Last year, the student government sponsored the Campus Democrats club in an initiative called the Go Bikes program. Basically, the school would have community bikes where any student could take these labeled bikes wherever they needed to around campus. In theory, it looked like it would make student life much easier.

At first, the students loved the bikes. On our campus, it was nice not to have to walk or buy your own bike in order to travel from the dorms to class. Even though they were used bikes, everything seemed to work for the first few weeks.

Then started the horror stories.

The first came from a close friend. He was riding a Go Bike down the biggest hill on our campus when the brakes gave out. By the time he noticed, he was traveling well over 20 mph, and to avoid broken bones and epic road-rash, he slammed his feet on the ground. Despite losing most of the rubber on the bottom of his shoes, he was able to walk away traumatized but unharmed.

The next incident came when a student hopped on a bike and after pedaling for 30 feet realized that the handle bars weren’t completely attached. The student lost balance and fell, but he luckily did not sustain any serious injuries.

These types of occurrences started popping up all over campus. Pretty soon, most of the bikes were completely dysfunctional. People stopped leaving them at the bike kiosks and eventually stopped using them at all. “Go Bikes” became somewhat of a campus joke.

Now, the only time I see the old bikes is in the woods or tossed in random bushes across campus. Every once in a while, a brave student rides one at the risk of their own peril.

This failed experiment serves as a hilarious yet illustrative reminder of why communism still doesn’t work.

Considering I have free market principles inherently planted in my body, I was skeptical of the plan from the beginning. The problem for college students — especially because economics is not a required class– is that Marxism and collectivism have always sounded good to the untuned ear.

College students are so vulnerable to this type of thinking because we are generally idealistic and the failures of collectivism are rarely, if ever, discussed in history classes. More shockingly, many teachers encourage this type of thinking.

Plus, for lazy college students, what’s not to like about free bikes?

Well obviously our students found out. When nobody owns a good, no one has the incentive to take care of it. Without individual ownership, no one cares about the individual condition of the bikes or even where they’re left. No one has responsibility.

This is one of the reasons that property rights are the foundation for a free society. Besides the trade aspect, property rights give people a reason to take care of the stuff they use. When you own something, you’re much more likely to take care of it and use it more efficiently.

When collectivism is tried, someone also has to pay for the collective good. In this case, the student body’s budget paid for the program out of student funds via Campus Democrats. It’s very similar to what we see when tax dollars go to big government programs where the bureaucrats have no monetary incentive to manage the service effectively and the receiver has no reason to value it because it’s free he doesn’t have to pay for it.

What is really awesome is that the solution to a bad program is more programs. The student government at our school has decided to double down on this idea by buying newer, more expensive bikes in hope that the result will change. I’m looking forward to sitting back and watching while this new round of bikes are destroyed and lost around campus. One of the new bikes has already had to go through significant repairs.

I just love when good money goes after bad programs. Sounds an awful lot like our federal government…

You might think that these students would learn from history, not only the history of the Go Bike program, but of communism in general. I’m thinking that colleges need to be offering more classes about the failures of the Soviet Union. Somehow I doubt that will happen anytime soon with the liberal leanings of our higher education system.

My generation needs an economic wake-up call. We have not been brought up in the ways of free enterprise. The average college student can’t even explain the advantages of trade. Our college, like many colleges, requires us to take three science classes and zero economics or business classes.

If my generation wants any hope of paying for the gargantuan debt left to us, we need to start understanding basic economics. We’ve got a long way to go. And we won’t get there on a Go Bike.

A version of this article was published at humanevents.com.

He asked for the Olympics; he failed.  He asked Israel to stop settling in the West Bank; he failed.  He asked Palestine and Saudi Arabia to engage Israel; he failed.  He promised to close Guantanamo Bay; he failed.  He asked Iran to stop its nuclear weapon ambitions; he failed.  He asked Honduras to restore their former president; he failed.  He asked China and India to reduce their greenhouse emissions; he failed.

