From owner-conservgenx@teleport.com Sat Jan 28 17:41:06 1995 Subject: Welcome to conservgenx Reply-To: Majordomo@teleport.com -- Welcome to the conservgenx mailing list! If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, you can send mail to "Majordomo@teleport.com" with the following command in the body of your email message: unsubscribe conservgenx adam at xent dot com (Adam Rifkin) Here's the general information for the list you've subscribed to, in case you don't already have it: [Last updated on: Sun Jan 15 17:26:58 1995] ***************************************************************** * CCCCCC GGGGGG XX X * * CC CC GG G XX X We Do Exist !!! * * CC G XXX This is Our Newsletter * * CC G GGG XXX -------------------------- * * CC CC G GG X XX Distributed Electronically * * CCCCCC GGGGGG X XX Via Fax and the Internet * * * * --- For, About, and By The Conservative Generation X --- * * * * E-Mail: pcllgn@teleport.com or conservgenx@teleport.com * * http://www.teleport.com/~pcllgn/cgx.html * ***************************************************************** (Updated 2/15/95 5:23 P.M.) Congratulations! You are now on the subscriber list for CGX, the world's first publication for the Conservative Members of Generation X. Every two weeks CyberSpace comes alive with our thought. For those of you new to CGX, welcome, we are sure that you will like what you see. If you don't think you'll like it we challenge you to read it anyway to learn from and about us. You will be surprised and you can't beat the price. Back issues are availible on Compuserve. They can also be obtained via email. Requests, questions, article submissions and the like should be emailed to conservgenx@teleport.com. If you have World Wide Web access check out the Official CGX Web Site at http://www.teleport.com/~pcllgn/cgx.html. Coming soon - An FTP site, Archival Storage on AOL, and CyberTownHall Meetings. Info in later issues. Again I welcome you to CGX. Read us over, we have something to say. If you wouldn't mind, please send me a short message telling me where you heard about CGX, what you would expect/want from it, and a little bit about yourself. We at CGX are trying to get a better grasp of the CGX readers this year and such a note would help tremendously. Please send such notes directly to me at: pcllgn@teleport.com Paul Colligan Editor, CGX For Your Enjoyment, I offer you a copy of Volume 2 Issue 1: CyberPublished 1/15/95 The next issue comes out on January 30. Look for it! ______________________ ************************************************************** * CCCCCC GGGGGG XXX X +-------------------------+ * * CC CC GG G XXX X : Volume: Two : * * CC CC G XXX : Issue: One : * * CC G GGG XXX : ----------------------- : * * CC CC G GG XXX : January 16, 1995 : * * CC CC G GG X XXX : Happy New Year !!! : * * CCCCCC GGGGGG X XXX +-------------------------+ * * * * --- For, About, and By The Conservative Generation X --- * * * * E-Mail: pcllgn@teleport.com or conservgenx@teleport.com * * WWW: http://www.teleport.com/~pcllgn/cgx.html * * * ************************************************************** 95 - Wow! - I still remember the 80's. ". . . The challenge I extend is for someone to explain how, why, and what conservatism has to offer our generation. Is the conservative Gen X's message different from other conservatives'? If not, then why does CGX exist? I can get the same and better from the National Review or Rush. The fact that CGX is written by Gen Xers cannot in itself be important, or can it? Aren't there real problems that are particular to our age group? And if so, what does conservatism offer as a solution? In short, I am challenging contributors to write about conservatism *and* Generation X, not just about conservatism" I received the following question from one of our readers after publication of the last issue. He has asked some very good questions. We will do out best to answer them. I like to think we have answered a few of them in our short time as a publication (We are still in our first year!) but it is well worth mentioning. Welcome one, welcome all, to CGX - the Newsletter "For, About and By the Conservative Generation X". A lot of you are new readers and many of you are old friends. I hope you like this either way. **************************************************************** In my zeal to get the last issue out, I made a number of spelling mistakes that, wouldn't you know it, got past the old spell checker. Christ had very little to do with Pilot but had a few words with Pilate (please don't show this to any of my old Sunday school teachers). As for my spelling of that Grandma and the Reindeer song, I am truly sorry. **************************************************************** 1995 is here, Newt is in the house, the Star Trek Generations movie has made a lot more money than it should have (sorry, cheap editorializing), and CGX is now in her second calendar year. What will the year bring? I have little to no idea. Let's take a look at it together: **************************************************************** First things first, the Web Site is up and it seems to have attracted a little bit of attention. We are now linked to a number of other sites and should be featured in a number of "What's