romney truly were the front runner, why wouldn't he compete in it? The publicity couldn't hurt, nor could building an organization in Iowa. Even if he didn't win the Iowa caucus, he would still pick up a few delegates, which could help him in the event of a drawn out primary battle, or to gain an upper hand in any deal making at a brokered convention.

The fact that he didn't compete at this straw poll, which he won in 2007, suggests that he is skipping Iowa or, at the very least, not seriously contesting the caucuses. Instead, he's probably going to focus on New Hampshire, which is a risky strategy given how unpredictable it can be.

That much having been said about Romney, it is worthwhile to examine the impact of the straw poll on the race. One thing that is interesting to note is that the establishment candidate, Santorum, placed second to last, but only because of Herman Cain's disappointing dead last finish.

 Another thing that is worth noting is that the top three finishers (Bachmann, Paul, and Pawlenty) are generally considered to be the more conservative candidates. This is a complete reversal from 2007, where the top three finishers (Romney, Huckabee, and Sam Brownback) are more establishmentarian.

This shows that the Tea Party has been a force for good in the GOP, driving the direction of our "conversation" in a more conservative direction. This is good because it means that our candidate will more likely be a conservative. This will benefit the GOP in the general election by making our candidate a "bold color" that will provide independents with a distinct contrast to Pres. Obama, not a pale pastel that will blend in with Pres. Obama.

Pawlenty to Drop Out of Race

via Hotair:

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty announced today that he is suspending his presidential campaign after a disappointing result in the Iowa straw poll.

Really? I can't imagine why he would have had such a poor performance. It couldn't possibly be because he put everyone in the room to sleep with his "Minnesota Nice" schtick. It also couldn't be because he believes that global warming, er, climate change is real.

Is this the end of his political career? As much as I would hope that the answer to that question would be yes, I wouldn't count him out quite yet.

Rumor has it that he is being recruited to challenge incumbent DFL (Democratic Farm-Laborer, or as I call them, Democrats of the Far Left) Senator Amy Klobuchar for her seat in 2012.

I like this move, and think that it is a very smart strategy. Pawlenty has good name recognition in Minnesota, seems to be fairly popular, and is overall a credible candidate. In addition, I think that he would be a good addition to the Republican caucus in the Senate. He's conservative enough that he would vote with his party the vast majority of the time (I'll ballpark it at 75%, though I reserve the right to revise that figure once he has an actual record), especially on major bills and policy shifts.

In addition, he's perceived as being more moderate, which is good for two reasons. The first is that he can use this perception, which, in my opinion, has a strong basis in fact, to gain the support of more moderate members and voters in supporting conservative policies.

The second reason that this would make him a good member of the Senate plays off of the first: those times when he does cross over will help him build the relationships needed to forge the bipartisan coalition necessary to pass Conservative policies. In fact, this was one of his strengths as governor. He was able to work with the legislature, which at the time was controlled by the DFL, to pass fairly fiscally conservative budgets.

In all, I think that it is smart for him to run for Senate. He is likely to win, which would force the DNC to play defense in territory it didn't think it had to, thus reducing the amount of money they have to spend a race elsewhere. In addition, he will be a valuable member of the caucus, who might be able to keep the moderates and conservatives from attacking each other, as well as forging the coalitions necessary to pass legislation.

What to do about Rick Perry? - Part 1

The big news story today is, surprisingly, not the Iowa straw poll. Instead, it is the formal announcement by the three term Governor of the Lone Star State, Rick Perry, that he intends to seek the Republican nomination for the 2012 Presidential election. For those who have been following the horse race, his announcement should come as no surprise. For the past few months, he has been aggressively challenging the Federal government on issues such as the constitutionality of ObamaCare and invasive pat-downs and screenings by the TSA.

Despite his high public profile over the past few years, the question still remains as to who exactly is Rick Perry, and what exactly does he stand for? By examining his political career and record, I hope I am able to answer these vital questions.

Karl Rove, who certainly needs no introduction, in his book Courage and Consequence, says that Perry was a Democrat until 1990. What made Perry switch? Did the Democratic Party leave him, just as it left Ronald Reagan? Or was it Bloomberg-esque opportunism?

According to Rove, it was the latter. In his book, Rove states that "Democrat Rick Perry, had planned to retire from the legislature, until his best friend...and I [Rove] talked him into switching parties and running for the GOP nomination for agriculture commissioner" (emphasis mine).

Let's take a look at some politicians who have switched parties recently, as well as why they decided to change parties.

One person who is no stranger to switching parties is New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg. Up until 2001, Mayor Bloomberg had been a lifelong Democrat. Noticing a crowded field in that party for the nomination, Bloomberg suddenly became a Republican.

 Another person who is familiar with switching parties is former Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont. In 2001,  he switched from being a Republican to being an Independent that caucused with the Democrats, giving them a majority in that chamber until the 2002 midterm elections.

Why did Jeffords switch? Because the Senate Republicans refused to fully fund (read, spend more money on) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and he thought that it would be fully funded if he caucused with the Democrats.

Are party switchers always political opportunists, hoping to gain some electoral or policy advantage? No. In fact, a party switcher by the name of Ronald Reagan turned out to be one of Conservatism's greatest advocates of the 20th century, right up there with William F. Buckley, Jr. However, when Reagan became a Republican, it was because the Democratic party had abandoned him and his principles, not because it was convenient to do so.

Where on this continuum does Rick Perry fall? Is he a principled conservative who, like Ronald Reagan,  felt like his core values and beliefs had been abandoned by his current party? Or is he a political opportunist, like Bloomberg and Jeffords?

The first logical step to take is to examine his career as a Democrat. In 1984, Perry was elected to the Texas House of Representatives as a Democrat. During his time in the legislature, he sat on the appropriations committee and helped to push for budget austerity. So it sounds like as a legislator he was, at the very least, fairly conservative on fiscal matters.

In 1988, a certain Tennessean by the name of Al Gore ran for President. As is usual for Presidential candidates, he picked up endorsements from officials at various levels of government from around the country. One of these endorsements came from a Texas legislator by the name of, you guessed it, Rick Perry. In fact, not only did Perry endorse Al Gore, but he managed Gore's Texas campaign. To be fair though, this was while the Goracle was still somewhat sane, and hadn't started worrying global warming/climate change/manbearpig yet. In fact, he ran pretty much as a Southern centrist, which could also be called a moderately-conservative Republican. So he wasn't all that radical...yet. Although I can't find an exact statement, it is safe to say that as campaign manager, Perry would have had to attack Conservative icon Ronald Reagan, which raises questions about the strength of his conservative convictions.

The next logical step, and the subject of the next post in this series, is to examine Perry's record as an elected Republican during the 1990's.