Saturday, January 19, 2008

Cal gets it

Mr. Thomas isn't buying into the fake conservatives running for President in the GOP:

Mitt Romney won in Michigan, partly because he promised a $20 billion aid package for the auto industry. Is that what a Republican should do - bailout a private industry rather than endorse capitalism, free enterprise and encourage Detroit to build the kinds of cars people want?

Whatever gets the man elected, Cal; it's not as if Romney has any principles, certainly no conservative ones. This election is demonstrating why massive suffrage is such a bad idea. People are going to vote for the candidate who promises them the most things. It doesn't matter that: 1) the government rarely delivers on these promises; or that 2) government help rarely helps. Asking people who vote based on emotions--which candidate makes me feel the best--aren't the sort to learn from their mistakes. That the people of Michigan, who are mired in a recession, would turn to government for help, is, though lamentable, completely understandable. That the conservative pundits are interpreting Romney's win as proof that he's the candidate to beat Hillary is beneath contempt.

The only one behaving like a real Republican is Ron Paul, who actually wants to cut spending and get government out of our lives. He won't win the nomination because too many Republican are into handouts and redistribution, just like Democrats.

Conservatives who dislike Paul will insist that he can't be supported because of his positions on the War on Terror. And yet, compromising on any other issue is completely acceptable. The commentariat has touted socially liberal candidates, like Giuliani, and to a lesser extent, John McCain. Meanwhile, aside from a few commitments to tax cuts, no one has made a promise to severely reduce the size of the government, no one, that is, who can be believed based on his record. But Paul's insistence that we follow the advice of the Founders has caused him to be the least desirable candidate from the perspective of the commentariat--though Cal demonstrates that there are some noble exceptions.

Some will insist that certain candidates, say Romney, are small government types. But when candidates experience conversions on major political issues, suddenly causing them to toe the party line, the conversions should not be taken as genuine. Sticking with the Romney example, his suddenly coming around on abortion just as he was seeking the presidency as a Republican was just too convenient. Elect him if you want, but don't act surprised when he governs, not as he promised that he would, but as he has always governed. If you want a genuine conservative, you've got one. If you want a charlatan, there are plenty of those, too. But after eight years of the faux-conservatism of George W. Bush, wouldn't it be nice to have the real thing?


Doom said...

As with the Church, at times, I have a crutch I depend upon. Well, let us be truthful, two crutches. No, not crutches, these are aces in the hole... now, see me through.

Come over here and listen to the one eyed, hook handed dealer of cards, death, and superstition, as the modernists would call me... Respectfully mind you, they know their place, my nature, and their limits.

This is the deal. In the first place, you, my and your friends, or families, and myself could vote for Liz Claiborne if we wanted. Sure, we could. And, being the Republic we live in, we would get exactly what we voted for... a knock-off (there are no "originals" here and now of man nature, disregard avdvertisments). We would robably not even get a one off knock-off, we are so far beyond original and into law it doesn't matter.

Does that mean all those votes I enumerated do not mean a thing? Of course not, they keep the unemployable in work for several weeks, counting though they cannot count, and sorting though they cannot think.

I suppose I am saying that what is, is, unlike what B. or H. Clinton might suspect, or at least publicly state, is is enumerated. And, we are in good hands but it has nothing to do with All-State. Nor does it have to do with good governance, so long as the people remain in love with Love.

God is all. Even here, even now. If we are Christians, we will not fall. Just as when the Jews remained true. The question, if you have doubt then is, are we with God, or without? It is a good question. But with the answer will come surety... of blessings or doom. The rest is trivial. And, mostly, where are you with God? Follow his will, as you know it. Understand others may in absolute truth do the same and yet act differently, then do not worry your weary head.

Be well.

troutsky said...

You be well too, doom.( snark alert: that post is the perfect example of why Church and State must remain separate)

As for your dissapointment with universal suffrage , Wiser, are you suggesting a "common sense" test folks must pass to participate?

The reason it is so hard to find the "true" conservative is because conservatism, like liberalism, is a hollowed out facade. A hologram which Cal Thomas feeds off of with his support for imperialist war, for re-distribution of wealth upwards, his sexism and zenophobia.It is the philosophy of fear, fear of the present, fear of the people, fear of God, fear of life.

Doom said...

No problem, to include your religion, troutsky. And, a grain of salt is often necessary. But then, you don't really have that in you, do you?

And, thanks. I am well.

A Wiser Man Than I said...

that post is the perfect example of why Church and State must remain separate

I'll not argue the point, though I'd add that the history of the 20th century suggests that the State should remain small.

It is the philosophy of fear, fear of the present, fear of the people, fear of God, fear of life.

Now that's a bit ridiculous. You can find evidence of fearful people in almost any segment of society, in almost any ideology.

The Republican party has been taken over by fear as of late, but at what used to be the heart of conservatism was a cautious individual, not necessarily a fearful one. It's a bad idea to enact changes by the Government because most of those changes are bound to fail.

There was a real conservatism. It is now dead. Heaven knows what the term will mean years hence.

A Wiser Man Than I said...

As for your dissapointment with universal suffrage , Wiser, are you suggesting a "common sense" test folks must pass to participate?

I'm not sure what to do about universal suffrage. It's very obvious that, while the system is working as intended, allowing the bipartisan faction in Washington to do whatever they wish isn't what I'd call magnanimous.

The problem with a common sense test is that the government would be the final arbiter. I'm not optimistic about the chances of the government behaving benevolently. We might see a lot of libertarians disenfranchised all of a sudden.

I think I might like a King. There are fewer heads to chop off in a monarchy.