Scott Brown is a great example of the lunacy of our two party system.
Brown is the newest GOP hero for winning Ted Kennedy’s senate seat. He was nigh on canonized by Republicans for his victory.
Those of us when some sense of perspective realized Brown was a major player in the socialization of Massachusetts health care and did not join in on the canonization.
As a U.S. Senator, he voted for Obama’s Keynesian “jobs bill.” As of tonight, he has now voted against the “Audit the Fed” bill. You are what your record says you are.
The newest GOP poster boy has demonstrated that he is just another Big Government Republican Statist. He fits right in with the last GOP nominee for President, John McCain. He fits right in with the last GOP governor of Colorado, Ref C cheerleader Bill Owens.
I know, I know, my Republican friends will retort, “but Brown is so much better than any Democrat!”
So?
Driving into a tree at 90 miles per hour is better than running into a tree at 100 miles per hour. The result is the same. There certainly is no sense in cheering the 90 mph collision. There is less sense in hoping for it. There is even less sense in actively praising it.
Our two party duopoly makes otherwise intelligent small-government minded people praise the likes of Scott Brown. It is an absurdity.
My good GOP friends will say that Libertarians have no chance of winning, so they must vote for Republicans, regardless of how statist the Republican is. This is an interesting play on words. Their definition of “winning” includes “losing.” For example, Republicans could have “won” the election if McCain defeated Obama. Of course, this “victory” would have been a huge defeat for freedom.
Hence, some Republicans define “winning” to include “losing.” It’s a neat trick.
Regarding the compulsive desire for Republicans to “win,” Michael Bednarik had a great analogy. He said:
If you were in prison and faced a 50% chance of death by lethal injection, a 45% chance of the electric chair, and a 5% chance of escape, would you vote for lethal injection because it meant you where more likely to win?
Winning an election means nothing if it includes losing your principles. Now, I know lots of principled Republicans, including my dad. They exist in no small number. But that number is insufficient to actually elect a significant number of small government candidates under the GOP banner. The GOP is what its record says it is.
A third way, however, is not impossible. Notwithstanding significant differences in the voting system, the recent UK elections have demonstrated it.
While I have no praise for the policies of the United Kingdom’s Liberal Democrats, I have tremendous praise for their success as a third party in their most recent national election.
Nick Clegg, the LibDems’ leader, did not work within the Labour Party to make change. His principles did not allow it. For that, I admire him and all those Britons that voted for the third party. To quote El Presidente, “supporting party before principle does a disservice to both.”
