|
|
The 2012 campaign for the GOP presidential nomination should, once and for all, end the myth that the GOP is the party of limited government, free markets and personal liberty. I submit it is instructive to look at the records of the three remaining GOP candidates not named “Paul.”
The following bullet points were excerpted verbatim from Reason.com’s candidate profiles. Yes, I have cherry picked items inconsistent with limited government, free markets and personal liberty. Yes, these same profiles mention positions of each candidate that are consistent with limited government, free markets and personal liberty.
The point of this post, however, is to show that none of these three candidates believe, as a first principle, in limited government, free markets and personal liberty. They each are more than willing to make exceptions when expedient. Therefore, any claim that they believe in limited government, free markets or personal liberty must be prefaced by the qualifier “when convenient.”
Mitt Romney:
- Defends the mandate-and-regulate approach to health care he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts
- He favors strong government surveillance powers to combat terrorism, and has praised the PATRIOT Act as a useful information gathering tool.
- previously backed … No Child Left Behind.
- He’s conveniently in favor of subsidies for corn-based ethanol.
Newt Gingrich:
- Opposes Obamacare but in 2005 joined Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) in “appearing to endorse proposals to require all individuals to have some form of health coverage.”
- Gingrich joined Obama’s “Race to the Top” in 2009, calling Education Secretary Arne Duncan “a serious innovator.”
- Gingrich likes ethanol subsidies and has accused “big cities” and “big urban newspapers” of trying to hurt the farmers who benefit from them. Also likes fossil fuel subsidies and said in 2010 that “a low-cost energy regime is essential to our country.” Supported cap and trade in 2007,
Rick Santorum:
- While he was in office … his record was, in the Club for Growth’s words, “plagued by the big-spending habits that Republicans adopted during the Bush years of 2001-2006.” He was a strong supporter of dairy subsidies, voted for Medicare Part D and the 2005 highway bill
- Sen. Santorum voted for the Sarbanes-Oxley law that he now wants to repeal. He also backed steel tariffs and was a player in the GOP’s corporatist K Street Project. After initial opposition to the program, he became a big AmeriCorps booster.
- “This idea that people should be able to go and do whatever they want and it doesn’t really matter as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody, that’s not our founders’ view of freedom.”
- He joined Hillary Clinton’s crusade against violent video games, used campaign finance regulations to threaten critics’ freedom of speech, and favors a porn crackdown.
- … he has warned against “the 10th amendment run amok.”
- He also has a history of supporting national schooling standards. He voted for the No Child Left Behind bill in 2001.
- … he has an on-again, off-again history of support for energy subsidies as well. In 2008 he called for Washington to “mandate that all cars sold in the United States…be ‘flex-fuel vehicles’—that is, they should be able to run on a blend that is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline.”
Can we quit pretending? The GOP loves government programs. One might be able to make the case that the GOP loves government programs less than Democrats, but that is damning with faint praise.
If the federal budget is one cent smaller in 2012 than it is in 2010, I’ll register Republican and run for precinct chair.
If not, y’all register Libertarian.
“Ah, but Dave, you crafty fellow, two years isn’t enough time to make a difference,” you say? Then how about four years? I’ll make the same deal.
Still not enough? Is eight sufficient? Ten? How many? You pick the time frame.
I’ll make the same deal.
Any takers? If not, why not? You claim to believe that the GOP believes in smaller government, yet given the chance to tell me how long a time frame is sufficient for them to make good on this belief, you still do not have faith in them to deliver on this claim?
And you call Libertarians unrealistic? Oh, the irony.
In today’s Denver Post, conservative columnist Vincent Carroll notes:
Funny thing, though: Entitlement programs seem to grow almost as fast when Republicans are in charge as when Democrats rule the roost. Go figure.
Let’s put the myth that the GOP believes in small government to rest, shall we?
My small-government GOP friends tell me often that I should accept the reality that we live in a two-party system with plurality voting.
They miss the point.
I accept reality.
They, however, fail to see that reality can be changed. At one time, we were a group of colonies subject to a monarchy. That reality changed.