New" sites in the next few weeks. Yahoo (if you don't know, don't ask) picked us up on Thursday. The address is in the header of this issue. If you have ideas on how to make the page aesthetically more pleasing, please drop us a note. We are hardly artists here. Also, you if you know of any links that belong in our link section or any of our readers have home pages they would like us to advertise, please write us as well. Please do go and take a look at the site. We are proud of it. **************************************************************** William starts us off this issue with his thoughts on a theme that we have been developing here since November 8, 1994. We won the election but hardly the country. We need to be very careful with what comes next and have a plan if we are to bring it about. If we, the Conservative Generation X don't take the Conservative movement where it needs to do, who will? WHY the Conservative Movement Must Expand By William Thomas Since most people will admit that liberalism is an abject failure -- even Bill Clinton had to campaign as a "New Democrat" in order to be elected in 1992 -- could it be that the greatest current hindrance to conservatism is conservatism? Are we pointing our fingers in the wrong direction? After thirty-odd years of failed government policies under liberal Democratic governments -- even Ronald Reagan had to contend with and very often succumbed to a liberal Congress -- perhaps we should neither be surprised nor overly elated that political conservatives and the Republican Party won such an unprecedented victory last Election Day, 8 November 1994. Perhaps we should be more surprised and concerned that even more Americans did not vote for conservative candidates and issues. If that is true, then we next ask the question, why? Why do many people still vote for liberal candidates and issues after an entire generation of failed liberal policies? One answer to that question is really quite simple: liberalism and the Democratic Party _seems_ to "care" and address the issues of the "marginalized" in society while conservatism and the Republican Party _seems_ not to. Too often, however much their "head" tells them to vote conservatively and for the Republican Party, their "hearts" tell them to stick with liberalism and the Democratic Party just a little bit longer. For however much we legitimately argue that the "caring" programs of liberal Democrats have made matters worse (and believe me, that HAVE made things worse) and however much we legitimately harangue about how the "marginalized" must learn to do for themselves and get off the public "dole", we Americans are by nature a generous people. And as a generous people, many -- and very often most -- of us will continue to vote for those policies and programs that are perceived as being the most "generous". As Xers we have been told for some time now that "caring" is important, sometimes even more important than doing. We have been lied to. Indeed, Americans are finally beginning to argue for "value" for their dollars invested in these "generous" programs, but these programs -- which include not only welfare but also farm subsidies, Social Security and yes, government grants and subsidized loans for students -- seem ultimately secure. The cry seems to be "reform," not "eliminate." And at present, this seems to be what the majority of Americans want. Even the most conservative Republican members do not deny this. So in order for real "conservative" principles to predominate -- in order to have a smaller government and more free and prosperous private sector instead of simply a more "efficient" government more closely tied to an over-regulated market -- conservatives must address the issues of "concern" and "caring". Regardless of what we think of them, they are issues. Unfortunately, we conservatives often fail here. Permit me to offer my story as an African-American. For many years, although I was very conservative socially, I did not vote my conservative beliefs. Although one of the reasons for my past discrepancy was ignorance of the conservative movement, an equally strong factor was the apparent hostility the conservative movement has towards my personal interests and well-being. Not that all conservatives are racists or actively working against my interests and well-being, but I rarely if ever heard anything from a conservative actively supporting me or my interests. Too often, the only voices heard to define conservatism are the voices of David Duke and his ilk. And unfortunately, the only voices heard in opposition to David Duke and the like -- the only voices heard in opposition even within conservatism -- are the tired old voices of liberalism. I'm not saying that these are the only voices - I am saying that these are the only voices heard. People react to what they hear. Unfortunately, many conservatives -- Republican or otherwise -- express no concern and are silent on the issues of racial discrimination and institutional prejudice. The problem is NOT that most Republicans and conservatives feel at home with the racism of David Duke. For the record, let me unequivocally state that most Republicans and conservatives are NOT comfortable with the man or his principles. The problem