Before last Friday, President Obama seemed to have lost his notorious luster. His epic campaign speeches – which continued well after the election and inauguration, promising a new type of foreign policy that would revolutionize the status quo and change the world – appeared to have no effect in world affairs.

Even liberals were starting to wonder, “What’s up?” His idealistic goals of ending the spread of nuclear weapons and solving the world’s longest conflicts had hit rock walls. For all of us living in the real world, we weren’t surprised: making progress on these problems takes more than just flowery words and speeches. It’s impossible to do that much in nine months, even with Obama’s magic powers.

The real question is: How can someone who has accomplished next to nothing win a Nobel Peace Prize?

Don’t get me wrong – it’s possible he could create more peace in the world, but that has yet to be seen. Why not give him the award a few years down the road?

In short, it’s because the Nobel Peace Prize has become so ideologically based that the award is a joke.

Greg Mortenson spoke last week at Principia College. After his talk, I thought he should have been given the award, but upon revision I really didn’t want Mortenson’s name to be tarnished by association with the likes of Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and Yassir Arafat.

Jimmy Carter was a complete failure as president. After his short tenure, he has focused on bad-mouthing the U.S. everywhere he goes. His odd missions – Palestine and elsewhere – have done nothing except legitimize radical terrorist groups.

Al Gore is a partisan who manipulated statistics to scare people into following his cause. While manmade warming may be real to some small extent, Gore’s statistics blew even the craziest of scientists out of the water.

Yassir Arafat was a terrorist. Arafat wanted nothing more than to wipe Israel off the map through bloody attacks on innocent civilians.

Not all recipients have been nut-jobs. Many Nobel Prize winners such as Mother Teresa were truly deserving, and have changed the world for the better.  Lately, however, the panel that awards the prize has been trying to forward its leftist ideology instead of awarding exceptional accomplishments.

Its latest choice attempts to forward a political message in three ways:

First, it shouts “Hallelujah!” for the sheer fact that George W. Bush isn’t president. Even though Obama has not significantly changed Bush’s foreign policy, the hatred of Bush was so strong that the committee wanted to tell the world that any pacification of the US is “progress.”

Second, it encourages Obama not to increase the troop presence in the Middle East. With key decisions coming up for policies on Afghanistan, Israel, Iraq, and Iran, the Nobel committee may be trying to push Obama to give into the pacifist wing of his party. It makes it tough for the most recent winner of the Nobel Peace Prize to escalate troop levels in Afghanistan.

Third, the committee gave him the award to give him more political capital. The Nobel committee is so arrogant that it actually believes this award will help him in future negotiations. The committee recognized that, while everyone likes him, no one is listening to him, and that maybe – just maybe – this award will spark Obama’s magic wand back to life.

On the contrary, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman points out that the committee “did President Obama no favors by prematurely awarding him its peace prize.” While the committee may believe its message is being forwarded, it may be further tripping up the president instead by giving him this embarrassing award.

Friedman recommends that the president not accept the award on his own behalf, but on the behalf of the American troops. The troops have kept America safe, bringing peace to the world numerous times. I approve. This sort of appreciation would be great for the country, not to mention for Obama’s approval ratings.

It’s too bad that this move would require one thing which the President will not be giving up anytime soon: his ego. If I’m wrong, I will admit it in this column, but after listening to his lofty and self-absorbed speeches for two long years, I’m not too worried.

The original Waxman-Markey bill was designed to curb carbon dioxide emissions by introducing a government-run “cap and trade” system into our economy. Cap and trade, a supposed alternate to a carbon tax, forces companies that emit carbon dioxide to buy permits to do so. The government would auction a fixed number of these permits into the market each year. Businesses would be able to trade these permits. By putting a price on CO2 emissions and making them tradable, these businesses would have an incentive to use less CO2. However, this incentive only comes through the penalty of having to buy carbon permits; practically, it is a tax. 

Most of our energy comes from CO2-emitting methods. Therefore, whether or not a certain business emits CO2, its costs will go up because the price of energy will skyrocket. Extra costs for businesses translate into laid-off workers and higher prices to make up for these additional costs. 

