New Jersey is an excellent case study of what happens under Democratic Party policies. Bloated government bureaucracies, ineffective public services, high taxes, and a growing number of people feeling entitled to public money for their livelihood and pensions. These are not the conditions of a successful and thriving state. This is an example of a polity on the decline.Other states share in this fate: California, Illinois, and New York are facing massive deficits. It is no coincidence these states are dominated by State Democratic Parties and have consistently adopted liberal policies regardless of who was in charge. So how does a polity save itself from this decline?The answer from history is clear, but more importantly what kind of leader or executive can get it done? Governor Chris Christie is an example of a true leader and executive who is dramatically shifting the direction of New Jersey away from failure. While bureaucrats and those reliant on the status quo are crying out, he refuses to let their attacks, public criticism, biased-media criticism, and lower approval ratings deter him from policies he knows will save the state from ruin. A lesser governor would begin to moderate their policies and approach, in other words compromise with the angry and mobilized opposition. They would fear the backlash and what it would mean for their re-election chances. In contrast, Christie has repeatedly says he is not concerned with re-election, and his approach and actions bare that out.A typical politician will see the recent events as a sign the opposition is being energized, the moderates are becoming worried, and the ruling coalition is beginning to fall apart. All of this could be true, but in the end results are more influential to voters. A bad economy, higher taxes, massive government debt, and uncertainty have a greater impact than Christie's "confrontational" demeanor in the first year of his term.Should Christie succeed, New Jerseyans will have three years to reap the benefits of his policies. By the time 2013 comes around, Christie's bad attitude will be far from the minds of voters. It is a question of timing. Christie is sacrificing public opinion now for the payoffs later that will result from his conservative policies.Make no mistake, there is no other way to save New Jersey. Bailouts, government handouts, and socialism are not the answer. Europe does not have the answer. California, Illinois, and New York clearly don't have the answer. Christie has the right answer, and will push that answer even if so many scream at the top of their lungs that they deserve to be paid more, deserve a big retirement pension, and deserve more influence.
The situation in the United States is becoming apparent to all Americans. Polls and surveys show a growing fear and apprehension of the direction of this country and a dim view of the future. Well, the next logical step is to decide what to do about the situation. How do we change course? How do we get pointed in the right direction?I have noticed a pattern among Northeasterners. Actually, this is something I have noticed in plenty of areas but seems to be prevalent among Northeastern media personalities, commentators, politicians, bloggers and regular people. In their minds, the political spectrum has two distinct fields, the reasonable/mainstream and the radical. There are radical left wingers and radical right wingers but it is in the center is where they always want to be. They may in fact not hold moderate or "centrist" beliefs, but they don't want to be identified as being on the fringe.In conversation, many people feel they need to make clear their beliefs and positions are NOT extreme. They condition their discussions with "I don't think ____, but ______" and then follow it with a straw man explanation of what they think the radicals are pushing. When the discussion is over, they have effectively watered down their position or the explanation of their position to the point where it means nothing.Why is there such a high premium on avoiding what is judged radical? It is as if many people want to be at the very top of the bell curve and are scratching and clawing their way to get to that point. But why? Are they so self-conscious about their politics? Are they really that afraid of being labeled a radical or tea bagger or a socialist/communist?This dash to the top of the bell curve tends to halt or drawback reform in either direction. It becomes a manifestation of the fear of change. They don't want to go to far in either direction. It doesn't matter which direction, but going to far one way will be bad. Aggressive turns can cause the ship to ebb and flow, causing discomfort, even destabilization. But this makes it impossible to avoid the massive iceberg ahead. When there are serious systemic flaws in a system, when the State is on the verge of financial collapse, when the situation is dire, this fear of change can paralyze a society.Governor Christie is one who is demanding radical reform and change in a State that is afraid of it. But the problems are real and they are large. Small, incremental steps can stave off disaster in most situations but not in this one. In the country as a whole, we are on an unsustainable path that could lead to the country's financial collapse in 8-12 years. Serious solutions implemented by serious people will be needed to stop it.For those dying to stay within the mainstream, understand this, in a crisis such as today, prudence dictates that we introduce radical change and reform. We are way too close to the cliff to simply "slow down", "turn gently", or implement "consensus" solutions. It won't be long before the only consensus will be one of utter despair.It has been said desperate times call for desperate measures. The mainstream believes these are desperate times but is unwilling to support desperate measures. We need to come to our senses and fast. It is time to abandon the self-conscious fear of being the "radical" in your social circle. In the end, it will be "radicals" that will save this country from ruin.
