Jim’s post last week articulating 11 ideas that, he hoped, could attract support from 90 percent or more of conservatives and / or Republicans, was amazing. It was well considered and well presented. It’s taken me a week to respond only because I aspired — fruitlessly I suspect — to offer a response of equal thoughtfulness.

In this post, I try to respond to Jim’s offering as well as the thoughts of some of our commenters. (By the way, I would remiss if I didn’t thank the raft of folks who graced us with their thoughts on insights. I very much hope that you’ll continue to visit On Tap and contribute to our dialogue.)

Responding to Jim

First, broadly, I really think Jim is onto something. It’s impossible to build or rebuild a movement without ideas, and in particular, a set of ideas that bring us together. The Democrats have illustrated this rather well over the last fifteen years. It was only when they united behind their hatred for President Bush that they ultimately prevailed.

It seems to me that the ideas must accomplish two objectives. First, they must genuinely further the conservative philosophy. Second, they must be winners at the polls. In other words, we’re looking for ideas that bring us together while equipping us with a message that will attract voters’ support.

Finally, a history lesson. Jim’s work was based on the idea of the Contract with America. It’s worth recalling that the Contract included a handful of big, bold core principles with a wealth of detailed policy proposals. But it’s significance in the 1994 elections is almost always overstated. We should use it for a model only insofar as it accomplished the goals that I’ve set forth.

WIth that in mind, let me address Jim’s ideas in order:

(1) Protecting All of Us

I think Jim was right to put this one first. It’s impossible to argue that any principle could be important in our post-9/11 world. It’s equally impossible to suggest that any function is more central to the purpose of government. I like the quote from Tom Ridge that Jim included, and I agree strongly with his proposal of policies that create a de facto corps of first responders. I also like his idea of a well-armed citizenry as an element of that corps. However, I think Jim stopped too far short of the mark on this one. We can and should do more. Politically, we can and should support more while at the same time reaffirming our commitment to core principles. So…

(a) We need to reaffirm our commitment to building relationships with foreign governments who can assist us in the War on Terror. As George Tenet makes clear in his book, foreign intelligence services are critical, irreplaceable assets in our effort to protect ourselves. In order to accomplish this, we should reinvigorate our foreign aid program to inflation-adjusted levels akin to Cold War levels. At the same time, we should direct our giving more strategically, providing support for governments and regimes who can provide the greatest assistance or that we can sway to our side and prevent from assisting our terrorist enemies. As Tenet writes, this may mean building relationships with some less than savory characters. But at the end of the day, we must defend our own interests first and foremost, and such relationships could be key to doing so.

(b) We need to continue to support our intelligence services with sufficient budget to accomplish their missions. CIA, NSA, DIA and others are in the process of a broad modernization, and their commitments around the globe are extensive and expanding. At the same time, we must give them the flexibility to act. That means repealing some of the provisions of the 1976 Intelligence Act that are most limiting.

(c) There’s no sense protecting our homeland if we sacrifice the freedom that make it worth defending. As a party and a movement, we should reaffirm our commitment to individual rights generally and the Bill of Rights specifically. That means providing greater latitude for courts to review the activities of domestic law enforcement. This can (and should) be done in secret, but it must be done. It also means restoring habeas corpus rights, even for non-citizens. It’s impossible to argue that the United States is a beacon of freedom if we’re locking up foreign nationals without charge or trial. If they’re guilty, the government should present the evidence and lock them away. (And, by the way, to accomplish this, I support limited revisions to the federal rules of criminal procedure that would make admissible in terror-related cases certain evidence obtained through intelligence channels that would not normally be allowed.)

(2) Spending

Spending was a critical component of the original Contract with America. And it’s one of several elements where the Republican majority elected in 1994 partially on the strength of the Contract failed most miserably. Again, I support Jim’s proposals, and I like the idea of a federal spending freeze. Again, however, I think Jim stopped short. The original Contract explicitly supported an amendment to the Constitution requiring that the federal budget be balanced. I’m not generally a fan of Constitutional amendments, but this one makes sense. I would only revise the original proposal to include an exception for periods of war. That exception would only cover expenditures up to the amount necessary to fund defense, intelligence and homeland security activities.

(3) Taxes

I simply adore Jim’s proposal to make all over-time pay tax exempt. This is a brilliant idea and one that could be implemented swiftly and easily. We should move forward with it at once. In addition, harkening back to the original Contract, I also support the idea of simpler, fairer, flatter tax code.

(3a) Health Care

Likewise, I support Jim’s health care proposals, though I’m worried about the practically of the plan to increase the number of providers. Again, however, I think we can go further. Let’s incentivize market-based approaches to health care. For example, one my clients, along with a number of other retailers, are investing in retail health clinics. Experts believe that such clinics, which address common ailments and provide services at low cost, will drive down the cost of overall cost of care. The best way to address problems with our health care system is through the market, not through government programs — which don’t work and are generally expensive and wasteful.

I also agree with Jim’s “loser pays” suggestion. Indeed, I feel so strongly about this one, you’ll see it again later.

