In August 2006 I wrote, “The contrast is clear. [Ted] Strickland will increase government control and spending while [Ken] Blackwell will relieve government hindrances on growth.”

When now-Governor Strickland made his State of the State speech last week, he made me a soothsayer (sort of). Not that the task was difficult. Strickland had the perfect storm of a political environment: An unpopular and inept opposing party within the state that was also unpopular nationally. As candidate Strickland, Ted didn’t have to tell us precisely what he would do. It was enough that he lacked a capital R next to his name.

Still, his ambiguous overtures begged for bigger government and more spending. When the new governor unveiled his first series of policy proposals, he asked for just that.

In particular, I noticed three main themes: 1) Partisan handouts to key constituent groups; 2) Increasing government power and removing responsibility from the people; and 3) An increased likelihood of tax hikes.

Partisan Handouts

First, Governor Strickland offered a series of handouts to key Democrat constituent groups, probably designed to solidify his party’s base. For example, he wants to give property tax relief just to senior citizens—a good idea in general, but why just for seniors?

Second, he wants to keep vouchers for Cleveland only, which is the bluest of blue areas in the state. Likewise, the voucher abolition and Strickland’s call for a moratorium on charter schools is just what the teacher’s unions want. Finally, his billion-dollar bond idea for energy projects is a bone tossed to the environmental left.

Increasing Government Power

Increasing state government support for schools is, by itself, not a bad idea. It does, however, make insolvent districts more dependent on the state for support, as opposed to correcting their own budgets, cultures, and tax structures. In turn, the state has more control and more say in how schools operate. The GOP should ask for a provision that limits the state’s influence the operation of schools in exchange for the additional aid.

Likewise, the abolition of vouchers would essentially allow government to tell more and more students where and how they must attend school. Meanwhile, poorer families will have fewer options to escape schools not meeting their students’ needs. Similarly, without the option of charter schools, most students will be stuck in failing schools, thus removing any incentive for the schools in question to reform their ways. Republicans would be wise to fight for school choice and charter schools as two ways to help low income districts.

The Governor’s proposal to ensure that all children have health insurance, while noble in its sentiments and intent, will equally increase government power and remove responsibility from the people. If parents don’t have to tend to their kids’ needs, then they simply won’t, and the last thing our society needs is declining responsibility from our parents.

Last but not least are the tuition cap and increased government support for college. State funding actually gives universities an incentive to hike tuition because they know the state fills the gap. Combined with the cap, the state aid will flood universities with students they are not equipped to teach due to declining revenues caused by the tuition cap.

Increased Likelihood of Tax Hikes

Governor Strickland has also inadvertently pointed to future tax hikes, which are the last thing Ohio’s struggling economy needs. The increased aid to colleges and public schools and the child health care plan, along with an additional pre-school program and a rule to limit budget increases to 2.2% each year spell two words: more spending.

If the budget can only grow by 2.2% with more spending commitments than ever are proposed, it follows that the extra dollars must come from somewhere. The state started with the proposed removal of tax breaks for oil companies—a de facto gas price hike on consumers. Now, other tax increases seem almost inevitable.

Chances are that the GOP-led legislature will bow to a few of the governor’s demands—he is, after all, a governor with a mandate—but a State House-Assembly war is brewing. Still, Ohioans shouldn’t be surprised because this is the essence of politics. In the mean time, many conservative projections of last year will slowly become reality.

Our political discourse today is no nastier than it has been at any given time in the history of the country. In fact, journalism during the first hundred years of the Republic was more along the lines of the most radical publications we read today (think The Nation).

Still, there is a case to be made that our politics is nastier, or dirtier, today than it has ever been—at least in terms of the presidential hunt.

We have more self-important candidates running for office, and earlier, now than at any other time in my young twenty-eight-year life. Furthermore, the campaign began, almost literally, the day after the mid-term elections in late 2006.

Thus, think of it this way: The longer you play in the mud, the dirtier you get.

Mudslinging has already begun, particularly with early salvos between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

All of this seems likely to sour the American people on politics. Chances are that political junkies will have gone mad by this time next year and average Americans—the type who do not devour news each day—will grow sick of the process.

The risk here is that belief, and participation, in the system will decline. When and if this occurs, left and right camps, which already dominate, will have almost complete hegemony over our political discourse.

Then, naturally, the mighty, average—or, dare I say, moderate—American middle will emerge again and participation in our ongoing national political talk will increase. Until then, however, prepare for the long, dirty politics of the 2008 presidential hunt, which began in earnest in 2006.

I admit it: I am right wing. Thus, I know what I am talking about when I peruse conservative websites and read conservative publications like Human Events and NewsMax and see particular patterns.

One pattern I have noticed falls into the category of irony. Significant portions of conservative news stories focus on Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations. In short, this conglomeration can be described in short as Anti-Hillary.

Such news coverage is ironic in light of (reasonable) conservative criticisms of liberal Democrats during the tenure of George W. Bush that they were merely Anti-Bush. For example, the 2004 presidential race was more about beating Bush than it was electing John Kerry.

Yet, we have become what we so maligned before.

For example, Sean Hannity’s radio show is dubbed the “Stop Hillary Express.” Human Events has a “Hillary Watch” section. The list could go on.

Not that Hillary should be ignored or that conservatives should not examine her clearly formidable campaign; but it seems, especially in the absence of clear conservative leadership, that we on the right have been reduced to being Anti-Hillary.

I fear that if conservatives cannot unite behind a set of core values, then we risk becoming the irrational, vitriolic segment of the left that exhausted its efforts smearing George W. Bush, much like the conservative Congressional class of 1994 became comfortable DC citizens contrary to their initial aspirations.

