Red vs. red in Congress
I can’t help but notice a lot of anger on the right at the right, or at least at Republicans.
It seems to take two forms. One is nit-picking about each Republican candidate—even conservative ones—to see if he or she diverges in any way from the position the person would like the candidate to take, or has made any decisions with which the person disagrees. The other is at the Republican “establishment” in general and especially in Congress for betrayals previous and current, or perceived betrayals.
The anger expressed sometimes seems even greater—sometimes far greater—than the anger expressed at Obama and the left. In the past, I’ve written about this many many times. It was especially active on this blog during the Romney candidacy, as many of you might remember.
I’m tired of the battle. I’ve certainly put in my hours, and we’ve had some interesting discussions here. One of the things that makes me angry is when people put words into my mouth and say I’ve said things I haven’t said, or taken positions I haven’t taken. So because (despite my tiredness) I see it’s necessary to take up this topic again—and probably again and again and again—I want to state a couple of things very clearly at the outset.
The first is that I’m not a Republican. After I left the Democratic Party I haven’t had any inclination to identify that way again; I consider myself Independent. That said, I find that all the candidates I’ve supported in the last decade have in fact been Republicans. I don’t see that changing.
I don’t like all Republican candidates the same, of course. I find that the ones I like best tend to be the more conservative ones, but that’s not always the case (I rather liked Giuliani, for example, back during the 2008 season when he briefly ran for president, although I’m not sure I would have stayed with him had he kept in the race). I came out for Scott Walker two years ago, and to me he’s a conservative but one with a more general appeal (I’m hoping somewhat Reaganesque in that regard). My point is that I couldn’t care less about defending the establishment, I evaluate all candidates in my own way and for my own reasons. But I am not a purist, I don’t expect to agree with my candidate all the time or even close, and I am a very practical person about politics.
Part of my practicality is that I have few illusions about politicians. I’m not sure why that is, but I almost never have revered them—at least not past childhood, when I was very taken with JFK’s charm. Maybe that cynicism protects me somewhat against that feeling of having had my faith in them betrayed. I look at things in a more practical way: who agrees the most with me, have they kept their word in the past for the most part, and what can they realistically do if elected?
That’s the way I look at what’s happening in Congress today, which is the subject of this post (finally!).
The Republicans are the majority in both houses of this Congress, and I am happy that it happened. But I am aware that the Republicans in Congress are split between the conservatives and the others, and so they are not going to unify on all things (especially the tough topics) any more than pundits on the right will or blog commenters on the right will. Perhaps even less. Why would anyone expect a sudden transformation into unity, and in particular unity in the direction you would like to see?
In addition, Republicans in Congress cannot do what is impossible, even if you’d like them to and even if they wanted to do exactly whatever you want. They cannot, for example, pass any law they wish, even though they have the majority, even if they were completely united, because of the lack of 60 votes in the Senate. Cloture and Senate rules mean that the Democrats can hold up a vote a long as the Democrats have 40 votes to do so.
Even if the Republicans boldly changed the rules about that (which would have its own dangers) and made it so that things could come to a vote in the Senate by simple majority, guess what? That wouldn’t lead to Republican success in getting a law in place because the president happens to be a Democrat and he has vowed to veto everything they pass that he doesn’t like. The GOP lacks the votes to get past the veto. Do you really think they should undo the filibuster (a very radical step) merely for the sake of putting bills before Obama that he would then veto? Or should the Republicans use the option of holding back government funding in a battle that would ultimately lead to a government shutdown (not just of a single function, but of many, because Obama would veto every single bill that cut funding of any of his pet projects) that the people—carefully guided to this point of view by the MSM—would almost certainly blame on the Republicans, causing a backlash?
As we know, the Republican Party is currently split between conservatives and RINOS or “establishment” types, so is it any surprise that the latter group would not be fond of the two options I just outlined? Even some conservatives don’t like them, and I can’t say I blame them. I am torn about what I would do myself if I were a member of Congress.
