|
January 17, 2012 - Tuesday | 8:33 AM, CST
Despite my wishes to the contrary, the painful process of selecting a Republican contender to lose against Obama continues unabated, with nothing new to encourage the rest of us to hold out any hope. During the debates, especially where the audience asks questions of the candidates, I see more and more of what I view as wrong thinking. First of all, the emphasis is on Obama himself, and how we all hate him (or should hate him). This is far too simple an explanation for why the country is in trouble, because it fails to look at the fact that Obama is merely a figurehead. The real issue lies with the millions of American voters who listened to Obama's campaign, decided they liked what they heard, and elected him to the highest office in the land. I don't hate Obama, because frankly, Obama doesn't matter. What matters is the sense of entitlement pervading this country among a majority of its citizens, and a mindset among Americans, even so-called conservative Americans, to look to the government as an answer to their problems.
As an example, I recently watched part of a town hall meeting with Rick Santorum, where a man questioned what the government would do to straighten out the trade imbalance with China. This is a good question, I suppose, and the Constitution does give the government the authority to enact tariffs for the protection of American industry, but it seems to overlook an obvious truth: if American consumers stopped buying Chinese-made goods in favor of those made in the United States, that trade imbalance wouldn't exist. It is quite simple, really; we are a consumer driven economy, and if the consumers only bought goods made here the imports would dry up and their retailers would go out of business. Yet we are conditioned to believe that the government is the answer to the problem, and as far as excessive taxes and regulations go, it is correct. But the rest is up to us. We don't need the government to intervene, because the citizens themselves hold the power to make the changes. Yet we are told that if we only get rid of this one man, this terrible president, prosperity will be right around the corner and we will return to the halcyon days gone by where there was a satellite television in every room and a smart phone in every pocket.
If the success or failure of America rests on the election of one man, we don't need to replace the man, we need to replace the system of government that gives that one man such power.
Today the "blame game" has become as American as apple pie. The Occupy [fill in the blank] protests certainly prove this, but we have surprising examples on our own side of the political spectrum by people who should know better. Many of the conservative and pro-gun websites I visit are full of people declaring they will vote for Obama "as the more conservative choice" if Mitt Romney receives the Republican nomination. This, I suppose, is a matter of opinion, and I've heard it quipped that a contest between Obama and Romney is a choice between a man who hates guns and loves socialized medicine, and a man who loves socialized medicine and hates guns. I tend to disagree with this line of reasoning, but what troubles me the most are the people who state they will vote for Obama to somehow teach the Republican establishment a "lesson" to stop running people like Romney, who are to the left politically of many Democrats.
This strikes me as a rather asinine opinion. Those who are upset that Romney may get the nomination (and each day makes that possibility seem more likely) should be blaming their "conservative" friends who intend to vote for him in their state's primaries. I heard on the radio this morning that Romney had a forty percent approval rating among Republican voters in a national poll. This was over thirteen points ahead of the next leading competitor. Forty-percent approval rating! This means that almost half of those who call themselves Republicans want a man who, as governor of Massachusetts, instituted an "assault weapons" ban on semi-automatic rifles, and ushered in a socialized medicine system that was actually the model for Obamacare!
One can blame the Republican establishment for a conspiracy all they want, but the fact remains that the GOP nominee will be elected democratically by our friends and neighbors and not some nameless, faceless goons in Washington. Whether this is due to an ignorance of Romney's history, reliance on a slick thirty-second soundbite to make an informed decision, the pathetic desire to field an "electable" candidate, or actual agreement with Romney's platform is irrelevant. What is relevant is that if we, as conservatives, wish to field a better Republican candidate, then we need to do a better job of selling conservatism to our friends and neighbors so they refuse to even tolerate the Robamneys of the political sphere.
This brings me to another issue I'd like to raise. I believe I've stated before that I intended to support the Republican candidate rather than my usual Libertarian choice because I'd like to achieve two goals in the next presidential administration: I want Obamacare repealed, and I want more pro-gun judges appointed to the federal courts (especially the Supreme Court). Some may argue that Romney will not do this if elected. I tend to disagree, because I think he would have quite a few constituencies and special interests to please once he took office. Truthfully, I find it irrelevant because Romney will turn off enough of the conservative Tea Party vote as to hand Obama an easy victory. That being said, I will no longer vote for Romney if he receives the GOP nomination. Unlike some misguided individuals, I won't vote for Obama as a better alternative; I'll vote Libertarian or some other third party. Voting for Obama to teach the Republicans a lesson is like donating to the Brady Campaign to spite the NRA. You don't support the enemy, you find a better friend.
My opinion changed after watching the debate last night, and that brings us to another topic I've been wanting to discuss. Earlier this month, Congress passed, and Obama signed into law, the Defense Authorization Act, which, among other things, gives the government, through use of the military and police, the right to indefinitely detain American citizens without a trial if they are suspected of being terrorists.
Try as I might, I've had trouble raising alarm for this new law among those I've alerted. Perhaps this is understandable, as images of foreign born Islamic terrorists abusing our court systems comes to mind at first glance. But the law does not make that distinction. Any. American. Citizen.
Got that?
Now let's discuss why we should be concerned about this bill. Those of you who kept up on the Obama administration during its early years may remember a memo sent out by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano who warned about the rise of "right wing terrorism." Some of the factors law enforcement was warned to find suspicious:
Individuals who were:
- concerned about gun rights...
- owned guns...
