Mr Romney is an honorable man and someone who, I believe, may have slowed the spiral toward statism that has been in place for the last. . .what. . .century? Slowed, maybe, but surely not have stopped. For Mr Romney was and is a Republican politician - a so-called "moderate" Republican who, it was hoped, would attract independents and undecided voters (whatever they may be) to unseat President Obama. He did some of this heavy lifting, but not nearly enough.
Now, in the aftermath of November 6th, the Republican Party is going through relentless self-examination. Brett Stevens, an editorial page writer at The Wall Street Journal with whom I often find myself nodding in agreement, suggested that the GOP end its opposition to same-sex marriage, opining that as the issue has now won wide public support throughout the US, it only works against Republican candidates. Other pundits as well as Party regulars are wringing their hands, venturing that the GOP must do a better job in addressing the views of women, Hispanics, African Americans, youth, gays - and all other manner of identity-based political groups. To which I say humbug.
What the country needs is a clear, unequivocal choice. President Obama and his cohorts have moved the Democratic Party further to the Left. "Liberals" have been replaced by "Progressives" - meaning those who want to form a government that is Utopian and pragmatic: Utopian in its belief that the country and society should be managed by self-appointed experts (technocrats) and policies makers in Washington, DC, who, owing to their academic credentials and "evolved" sensitivities, understand better than the rest of us how to live our lives. They are pragmatic in their conviction that the old rules - including the Constitution - simply don't apply anymore - and where they do, only as they interpret them. Even a casual reading or re-hearing of Obama's speeches cannot help but convince one of these characteristics. How else to explain his well reported comment that the Constitution is incomplete as the Founders did not address equity of distribution as well as opportunity?
Yet, despite their avowed support for smaller government and desire to diminish the role of Federal bureaucrats to run our lives, I am skeptical of Republican politicians to live up to their own advertising. The combination of power and money that is the Federal Government is simply too heady and too rich. It isn't fat cat businessmen and millionaires who control the GOP, it is the deep, rich pool of the Public Treasury (read: your tax dollars) and that heady feeling that comes being "part of the solution" that shapes their policies and votes. Just as it does the Democrats. And worst of all, politicians of both parties have the annoying notion that they are required to do something to fix whatever wrong, injustice, imbalance or slight whether real or imagined, big or small that comes into view.
During the campaign, most of my writings and conversations were in opposition to Mr Obama; why he is and would continue to be a disastrous choice. I don't believe Mitt Romney would have been as disastrous - but he was not the stark contrast needed either in tone or substance. Very few praises for Mitt Romney came from me. Several astute folks noticed this and asked what I am for.
As a Conservative, I am someone who believes in the one thing lacking in both parties: principles. Not the Utopian principles of the Progressive Left and certainly not the political pragmatism of both parties (which I regard as the "moral relativism" of the public square).
As a Conservative, I find the thought of making specific appeals based on identity polling to be reprehensible. What is fine for marketing is not fine for selecting our leaders. As a Conservative, I find the type of compromise suggested in Mr Stevens editorial to be hypocritical. And, as a Conservative I believe that Americans can and will respond to a candidate who speaks past these limiting and ultimately destructive boundaries.
No comments:
Post a Comment