If a party is split between two wings, they’re going to disagree with each other. Often, the results will end in compromise; that’s apparently what they’re trying to iron out with the budget right now. Why would this surprise anyone?
If you don’t like the fact that there are Republicans in Congress who won’t stand up for what you believe is right, why not work for a conservative takeover of the party? It doesn’t happen overnight, of course. But splitting off into a third party will only weaken both wings (and the “establishment” is likely to keep more of the reins of power that remain), and lead to Democratic victory and Democratic control for a long, long time to come. Conservatives often answer by saying they don’t care; they’ve been betrayed long enough and they’ve had it. I say, why quit when you’re actually gaining? I’ve never seen a better crop of new and upcoming conservatives, and I see the party as growing more conservative over time rather than less. Why on earth would you have a red on red bloodletting now, when the opposition has grown more leftist and more inclined to tyranny?
I can say one thing about the left: they have demonstrated far more patience, fortitude, and sheer ability to deal with the messy realities of politics than the right has.
[NOTE: There will be more posts here on the ongoing red-on-red battles. The topic is so huge I have to take it bit by bit.]
I agree with everything you said, except that we should avoid a government shutdown because of the backlash. Republicans shut down the government over Obamacare, and not long afterward took control of the Senate. I think the media, and media-driven polls, have made everyone afraid to even speak the words, but in reality most people didn’t notice.
LisaM:
That shutdown was peanuts compared to what I believe would happen now, in terms of length and scope. I don’t think Republican fear of backlash is at all unjustified.
That said, I’m not sure what my position is on whether it’s a good idea or a bad one. My point is that the answer is not obvious, and failure to institute a shutdown is not some tremendous betrayal. Did moderate Republicans run on a promise of a shutdown? If so, I don’t recall it.
Thank you Neo for saying this. I find that your opinions on most matters to be remarkably close to my own – even though I’ve always been a conservative. My first taste of politics was assisting in Margret Thatcher’s election campaigns.
I witnessed pretty much the same sort of party divisiveness during the Euro wars within the UK Conservative party and might have commented here as far back as 2009 on this comparison. Otto Von Bismarck said that “politics is the art of the possible” and many of the things that other bloggers and commenters get annoyed about are, as you point out, not possible at the moment. The best solution is to work to make them possible.
Meanwhile as an example of silly arguments we have the current Walker/Mair flap. Legal Insurrection has a good take on this.
London Trader:
Thanks.
In the earlier version of this post, I had included a link to that Legal Insurrection post, which I think is very good. I find that my own posts on this subject can easily become way too long and unwieldy, though—that’s why I’m trying to do it in more manageable segments.
I don’t think the topic is going to go away any time soon. I’ve written about it many times before. Here’s one that’s somewhat similar to the present post.
The gop base has been lied to time and time again, so of course the base is frustrated will the gop establishment. That said, I always hold my nose and vote gop as the alternative is totally unacceptable.
Neo,
I’m with you 100%. People also forget that the more conservatives we have in office, the greater the pressure will be for less conservatives to compromise. We don’t want our people to lose to Barbara Boxer types. And we are starting to get some support from the MSM (on Hillary and Iran) and even Dems (on Iran). Right now it’s probably more important to break the chokehold of Reid on the Dems.
Or should the Republicans use the option of holding back government funding in a battle that would ultimately lead to a government shutdown … that the people–carefully guided to this point of view by the MSM–would almost certainly blame on the Republicans, causing a backlash?
The fact that the MSM can reliably push the blame for a “shutdown” on Republicans (even when the standoff is primarily due to absurd intransigence from Obama and the Dems) is what makes this situation so difficult and frustrating.