(4) Environment

Again, Jim’s suggestion to clean up power plants in China is innovative and interesting. It will also make a difference, and I support it. But again, I think we can go further. As conservatives, we are supposedly predisposed to like things as they are. The very words “conservative” and “conservation” obviously derive from the same root. In one sense, protecting the environment is no longer merely a question of aesthetics. It’s becoming a question of infrastructure. Just ask the folks in Alaska who are losing roads because the perma-frost on which they were built is now melting. From either stand point, there is a strong case for more significant government action to protect the environment. Specifically, it’s time for the U.S. to act to curb carbon emissions, not just at home, but abroad as well. Some argue that forced limits will damage the economy. But as a conservative, I believe in the market’s ability to overcome, and, as an American, I believe in our inherent national ability to innovate. The necessity to develop alternative technologies will, I suspect, drive a level of innovation not seen since the Apollo days and ultimately, could fuel — rather than undermine — economic growth. And so, obviously, I also embrace Jim’s suggestion for incentives that reward innovation.

(5) Energy

I can sum up my reaction to Jim’s suggestion in one word: “Yes.” We should do everything he suggests and more. In particular, the government should allow closed military bases to be redeveloped as refineries, and we should allow greater latitude for domestic and near-domestic exploration for new sources of oil and other resources. Again, the government can continue to incentivize new energy sources like wind and solar in order to hasten their adoption. (Full disclosure: I have two clients in the energy sector, and my firm works for another, though I’m not involved with the account.)

(6) Immigration

This is the only issue in Jim’s list where I really part company with him. It’s not because I agree or disagree with his policy suggestions. I simply believe that this is not an issue on which 90 percent of Republicans or conservatives agree. Nor do I think that addressing it as most conservatives wish is a winning electoral strategy. At this point, immigration has become an issue like social security — everyone knows that it’s important, but no one can offer a satisfactory solution. For this reason, I would remove it from the list.

(7) Education

Again, I support all of Jim’s ideas — especially the elements about school choice — and would only offer two further thoughts. First, our schools need to refocus on the basics. This is an oft-repeated and rarely implemented mantra, but it’s worth repeating again, because it matters. Our kids needs greater depth in math, science, civics, history, grammar and spelling. They don’t need world affairs, the history of southwest Africa, or modern fashion 101. Second, we need to bring back gym and recess. Our kids our fat and getting fatter. Let’s get them back on the playground. And, by the way, gym means basketball, volleyball, baseball, lacrosse, football, soccer and track. Active sports. Gym should not include classroom sessions on sports management or the theory of archery.

(8) Culture

Jim’s suggestion is clever, but in the final analysis, I’m indifferent. Consumer choices will drive culture. If we, as consumers, choose Extreme Makeover … well, we’re making our own bed. But I like the idea, from a political standpoint, of making a statement in support of a better culture.

(9) Infrastructure

I actually think this is the second most important item on Jim’s list, behind only “Protecting All of Us.” Other than defense, no function is more central to government’s purpose than building and maintaining the infrastructure for commerce. Unfortunately, however, governments at all levels have been shirking this responsibility for too long. Jim suggests more development of trains. I don’t think that will work. First, trains don’t reach most of America any more. I can a flight to just about any town in the U.S. these days. Granted, I might have to connect in Atlanta or Chicago, but I can get there. I can’t get to most America towns by trains. Indeed, I can’t even get to most American centers of commerce by train. And simply connecting major destinations to high speed routes won’t work. Americans need to go other places. So, trains are out. As alternative, I offer two proposals:

(a) The Eisenhower II Interstate Building Program. This is what it sounds like — a massive infusion of federal funds into expanding our interstate highway system. Crucially, it will take into account the learnings of the last sixty years and the way that cities have developed. That means more highways built to accommodate suburb to suburb commuting, the construction of alternative highway routes through congested corridors, and the improvement of existing highways.

(b) The Charles Lindberg Air Travel Improvement Program. Today’s air traffic control system is an antiquated disaster. The market is demanding more and more air service, and the airlines simply can’t provide it. There aren’t enough runways. More importantly, today’s system still requires that planes f;y fixed routes — the so-called highways in the sky. And these are becoming increasingly congested. The slightest problem — like a thunderstorm over the Blue Ridge Mountains — sets off a chain reaction that disrupts flights across the country. The solution? First, we build more runways at existing airports. Second, we build more airports. Finally, we implement a new air traffic control system that embraces the idea of free flight. This will require a massive infusion of funding for the FAA, but our commerce absolutely relies on easy and rapid movement via air. It’s essential that we fix the system.

(10) Recognition / Profiling

This is a nitpick, but I really think this belongs under #1, protecting us all. Even then, I’m not sure it belongs. I guess at the end of the day, I’m for common sense. If someone looks like they might be a terrorist, law enforcement ought to have the power to make a sufficient examination, especially when that person is entering or leaving the country. But at the end of the day, I agree with Chief Justice Roberts who wrote in the recent schools decision that if we truly believe that race ought not be a factor in, well, anything, then we must not allow is to be a factor in, well, anything. In the end, I don’t care if the person coming through airport security is black, white, brown, green or orange. If they’re acting suspiciously, law enforcement ought to have the training and authority to recognize that fact and do something about it.

(11) Tort Reform

One issue that wasn’t on Jim’s list was tort reform. (I realize Jim wrote about med-mal reform, but I’m talking about the broader issue.) For me, this is an important issue, and one that rewards conservatives / Republicans politically. In short, we need to do more to limit punitive damages and ensure common sense changes to evidence rules restore the balance between plaintiff and defendant interests.

(12) Judges

And let’s not forget judges. We believe in appointing judges who will stand up for the Constitution and reject the temptation to legislate from the bench. We should say so, and often, because most Americans agree with us.