The Ideological Ultimatum that is 2008
As this year’s elections get closer and closer and the distractions get louder and louder, I think many of us lose sight of what this election could (and does) mean for the USA. We have two men, two diametrically opposite politicians, vying for the highest office in the land, arguably the highest office in the world. And they are in a statistical tie. It would appear we have some thinking to do.
I am a Conservative and a Republican. I will be casting a vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin. I believe with all my heart that conservative leadership is what is best for the USA right now and what is best always. But there is a particular urgency with which I am so enthusiastically supporting this ticket.
For all the talk about the ‘historical-ness”of this election, I think the true history that will be made is the ultimate choice Americans must make, between conservatism and liberalism. John McCain is not the most conservative Republican ““ he’s not even close. But Barack Obama is one of the most radical liberals in American politics today. This is important to note. Our current Congress is under the control of Liberals. If Obama is elected President, there will be missing from our national dialogue representation of half or more of the voting public.
This is why I continue my campaign - in the face of blatant bias, in contrast to complete corruption, in defense of the most basic tenets on which this country was formed. No taxation without representation. The freedoms of speech, religion, bearing arms, one vote for every man, all are equal under the law. These are the rights that we fight for again and again, not just for ourselves but for people all over the globe who are oppressed and imprisoned because they too long for these freedoms. Yet today we are faced with the threat of losing these freedoms for ourselves, right here in America. We are facing the creation of a government that will have no checks or balances, a government that represents a small and insignificant measure of our population, a government bought and owned by the most immoral and corrupt sects of our society.
These people do not believe what most Americans believe. They do not believe in equality, in freedom, in life, in self-determination, unless it serves their very narrow purpose ““ to stay in power. There is no greater good ““ there is no goal except control, power. Why would we so easily hand over the reigns to these leaders ““ Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Schumer, Boxer, Ayers, Soros, Wright, etc ““ when they have exhibited no ability to lead justly and with responsibility? The fox may be in the hen house but does that mean we stop fighting?
With less than two weeks to go, there are many of us who have yet to decide how we will cast our votes this year. Again, the contrast between these two candidates is immense. As for me, I’m voting for John McCain. While not a candidate with whom I agree on every issue, I truly believe that John McCain believes in the greatness of our experimental democracy. John McCain trusts that the American people know what they want and what will serve them best. John McCain has proven that his goal is the safety, security and preservation of our nation. John McCain has shown that he is one of us ““ he has made mistakes, he has admitted to them and he has repeatedly shown that he is willing and able to recognize when either his party or himself is headed in the wrong direction and is not afraid to turn the bus around.
John McCain is listening to the American people, and he is listening to their suggestions. John McCain hears our voices above those of the media, those in NY and Hollywood and those in Congress. John McCain has shown that he understands the sacredness of the trust the American people are about to place in him, in a time of economic crisis and great political and ideological divide. John McCain has shown time and time again, much to the dismay of some of us, that there are answers on both sides and that the peace and prosperity of all depends on the cooperation, contribution and sacrifice of all. Would I personally like to see our government return to the traditional, conservative ideology and practices of days gone by? Yes, of course. But if we’ve gone past the point of no return, and that is a big if, why abandon those values all together?
The leadership on the left has abandoned us, the hardworking, God-loving, America proud families of the center right - we didn’t abandon them. Why would we allow them to determine the future direction of our nation? They don’t represent us. They don’t respect us. They have spent eight years maligning us and our vision, hopes and dreams. The left wants us to give up on this great democratic experiment and hand over what power we have left. There is far more at stake this year than just who gets to pick the new drapes in the White House. This decision deserves our utmost attention.
Popularity: 12% [?]
Comment by merge divide on 24 October 2008:
“We are facing the creation of a government that will have no checks or balances, a government that represents a small and insignificant measure of our population, a government bought and owned by the most immoral and corrupt sects of our society.”
You just described the Bush Administration (with the GOP-led Congress and majority of Supreme Court Justices from 2000-06) perfectly. And yet you advocate four more years of McSame? I believe you are on the wrong side of history.
Comment by gopmom on 24 October 2008:
Merge, you need to get out of traffic and pay better attention. There is a big difference between a slight majority in Congress and a filibuster proof majority, especially when 3 Supreme Court Justices are nearing retirement. But we’ve covered the paranoid Left’s fascination with Bush many times. We’re discussing the future now, not history.
