The news of the day has thoroughly explored virtually every statistical possibility for tonight's primary results, both here and nationally. However, very few column inches or pixels have discussed the stakes on the table for tonight's primary results.
History rarely provides the voters with a clear electoral choice, even more rarely in an intramural election. This year, 2010, is a year where even primary voters have the opportunity to choose between the party of the last thirty years or the party of the next thirty years.
A victory by the establishment "moderates" across the country means the majority of Republicans lack the will to turn back the imminent tide of socialism and paternalism. The dichotomy is simple to illustrate: the Republican establishment candidates are, on virtually every issue, to the right of the Democrat candidates but nonetheless willing to embrace government based solutions to most problems and greater government management of an increasingly larger share of the citizen's daily life. Put another way, establishment Republicans define their ideology as simply not Democrats.
Such a world view is simply unprepared to reverse the growth of government and the share of our wealth and our individuality it consumes. A moderate in politics is typically moderate in all things. Such personalities either cannot or will not confront the liberal progressive ideology. A "moderate" or "center right" politician may lower the rate of growth, and undoubtedly will better manage government than a "liberal/progressive" but by compromising the premise that government can or should address more problems inherently surrenders the premise that government can and should address a given problem to the liberal/progressive. We, the taxpayer and the citizen, then get more government than we want when Republicans control government and the promise, that with any liberal/progressive electoral success, much more government than we want. History abundantly evidences the inescapable truth of that conclusion.
On the other hand, our party may embrace the only meaningful future we have-a return to small government conservatism as the Republican raison d'etre. Small government conservatism defines the role of government in absolute and objective terms and not as an exercise in relativism. Small government conservatism views American culture as arising from uniquely the American experience in which personal liberty outweigh efficiency and management.
So we Republicans may carry the elections in November. The stakes today are to define what kind of Republicans carry those elections. So come November 2010, think back on today and ask yourselves this simple question: is the temperature in Hell beneficially affected by the speed of the traveler's journey?
4 comments:
A couple of thoughts. First, it's interesting that when stuff like the Gulf oil spill happen, the largely R voices from the South cry: Why isn't our government doing more? Small government my ass, when your own ass is in trouble!
Second, idealist conservatives, such as Sporer and the rest of the tea-addicted, seem to forget that today's world is not the world of the 1780's and the founding fathers'. It's a complicated, interwoven world where government has a very important role. While it is fair to discuss the scope of the government's role, too many conservatives appear willing to go back to the 18th century without grasping the fact that it was a completely different time and place.
Don'tcha think a 5 state massive enviro disaster is one of those things the federal government is supposed to handle. If the feds disaster prevention and remediation can't do this why do you think the feds can handle things like education and health care?
As for the later argument you state the obvious but why don't small government solutions work to solve problems? The left here follows the European model and Europe is imploding, and those guys don't even pay for their own defense.
For example, why couldn't those big banks and big auto companies go chap 7 or chap 11. Make 'em sell the Pontiac brand or the credit card subsidiary. Hundreds, maybe thousands of small businesses would have been born. Leaner, meaner and more efficient.
The principles of small government and self reliance work even better in the modern world of mass information and rapid transportation.
Plus, from your perspective we are never going to get to a cleaner and more sustainable energy sector without ending corporate and union subsidies for oil production.
Lower case g men like me don't think our tax dollars should go to BP or Amoco any more than AFSCME, SEIU or lazy effing 30 year olds that want to use their parents health insurance.
So big govt is ok to clean up the mess, but surely you are against all that "excessive regulation and red tape" that could have prevented the whole debacle? Funny how the Brits and Norwegians require more failsafe blowout preventers that would have prevented the mess, but the oil companies were able to avoid those regs in this country. An ounce of prevention, etc.... Frankly, I would have more sympathy for the Gulf Coast folks if they didn't vote so many of those anti-government, anti-regulation R's into Congress. Why should we have people who hate govt in charge of it?
Post a Comment