At one time, Blacks in this country were chattel. That reality changed.
At one time, women were not allowed to vote. That reality changed.
Most of my small government Republican friends will acknowledge that they, themselves, want to change reality. The reality is that Barack Obama is in the White House. They want to change that. So do I. But I also want to change the reality that, right now, the only alternative is a Big Government Republican.
I will listen to arguments that perhaps Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee or John McCain would be better than Obama. Those arguments, alas, miss the point. All of them, Obama, Romney, Huckabee and McCain want the federal government to tell you and me how to live.
I reject the proposition that any degree of state control over my sovereignty is acceptable. The argument that a Republican wants slightly less control than a Democrat over my life is meaningless. I will not give it to them: not voluntarily.
Americans should never accept state control over our personal lives. Not even from a Republican.
Reality is, our government controls us. We can change that reality.
The Colorado Republicans are like the Keystone Cops – they are handing the Governor’s Mansion over to Hickenlooper and the Democrats.
Imagine this: several viable political parties that gave voters an option beyond a plagiarizing Big Government Republican and a quirky Big Government Democrat.
I know, that’s crazy talk.
====
Ever notice how Republicans love competition: the more competition, the better off the consumer is, right? But when it comes to political parties, the GOP believes two parties are more than enough!
Lower the barriers for new entry? That’s crazy talk.
For example: The race for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Colorado is between Jane Norton and Ken Buck.
And the Republicans are the “small government” party?
Am I the only one that finds this laughable? What am I missing, people?
(The race between Norton and Buck is just a current example. I’ll be glad to provide a list of Big Government Republican programs, but most Republicans acknowledge their failure.)
When so-called conservatives vote for big government politicians, they perpetuate the problem. They are the problem. It’s not the fault of “progressive” Democrats. It’s the fault of “conservative” Republicans.
Until Republicans stop this inconsistency, they have no one to blame but themselves.
We must reject the big government two-party duopoly. Don’t waste your vote on the status quo, because the status quo means more government. The Republican excuse that they don’t grow government as fast as the Democrats is not good enough.
We get the government we ask for. I implore you to quit asking for big government. I implore you to quit voting for big government politicians, whether or not they have an “R” by their name.
I only have suggestions. I don’t have a magic solution. But I know continuing down this path is pure folly.
I suggest joining a third party. I suggest supporting approval voting. If you don’t like those ideas, come up with something else, I implore you. I beg for your creativity in solving this problem. Republicans have a 150 year record of failing to shrink government. Thinking they’ll start now is belied by history. I don’t want a flame war. I’m not trying to gore anyone’s ox. I’m desperately looking for an answer to save this country. Give me some ideas. Please.
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.”
Jonah Goldberg has offered his take on where the Tea Partiers where while George W. Bush was expanding government and spending money he didn’t have. (See “Tea parties a delayed Bush backlash.“)
Concerning W’s Big Government Republican proclivity, Goldberg wrote:
Conservatives didn’t necessarily bite their tongues (remember the Harriet Miers and immigration fiascoes), but they did prioritize supporting Bush — often in the face of far nastier attacks than Obama has received — over ideological purity. Besides, where were conservatives supposed to go? Into the arms of John Kerry?
This perfectly illustrates the problem. With our two party system, we are given two bad choices: Expand government a lot, or expand it slightly less.
As long as we accept two bad choices, we’ll keep getting them. If you keep buying tripe for lunch because the only other option is haggis, guess what you’ll keep being offered? Tripe.
You can gag it down while you tell yourself, “well, it sure beats the hell out of haggis.”
We need more options. We need to be creative. The two party system ain’t in the Constitution. Neither is plurality voting. My immediate suggestion is adoption of approval voting. I’m open to ideas. I’m begging for ideas! Bring me ideas!
For U.S. Senate, I will be voting for whomever emerges the winner of the primary between Libertarian candidates John Finger and Maclyn Stringer.