Comment by giginthesky on 26 October 2008:
Thought process strikes me again. Neither campagin (Barr’s libertarian run for presidency aside-haven’t really looked into him) is really proposing anything new. Also, Obama is actually not “one of the most radical liberals in American politics today”. In this past session, yes, but overall his votes have been actually evened themselves out. Anyways back to the main point. Neither side brings really anything new to the table. Albiet Obama’s “Change” is theroically change because it’s the exact opposite of the Bush Policies but they aren’t orignal. Last I checked, FDR’s economic policies(quite like that of Obama’s) did not create a monarchy. Yes, he had the largest number of terms but it’s hard to say America didn’t benefit from him. Also, something that scares me is the idea people long freedoms. During the revolutionary war we believed that Canada would “greet us as liberators, not conquerers”. To make a long story short, they didn’t. Nor is democracy perfect, so why enforce it? As for the theroy (the future is theroy not fact) of what the left will do in power, it’s hard to say. I do agree there has to be some form of governmental structure and that the checks and balances are great. However, I don’t think the anti-federalist stance of Goldwater Conservatism will work either. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, else as we have seen with the Great Depression and things like Plussey v. Furgeson, America would be in a lot worse of a position than it is in now.
I don’t really think that either side respects “us”(Whoever the “us” that was reffered to is) someone isn’t going to be represented. So let’s not jump to conclusions and fears, as a good friend of mine put it when the economy virtually collapsed a few weeks ago, “Supply-side is great, it just has a few kinks”. Again, the system still has a few kinks, elections won’t be stopped so the people to an extent can call for reform if needed, and it does happen, no matter which party one is affiliated with.
Comment by gopmom on 26 October 2008:
Giginthesky - I have to disagree on the “even” stance. Does voting “present” even out the wacky votes? Sure Obama seems “even” because he voted often enough with the majority, but it is exactly those far left votes that indicate how far out he is. How is voting against saving the lives of botched abortion babies moderate - who was he representing there, when 80% or more of the population is for this?
And while I’m sure all of his proposed policies are not feasible and will not ultimately be instituted, it is the belief that his followers have that all will be solved by government, all will be equalized by government - especially the black vote. His failures - and they will be many if he gets in - would be more damaging to the longevity of our system than any “reforms” he could institute. He has promised what government can never deliver - success and happiness.
It is still the lack of power sharing and his lifetime connections to radicals and anarchists that are extremely disturbing - people whose lives are dedicated not to any grand plan of rescuing humanity but simply to the destruction of the USA. While the media has agreed to ignore the multiple and obvious connections, many of us are smart enough to recognize a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Obama has not been honest, in my opinion, of how he’d like to see the US reformed. He only lets the occasional hint slip. The people currently in power in Congress, the people responsible for Obama’s rise and all those waiting in line for their piece of the pie are expecting a miraculous transformation. What still keeps my hackles up is whether the true disaster of an Obama administration would be it’s failures or its successes.
To say that democracy is not perfect is true - no system is if you measure by how it delivers success and happiness evenly to all. But most of us don’t measure a political system’s proficiencies this way. The true measurement of the success of a political system should be (and primarily is) the freedoms awarded to its citizens to succeed and fail on their own (which is where the free market enters - an economic system), with as little government interference as possible. That is the inherent belief this government was founded on - less interference. The other belief was the people are inherently good - probably the biggest fly in the ointment.
You may say that neither Obama nor McCain is proposing anything new - there is nothing new under the sun - but I would argue that we don’t need anything new. We just need a return to the simple, basic principles on which our nation was founded - less government interference, more personal freedom and responsibility. You argue that FDR was good for the country - I argue the opposite.
Comment by giginthesky on 26 October 2008:
GOPmom,
“How is voting against saving the lives of botched abortion babies moderate - who was he representing there, when 80% or more of the population is for this?”
Why did Bush want to ban gay marriage? Just a thought. But in all honestly, I am a Hobbesist. And by this I mean, I see so many loopholes within that bill that will set all the progress (yes, I am saying progress, I am pro-choice and do not try to change me on that, you will waste your time) will be set back. Interpertation is nothing new, and in turn people will take advantage of loopholes, which there are many of.
I would like to ask you that in the time of the Great Despression would you have really liked to live in a Hooverville? In addition would you argue with FDR’s descision to go into WWII?
One other quote stuck out “measurement of the success of a political system should be (and primarily is) the freedoms awarded to its citizens to succeed and fail on their own (which is where the free market enters - an economic system), with as little government interference as possible.” I hate to say it, but the founding priniciple of the Constitution is federalism- which means strong central govt. The elastic clause still exists, so it’s hard to say that really the strong Fed Govt is unconstitutional. If so then, you would have to go with saying that Regan’s methods of setting the 21-drinking-age throughout America were thus so.
