You Can Fool All The People Some Of The Time...

Last week my wife and I had the pleasure of joining over 400 others outside the PA Supreme Court in Harrisburg to show support for Diane Goslin, CPM. Diane has assisted women in delivering babies for 25 years in south-central PA. She had the dubious distinction of being selected by the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs as a test case for their ongoing push to control every aspect of childbirth and women's health in PA. Since Americans long ago ceded control over "medicine" to the State, it needed only the redefinition of pregnancy as a disease and childbirth as a medical procedure to assert control over midwives and the mothers they serve.

But my reason for writing about the trip has nothing to do with midwifery. As we were leaving the Capitol, we were treated to a highly entertaining spectacle that was too good not to share. In front of a row of fountains a gentleman who appeared to be taking lessons in motivational speech stood at a podium with the distinguished banner of the PAGOP. Behind him about 15 assemblymen and senators stood in a semi-circle, mechanically clapping their hands and smiling artificially at a large array of TV cameras. Between the actors and the cameras stood about 50 chairs, of which 47 were unoccupied. The remaining three held news reporters, busily scratching on note pads whenever a particularly quotable breath of hot air chanced to escape the overwrought dignitary.

I couldn't resist stopping to listen - indeed it took some little self-control not to volunteer my own thoughts to such a receptive audience. It seemed that these gentlemen had been tasked with the responsibility of formulating an official response to the current hemorrhage of voters from the Republican Party. The solutions they had devised were now being communicated to the eager grassroots volunteers represented by the 47 empty chairs. They appeared to be immune to the shame and consternation one would expect from less brazen actors on finding themselves in an empty auditorium. One after another, they were introduced, stepped forward, cordially shook the moderator's hand, and expressed in their own simple way how excited they were to be Republicans in this election season.

I forgot to mention that behind the cameras, a group of overstuffed aides with flourescent light exposure syndrome stood waiting for the bosses to finish their charade. Each of them appeared to be memorizing the herringbone pattern of the suit in front of him, though some of them were probably just sleeping on their feet. As I watched and wondered, a pushy camera-woman prodded them to life and requested that they take up new positions in front of the camera, saying by way of explanation: "I need it to look like there's people here!"

I regret to say that I failed to conceal the combination of merriment and disdain evoked by this spectacle, and although the speaker pretended not to notice me, our initial eye contact seemed a little disconcerting to him.

Everyone needs a good laugh now and then.

P.S. I mentioned the above incident to my Dad, with the rhetorical question: "Who do they think they're kidding?" His response: "Everyone."

Maybe it isn't so funny after all.

Join the Club!

This feels good!

Am I nuts? Perhaps. But there’s nothing like a little skirmishing to whet one’s appetite for the big fight. And I have to admit, I found listening to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh today rather satisfying. (That doesn’t regularly occur.) Please don’t misunderstand; I recognize the tragedy unfolding as the GOP commits suicide. But in the process, “we” have been vindicated.

For many years, constitutionalists like me have been described by a broad range of more or less vile adjectives. The ultimate crime “we” are accused of is reckless abandonment of the Republican Party. “We” have been charged (accurately) with slighting conventional wisdom, which demands of all conservatives an unflinching loyalty to the elephant lest we be kicked to death by the ass. In the past year, as “we” have formed under the banner of the first constitutionalist presidential candidate many of us have ever seen, these complaints have merged into one incessant whine, “You’re helping to elect Hillary!!!!!!!” Imagine! To abandon the Republican pachyderm in his hour of greatest need - when he has become so accustomed to being led about by public opinion polls that he no longer knows how to lead himself; when, having abandoned every principle he once represented, and wasted his strength in attempting circus tricks for the entertainment of the world, he cowers in fear of a well-deserved beating from his braying opponent - how could “we” be so thoughtless? Aren’t “we” team players?

The answer, of course, is no. We’ve never been team players. In fact, we don’t even get the point of the game. We don’t comprehend the vast gulf that allegedly lies between HillaryCare and MittCare. We don’t see the moral distinction between liberals stealing from us to feed and/or bomb third world countries and neo-cons stealing from our children for the same purpose. We fail to appreciate the generosity of leaders who reduce their annual frontal attack on our wealth by 2% while they inflate the money supply by 10%. We still believe our Constitution is the greatest form of government ever, and we don’t see why a few camel jockeys should scare us into abandoning freedoms that were bought and paid for with the best blood of millions of Americans. We are sick and tired of fiscal policies that make as much economic sense as shooting a cow for her milk, and we don’t really care whether the milk is wanted to perpetuate the welfare state or the warfare state.

