Friday, November 16, 2012

So Far Gone

Congressman (and erstwhile Presidential candidate) Ron Paul offered a stirring speech on the floor of the House on the event of his retirement after 12 terms this week. It said, in part:

"We're so far gone. We're over the cliff," the Texas Republican told Bloomberg Television's "In the Loop" program. "We cannot get enough people in Congress in the next 5-10 years who will do wise things."
Indeed. We are far gone, from fiscal responsibility and from liberty in the era of ever-expanding government, and it was a problem for the GOP in this last election.
I have said this for a long time now, but:
- You can't be 39 years and 53 million abortions down the road from Roe v. Wade and expect to make an argument on the morality of abortion. There are too many people - patients and spouses/partners/families - invested in the decision to have an abortion. They do not want to be told it was unwise, immoral, or problematic legally.
- You can't be $16 Trillion in total debt and $1.5 Trillion in annual deficit - numbers so gigantic as to defy practical and tangible understanding or concern - and make a case for fiscal responsibility and austerity.
- You can't be 15 million illegal aliens into an invasion of your border - generationally so - and make a case for border security. People don't want to be told that they - or their constituency base - have acted illegally and are a burden on our country.
People want rights, not responsibilities. People want to do illegal things and not be called on it. People want stuff, debt be damned. And Americans want abortions. Lots and lots of abortions.
So, the GOP has a choice. Do we stand on fundamental conservative principles or do we cave in to electoral realities?
Why cave? We already have a party that panders on those essentials. Why do we need two parties to do so?
Run a real conservative next time. Make the case anyway. That's my take.


  1. Hi Randy,

    As both a registered Republican and follower of your prolific Journal commenting, I feel compelled to argue that the future of the Republican Party is in its libertarian wing. I've watched libertarianism gain popularity across the spectrums of age and political affiliation, and feel that social conservatism holds the party back in many ways. Ron Paul's farewell speech didn't focus on issues you raised such as abortion, because it's a personal matter. Instead of concern about social issues, he raised bipartisan issues that fundamentally affect liberty: our failing tax system, regulation of milk, lack of transparency in the Federal Reserve, the shadowy influence of AIPAC, the bank bailout, the unlawful Patriot Act, etc...

    Randy, the Republicans don't have to "cave" in order to win elections, they caved long ago with the Bush budget deficits and the War on Terror. Randy, you don't have to "cave" on social issues in order to evolve with the Party, you simply need to treat them as religious, personal matters instead of public policy. As an evangelical Christian, you're free to continue evangelizing, but let people settle their moral standing in their hearts and in the afterlife, and not at the voting booth. Encouraging folks to join one's faith is the way to have an impact on social issues, but using the federal government to regulate gay marriage and drugs is a leftist way of thinking along the lines of social welfare programs, that the gov't can somehow encourage good behavior. In the same farewell speech, Paul asked, and I'm paraphrasing, "Isn't personal liberty and economic liberty one and the same?"

    The Republican Party needs to ask itself this very question, and the next time you are upset about Obamacare intruding on the freedom of buying healthcare in the marketplace, ask yourself if people should also have the freedom to buy drugs or abortions in the marketplace. Economic and personal liberty are one and the same, and the Patriot Act is just as unconstitutional as Obamacare or other programs.

    In other words, sway people on social issues using free speech (thousands of evolution comments), but minimize the role of the gov't in all aspects of life. This is the only viable conservative future for the Republicans.

  2. Panders to the people? You mean listens to what the people want and need, and then delivers? That pandering? I think its actually called "representing the people." The debt, however, is a serious issue and needs to be addressed, but not by depriving people of things they need. Equating the Patriot Act with Obamacare is insane. One is to provide people with needed care and operations to save their lives, without bankrupting them. And the other is an incredible invasion into people's personal lives by people who need no justification and answer to no one.

  3. "america wants lots and lots of abortions"? really?

    no, not at all true. what IS true is that americans want the right to choose an abortion if they believe that is what's best for their lives. not for everyone's lives, just each of their own lives. women don't choose abortions because they want them. they choose them when they feel it is needed. nobody wakes up and says, "i think i want to have an abortion. someone impregnate me so i can have an abortion." when women have abortions, they're not proud of it. they don't tap dance out of the hospital or wherever it takes place. they don't go home and open a bottle of champagne. instead, they usually go home, keep the lights off, hug a pillow or a partner, and cry.