I don’t see with what’s wrong with helping the middle class, I mean greed has run the country for a while, and next to no one has helped those in need within America, really. I also can’t say that a free-market(as in place by the Regan era) has not helped us, look at wall-street.
Comment by gopmom on 27 October 2008:
Gig, I didn’t see this comment until tonight (Monday). Let me start by saying I’m pro-life but I see no point in attempting to outlaw abortion on a national level. I’ve never advocated for it to be outlawed. However, I don’t think taxpayer dollars (Fed, state or local) should ever pay for an abortion. I also believe Roe should be overturned because a Federal mandate is unnecessary. States should be able to decide on their own.
Same for gay marriage. For the courts and judges to be deciding this is unconstitutional. Massachusetts should be sued by every state in the union - and bankrupted - for the audacity (current buzz word) to force out-of-state citizens and their home states into legal limbo. And I don’t know where you are, but there has been a continued and concerted effort to get the marriage issue on the ballot and the Sucks-a-chusetts state legislature refuses to honor the request and the fully legal and binding petition - completely unconstitutional. The issue was not allowed on the ballot because of the fear the amendment would pass. (So, all of a sudden we don’t have to vote if we’re afraid of the outcome? In that case, let’s cancel November 4th.) I tell ya’, if I only had a million dollars, I’d be fighting this non-stop. And it has nothing to do with gay marriage - not that there’s anything wrong with it. It’s all about a small (but very smart and well financed) percentage of the population deciding to crusade for a cause in a “friendly” state with judges willing to legislate from the bench. First Massachusetts, then California. Who’s next? This isn’t about rights for all - it’s an in-your-face attempt to subvert traditional aspects of our culture. In the sixties, it was blacks. Then, women. Now, homosexuals. Someone is always a tool for the Left. I wonder who’s next?
But I digress. I have spent the last 18 years advocating for a smaller Federal government. I disagree with your assessment that this nation was intended to have a Fed the size it is now. Strong, yes, because of the consensus of the states. Humongous to the point of oppressive, never. Seriously, do you think the signers of the constitution were thinking of a 50 state nation with 300 million citizens? I think they would have been horrified at the thought of one central government having authority over that many people. You can’t possibly legislate everything, especially good behavior, on a Federal level. And the kind of kidnap and ransom that goes on in the halls of Congress regarding earmarks and Fed dollars is criminal. While it might make sense to have continuity amongst the states regarding some statutes (like the drinking age you mentioned), a Fed law that coerces via the threat of withholding funds that should have been the state’s to begin with is flawed. Yes, I suppose I just disagreed with Reagan, but hey, cut me some slack - Reagan was President when I was too young to drink or vote. The Fed is soooo big, the only way to keep the lid on it is to keep passing more and more legislation that reinforces the Fed’s control over the states. I’m against it. Is there a way back? I certainly hope so - which is why I feel so strongly about this election. I think we’re at a tipping point.
As for FDR, I’ve never read up on the era prior to the war other than high school history. (I studied political theory with a focus on Eastern Europe, post-WWII.) Obviously I don’t disagree with the decision to enter the war. Actually, I’d say in hindsight we should have gotten in there sooner. (This opinion also comes from my exposure to the English - a few who served.) As for Depression-era policies, I guess you do what you have to do. It’s the post-depression continuation and corruption of the policies that has dug us into a hole. Is it mandatory of modern, western Judeo-Christian societies to bail out and support every individual unwilling of taking some responsibility? Are you trying to tell me that these bloated and exploited welfare policies are not responsible for creating a culture of helplessness and hopelessness? You know, my Albanian painter was very astute when he pointed out that people who survive by cheating and exploiting the welfare system are not stupid. In fact, he said they are very intelligent because they have figured out how to do it. If they would just redirect all that thought and effort into a legitimate enterprise, the sky’s the limit.
So I ask you, is increasing the amount and number of entitlement programs available to the American people truly the best way to go? And please don’t fool yourself - these programs are not directed towards the middle class, they are intended for poverty level minorities. They will be delivered at the expense of the middle class, as they always are.
I don’t quite understand what the last “wall-street” bit was about but if you’re referring to the current crisis, look to the Dems in Congress. See link.
Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
Comment by AlienAmerican.com on 28 October 2008:
I like this article, and your site. Very pasionate, you have a fan.