In our defense, we haven’t actually abandoned the GOP; we’ve simply stuck to our principles and supported the one candidate who has spent his political career behaving like a Republican. But when the camp followers, office seekers and other assorted herd animals ask what we will do should November present us with a choice between Senator Mitt Huckabee and Ms. Clinton, the words “write-in” have always evoked a torrent of reproachful exclamations. Until this week.

In a few short days, I’ve watched “loyal” Huckabee supporters jump ship and endorse either McCain or Romney. I’ve heard talk show hosts frantically endorsing anyone but McCain. I’ve heard prestigious social conservatives like Dr. Dobson announce their intent to write in (gasp!) a candidate should McCain be the GOP nominee. But the final nail in the coffin was Ann Coulter’s brazen threat to endorse Ms. Clinton over the Senator from Arizona.

I can respect Dr. Dobson’s position (though I fail to note any meaningful difference between McCain and the candidates he would support) and I appreciate his unintentional vindication of my own convictions. I have difficulty respecting the ex-Hucklings, but their actions were predictable considering their prior condemnation of Congressman Paul’s supporters. But Ann Coulter’s words are a chilling proof of the absolute emptiness of the shell that was once the conservative movement.

We have said for years that the lesser of two evils was still evil; that merely slowing the growth of government was not enough; that buying into the old “two steps forward, one step back” approach to government expansion was unworthy of a free people. We’ve doggedly pointed out the failures of conservative leaders to anticipate the end result of repeated compromise. And we have consistently refused to cast a vote for a known crook, regardless of party affiliation. For our pains we have been derided and marginalized to the point of denial by the mainstream of the GOP. Now, at last, a conservative icon has provided us with a caricature of the danger we’ve been warning everyone about.

So to Ann Coulter and anyone who may sympathize with her, I have this to say: if your moral compass permits you to compare two socialist, big-government, anti-family candidates and endorse one because “she is more conservative than he is,” go right ahead; but forgive those of us who mentally place you in the Benedict Arnold category. You have lost all claim to our respect. When conservatives are willing to openly embrace either John McCain or Hillary Clinton over Congressman Ron Paul just so they can vote for a winner, conservatism has indeed lost all meaning. We may as well bury it and go back to being Americans.

And to Dr. Dobson: welcome. :)

Hello, GOP ...

I sent this letter to a slew of editors, but no one was willing to publish it. So ... I will!

_________________________________________

In Thursday’s republican presidential debate in South Carolina, Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron questioned Dr. Ron Paul’s electability, implying that his positions were incompatible with those of the Republican Party. As a Republican voter, I agree with Ron Paul that our party has lost its way. The current GOP platform would be unrecognizable to the republicans of Reagan’s day. Even so, many of the sentiments in this pitiable mutation of conservative principles sound oddly similar to those defended by Congressman Paul. Consider the following quote: “As tagging and tracking citizens is inconsistent with American freedom, we oppose the creation of a national identification card or system.”

Really? Paul is the only GOP presidential candidate who opposes the REAL ID program; or in other words, he is the only candidate whose position on this issue is consistent with his party’s platform.

How about this astute observation regarding foreign aid: “Development aid has often served to prop up failed policies, relieving the pressure for reform and perpetuating misery.” That sounds like a quote from the Doctor’s weekly column. Why do the other republican candidates unite in deriding Ron Paul for statements like this?

Here’s an interesting quote: “As Republicans, we trust people to make decisions about how to spend, save, and invest their own money. We want individuals to own and control their income... making their own choices and directing their own future. …the problem is not that the American people are taxed too little but that the federal government spends too much.” Paul is the only candidate who has called for allowing young Americans like me to completely opt out of the Social Security System. Why are the other candidates so reluctant to agree?

The platform has this to say about education: “We recognize that under the American Constitutional system, education is a state, local, and family responsibility, not a federal obligation.” So why do the other candidates and the media laugh when Ron Paul says what every involved parent knows: that the federal Department of Education is wasteful and unconstitutional?

Earlier this week Jay Leno asked Dr. Paul why Fox News has consistently tried to marginalize and exclude him, noting that after all, he was a Republican. Paul responded, “Yes, but – they’re not!” I think he is absolutely right. If Carl Cameron would focus less on polls and more on principles, he would likely conclude that, electable or no, Ron Paul is the only real Republican candidate.

Politics or Principles?

As a serious history student, I frequently find myself drawing comparisons between current and historical events, people and societal trends. The conclusions warranted by this method are often offensive to those who suffer from the delusion that “things are different today.” But as our national politics slip beyond their previously explored frontiers of degeneracy, I find myself thinking again on the vast difference between a statesman and a politician.

Contrary to the opinions of much of the religious right, the distinction does not lie in the volume of one’s profession of faith. As a matter of fact, true statesmen have been found among the ranks of nearly every denomination of the Christian Church, among numerous false religions, and even professing atheists. Nor does the distinction lie in political creed – throughout history, true (though often mistaken) statesmen have defended forms of government ranging from absolute monarchy to utopian communism.

The difference is simple: a statesman is one who loves his country more than himself or his political affiliations. His goal is the good of his country, and his political positions and actions, however mistaken or uninformed they may be, are taken for that purpose. In a nutshell, his loyalty is to his country.

A politician, on the other hand, to the extent that he possesses that virtue at all, is loyal either to his party or to himself (generally some combination of the two). His positions and actions are taken with an eye to the advancement of his party and/or his own ambitions. He may now and then pause to consider their effects on the nation as a whole, but his first priority is to consolidate his own position against the efforts of the opposition.

The current antics of our elected officials on Capitol Hill and in the White House are a supremely disgusting illustration of the latter. Our representatives in congress are wasting their time debating and voting on a bill to increase funding for embryonic stem cell research even though they know it will be vetoed. They justify this exercise in futility by citing a need to put the President on record as opposing “the will of the people,” even though his position on this issue is already clear. Their real purpose, however, is to bolster the Democratic Party’s position in the next election. And taxpayers’ hard-earned money is being used to fund this charade.

The federal district attorney firings and the accompanying furor provide another example of shameless political gaming by all sides. It is obvious that the Justice Department made appointments based on political loyalties, though this practice is not new. It is also plain that they used the pretext of the war on terror to avoid the oversight, and presumably the criticism, of congress when making replacements. On the other hand, the self-righteous clamor of the opposing party seems carefully oriented toward the approaching elections, and their ethically laced demands for the Attorney General’s resignation are hollow at best. They know that replacing Gonzales would require confirmation hearings, and that those hearings would be an ideal venue for lowering this administration still further in the public esteem. Which is precisely why they want Gonzales to resign, and more to the point, is precisely why he won’t resign.

If there are any national issues that ought to be addressed without regard to party politics, the war in Iraq deserves to be at the top of the list. Yet no other issue is so politically charged at present, and American soldiers are currently being treated as pawns by the ass and the elephant alike. The invasion and occupation received bipartisan support until the dreaded threat of low approval ratings began to rear its head. The White House, being controlled by politicians (not statesmen) who are painfully aware that pulling out of Iraq would be a disaster, has no choice but to “stay the course” until either conditions improve or a Democratic president arrives to take the blame for the consequences. Meanwhile, the Democratic hopefuls, knowing what awaits them if they step into the Oval office before the inevitable pullout, present a comical picture as they try everything short of funding cuts to convince the President that the troops should come home now.

The most ironic aspect of this circus is that the obvious constitutional option to end the war is to cut the funding, and that is precisely the option Congress is afraid of. To force the return of American troops over the President’s veto would place the blame for the ensuing disintegration of Iraq firmly on the heads of the Democratic leadership. But a pullout ordered by a Democratic president would yield similar results. Their only hope is to convince the current administration to accept responsibility for the failure of both parties, something the administration isn’t about to do. So the troops will stay where they should never have gone, while our leaders peer over their spectacles at the latest polling data and casualty reports as they desperately search for a way to leave Iraq without leaving D.C.

Contrast their behavior with that of Congressman Ron Paul, and one immediately recognizes the vast difference. Unlike the party faithful, Congressman Paul strenuously opposed the unconstitutional nature of the invasion. He spoke and wrote extensively on the dangers of empire building and the falsity of the various justifications for war. In doing so, he brought on himself the disdain of his colleagues and was icily ignored by the mainstream media. Now that he is a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, he continues to speak the truth on those issues that are most likely to prevent him from reaching the Oval office. Political pundits question whether he is “presidential material,” but the real problem is their inability to comprehend genuine statesmanship.

Conservawhat?

Recently I’ve been pondering the meaning of the term “conservative” – or perhaps I should say the lack of meaning. I’ve always called myself a conservative, at least before the neo-conservative heresy made it necessary to christen that view paleo-conservatism. But I’ve begun to wonder what criteria define a political position as conservative? In today’s cultural context the dictionary definition is almost irrelevant, but conservative politics are popularly thought to include such ideas as a strong national defense, Christian moral values, less government, lower spending, and respect for the constitution. That sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? But is it really true?

Consider the belief in a strong national defense. Originally a commitment to preserving national sovereignty and the liberty that set America apart from the rest of the world, it has mutated into unlimited support for the American warfare state and the intoxicating status of “superpower.” Those who challenge the morality of slaughtering civilian populations to break the will of an enemy are automatically labeled “pacifist.” Those who question the bully mentality that national defense requires “full spectrum dominance” over the entire world are dismissed as “lefties.”

Last week my uncle and I were discussing the Iraq occupation with a military cousin who was home on leave, about to be re-deployed. He explained that the Iraq war was “80% about oil.” I was surprised to hear him say so, in light of his whole-hearted support for the war. He defended his support by pointing out that America relies on oil for our “national security,” and that we had to invade Iraq to ensure that Iraqi oil remained available to us. (Between individuals such behavior would be referred to as an armed robbery with multiple homicides, but when nations steal from one another all sorts of euphemisms are employed.) Asked where the spread of democracy figured in the equation, he laughed and stated in no uncertain terms that it was a myth. The other 20%, he informed us, consists of the “bonuses” of toppling Saddam and obtaining a staging area for the invasion of Iran (also for oil.)

What standard of right and wrong is being applied here? Why is it that support for national defense is now expected to imply support for our assumed role of global umpire? When did defending America become a chess game for control of the world, played with live pieces? How is the cause of freedom served by killing civilians for the crime of living under a tyrant? These are only a few of the questions that conservatives have failed to ask, and our failure has left a massive gap in the political debate over the current war.

How about morality? Conservatives like to think of themselves as the champions of moral rectitude. Sure, we’ve compromised a little - we talk about “family values” instead of God’s Law - but, all things considered, we feel like we’ve given our utmost to the preservation of the family. If only the Dems and liberals weren’t so powerful …

What on earth is wrong with us? We are the problem, not the liberals. American Christians adore their President for signing a ban on one rare type of infanticide while ignoring the fact that abortion numbers have soared during his tenure. They rejoice over his meaningless support for a “marriage amendment” while he appoints an open sodomite to the rank of “AIDS ambassador.” In more than 5,900 years of world history no civilized society ever conferred legal recognition on sodomite relationships. Yet so-called conservatives in this country have twice elected a President who wants to do just that. Are we merely opposed to calling duct-tape relations “marriage,” or are we opposed to government-subsidized sin? If family values are nothing more than semantics they aren’t worth fighting for.

Less government? Lower spending? Respect for the Constitution? Six years of complete Republican control was enough to bring about the largest consolidation of power in the history of the nation, invent a new Cabinet-level department and countless subordinate bureaucracies, expand the tax code by over one hundred thousand pages, pump up the Department of Education with expanded powers and the largest budget increase in history, begin the registration and identification of every livestock animal in the country, pass thousands of new laws, create thousands of new criminals, add billions upon billions to the national budget and spend even more billions without adding them to the national budget; and to balance all this we have nothing to show except the sunset of the assault weapons ban. Bravo.

It’s time to be honest with ourselves. For the last fifty years, generally speaking, presidential elections have offered conservatives little more than a choice between various crooks. Our efforts have focused on supporting the crook who owes the most to conservative interests (otherwise known as the lesser of two evils). This reprehensible waste of our vote has supposedly been justified by the threat of “liberal” ascendancy, but in practice it has resulted in an ever-worsening spectrum of crooks to choose from.

No election illustrates this trend more clearly than the one before us. The GOP has so completely discounted genuine conservatism that they expect their voters to choose between Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. The most painful aspect of this line-up is that few Christians or conservatives see the bitter irony in it. Republicans are expected to choose between three candidates who all support abortion in some form, legal recognition of sodomite relationships, more gun control and bigger government. All three major candidates have long and well-known political records, and their scramble to alter their image to better appeal to the “religious right” only makes their overtures more insulting to genuine conservatives.

In terms of actual policy the GOP has long been nearly indistinguishable from its rival, but the truth is that if McCain, Giuliani or Romney wins the Republican primary next year, their nomination will be the final nail in the coffin of the conservative Republican Party.