Who Says New Ideas Always Are Better?

One mantra of BHO's acolytes and supplicants being used against the GOP is "no new ideas."  It is repeated by Axelrod, Emanuel, and others.

This is intended to be a negative.

But is it really?

The following offers a somewhat different take from the Democratic Party line.

Their basic assumption appears to be that "new idea" = better.

That math is, of course, wrong.

To wit, the Darwin Awards.  Or George Carlin's "new idea" re: integers.  It might be funny, but as an arithmetic, "new idea" it is a non-starter.  There are other examples.

The "new ideas" faux-argument is a distraction that fails to refute any position.

The posture of the Republicans at the RNC was articulated as principles.

Principles form a foundation.  They provide stability and direction to action.

There is a reason why the phrase is "guiding principle," not "guiding idea."

Principles are proven by the test of time.  Successful principles endure.

For one to profit, there is no "new idea."  There is but the principle of "buy low, sell high."

To live a "good, decent" life in the Judeo-Christian tradition, there are no "new ideas."  There are the principles of the Ten Commandments and The Golden Rule.

For a "new idea" to succeed, it must be in support of/consistent with an enduring principle.

"New ideas," uncoupled from principles, must fail.  The "new idea" of how to make a better perpetual motion machine will fail.  There is no principle to sustain it.

When one lives an unprincipled life, disconnected "new ideas" act as surrogates.

In the hands of progressives, "new ideas" are merely eruptions of thought intended for others to follow (often forcibly) since the intellectual class and those whom they have conned are so much smarter than we.

They know what is best for others.  The agreement of the unwashed is unnecessary.

However, their "new ideas," like the perpetual motion machine, are uncoupled from enduring principles.  They must and do fail.

"New ideas" to the Democrats = shiny objects -- i.e., baubles -- to be quickly discarded after the initial enamorment.

Discarded they have to be, since they fail, only to be replaced by the next "new idea."

It appears as if history has already spoken re: the Democrats' "new ideas."  For example, when tax rates are increased, tax revenues do not necessarily follow:

Alaska raises the tax rate on cigarettes, revenues go down

New York does the same, revenues go down

Feds decrease the cap gains tax in 1997, revenues rise

Feds decrease the cap gains tax in 1978, revenues rise

Feds increase the cap gains tax in 1986, revenues fall

Feds decrease the cap gains tax in 2003, revenues rise

In India, income taxes are lowered, compliance and revenues increase

Feds extend a temporary reduction in the cap gains tax and revenues increase (2006) (from here, pages 396-397 [3rd ed.])

Likewise minimum wage laws (pp. 210-221, ibid), rent control (pp. 40-48, ibid), poverty/the poor (see here -- pp. 134-141 [1st ed.] and here) and other pet projects and kept pets of the progressives.

There are "old ideas" that have successfully effected enduring principles.

An idea is "new" if one has never had it, never heard of it, never learned it or forgotten it.

Given BHO's well-documented learning disability, the one or both of the last two is/are most likely.

So, to him and the fools who buy into his drivel, pursue "new ideas."

But to increase the likelihood of success, try the "new" ones that have already proven to work.

Hint: Those would be the ones that actualized the principles stated at the RNConvention.

Michael Applebaum is a physician and attorney practicing in Chicago.  His website is FackBarack.com.

One mantra of BHO's acolytes and supplicants being used against the GOP is "no new ideas."  It is repeated by Axelrod, Emanuel, and others.

This is intended to be a negative.

But is it really?

The following offers a somewhat different take from the Democratic Party line.

Their basic assumption appears to be that "new idea" = better.

That math is, of course, wrong.

To wit, the Darwin Awards.  Or George Carlin's "new idea" re: integers.  It might be funny, but as an arithmetic, "new idea" it is a non-starter.  There are other examples.

The "new ideas" faux-argument is a distraction that fails to refute any position.

The posture of the Republicans at the RNC was articulated as principles.

Principles form a foundation.  They provide stability and direction to action.

There is a reason why the phrase is "guiding principle," not "guiding idea."

Principles are proven by the test of time.  Successful principles endure.

For one to profit, there is no "new idea."  There is but the principle of "buy low, sell high."

To live a "good, decent" life in the Judeo-Christian tradition, there are no "new ideas."  There are the principles of the Ten Commandments and The Golden Rule.

For a "new idea" to succeed, it must be in support of/consistent with an enduring principle.

"New ideas," uncoupled from principles, must fail.  The "new idea" of how to make a better perpetual motion machine will fail.  There is no principle to sustain it.

When one lives an unprincipled life, disconnected "new ideas" act as surrogates.

In the hands of progressives, "new ideas" are merely eruptions of thought intended for others to follow (often forcibly) since the intellectual class and those whom they have conned are so much smarter than we.

They know what is best for others.  The agreement of the unwashed is unnecessary.

However, their "new ideas," like the perpetual motion machine, are uncoupled from enduring principles.  They must and do fail.

"New ideas" to the Democrats = shiny objects -- i.e., baubles -- to be quickly discarded after the initial enamorment.

Discarded they have to be, since they fail, only to be replaced by the next "new idea."

It appears as if history has already spoken re: the Democrats' "new ideas."  For example, when tax rates are increased, tax revenues do not necessarily follow:

Alaska raises the tax rate on cigarettes, revenues go down

New York does the same, revenues go down

Feds decrease the cap gains tax in 1997, revenues rise

Feds decrease the cap gains tax in 1978, revenues rise

Feds increase the cap gains tax in 1986, revenues fall

Feds decrease the cap gains tax in 2003, revenues rise

In India, income taxes are lowered, compliance and revenues increase

Feds extend a temporary reduction in the cap gains tax and revenues increase (2006) (from here, pages 396-397 [3rd ed.])

Likewise minimum wage laws (pp. 210-221, ibid), rent control (pp. 40-48, ibid), poverty/the poor (see here -- pp. 134-141 [1st ed.] and here) and other pet projects and kept pets of the progressives.

There are "old ideas" that have successfully effected enduring principles.

An idea is "new" if one has never had it, never heard of it, never learned it or forgotten it.

Given BHO's well-documented learning disability, the one or both of the last two is/are most likely.

So, to him and the fools who buy into his drivel, pursue "new ideas."

But to increase the likelihood of success, try the "new" ones that have already proven to work.

Hint: Those would be the ones that actualized the principles stated at the RNConvention.

Michael Applebaum is a physician and attorney practicing in Chicago.  His website is FackBarack.com.

RECENT VIDEOS