We often hear the disgruntled folks out there say that there is no difference between the two political parties in the United States. Some of those folks that question the current political atmosphere say the two-party political system is broken, and with the moderate establishment in possession of the GOP leadership positions, the Republican Party is broken beyond repair. Any positive words about the Elephant Brand of Politics then brands you as the enemy to these people, and you are automatically considered to be a part of the problem.
On the other side of the coin, we have those that say our only hope is the Party of the Elephant, and that any battle within the Grand Ol' Party compromises any hope we have of stopping the hard left agenda of the Democrats. The Art of War says that we have to carefully pick our battles, and that often a "wait and see" attitude can be more beneficial than a full frontal assault by a bunch of amateur TEA Party enthusiasts.
I lie somewhere in the center of the argument, not necessarily a big fan of the Red State Coalition of conservatives and libertarians that want to discard the Republican Party and replace it with a third party, but also not necessarily a big fan of all things "Republican" as well. Party leadership has wavered, and compromised, and moved away from the overall "small government" platform the establishment claims to embrace. When conservatives like Senator Ted Cruz takes a stance, and opposes the liberals as he said he would do when he campaigned for office, the progressives of the Republican Party are quick to target him, and verbally admonish him. We have a serious problem in the party. The Republicans have lost sight of their direction, because two factions are pulling the party in opposite directions, and they are willing to go at each other like ravenous wolves to gain control of the Republican Party's reins.
Should the GOP become more like their opposition in the hopes of gaining voters that float around in the middle of the political spectrum, or chase the conservative chalice that promises renewed life and longevity if only we are willing to have the intestinal fortitude to remain on course as the fiery darts are launched at us from academia, the media, and the establishment?
When Ronald Reagan uttered his eleventh commandment about not speaking ill of fellow republicans, did he mean it in a collectivist way where we are supposed to say nothing even as progressives gain control and steer the massive elephant towards a cliff?
An avid listener of my Constitution Radio program on KCAA AM 1050, and KCAAradio.com, on Saturdays at 2:00 pm Pacific wrote me a searing email, and proposed a challenge to me. He made reference to a statement I had made in response to a question on the air about the difference between the two American political parties. He wrote, "You made the claim republicans are for small government, and I ask you to show me one year from the Great Depression until now the republicans proposed a smaller budget from the previous year or years, excluding the Reagan Years. Either you educate or you propagate?"
The question was supposed to be a "gotcha" question that corners me and forces me to admit one thing, or another. However, the writer's failure to recognize proper definitions neutralized the intended impact of his question. He wants me to admit the Republican Party is broken, and in a sense, it is, but the moment to turn our backs on the Republican Party as the best vessel to defeat modern liberalism is not upon us just yet.
To respond to my reader, and correct his premise, we must remember that the definition of small government is not necessarily a smaller budget, though that may be the result. Small government is not necessarily "less" as must as it is "what is authorized."
When I ran for Murrieta City Council in 2010, after a debate an audience member walked up to me and said, "You say you are for small government. If elected, what do you plan to take away? Parks? The Senior Center?"
The question confused me, at first. Then, I realized that his question was based on his idea of the definition of small government. The whole premise of his question was wrong because his definition of small government, and my definition of small government, were two different things.
Small government, or limited government, is a government that remains within the authorities granted to it. Though the GOP is guilty of acting outside constitutional authorities, when compared to the Democrats, they have promoted smaller government more than the liberals of the Democrat Party. The federal government is authorized to handle external issues, and a number of others, that are enumerated in the Constitution. The ideal small government would be one that restrains itself, only acting upon the authorities granted to it by the Constitution.
I agree, the Republican Party is not a pure small government model. The GOP has fallen way short of where they should be, but for the most part, the Republicans have been more in line with smaller government than the Democrats. Yes, yes, they still have a long way to go to get back to where they need be, and jerks like the moderates, and progressives, in the party are largely the problem. Big government supporters definitely reside among the ranks of the Republican Party. Those people, in fact, are largely the ones that control the party, having assumed the various leadership positions of the political party. However, there are still some in the party that keep trying to bump the party back to the right, towards small government. And until the GOP collapses and is replaced with something better, it is what we have to work with.
That does not mean the Republican Party is broken. The party is in the midst of a battle for the soul of the GOP, however, and with the help of the media, and Democrat Party establishment, the conservatives of the Republican Party are currently at a disadvantage.
I get it that there are people who think our governmental system has been compromised beyond repair. I agree to a point, that the America that once was in line with the U.S. Constitution has been forced out of existence, and we are poised to head in a direction that could compromise liberty in America for a very long time. But I never believe there is no hope. I am an optimist. Even if only one person is left that believes in liberty, there is hope. Our system may have to hit rock bottom to rise again. Perhaps. I hope that is not the case with the United States, but I don't count that possibility out, either.
I hope for the best, and prepare for the worst.
We aren't broken yet, but the weary troops of the conservative right are on the verge of giving up. They are tired of the fight, and the continuous onslaught by leftism. The battle to return us to the principles of the Constitution is a difficult one, but right now is not the time to give up, or give in. The Republican Party, despite all of its current flaws, and infestation of progressives, remains our best vehicle for turning this all around. If we can manage to turn around the GOP, the country will follow.
We must continue to fight the good fight, or we will surely become subjects again, as were the colonists before the Revolutionary War. We must fight on our feet, or we will surely live on our knees.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment