Up For Grabs
Deborah Venable
02/22/08
When
I said in my last article that I guess the country just doesn’t want a
conservative in the White House this time around, I meant it. The country hasn’t wanted a true
conservative in the White House for a very long time now. We got one in Ronald Reagan – but even he
did some things that went against the conservative grain. The problem is that the definition has been
blurred. People cannot define the true
conservative view any more. It is a
tough charge to handle, but until we can honestly assess the damage that
non-conservative policies cause, we will continue to move away from what needs
to be done to conserve anything.
As
we listen to shrill calls for “change” from the podiums of silver tongued
politicians, and witness the sea of humanity bowing down to the alter of change
at any cost, we are not even trying to assess why we want change or what change
we would accept. That is truly
pitiful! Many who consider themselves
conservatives view change as a return to what used to be. That is change after all. Those who think of themselves as liberals
would fall into the same category as they pine away for a Democrat controlled
three branches of government – like it used to be in the not so distant
past.
The
dangerous ones are those who would have us move ever closer to an unacceptable
socialist/communist form of government that America has never before been this
close to embracing. The dangerous ones
are those who will not admit that morality has been in a downward spiral in
America due to unchecked liberal attitudes for so many years of a Democrat
controlled Congress, and the selection of so many judges who see the
Constitution as outdated in too many instances. The dangerous ones are those who would trade more and more
bedrock principles for the appearance of moderation on all things socially
appealing to a selfish public. The
dangerous ones are those who have shifted focus from a rugged individualist approach
to governing from a logical intellect to a group think mentality that insists
on a government that mandates through emotion on the whim of preconceived
victims.
Governing
power is one of those things that is finite.
It cannot be produced out of the clever use of resources and
effort. It IS a zero sum game. There is only so much of it to go around,
and when power is placed or assumed in a new recipient, it must be taken from
somewhere else. This is a bedrock
principle of the limited government philosophy held by conservatives. We believe, as our Founders did, that more
governing power is best left in the hands of those being governed than assumed
by pseudo-representatives of the people trying to vote themselves government
largesse. People of a more liberal
philosophy put great credence in a government that mandates, regulates, and
attempts to equalize the greater mass of the population under a small group of
governing elites – true freedom is not an option - and one cannot “opt out” of
such a system no matter what the need or injustice. The “power pie” when divided among this elite system leaves
nothing but crumbs to those who would wish to conserve freedom for themselves
and their posterity.
Conservatives
no longer insist on electing true conservatives to represent them in local,
state or federal government. Candidates
still bat the label around when they run for office, but proof of the values
held is not nearly as important to their election as beating out the obviously
liberal competition. This is so clearly
illustrated in the current presidential race for the Republican
nomination. The media is having a grand
time at conservatives’ expense on this one.
I
have often spoken up in favor of electing the lesser of the evils over
“protest” voting or sitting out an election.
I still feel that way. It does
conservatives no good to allow liberals the entire pie of political power just
so we can feel good about ourselves not compromising our values. That is true evil! However, it is up to conservatives to support the most
conservative candidates we can find in any bid for that political power, and we
have failed to do that far too often.
The most electable conservative candidates will always hold the most
conservative values, but the change agents within the Republican Party always
seem to argue against that. I’m not
even going to flatter them with the usual labels, (neo-cons, moderates, and the
like), they are the change agents of the Republican Party – pure and
simple. They are the ones who believe
it is better to meet in the middle instead of attracting from the side. Well, the middle is always deeper than the
side – deeper and more hazardous to one’s footing! So you end up floating around and standing on nothing.
If
the analysts are correct, we will end up with a “floater” for a presidential
candidate in November. I have the
knowledge that thus far I have not personally supported this floater
mentality. I did not vote for him in my
state’s primary and I publicly endorsed the candidate that I felt was the most
conservative Republican running before any of the primaries. By the time Alabama’s primary rolled around,
my first three choices had been eliminated from the race, so I voted for my
fourth choice, Mike Huckabee, and he won the primary in my state and several
others. He is still standing in the
shallow waters of his conservative personal beliefs on most of the important
issues, unlike the web-footed Mitt Romney that many of my conservative friends
threw their support behind. (It was
obvious to me that this one was prepared to do some paddling around in the
middle.)
Mike
Huckabee is not the perfect conservative candidate, but he lays over John
McCain like a dollar over a dime!
I
could vote FOR Huckabee in November instead of AGAINST the Democrat, which I
will have to do if McCain is the candidate.
I believe Huckabee to be on sound footing with a majority of
conservative values. I would certainly
hope that he could bring about the beginning of the end to the income tax, pick
conservative judges for the courts, and put a stop to some of the demoralizing
of the American family. He is a much
more believable orator than most, not relying on teleprompters and reams of
notes when he speaks – and evidently he knows how to stretch a dollar better
than most candidates. If he can
surround himself with wise advisors, he would be a much more formidable
opponent to our known enemies than one who was the recipient of a previous
enemy’s “hospitality” for years, (which automatically seems to have earned him
the status of hero?)
So,
there it is for what it’s worth - my assessment of the conservative
situation.
John
McCain is garnering early support from many Republicans on the assumption of
his electability alone. When it comes
down to a head-to-head with the Democrat, his negatives will far outshine his
positives I believe. The conservative
base will be hard pressed to sing his praises when they know better, and the
only change he can offer is to pull his party to the center even more.
I
shudder to think how those inevitable showdowns with foreign enemies will turn
out with any of the frontrunners in the power chair. A certain amount of disaster is inevitable I think. What will all those idealistic, young,
first-time voters say when they are asked – no compelled – to follow a
messianic “leader” over the cliff? Or
all the darlings of socialism when they are forced to wear their chains of
tyranny or be eliminated? Or all those
floaters of “conservative” policy that abandoned true conservatism so long ago
they have nothing left to conserve but their own lives? What will they do in the face of failure of
their “change” policies? Will they be
willing to pick up the self-defense guns of ultimate victory and fight for once
in their lives? Or will it be left to a
“silent majority” to redefine the true American Spirit of “liberty and justice
for all”?
Washington
D.C is a lousy nurturing environment in which to grow a president. That is why so few have come from the
chambers of the U.S. Senate. Executive
experience is a big plus on the resume of the would-be chief executive –
kowtowing to legislative lobbyists is hardly mentionable. Better experience is obtained in the House
Chamber, where at least more attention is demanded by the people just to keep a
position which can expire after only two years. Why, then, have we come down to a choice between two junior
Senators and one ensconced, entrenched, value challenged Senior citizen who
knows more about surviving The Hill than surviving the desert of his home
state?
The
results of the November election this year is literally up for grabs. Anyone trying to accurately predict an
outcome at this point is wise to be ready to “change” that prediction as time
goes on. Meanwhile, many of my
conservative friends have decided that the wisest use of conservative efforts
between now and then would be to support the most conservative candidates we
can find to fill the lower offices in local, state, and federal government. What a great idea! Why hadn’t we thought of that before? (Some of us already have.)
Since the president is always chosen from this pool, it is quite telling
that the current crop of presidential candidates must have slipped in when
conservatives were not paying attention.