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?