As we once said of the left, it’s not enough to be against someone.

As a teenager, I was allowed to drive my mother’s car around our Dayton, Ohio suburb pretty much whenever I wanted. Like most teenage boys, and in spite of her warnings to the contrary, I regularly drove like a fool.

When the road was straight, I sped. I squealed the tires. I drove erratically. I parked in yards. I raced my friends. Once I even managed to drive through a fence.

Of course, Mother didn’t approve. She always told me to be careful and not to do anything foolish. In other words, I was probably going to drive like a typical teenage boy anyway, but there was always risk, for my actions would never have been condoned.

Imagine, however, that my mother took a different philosophical approach to driving. My reckless ways might have resulted in damage to the car, another car, or a house; the death of others, or even my own. Instead, imagine that the prevailing assumption was that I would drive like a boy anyway.

Thus, why not put in place safeguards to protect teenage boys from themselves—from natural actions that adults were powerless to prevent.

It might have been in the form of, say (using our imaginations), a series of bumper walls along all roads in Ohio. Likewise, tough, thick protective suits might have been mandatory. Additional roads could have been built for rowdy teenage drivers, complete with mentioned protections.

All designed to remove the consequences of our actions.

In this imaginary world, what would have been the result? More teenage boys would drive more like, well, teenage boys, of course! Despite existing safeguards, the consequences would ultimately appear, anyway. Cars would be totaled. Boys would die—and perhaps because they would have de facto encouragement to drive like drunken buffoons, more would die than usual.

Hence, the mothers of Ohio would have a decision to make: Protect their sons from reckless behavior while practically condoning it, or leave the consequences in place and continue instilling the idea that it’s best not to drive the family sedan like a sports car.

Not that the somewhat national controversy over the HPV vaccine perfectly fits the preceding allegorical scenario, but the point is the same. For years our schools and pop culture, and in some cases families, have practically encouraged rather casual teenage sexual activity based on the belief that they are going to do it anyway.

Then, the same institutions push for funding and rules to eliminate all the consequences—only for those consequences to multiply. Perhaps this example may end up being extreme, but then again, fear of financial burden and death has since caused my driving habits to moderate.

Washington Post staff writers Anna Hull and Dana Priest penned a story that appears online this morning about the deplorable state of military health care. Much has been made of poor conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center; a Bush Administration official and a general have lost jobs in the aftermath.

But Hull and Priest quote an aging veteran who claims, “It is just not Walter Reed.” Other VA facilities are in poor condition, too, Ray Oliva claims.

Frankly, as an Army veteran, I, too, have heard horror stories about VA medical centers. Likewise, I felt that military health care in general was rather sub-par.

Unfortunately, most readers will miss the significance of the Walter Reed story. Certainly the military’s lacking treatment of our national servants who paid a great price should draw the ire of the public. Likewise, conditions should be remedied.

But the true story behind the story—the one that more directly affects Americans as a whole—is centered around a question: What kind of health care is military health care?

Well, it’s government health care; the variety of which two-thirds of Americans seem to be demanding, at least according to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll. John Edwards and even Hillary Clinton are back on the “health care for all” path again, too.

All soldiers and their families have the “free” health care from the military. In other words, as a soldier I had universal health care, courtesy of the government. While I never had significant needs (thank God), I did experience long waits and indifferent service that tend to be commonplace and notoriously worse in universal systems.

Likewise, recall the Washington Post and the Walter Reed stories, mainly: the “mold, mice and rot” at Walter Reed; “indifferent, untrained staff; lost paperwork; medical appointments that drop from the computers; and long waits”; “[a] room swarming with fruit flies, trash overflowing and a syringe on the table.”

Blame certainly lies with actual people in some cases, but the true culprit is the providing system: government.

Thus, when two-thirds of Americans are eager to have Uncle Sam take over their health care, so they simply don’t have to worry about the costs, they should consider the Walter Reed affair and all that it represents. If they get their way, two-thirds of Americans will get a health care system along the lines of that described in the Hull/Priest story.

It goes back to an old adage: be careful what you ask for.

I have been largely silent on the new Strickland Administration here in Ohio since the new governor took office; however, a poll published on the Dayton Daily News website begs for a comment.

The polls results indicate that Ohioans want the GOP-led legislature to cooperate with Governor Ted Strickland and vice-versa. Frankly, given the governor’s ideas, the current “gridlock” is welcome. Less cooperation, at this point, means that fewer Strickland ideas become law and that Ohio will, at least, be no worse off than before.

At the same time, Ohio will not move in the right direction, either. Red tape and taxes will remain in place and the economy will continue to struggle.

Then again, the new governor has not really made any significant efforts to move on any proposals with the assembly. A review of Governor Strickland’s actions at this point includes: a veto of a tort reform bill; withdrawing an appeal of a law that restricted the use of an abortion-inducing pill; an idea that would bring federal money to the state in order to bring streetcars back to Cincinnati; and a tax hike on gas wholesalers.

At least three of these ideas are potentially detrimental impacts to the economic climate. Perhaps the tort limit may have been extreme, but without a limit, litigation might unnecessarily harm businesses, possibly resulting in further job loss. Bringing streetcars to the Queen City would only increase state spending and the need for higher taxes. And the tax hike on gas wholesalers is a de facto gas price hike on consumers.

During the campaign, conservatives predicted that Strickland’s purposely—and rather politically brilliant—ambiguity and his refusal to use specificity would inevitably turn into bigger government. Thus, it has, even if the governor can’t push anything through the legislature.

In light of these ideas, perhaps it is better that the executive and legislative branches have not cooperated as yet, for at least no movement means no movement in the wrong direction.