But I’m not so sure it has to be this way. Part of the problem is that the GOP is so inept when it comes to broadcasting their message. About 3 months prior to one showdown, radio host Hugh Hewitt asked prominent Repubs what they were doing to prepare the ground for the upcoming showdown–and when he didn’t have a guest, he’d say something like, “Another day has passed when the Republicans have failed to make their case…”
The MSM is a huge obstacle, but not completely insurmountable. I really wonder what would happen if, prior to a budget showdown, the Republicans pounded the drums day after day for 3 months–and maybe even got clever a la Breitbart and gamed the MSM, which has a stupid, pack mentality that can be used against it.
It may not work, but they haven’t even tried. And given that most of Obama’s/Dem positions have been so weak and unreasonable, they seem ready to be shot down–especially given that the polls and the 2010 and 2014 elections prove that most Americans really do not like Obamacare and most of the big issues Obama and the Dems fight for.
The Republicans need to work hard to get their message out and be ready for a rough, nasty fight. But it seems they have no stomach for either.
parker:
You know, I’m not sure all those lies are actually lies. For example, I can’t think of any lies this go-round, and yet a lot of conservatives are saying there have been lies.
What I see is rosy prognostication—we’re going to repeal Obamacare! Well, anyone knows they wouldn’t have the votes (in the Senate) to actually accomplish that. But in Feb one of the first orders of business for the House was to pass a measure to repeal Obamacare. It passed, but got stalled in the Senate because of the 60-vote thing. If by some miracle the Republicans had gotten 60 Senate seats (which was never the least bit realistic), perhaps they would have repealed it in the Senate, too.
I don’t call that a lie. I call it politics. Politicians promise things everyone knows they often can’t accomplish. People assume they haven’t accomplished them because they never intended to, but I don’t see definitive evidence of that (although it might of course be true). What I see is that not everyone came along (and in this case they didn’t have the numbers in the first place), and they had to compromise. Politics.
Maybe I’m missing something. I’m sure there were actual broken promises; my point is that nowhere near as many as conservatives howl. I consider myself a conservative; I’d like those things to have happened. How could they have been accomplished, considering the fact that many of the Republicans are not conservatives, and Democrats still have over 40 members of the Senate and a president prepared to veto everything if necessary?
I agree that the dims are far more persistent and make use of the “ratchet effect” like nobody’s business; they also get the “long game” approach. The Leftists moved into, and took over the husk of, the Democratic Party over a period of decades.
But I also see the other side, which is that the Republicans all too often don’t even put up a fight or make the case they’ve promised to make. I agree that pols can’t be viewed idealistically; very few are “true believers.” But when they not only cave on all the big issues even with a majority in both houses of Congress, let’s look at that, too: do we see the Leftists doing that? No, they double down even when they’re in the minority.
That’s what’s so maddening. The Leftists are far bolder, brazen even, about wielding whatever power they do have.
To the purity in the matters of the post, there are things about which one, I, remain purposely pure. Members of the party who would constrain themselves on the matter of abortion are spurned from the get go. Members of the Party who would fundamentally transform this country either de jure – in cahoots with the Democrats — or de facto – laissez-faire/laissez-aller – are non-starters. Members of the Party would not broach the subject, let alone condemn, the Islamization of departments of government are anathema. Even as a practical matter, there are things about which one does, or ought not, countenance. Purity has its time and place and season.
”I can say one thing about the left: they have demonstrated far more patience, fortitude, and sheer ability to deal with the messy realities of politics than the right has.”
All of which is true, but it overlooks the Left’s greatest virtue — they are courageous in their convictions. I am resigned that I shall never hear so great a defense of life at a GOP convention as I’d heard a defense of abortion at the Democrat’s last national convention. I hear the case being made against the fundamental transformation of this country by the importation of 3rd World PoCs and 4th World Barbarians only in my fantasies, alas, nowhere else but a blog or several. I will not hold my breath waiting for a ‘conservative’ candidate to say as much. Which, leaves me another thing about which I am a purist — I’ll have no truck with cowardice.
