Okay, look. Now is the time for all good men—and women—to come to the aid of the party...
Look, if you want John Paul Stevens replaced on the Supreme Court with a carbon copy, pro-choice, pro-racial preferences Justice, stay home.
As opposed to a a pro-choice, pro-racial preference Sandra Day O'Connor. If republicans consistently nominated strict constructionists, this might be a convincing argument. Then you recall that the court contains seven out of nine justices who have been nominated by republicans. Neither is this new; President Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren, the judge who gave us Roe v. Wade.
Keep a close eye on how Bush's appointees rule, especially if the high court decides to take up the lower court's decision which declared unconstitutional a ban on partial birth abortion. If conservative justices can't even overturn such an egregious decision, this argument is officially worthless.
If you want Donald Rumsfeld hauled before Congress every week justifying the war rather than fighting it, stay home.
Actually, as I oppose the war, I would like him to justify it, though he cannot do so. That the democrats haven't a clue on foreign policy doesn't mean the republican alternative is tenable or palatable. I don't like interventionism, even if we're going after bad guys.
If you want spending to increase even above the levels you are unhappy with now, stay home.
I can't believe Bill Bennett is actually offering this as an argument. The present administration has outspent everyone: Bill Clinton, FDR, LBJ, etc. Yes, it's possible that the democrats would spend more, but it is doubtful. If the democrats capture the house--which looks fairly likely--the Senate should be able to thwart government spending by failing to compromise; if they capture both houses--a rather more doubtful prospect, at least presently--Bush can finally start vetoing spending bills. Deadlock is a good thing; it slows government down--something which conservatism also ostensibly does.
If you want Henry Waxman holding hearings on every aspect of the administration's actions, stay home.
I have no idea who Henry Waxman is, but if he holds hearings on the seizure of civil rights by the Bush administration; if he holds hearings in regards to the irresponsible spending being conducted by Congress; if he holds hearings on the President's dereliction of duty in failing to defend the border from an invasion of illegals, I will applaud. If he conducts hearings on the misleading evidence regarding the war in Iraq I will be mildy amused. Government hearings also slow the government down.
If you want to see the war in Iraq defunded to the point of withdrawal so that the worst elements in Iraq take over and a repeat of the helicopters-fleeing-Saigon-type-images come back all over again, signaling a decade-long disrespect and doubt of American power, stay home.
I do want to see the Iraq war defunded, and although this will again "signal a decade-long disrespect and doubt of American power", this is unavoidable. We cannot win in Iraq, and the burden of guilt does not rest upon those of us who grew tired with supporting an immoral and irrational war, but upon those who foolishly had us attack and attempt to democratize another nation. For we are, to borrow a title of a Buchanan tome, "a republic, not an empire". It is high time we remember as much.
If you want to keep the border unsealed, stay home.
Again, a laughable assertion. The republicans have had six years to do something about illegal immigration and have offered little. Moreover, this is the one issue upon which a large portion, if not a majority, of the American population agrees with the conservative stance. And yet, the cowardly representatives do nothing.
The fact that Bill Bennett, among others, is writing articles about this is indicative of the trouble the republicans could be in this election. The fact that we are only given a choice between republicans and democrats, that is, no real choice, does not mean we must vote. Throughout history, very few people have had the opportunity to vote. The fact that our recent ancestors had the chance to do so is interesting and perhaps even moderately neat, but we must accept the fact that democracy no longer exists in any real sense of the word.
More on point, conservatism is a failed idealogy. I did not completely understand this, despite my avowed libertarianism until I read a Vox Day column in which he explained thusly:
The problem with both catenaccio and conservatism is that any positive movement is largely the result of luck, not purpose. They are defensive strategies, and as any military historian will tell you; defense never beats offense, it only staves off defeat for a time. In the end, even the most intrepid defenders will weary and the gates will finally fall to the barbarians.
Although it sounds ludicrous in a time when conservatives nominally rule the airwaves, the legislative, judicial and executive branches; 2006 may well be one day viewed as a low point for the American conservative. For politics is not mathematics and it knows no transitive law. It is true that many institutions and individuals are Republican, and certainly the Republican Party is supposed to be America's conservative party, but this does not equal conservative dominance of the political scene.
For neither the institutions nor the individuals can be relied upon to work toward conservative goals. Most of the conservative actions taken in the last 20 years can be best described as holding actions, not actions intended to lower the rising tide of central government influence or combat societal devolution.
When the republican party decides to fight the monolithic government beast I will consider voting for them; yet so long as they only claim to be less evil than their democratic counterparts I shall not waste my time. It matters little whether the republic is destroyed in ten or twenty years. A dead republic is a dead republic.
3 comments:
But that lacks the verbosity of... okay, I'll give it a shot.
Still havent said how you intend to cage the beast, if not electorally. All I hear is resignation.
Duly noted Troutsky.
First, one must educate, educate, educate. Perhaps then a good candidate could be elected--and he could even do some good. I'm rather doubtful of this, but it's worth a shot.
Second, one must pray. My hope resides, not with the republic, but with and in Christ, and while I become discouraged at the state of the world, I need only remember that my hope is for the world to come.
This works better in theory than in practice, but I'm working on that.
Post a Comment