15 November 2012

Meatless Friday Thursday: Saving the GOP

The title of the post obviously begs the question of whether this would be a desirable thing. However, indulge me. I know people who, in the face of what ought to be the last stand of the "hold-your-nose-and-vote-for-the-lesser-of-two-evils-no-matter-how-little-less-this-loser-really-is" strategy, instead call for the GOP to go even further in hiding, sublimating or even abandoning any pretense to the principles of social conservatism, and principled and limited foreign policy. All this is designed to get "our" candidate to win, ostensibly to gain a mintutely-lower tax rate. In the end, if a candidate from one party and a candidate from another have, practically speaking, nearly identical political agendas, who really cares? I say no thank you-- the time for pretends is over. The truth must set us free.

In this context, I offer you this article by Paul Gottfried setting forth a Five-Point Plan for saving the GOP. Tongue planted firmly in cheek, it speaks the truth.

After the recent electoral debacle, Republican journalists and neocon news pundits have been discussing the roads to recovery for their battered party. One path that I’m sure will never be taken is trying to win back the libertarian and/or traditionalist right, both of which Romney managed to [irritate]. The evangelical inhabitants of central and northern Pennsylvania, many of whom considered the Republican candidate a low-octane Bam [he means Obama] surrounded by foreign-policy nuts, stayed away from the polls this year. Moreover, many votes that went to Ron Paul in the primaries may have propelled Romney over the finish line in many of the states he lost, including such heavily blue states as Connecticut and Massachusetts. Although not all these voters abstained from casting ballots, it seems Paul supporters contributed significantly to a depressed GOP turnout in many places. In any case it was the Dems, not the Reps, who managed to energize their base.

But the Republicans prefer another narrative to the more obvious one. They bewail their inadequacies in not being able to win minorities’ affection. FOX News and the GOP press have been turning out suggestions about how the GOP could attract more blacks, Hispanics, and single women, all groups that went decisively to Bam. Among the losers’ modest proposals have been to grant amnesty to illegals, pay for birth-control pills, and treat abortion as a “private judgment.”

“It may also be wise if white men were hidden from view whenever Republicans hold a televised meeting.”
In a notable televised outburst of guilt, Mike Huckabee, in his Baptist clerical mode, expressed shame about his party’s failure to make blacks and Hispanics appreciate its candidates. This was attributed to a deep moral failing on the part of white (predominantly Protestant) Republicans. Given this group’s emotional need to enjoy the esteem of those who now reject them, I offer my own Five-Point Plan. I took the key term from Mitt’s presidential campaign. The spirit of moderation drives my suggestions—the very spirit that Romney never quite convinced minorities and single women that he radiated.


As an alternative-- never to be tried-- may I urge you to read Ron Paul's Farewell Address to the US Congress? It is simply brilliant, and intellectually and morally refreshing. A free society depends on a virtuous people.

Though it is quite long-- longer than even my average post-- it is well worth reading. A taste:

Achieving Liberty

Liberty can only be achieved when government is denied the aggressive use of force. If one seeks liberty, a precise type of government is needed. To achieve it, more than lip service is required.

Two choices are available.

A government designed to protect liberty – a natural right – as its sole objective. The people are expected to care for themselves and reject the use of any force for interfering with another person’s liberty. Government is given a strictly limited authority to enforce contracts, property ownership, settle disputes, and defend against foreign aggression.

A government that pretends to protect liberty but is granted power to arbitrarily use force over the people and foreign nations. Though the grant of power many times is meant to be small and limited, it inevitably metastasizes into an omnipotent political cancer. This is the problem for which the world has suffered throughout the ages. Though meant to be limited it nevertheless is a 100% sacrifice of a principle that would-be-tyrants find irresistible. It is used vigorously – though incrementally and insidiously. Granting power to government officials always proves the adage that: "power corrupts."
Once government gets a limited concession for the use of force to mold people habits and plan the economy, it causes a steady move toward tyrannical government. Only a revolutionary spirit can reverse the process and deny to the government this arbitrary use of aggression. There’s no in-between. Sacrificing a little liberty for imaginary safety always ends badly.

Today’s mess is a result of Americans accepting option #2, even though the Founders attempted to give us Option #1.

The results are not good. As our liberties have been eroded our wealth has been consumed. The wealth we see today is based on debt and a foolish willingness on the part of foreigners to take our dollars for goods and services. They then loan them back to us to perpetuate our debt system. It’s amazing that it has worked for this long but the impasse in Washington, in solving our problems indicate that many are starting to understand the seriousness of the world -wide debt crisis and the dangers we face. The longer this process continues the harsher the outcome will be.

The Financial Crisis Is a Moral Crisis

Many are now acknowledging that a financial crisis looms but few understand it’s, in reality, a moral crisis. It’s the moral crisis that has allowed our liberties to be undermined and permits the exponential growth of illegal government power. Without a clear understanding of the nature of the crisis it will be difficult to prevent a steady march toward tyranny and the poverty that will accompany it.

Ultimately, the people have to decide which form of government they want; option #1 or option #2. There is no other choice. Claiming there is a choice of a "little" tyranny is like describing pregnancy as a "touch of pregnancy." It is a myth to believe that a mixture of free markets and government central economic planning is a worthy compromise. What we see today is a result of that type of thinking. And the results speak for themselves.

Read the full speech here.


Alison said...

So just how did Ron Paul supporters feel about the states voting to allow "homosexual marriage", and recreational marijuana use? Not trying to be hostile but I know Ron Paul is a big state rights advocate so I was just wondering.

X said...

Don't worry about the Republicans, they are absolutely essential to this sideshow we call our government. You can't have a Punch and Judy show without both Punch and Judy. It was only in 2004 when they questioned the survival of the Democrats. There will be a Republican revival because there has to be. The ass needs both the carrot and the stick. As the old song Paper Moon puts it, "It's a Barnum and Bailey world, Just as phony as it can be."

As for Ron Paul, the despots who run the West couldn't have a better friend than this pied piper of impotence. Does anyone imagine that these Lords of Finance fear Libertarianism, for godsake they own it. It's completely domesticated. I reject laissez-faire economics just as I reject laissez-faire morality. Both merely create a paradise for predators and both are incompatible with Catholicism.

Fenian said...

I seriously question whether or not enough Ron Paul supporters would have broken for Romney to sway the election.

Many of Paul's supporters are socially liberal and don't fit into the political duopoly of socially conservative/fiscally conservative, socially liberal/fiscally liberal.