I’m not a quitter (in the least), and I am willing to suffer mightily for my convictions, but I am also a pragmatist.
Even if the Republican party is growing more Conservative (debatable), what is the likelihood of this country going from a condition of a more powerful, central government to a less powerful, central government? What is the likelihood of any nation doing that (barring Revolution or foreign conquest)?
Can anyone give me a single example of any significant Federal program or policy that was disbanded or reduced once enacted? One? Take your time. I’ll take anything…
No matter what the momentum of a Conservative insurgency may be, I know of no optimist predicting anyone akin to a Reagan on the horizon. There is no living politician I know of with his ability to explain Conservative principles and ideals and circumvent the media. And he had the credentials of successfully governing the most populous state prior to becoming President. And he had the likes of William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman making his case in the media.
So, do we all agree there is nothing like a Reagan Revolution in the foreseeable future? OK, but for the sake of argument; let’s pretend a similar politician rises up out of nowhere. And let’s pretend doppelgangers of Milton Friedman and Henry Kissinger and William F. Buckley also appear on the scene.
Now, can somebody name one Federal program or policy that was eliminated by the Reagan Revolution? One? Anything?
Reagan ran on the platform of eliminating the Department of Education and it had only just been put into existence by his predecessor, Carter, who was publicly very unpopular.
We still have a Department of Education
And the Federal government grew under President Reagan, both in number of employees and in expenditures.
Governments never shrink. Never, ever, ever. Unless they diminish economically, like the United Kingdom, or the aforementioned revolution or foreign conquest.
There is no magic Congressional constituency we can elect to shrink the Federal government. There is no magic President we can elect to shrink the Federal government.
I am sorry. I wish this were not true, but it is.
Neo: “I can say one thing about the left: they have demonstrated far more patience, fortitude, and sheer ability to deal with the messy realities of politics than the right has.”
To begin with, the Left understands and exploits that elected office is only one element of politics and not the main element.
A gaping disconnect in the discourse on this blog is a focus on the Left’s “Gramscian march”, which implies that blogger and readers understand the competitive need for activism in the American social cultural/political landscape, yet oddly the proposed solutions here are invariably limited to the scope of traditional elected office.
Beverly:
On “caving”—
Republicans tried very hard to block Obamacare and couldn’t because they didn’t have a big enough minority in the Senate until the election of Scott Brown. After Brown’s election, they were finessed by reconciliation, about which they could do nothing. I don’t think they “caved,” and they were in the minority, with a president of the other party as well. I don’t recall a single Republican caving on that very important vote. It was actually a remarkable display of unity.
Right now the situation is that Republicans have the House and Senate, but they don’t have enough Senate votes to force cloture, and most importantly there is a Democratic president who can veto even the most popular legislation (like Keystone) and unless they can override the veto they are powerless. If you can tell me a time when the situation was reversed re the parties—that is, when Democrats controlled the House and the Senate (but the latter with less than 60 votes), and had a Republican president, and yet managed to advance their agenda, let me know. (I guess maybe Medicare Part D—which was passed when Republicans actually marginally controlled Congress—but that was passed because Bush and many Republicans supported it as a more fiscally conservative solution then what Democrats wanted; see this.)
If you are speaking of the weakness of Republicans’ rhetoric, remember that the MSM is against them. And McConnell and Boehner are (to my way of thinking) singularly uncharismatic and unforceful speakers. But there are many powerful voices who have spoken a lot lately—Cruz, Rubio, Cotton. They are speaking all the time—are they heard?
If you mean the Republicans aren’t as ruthless as the Democrats, however, I agree. But that’s because the Democrats (especially the more leftist wing) believe completely in the ends justify the means. That frees people up for a greater degree of ruthlessness.
Eric:
Disconnect? The Gramscian march has not been ignored.
C’mon, you are all much smarter than this. It’s not Democrat or Republican or Whig or Bull Moose Party; it’s an inexorable, unstoppable shift towards centralizing power.
The Federal Government grew under Obama, it grew under Bush II, it grew under Clinton (whose welfare reform was the greatest reversion back towards a Conservative principle in my lifetime), it grew under Bush I, it grew under Reagan, it grew under Carter… Hell, Nixon, a Republican, expanded the reach of the Federal government more than any President prior to Obama.
It doesn’t matter if it’s a Republican President with a Democrat Congress, or vice versa, or one party having control of both, or a Conservative coalition or Compassionate Conservatism or a Reagan Revolution or a Tea Part Insurgency…
It just keeps expanding and power continually flows to the Fed.
Rufus T. Firefly:
I don’t believe it’s inexorable. It’s just very very powerful and hard to reverse.
But we have never had the following combination: a conservative president plus control of Congress by the conservative wing of the Republican Party. I believe that if that were to happen it could be reversed.
Is there any realistic chance of that ever happening? Not a good one, that’s for sure. But I don’t think it’s literally impossible that that would happen. It would take a remarkable set of circumstances, however. I actually think we are closer to it than previously (I’m only talking about the post-FDR years, which is when big government really became entrenched).
Also, for all those who are more up on American history than I am (I don’t have time to look this up right now)–what about during the Coolidge administration. Didn’t government shrink somewhat?
Rufus T. Firefly:
The Coolidge years.
I know that the world, and America, are different places these days than back then. But still, you asked.
neo-neocon.com,
OK, I’ve waved my magic wand and grant you your dream; a Republican Congress and a Republican President.
Now, who will be the first to line up to have their Federal benefits taken away? Social Security? Welfare? Unemployment Insurance? Medical Insurance? Medicaid? Medicare? Highway funding? Education funding? Fanniemae? Freddiemac? Student loans?
They will never, ever, ever, ever be undone. You may get a term where it shrinks less, or, like Clinton and welfare, go backwards for a brief period, but the slide will continue.
My main problem is the lack of communication.
If Boehner and McConnell were pragmatic instead of traitorous, they could give a speech at any meeting laying out their case. It would go something like this:
“We can’t promise to repeal ANYTHING while Obama is in office because either Senate Democrats will block it from passage, or will not vote to override a veto. Any such actions will have to wait until we get a Republican president. In the meantime, we’ll try to hold the line.”
…or something like that.
Instead, we either get nothing or quotes on background calling the base “Hobbits.”
There is no reason whatsoever to believe that they’re working for us.
Sigh, we’re all tired of the battle but this is an important issue. If we on this blog can’t resolve our conflicting viewpoints, what hope is there that the less perceptive will do so? And this blog features a very high degree of perceptiveness.
Frankly, I’ve seen little nit-picking. Nor are calling out violations of major principles nit-picking. Approval of amnesty, a failure to vigorously oppose Obama on ObamaCare and Iran, silence in the face of Obama’s racist rabble rousing, none of these are nit-picks.
There is nothing ‘perceived’ about the Republican “establishment’s” betrayals, they are incontrovertible.
It is appropriate that the anger expressed at duplicitous RINOs is far greater than the anger expressed at Obama and the left because in the long term, those who interfere with effective response to Obama and the left do far more harm than the left, whose positions are clear and therefore can be fought. You can’t fight the knife n the back when you don’t even see it coming.
I have always been an independent (though once a liberal), have become involved and informed since the mid-90s and have never voted for a democrat at the federal level. As a person, I too like Giuliani and am supportive of Walker though his stance on immigration is of some concern. We agree in principle, we disagree on how to fight and we are BOTH right.
I’m not sure that any of us expect to agree with our candidate all the time but I do expect a candidate I support to stay true to basic principles and if they do something with which I disagree, I expect them to have a reasoned rationale for their actions. I get ‘annoyed’ when people piss on my head and tell me it’s raining.
The norm here is not to expect Congressional Republicans to do the impossible but many of us do expect them to do the possible and, they are not.
If I recall correctly, we’ve already agreed here that the Republicans should invoke the nuclear option because the democrats will do so once the opportunity arises again whether the Republicans do so or not. And while the GOP does not have a veto proof majority, it does have the ability to send bill after bill to Obama and when he vetoes them, they will have the proof that they are trying to do something rather than offering nothing. Plus they will have the opportunity to bring an override vote to the floor, which when defeated, will provide proof of those democrats who first voted for it, before they voted against it. Which will help to destroy their credibility with the voters.
The Republicans should use the option of holding back government funding… but cunningly. No big budget bills with Republican cuts of favored democrat programs. Instead submit a bill that solely funds the military. Then submit one that funds cancer research. One that funds farmers. One that funds social security and unemployment. Etc., etc. Let Obama explain why he refuses to fund the military, cancer research, farmers and social security. When Obama objects to piecemeal legislation, simply respond that the GOP is trying to unblock the deadlock by funding what no one could object to and then we can tackle where disagreement lies. Make Obama the bad guy, make him, by his actions and in the eyes of the voters, responsible for any shutdown.
A conservative takeover of the party is certainly needed but will necessarily be slow, unfortunately, we’re running out of time… and anyone who thinks that we’re not close to the edge is in denial. Which is not to say it shouldn’t be pursued vigorously but pursuit of a takeover alone is inadequate as a cure for the patient. The patient has late stage cancer not early onset Parkinson’s.
“I look at things in a more practical way: who agrees the most with me, have they kept their word in the past for the most part, and what can they realistically do if elected?”
That seems reasonable enough but other than perhaps Bush’s War on Terror, when exactly has the GOP “kept their word in the past for the most part”?
I agree, in the near term, a third party will only weaken both wings. Unfortunately, the “establishment” is far more likely to keep the reins of power without massive pressure being brought to bear upon them and the only pressure they recognize is the ballot box. Keep voting for them and they will never willingly release the reins of power.
The party may have a long term trend of becoming more conservative but the GOP’s power brokers are NOT interested in conservatism, they are interested in lining their pockets by serving the interests of their big donors who wish to maintain the financial status quo.
The thing is, you’re right neo about the short term repercussions and we’re right about the long term consequences. And therein lies the conundrum within which we find ourselves.
Rufus T. Firefly at 7:19,
You’re quite right that the political will is greatly insufficient. However reality’s sword will sunder the Gordian knot with which we are faced. The chips will fall where they may. That which is unsustainable will not be sustained. It’s not a matter of if but of when and though temporarily forgotten, the Grecian economic lesson looms before us and the Greek debacle to come, awaits the entire West.
http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21646760-euro-zone-brink-again-neither-childish-squabbles-nor-historical-arguments-are
Neo,
I think the big problem is the establishment seems far more willing to fight its own members than putting up any meaningful resistance against the Dems.
They campaigned on stopping Obama’s amnesty. Yet after very brief and clearly token effort quickly caved to give the President what he wanted. And spent most of their effort stopping those who disagreed with them.
I am not unrealistic about what they have the ability to accomplish. But the leadership seems completely unwilling to put any real effort into it. And it seems their agenda is increasingly in line with the Dem minority than with its own base.
If you need any evidence of this just look at what happened after the immigration cave. He was saved by his allies and the minority from any challenge. Its a pattern I think we will be seeing more of in the future. Essentially giving the democrats the majority in all but name
“In addition, Republicans in Congress cannot do what is impossible, even if you’d like them to and even if they wanted to do exactly whatever you want.”
Is this supposed to be a representation of conservatives’ arguments against RINO positions? Conservatives are pissed at GOP establishment for doing things it does not have to do. No one was forcing the establishment GOP to pass the DHS bill with funds for amnesty. Same goes for the medicare doc fix.
The GOP establishment wants to do these things. No one is forcing them.
In 1992 I voted for Ross Perot because I wanted to “send a message” to the GOP. What a mistake! Clinton was elected with less than 50% of the popular vote. His presidency was, IMO, a near disaster. But Obama makes me long for those days when Clinton at least “recalibrated” when the GOP took over Congress. Not vote for the GOP? Then be content to live under more and more statism with less freedom and dwindling economic results.
It reminds me of those who say they’re leaving the country because Obama is ruining it. Oh yeah? Where are you going to go? If you’ve got the big bucks and can afford the cost of immigrating to Switzerland or New Zealand, you might be able to escape the descent into a place where we are all equally miserable. But most of us can’t do that.
Well, I’m not going anywhere, and I’m not quitting till they shovel dirt on my old bones. Work for change within the Republican party as if your life depended on it. Because it does!
“I can say one thing about the left: they have demonstrated far more patience, fortitude, and sheer ability to deal with the messy realities of politics than the right has.”
Because they live for power and control. I do not; we do not. And it will always be true that the general tendency will be for power to grow and liberty to recede.
I usually don’t get all apocalyptic about things, but I note the huge, enormous number of guns bought by people who either don’t hunt or who already have sufficient weapons for their favorite hunting. And the guy who has six of them might “loan” one to a neighbor who, although a veteran (say), doesn’t have one, thus increasing the number of armed people.
I have no idea where this phenomenon is going, but, as a friend of mine used to say, It’s got to mean something since it can’t mean nothing.
What if a small town becomes a no-go zone wrt the feds? See Bundy. Whose side will the local constabulary be on?
Sure, the feds have the Army, or more likely, the National Guard. But the latter is made up of locals anyway. And the feds blinked when facing Bundy.
As my late father said, in his entire life he’d never suffered a power outage lasting longer than twenty minutes and never knew anyone who owned a generator. Since the grid has been going down more and more frequently, and for longer, and in larger areas, more and more people own generators. Too bad it’s necessary, but it happened. IOW, distributed capability which may have something to do with general attitudes.
We have a Christmas event in our town which is pretty involved. Amazing what kind of equipment; cherry pickers, cranes, generators, etc. can be rounded up among the ordinary citizens. And when the guys are chatting while awaiting one or another thing they have to do, the conversation is frequently about where you served or where you hunt, or both.
“Not vote for the GOP? Then be content to live under more and more statism with less freedom and dwindling economic results.” J.J.
You’re absolutely right J.J., that IS the result of not voting for the GOP candidate. But you left out the other part that is also true; vote for the GOP and “be content to live under more and more statism with less freedom” as under the current GOP leadership, it’s just a slower march to the gallows.
Proof; “Boehner plans to sideline House conservatives in budget battle”
As for the solution of changing that leadership, that’s a long term goal in a short term game.
Nor am I alone in my assessment of our running out of time. Just a week ago, neo wrote this; “I believe that Obama aspires to dictatorship, and I believe he is much closer than most people think. Remember that dictators can operate through seemingly democratic means. Hitler, for example, got the Reichstag to dissolve itself.”
Whether events might conspire to provide Obama an opportunity to seize dictatorial power is speculative but what is certain is that the Left lusts for such power and is incrementally moving us toward that day. It is also certain that the GOP is doing little to nothing to abort that day’s arrival.
The founders designed an adversarial system.
Somehow we now have comity.
Basically they’ve of late been taking turn and, at the Federal level, it is hard to differentiate between Dims and Repubics spendings and policies.
What’s for sure is that the Repubics never ratchet the Gramscian march back…
Hopefully there’ll be a reaction at the States level or eventually there’ll be some sort of a watering of the Jeffersonian tree …
Hopefully, for I’m not sure.
it’s become the land of the sheeple, home of the docile ….
“The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may become persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated that the time for fixing every essential right, on a legal basis, is while our rulers are honest, ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will be heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.” Thomas Jefferson