When businesses raise prices, consumers take the heat. According to a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study, the average family would have incurred more than $3,900 dollars in extra expenses if the original bill had passed. While Obama has proposed a mild tax credit to low income families to balance these costs, there is no doubt that all family budgets, especially of families in areas powered by coal, will take a serious hit. 

For this reason, some Democratic congressmen who are afraid of their constituents have pushed to modify the bill. Instead of doing one big government auction, the new Waxman-Markey bill would give out 85 percent of the permits, and auction off the remaining 15 percent. The 85 percent would be handed out to the people of Congress’s choosing. Certain energy distributors, automakers, natural gas distributors, and states with renewable energy programs would receive permits at the government’s discretion. 

Even though this new plan may be marginally easier on consumers, the government should not be able to pick winners and losers. When congressmen select the recipients of the unauctioned permits, they are likely to pick businesses in their own district or companies that give money to their campaigns. Maybe this is why GE’s CEO Jeffery Immelt is excited about the bill’s possible passage. 

Both the new and old Waxman-Markey bills have a problem with enforceability as well. How can the government ensure that companies are only using the carbon they purchased? The government would have to create a new measuring system and a new bureaucracy to make sure businesses are only using their permitted CO2. Watching over every business in America is neither a small nor an inexpensive endeavor, and may in fact be impractical. 

Washington should still take action. However, instead of making the government bigger by creating a new bureaucracy, inhibiting our economy, or allowing D.C. to become even more corrupt, the government should step out of the way. 

There is a solution, apart from cap and trade, that will save consumers and businesses money while still getting rid of pollution (not just CO2). This solution has been around for decades, and every other developed and developing country in the world is investing in this energy source. China has planned or is building 92 plants of this kind. France gets over 80 percent of its power from this source. This energy is four times cheaper than solar energy, and it is the second lowest in price only to coal. America’s best way to reduce pollution is to remove the ban on building nuclear power plants. 

Nuclear power — or “nucular” power if you’re former president George W. Bush — is a cheap source of power with zero pollution, and the arguments to keep it banned are getting slimmer. New nuclear plants can provide America with cheap and pollution-free energy that is ready to produce right now. Wind, solar, hydrogen, and other clean sources are not nearly as developed as nuclear. Since electric cars have a good chance of becoming the next generation of automobiles, nuclear electricity could actually be the complete solution to our energy independence and pollution problems. 

More nuclear power would help our economy and our environment. Cap and trade may help our environment, but it will certainly hurt our economy. The choice is easy for the American people, even if Washington runs on a different frequency.

The moderates — led by David Brooks of the New York Times and author David Frum — really don’t have much political evidence for their argument. Becoming a party of moderates sounds promising, but as I’ve mentioned in previous columns, this idea is oxymoronic. Parties are made up of partisans: people who feel strongly about issues. 

Having a party of moderates is kind of like having an unbiased opinion — it isn’t possible. What Brooks and Frum want is for the party to become ambidextrous by cutting off its right arm. This doesn’t make any sense, especially when you consider that the right arm does all the work. When was the last time you saw an excited group of moderates putting up signs and making phone calls for their candidates. Let’s be honest, the people with the strongest beliefs do most of the political groundwork, and without them you have no party and no foundation for success. 

Despite what the media has been touting, there is empirical evidence to show that conservatives still have a large base. According to a recent Harris Poll, 37% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, compared to 18% who identify as liberal. This number has been stable for 40 years. The biggest problem with the GOP is that they have not been able to effectively unite their base with a comprehensive message. This is why only 26% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans. 

I am not advocating that the GOP turn into a radically right-wing organization. Despite Rush Limbaugh’s recent claims, the Republicans need both conservatives and moderates in their party. However, no American party has ever been successfully organized by moderates. Instead of following Brooks and Frum down the pathway of principleless complacency, maybe the GOP should follow the Democrats’ successful political model.

Democrats manage to keep all of the liberals in their party while still attracting moderates. Only 18% of Americans claim to be liberal, yet 36% of Americans identify themselves as Democrats. To do this, they have built a party on liberal principles and have marketed these principles to a significant portion of the American middle. They also happened to find a very effective messenger in Barack Obama. 

Just like the Democratic party has liberal principles, the Republican party needs to have a clear set of conservative principles which they can market to the middle. George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatism (aka what Brooks and Frum are now calling moderation) has wrecked the perception of what those principles are. Bush tried to create a big-government Republicanism — a mix of terms that had the conservative base outraged. He grew the government establishment larger than any president since Lyndon Johnson and his “Great Society.” After the bailouts, the massive growth in entitlements, and the significant increase to the deficit, America did not know who to look to for fiscal conservatism. This is why Republican identification shrank to 26%. 

Bush adopted Democratic spending policies and confused the American people about what the Republican party stood for. Brooks and Frum want the party to continue this confusion. Republicans cannot be the party of big-government conservatism. Democrats are already the party of big-government. Does it makes sense for the GOP to be the party of a somewhat smaller big-government? No. The Republicans must offer the American people an alternative to the endless deficit spending, growth-punishing taxes, bureaucratic wastefulness, and welfare statism that has dominated Barack Obama and George Bush’s agenda over the last nine years. 

To do this, Republicans will have to renew and redefine what conservatism means. I believe the clearest and most marketable way to do this is Constitutionalism. By doing this, Republicans will clearly be the party of limited government, freedom, and liberty — values which seem to have gone missing in Washington. This message will bring all conservatives back under the Republican party while offering an appealing movement for American moderates to join. This principled and inclusive Republican party would refresh American politics and bring the GOP back into relevance.

Who is a Republican? Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal? Rush Limbaugh or Ron Paul? Rudy Giuliani or Mike Huckabee? Ask any one of them and they will claim the conservative title, but who’s actually right?

All of these politicians have differing views, yet somehow they all claim the same party. The bible-thumpers, Libertarians, traditionalists, neo-cons, and the plain old generally disgruntled conservatives all share an (R) by their name, but they seem to share little else. The large schisms in the Republican Party have seemed and seem to be nothing short of overwhelming. In the last thirty years, there have been two clear party unifications. In 1980 and 1994, something or someone was able to unite these folks under the cause of “conservatism.”

The last two years have been anything but an exciting time for conservatives. Bush’s spending escapades coupled with McCain’s sleep-inducing speeches have left Republicans craving galvanization. Palin’s populism shook the base but didn’t awaken the intellectual beast.

What can awaken this beast? I think everyone agrees that to accomplish this feat, the Republican Party must be redefined. Let me take a swing.

We need a return to conservatism. Sorry, David Brooks, but we can’t be the oxymoronic party of activist moderates. We have to return to our principles, but the way we do so must morph conservatism into a clearly defined and inclusive movement.

The dictionary defines conservatism as a reverence for the past and for the establishment. In my mind, the current establishment has left little to be admired, so I recommend we look even further back into the inception of our government. I suggest we turn to the founders of our nation and look to the Constitution as our platform.

Unsurprisingly, last week I was watching CPAC. Surprisingly, I found out that Rush Limbaugh actually agrees with me. He said, “We have a challenge. We’ve got factions now within our own movement seeking power to dominate it, and worst of all to redefine it. Well, the Constitution doesn’t need to be redefined. Conservative intellectuals, the Declaration of Independence does not need to be redefined and neither does conservatism. Conservatism is what it is and it is forever.”

Wow. Rush Limbaugh, Ron Paul, and I all agree. How is this possible?

Every single American can relate to the Constitution. It is the unifying document of our nation. What has absolutely shocked me about both the Republicans and the Democrats is that neither party has claimed the Constitution as its own. Each uses it when convenient but never looks to it as its set of principles.

The Republican Party is the supposed party of small government, liberty, and freedom. If we really want to take a step away from the neo-con love of big government, maybe the party should follow the father of the Constitution.