IS, however, that too often the racism of David Duke feels comfortable within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. But as a Black conservative, I often wonder if I have a place in the conservative movement as anything but a token. Even Justice Clarence Thomas has addressed the occasional lack of genuine inclusiveness within the conservative movement. Note his famous 1987 speech at the Heritage Foundation. As Robert L. Woodson -- noted Black conservative and founder and president of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise -- once said, "Why is it that the only time many conservatives are heard from is when there is an aggrieved White fireman?" Indeed, Stuart Butler, Vice President of Domestic and Economic Policy Studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation, continually argues, "in the past conservatives have provided no consistent message against racial discrimination and poverty." Perhaps even more telling is Jack Kemp, who has consistently argued, "We conservatives have dropped the ball on racial issues." Interestingly enough, Kemp is now being harangued by elements within the Republican Party and conservative movement for speaking too much on racial issues. But unless Jack Kemp is heeded, unless the Republican Party and the conservative movement can both speak out against the rhetoric of its David Dukes as well as present an alternative to the "solutions" of liberalism in regards to racial discrimination, the Republican Party will never fulfill its potential. But NOT ENOUGH Blacks nor White conservatives recognize the commonality of their interests. NOT ENOUGH Blacks nor White conservatives are communicating. And NOT ENOUGH Blacks nor White conservatives are articulating a reason to reach out to the other. This is the essence of the statements by Clarence Thomas, Stuart Butler, Robert Woodson and Jack Kemp. This is the reason I am writing this article. And it is for this and similar reasons that even many Whites who hold "conservative" values, beliefs and principles do not consistently vote conservatively. Indeed, I would argue that Bill Clinton won the Presidency in 1992 precisely because he was able to present himself as an alternative to the failed policies of the past while still maintaining his "concern" and "care" for us. Bill Clinton was a "New [but still caring] Democrat" while the Republican Party and President Bush in particular were perceived as not. Remember Bill Clinton saying, "I feel your pain." Does he? Why did they believe him? It is not that there is something magical about having Black voters within the Republican Party or Black adherents to the conservative movement. A "Black vote" is no more decisive than a "White vote" and a "Black idea" is no more worthy or profound than a "White idea". It is simply that unless the Republican Party and the conservative movement can expand beyond the narrow confines and concerns to which it is often confined and defined, neither the Republican Party nor the conservative movement will be able to influence ALL of society. We may even influence a large percentage of society but we will never dominate every facet of society much as liberalism does today. Furthermore, if the "Black vote" -- which is consistently used as an indicative or gauge of the "compassion" of society and the government to the "marginalized" -- were to abandon the Democratic Party and the policies of liberalism, what justification would ANYONE have for voting "liberal" and for the Democratic Party? The American generosity of spirit is ultimately our strength. Our challenge -- the challenge of conservatism -- is to harness this strength in the expansion of the conservative movement and to the betterment of the lives of all people. Besides, why should we settle for only an eight seat majority in the U.S. Senate and an approximately thirty-two seat majority in the House of Representatives when, if we remain true to our principles, we could have it all. Yes, Election Day, 8 November 1994, may go down as one of the greatest days in the annals of American history; but will it be recorded as one of the most momentous and significant. Or will Election Day, 8 November 1994, simply be recorded as a historical footnote, a "blurb" in history and only a temporary setback in the ever-continuing march and enlargement of an ever- overreaching and all-encompassing liberal government. As conservative economist Thomas Sowell wrote in a recent column, "The Republicans now have two years in which to demonstrate that they understand what the voters want. Otherwise they can be sent packing too in 1996 -- and, worst of all, Bill Clinton might be reelected." **************************************************************** "I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." - Alexis deTocqueville **************************************************************** *** Letters to the Editor >Perhaps the most annoying thing to me about the Gen X label our >generation is stuck with is that it's a lie:" The Generation X label is merely a means by which to identify the age group of which we are and the age group by which we send out this Newsletter. We challenge the lie of a media that says "look at all those Generation X slackers" by proving that we are