Looking at the Republican primary, however, is interesting. The contest, for practical purposes, is between front-runners Jane Norton and Ken Buck. I could not support Norton. She supported Referendum C as Lt. Governor of Colorado and she has John McCain’s support. She is a certified Big Government Republican.
Buck says all the right thing concerning small government. I hope he has the fortitude to back up his words. The problem is, however, he does not have a record to critique like Norton does. He is a District Attorney, not a legislator. He has not had to make tough votes on tough issues. He can make promises, but he has no small government resume. As a DA, he has not had the opportunity. That is not his fault, but it is a fact.
I am generally wary of DA’s in political office. They come from a “law and order” background, and tend to support government intrusions into our Constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. There is a tension between the peoples’ Fourth Amendment rights and the government’s legitimate need to preserve order. I personally would like to see the tension resolved in favor of the Fourth Amendment. Law enforcement types generally – and I said “generally” – do not.
Buck has lots of Tea Party support, and I understand why. He talks the talk – but he’s never had to stroll the stroll. Forgive me for being cynical about another Republican making small government promises. Talk is like Ramen Noodles: Cheap and unfulfilling.
Republicans have not been faithful to their purported love of liberty. Republicans have betrayed liberty more frequently and with more partners than Tiger Woods has betrayed Elin. I will no longer be a cuckold.
Others are willing to believe that, this time, the Republican candidate actually means it when he promises to be true. I hope Buck is up to the task of resisting the temptation.
Unfortunately, it probably will not matter. The Big Government Republican Politburo has annointed Norton the candidate – and she will be annointed. Buck outnumbers Norton in grassroots activists by a lot. Norton, however, outnumbers Buck in bucks. According to the Denver Post, Norton has four times the campaign money that Buck has. The power of the politburo’s pocketbook will prevail. This is part of the systemic problem with out political process. We do not need “campaign finance” to keep people (including the people that form unions, corporations and other organizations) from making donations. We need a new voting system. We need to strip the two-party duopoly of its power by giving people more than two choices for such important offices.
Approval voting meets both of these goals. With approval voting, small government candidates would not be forced, as a practical matter, to run under the Big Government Republican banner.
Under our current system of plurality voting, Buck is going to lose the Big Government Republican primary. Buck supporters will then be told by the politburo that they can either vote for Big Government Republican Norton or the Democrat. Any system that results in such a choice is not worthy of existence.
I invite all the Buck supporters to abandon the Big Government Republican Party once Buck is officially discarded by the politburo. Yes, that will help the Democrat win. But we have to look beyond 2010. We have to look ahead to the next generation and the next. If we really want our grandchildren to live under a free nation, we must reject the current failed system and its process. We can, and must, replace it. We can not enable the process, even if the withdrawal might be painful
If we enable the current broken process, we are part of the problem. In fact, anyone that votes for another Big Government politician just because they have an “R” by their name IS the problem. You will have given your sanction to Big Government by voting for a Big Government candidate.
Don’t waste your vote like that.
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” –John Quincy Adams
===
The same analysis applies to the Tea Party support of Dan Maes for governor. The Big Government Republican politburo has annointed Scott McInnis. McInnis will be the Big Government Republican candidate.
According to a tease on page 2A of today’s hard copy of the Denver Post for a story on page 6A:
“Everybody here today that supports John McCain is part of the Tea Party movement.”
– Sarah Palin, during a campaign rally for her former running mate.
“Everyone here supporting John McCain, we are all part of that tea party movement.”
The substance might be generally the same, but I thought quotation marks were for quotations, not paraphrases. Then again, I do not have a journalism degree. However, English is my mother tongue. But I digress….
If either statement is accurate, it means that the Tea Party movement is in favor of federal government bailouts of failed private business (which McCain supported) and against the First Amendment (see the McCain-Feingold Act).
I think Palin has confused the Tea Party with the Big Government Republican Party. If she’s right, the movement is useless.
I hold out hope she’s wrong.
|
Help Liberty on the Rocks (Denver) Grow. Donate Today!
Get Happy Hour Reminders!
|