James Madison states in Federalist No. 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

The Constitution, the fundamental mandate for limited government, has 38 “few and defined” powers mentioned in Article I, Section 8. It also has a “necessary and proper” clause by which we can make laws to support the “foregoing” 38 powers. I encourage everyone to read these powers, and then think about the laws we are considering now. You will quickly find that over 70 percent of the legislation we pass is completely unconstitutional.

For years, federal politicians have been allowed to buy votes through expanding the federal government. The 10th Amendment gives the states the power to make laws that the federal government is restricted from making. This federalist model gives more powers to states, municipalities and the people, who are logically better set up to handle each state’s individual needs.

This federalist model, as I explained in my column last November, can be used to unify the Republican Party. If we can all agree to support a limited federal government, we can still encourage social legislation on the state level. This means that for national elections, Libertarians would have the exact same platform as Bible-thumpers. This platform, our Constitution, is something that all Americans can relate to, and it is also certainly something they can respect. Michael Steele has the right excitement and Bobby Jindal has the articulation skills. All they need is a solid platform.

As Professor John Williams will tell you in any of his political science courses, whichever party has the biggest “tent” wins. In other words, whoever can include more people in their party will prevail. Usually this means pandering to the center, but I have a different idea: let’s go back to the Constitution. 

This is exactly what Ron Paul said at the outset of the Republican primary. His problem was that he could not garner the vote of the GOP base. Many conservatives like me didn’t like him because of his foreign policy, and he also alienated the base because he was socially liberal, or at least a social federalist. This got rid of any traction he could have had. It seems the Republicans still need the support of the religious right. 

Many of the folks in this bloc believe that the federal government should have an active role in cultural and moral issues — something that is obviously not in the Constitution. The great thing about our founding document is that any duty that is not delegated to the federal government is under the authority of the states (as outlined in the 10th Amendment). So, what this means for our friendly neighborhood neo-cons is that you can ban abortion or outlaw gay marriage, just keep the fight on the state level. That is the only appropriate place for this kind of debate.

What I am getting at is that evangelicals, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, and classic Republicans can all be in the same tent. Many conservatives, including me, thought we started losing the battle of ideas when Republicans began to advocate for a large, powerful, and “compassionate” federal government. Republicans have never won by saying they would out-regulate the Democrats, and with Tuesday’s results, it is obvious that Republicans won’t win if we stick to only embracing our social conservative “base.” So here’s how we create the big tent:

The GOP adopts the Constitution as its main platform. The key after this is the execution. The party would have to communicate to the libertarians and fiscal conservatives that the rein of big government is going to end by promising drastic reform of Washington which would cut out the bloated and unconstitutional bureaucracies that plague our capital and have caused so many of our current problems. Next, convince the social liberals that they do not have to worry about the federal government stepping in their personal lives. Finally, persuade the evangelical base that the way to win their battle is to focus at the local level. 

The religious right may take some more convincing, and one way to accomplish that is for the party to say they support banning late term abortions and gay marriage at the state level. Then comes a little political maneuvering: the party would tell the constitutionalist/libertarian wing that they are not going to mess with civil liberties on the national level. Both of these two wings agree we need smaller and more localized government and free market principles; the GOP just has to give them a reasonable compromise on social issues. Offering to follow the Constitution should be an offer they can’t refuse. 

Ronald Reagan was able to attract voters from across the political spectrum with a broad tent philosophy, but he also had some good oratorical skills. If we are to unite these factions of the conservative movement and attract new voters, we will need a leader. At this point, I favor Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Whoever it is, he or she must unite the factions of the party. The only foreseeable method for unification is this federalist argument I have laid out. 

Classic conservatism is not dead; conservatives just need a new hope. This national strategy will unite the old party neocons with the young and energized libertarians. Conceivably, the GOP could bring together fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and social liberals into one tent. If the Republicans fail to do this, we could be seeing blue for a long time. 

Tuesday showed us that the era of “compassionate conservatism” is over, and for that I am thankful. Now, we have a chance to redefine the Republican Party. Big government has failed time and again, and if Obama implements his proposed policies, we will see big government fail one more time. It will be at this time when neoclassical conservatism will be the winning argument for the Republican Party. This is of course if they listen …