I must admit to sharing what seems to be a fairly sweeping sense of dismay amongst the political traditionalists after Fred Thompson pulled the plug on his campaign. He seemed to be the only candidate who held actual traditional, constitutionalist views about government. With him gone, we seemed to be faced with various flavors of socialism, and a few borderline conservatives who lack the credibility and gravitas many were looking for in Fred T.
So, where does that leave the traditionalist, the constitutional literalist, the classic liberal vs. the “progressivist?” Yet again, instead of a candidate that we can get excited about, we are having to chose what seems to be the least worst option.
Like “Two Dogs“, I am not one of those who advocates speaking through our silence, or sending a “message” by boycotting election day. The only message that sends is, “Here you go
Democratic Socialist Party, knock yourselves out.”
Because make no mistake, that’s the struggle we face. Through an ever-increasing sense of personal entitlement, through an ever-decreasing sense of personal responsibility or moral accountability, our country is on a path towards the very kind of socialist domination and subjugation foretold in books like “1984.” The kind of world lived out in Hilter’s socialist/fascist Germany. Because “we” as a nation of voting citizens demand that the government to do more and more for us, we are increasingly likely to get just exactly what we asked for; and this always comes at a price. In order to do more FOR us, they must of necessity take more FROM us! In order to be coddled, we must first be herded and corralled, so that we are more easily managed.
You can see this shift towards socialism in our government schools, with “cooperative learning” and “outcomes-based education,” where excellence is discounted in favor of conformity and ensuring everyone achieves to the same level…regardless of how low that level may ultimately be. It’s called the “lowest common denominator.”
In case you missed it, January 22nd was the anniversary of the day when five judicial vigilantes somehow managed to find a justification for preventing individual states from banning abortion in the phrase:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Go on. Take your time. Look for it. I’ll wait. Trust me, men much smarter than me clearly found it in there, so, it must be, right?
Look at the track record of the 9th
Cirlce of Hell Circuit Court of Appeals. Look at what’s going on in San Fransisco and other parts of the People’s Republic of California (otherwise known as the PRC). This is the progressive utopian vision that the likes of Shrillary and Obama want for this country. And if you think McCain is much different, you haven’t read his bio or looked at his voting record in Congress.
Lest there be any doubt, there is an ideological conflict going on in this country. The lines are becoming clearer and clearer between the two camps, and the divide wider and wider. And it’s starting to look more and more like the traditionalists are on the ropes. I think part of the problem is that we, as the traditionalists and Classical Liberals, attempt to rely heavily on cognition and rationality and an appeal to truth and facts, whereas the Progressives are wielding a much more effective bludgeon in the form of appeals to emotion, and “It’s for the ChildrenTM“, and “But What About The Environment (BWATE)?”, and the ephemeral right of a woman to choose death for her unborn child. They’ve got a better spin machine. They can kick out the kind of the emotion-stirring propoganda that would make Kim Jong il proud as punch.
Whereas we cannot afford to let ourselves sink to that level, we cannot abandon Truth for a catchy jingle or a teary-eyed drama-queen approach; we’ve got to do better, we’ve got to BE better than that.
The Progs have spun themselves into a bit of a corner, though. Their election rhetoric has devolved into, “Do I elect a black man or a woman?” To which minority group do I lend my emotional support? Which one do I feel less guilty about? Never mind which candidate is more qualified. It goes back to who gets the props, who is the most successful to an emotional appeal based on a sense of entitlement and an overwheening emphasis on “equality at all costs.”
Maybe that’s the place to start. Hold their hypocrisy up to the light. By making race the issue, they’ve become racists. By making gender the issue, they’ve become sexist. They promise free health-care for 10 million children, but provide no insight into from where the money for that will come. They decry tax cuts for the rich and big business, despite the fact that these are the very people paying the wages of the middle and low-income wage earner! If you make the rich poorer, you make the poor poorer. But that doesn’t play as well when appealing to emotion, does it?
You would think you could look at the history of the socialist ethic, its overly-centralized governments, the nationalization of business, the over-regulation of personal liberties, and see the flaws. You’d think that you could in turn hold these failures up against the amazing successes of a representative republic running on free-market capitalism…and that would be that. But sadly, no.
Emotionalism rules the day, and righteous indignation trumps thoughtful debate at every turn. It’s disheartening at times, but we can’t give up. This country was founded on a set of principles totally unique in history, a paradigm once branded “The Great Experiment.” The traditionalist says that the experiment was a rousing success; the progressive says that it should never have been attempted, or at best was deeply flawed and needs to be “corrected.”
Which one are you?