anything but that. There is nothing wrong with the term "Generation X" - there is something wrong with what they say it stands for. There is something wrong with what they say I am. >Woodstock was about "sex, drugs, & rock-n-roll" As a result, >we have AIDS, an out-of-control drug culture, and a values-free >generation (the 'Boomers). AIDS didn't start at Woodstock. We were values free long before Woodstock or the thing never would have happened. >USAid for Africa (BandAid) was about feeding the hungry, a far >more altruistic event. There are still people dying of hunger. We sent them fish and left the fishing poles at home, as the old saying goes. The guy who started the whole thing was also the lead in that Pink Floyd Wall Movie that I have been (and you have been too) told that you can't understand "unless you are stoned". Sounds a lot more like Woodstock that an "altruistic event" >WHOSE GENERATION STANDS FOR NOTHING? Every generation stands for something. The purpose of CGX is to figure out what it is that we stand for. >The Chicago Riots of '68 at the Democratic National >Convention helped undermine the US war effort in Vietnam, and >resulted in the death of a couple cops, if I'm not mistaken." >Dan's Bake Sale (RushStock) was a positive watershed event that >was the first step toward shifting control in Washington to the >Republicans. We also left the city pretty much as we found it, >and nobody died! As big of a fan as I am (heck we all are) here at CGX, Dan's Bake Sale had nothing to do with the shifting control to the Republicans. It was a sign of the times, not a force by any means. It was mostly a great publicity stunt for a radio show. >WHOSE GENERATION STANDS FOR NOTHING? See above. >Although I love the newsletter, it seems to me by accepting the >Generation X label, we are conceding defeat to the liberal >'Boomers who understand us, (believe me, they understand us), >but who are trying to REWRITE what our generation is about in >the same way they are trying to REWRITE the '80's. I'm glad you enjoy CGX. It is indeed a pleasure to put it out. The label of "Generation X" again, is merely (here at least) a means of identifying an age group marked by definable historical and cultural events that have shaped a pretty ugly society. We, who are part of it, want to do something about it. We are Generation X. You can't rewrite what hasn't been written yet. >Let's not cede the battle. Let's find a more positive label >for our generation." How about "the Conservative Generation X?" >RushFan We all are, we all are. Dear RushFan, I understand where you are coming from and understand what you are trying to say. I simply don't agree with it. I hear so many people claiming "liberal this and liberal that" but don't see them doing much about it. If you listen to Rush carefully, even he will admit that he is nothing more than an entertainer. The same is true for Liddy, Pat, Farber, Stern, and Casem. His job is to get people to listen to his show so he can sell more UgBoots and make more money. Nothing wrong with that. Now, we all agree with the guy and all love what he has to say but we need to go one step further from the 9-12 (on the Left- Coast, to borrow a Rush phrase) time slot in which we listen to him and say "now what?" Rush has offered a few ideas about all this but to be honest, it was his ranting and ravings about "all those Generation X whiners" that got me to start this thing. We are Generation X. We all thought the Dad on the "Brady Bunch" was pretty cool, a rock solid type of "down to earth" Dad - he died of AIDS. We open any paper and read about what losers we are - we aren't. We were told we must do better than our parents did ($$$) - more of us won't than will. We know all the "SchoolHouse Rock" songs by heart - can't diagram a sentence. Hollywood sends us "Dumb and Dumber", "Beavis and Butthead" and "Rosanne" - We watch it. Cheech and Chong were childhood heroes - We cringe. We say TV rots our minds - We still watch it. There is something about us. Just as our Grandparents were shaped by the Depression, we were shaped by something else. I'm not whining, I am simply stating a fact. Our job is to figure it all out, and do something about it. I am Generation X. It is not a bad word. I am going to do something about the bad word that it has gotten. I can think of a lot of people and institutions that I love that have even worse reputations than I do. We, the Generation X, are in good company. **************************************************************** If you take a look at the New York Stock Exchange and look for the symbol for CGX, you are going to be there for quite some time. We are truly a grass-roots effort that is tons of fun but still takes a lot of work. We need writers. Every one of you is qualified. Send us something - we'll edit it and send it back until we are both satisfied. Then, publication - looks good on a resume'. We are in dire need of female authors to help us show the feminine side of all of this. Letters to the Editor are also a ton of fun if you don't have time to write a whole piece. If you are looking for a subject, drop us a line. We got a lot more ideas than we have time at the moment. We also need a volunteer to take charge of our archives at America On Line. Currently, we have none yet over half of our readers pay a lot of money to Mr. Case and company. It won't cost you a thing but your time and we will be truly thankful. If you are on any of the other on-line services (other than Compu$erve) the same is true. Consider donating a little time to CGX. Email us if you are interested. **************************************************************** *** Editor's Note. As we look to the future of Washington and we wait our 100 days to see what the Contract brings, we must look at what still doesn't work. Bills pass with such garbage (pork) attached, we need to do something about it. Consider this solution and drop a line to your Congressman. The Line Item Veto and Generation X Christopher Arps Now that the Republican Party is in the majority, one of the first items for debate needs to be the line item veto. The call for a line item veto has been a recurring proposal from Republican presidents to a Democratic congress for years now. It is still a good idea. Everyone is aware that legislation that is proposed for a worthy cause gets transformed into a pork bill that every congressman wants a piece of. The line item veto would eliminate this practice by giving the president the option to veto specific parts of a bill, thus eliminating unnecessary spending. The decrease of unnecessary spending is the type of thing Americans will re-elect a President for. Democrats will attempt to cloak their disapproval of the line item by pretending to have constitutional concerns. They will claim it will tilt the constitutional balance of powers to the executive branch. They are wrong. It will simply transform the business of congress to what the framers originally intended, legislation intended for the "welfare of the people," not for the individual congressman's interests or district. This can also be a excellent way to discredit an already weak president. Propose this legislation and watch Clinton bob and weave all over the political map. He will give an added dimension to his moniker "Slick Willie." There was a Generation X activists group called "Lead or Leave" that was garnering a great deal of attention during the '92 campaign. Their main focus was on getting aspiring politicians and politicians seeking reelection to sign a pledge, pledging they would run only for a certain amount of terms. I am unfamiliar with their political leanings, but now seems the time for our generation to voice our concerns and opinions, to maybe more receptive ears. Will "Lead or Leave" be the only ones heard by the media? With the Job market tight for young college graduates and old industry blue collar jobs disappearing for many others, democratic schemes of handouts ("entitlements") and welfare are bankrupting the country and leaving us the enigma of being labeled the first generation in American history projected not to advance materially past our parents. Legislation being considered and passed now directly affects our futures and the future of our children. If you think things are tough now, they could get a lot worse. A line item veto put into law will substantially reduce the pork bills we now have being passed in Washington. That would be good for all of us, Generation X or otherwise. **************************************************************** In light of Newt Gingrich talking about tax credit for poor people to buy laptop computers and recent claims that some welfare benefits should be increased, . . . "[T]he major problem with neoconservatism is that in its enthusiasm for promoting truly new and revolutionary ideas for the common good, it often begins to espouse ideas that verge on the social engineering schemes for which liberals are justifiable condemned: Although they may preach against big government, oftentimes neoconservatives are unwittingly promoting it." William Thomas CGX - Volume 1, Issue 4 October 13, 1994 *** Editor's Note - You can reach Newt at georgia6@hr.house.gov *** Tell him CGX sent yah! **************************************************************** There it is - Volume 1, Issue 2. I hope you enjoyed it. The new (Newt?) year is here and we sent this issue out to more than 400 of you. I look forward to what lies ahead. As for our next issue (should hit the Cyberstands 1/30/95) I would like to take a deeper look at what it means to be Generation X. Some of you don't like the term so it is certainly worth examining it's worth. CGX wants to take us wherever it is that we need to go. Now we just need to figure out where that is. Most exciting, the first female author for CGX will be joining our ranks in the next issue. She's good. In Douglas Adam's book "The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy", we read of a super computer that is to answer the great question of "life, the universe, and everything." After billions and billions of years of computing power exceeding that of my Pentium (Intel Inside), the answer is given - "32." After a public relations blunder that will make Intel feel better, they realize they never knew what the question was in the first place. Do we? Does Washington? Will we ever? How can we? Until next time my Xer friends (if you get real hungry, drop by the Web site), Paul Colligan pcllgn@teleport.com Editor, CGX