- favored states' rights over federal rights, as guaranteed in the ninth and tenth amendments...
- pro-life...
- Ron Paul supporters...
- in possession of seven days' worth of stored food...
- military veterans...
I would have liked to quote the document in extenso, but for the sake of brevity I will just link to a relevant essay here. Out of the above list, how many of us does this describe? The government just came out and admitted they are keeping track of online social networking sites "to keep tabs on terrorists." This is no longer just conspiracy theory. Now they openly admit to watching us, and now they have laws on the books to do something about it. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, this law is the reason the Second Amendment exists. Furthermore, I would opine that if a government official were at the doorstep to take an American citizen away to indefinite detention without a trial, that citizen would be morally justified to shoot as many of the bastards as possible. Taken at home unawares, it isn't a fight the citizen will win, but dying with a rifle in the hands as a free man is infinitely better than dying as a number in a secret government prison camp. It may sound harsh, but "just obeying orders" is not sufficient justification to abrogate Constitutionally protected liberties. Just ask the Nazis how well that defense worked for them at Nuremberg.
In last night's debate, Mitt Romney not only stated he'd have signed the bill, but he applauded Obama for doing so. "I trust Barack Obama not to abuse this power," he said. "And that is why we should be careful only to elect presidents we can trust."
Right... we should trust them.
Well, I can trust myself not to vote for Romney in the primary, and if or when Romney wins the nomination, I can trust myself to vote third party. This is not an issue I feel can be compromised on; this is a declaration of war on the American people by their government.
All this being said, I've been slowly coming to the rather liberating conclusion that it doesn't really matter, in the end. Let's examine it logically, shall we? Our country is over fifteen trillion dollars in debt; a number higher than our GDP. The Democrats are content to promise more benefits to the people paid for with the national credit card, and forty percent of the members of the opposition party are content to elect a man who hates guns, loves socialized medicine, and believes it is only proper to detain citizens indefinitely because they are "terrorists." Every few months we raise the debt ceiling even higher. Our politicians cut a few billion dollars out of a ten year budget and consider themselves heroes. Any calls to cut the spending even further are met with AARP ads showing angry seniors threatening to throw anyone out of office who doesn't "give them what they've earned."
This country is doomed. Our economy is going to collapse under the crushing burden of debt and entitlements. We have become too socialist over the past few decades, but the great thing about socialism is that it is a self-annihilating disease. Unfortunately, the cure will be a rather painful process, and success isn't certain.
I think I've been coming to this conclusion slowly over time, but watching the debates, as well as some recent conversations with "conservatives," has really opened my eyes to this fact. Over the holidays, I attempted to make a point with an older gentleman who considered himself a solid Republican conservative. We were discussing Social Security, and I said matter-of-factly, "You're not going to get it."
He then went on a tangent about how Obama was trying to take the Social Security (or something to that effect) and that he'd damn well better get his share.
"No, that's not what I meant," I said. "Social security was designed as a ponzi scheme, and its time is up. You won't get your Social Security because there won't be any money left to pay you."
This is an all-too-common misconception that there is a lockbox somewhere in the U.S. Treasury's basement with "John Q. Taxpayer" written on it, that the government kindly keeps tabs of while we work and then dishes it out accordingly upon retirement. A common misconception, but entirely false. I tried to explain this fact to the Republican gentleman, how he wasn't paying into Social Security, he was paying for the previous generations to retire, and unless he had seen fit to have six or seven kids, and to bless the Treasury with an early death, the Social Security system was quickly facing insolvency with the looming mass retirements of the Baby Boomer generation.
As can be imagined, this was not what he wanted to hear. All I got in reply was, "I paid into Social Security, and I earned it!"
*sigh*
Even if we elected the most fiscally conservative president, our problems would not disappear because Americans have been voting themselves lavish social-welfare programs for the past several decades, bought and paid for with the credit of their unborn posterity. They're not going to give these programs up voluntarily, even when faced with the ugly truth. So why bother? Why care about politics? Why try to convince friends and family of our way of thinking when the results are a foregone conclusion?
To buy time.
I think the longer we can delay the economic collapse, the better off we will be to emerge from it a better country, more in line with its founding principles and free of the chaff and deadweight that got us into this mess. Unlike some people, I do not think a total end-of-the-world scenario is likely. Just a few short years ago, the Tea Party didn't even exist, and conservatives were rarely able to articulate their principles in a cogent manner that won converts. I feel this has changed. I do not think it will stave off an economic collapse, given the insurmountable debt we face, but the more conservative converts, especially in elected positions, will better ensure a return to a republican (small 'r') system of government when things straighten themselves out again.
What do I think can be done to prepare? First and foremost, talking to our friends and neighbors in a compelling way so they see the advantages of caring for themselves rather than relying on the nanny-state. I believe hard times are ahead, and learning greater self-sufficiency will be tantamount to success in the coming economy. Learn to live with less. I know the satellite television and newest game console are fun, but they aren't likely to be in the budget one day. Learn a useful trade. I doubt most of our careers will find much use in the future. I think mechanics, millwrights, carpenters, etc. will be in a much better position than the interior designers, advertising consultants, and professional musicians of the world. Buy a gun, preferably a magazine-fed centerfire rifle in a common caliber. Most importantly, whatever gun one may own, find some training to become more familiar with marksmanship and weapons handling. Learn to grow some of your own food, and learn to complete a variety of household repairs. Cultivate friendships and make family bonds closer. If we do not wish the government to intervene in our lives, we must not give them a reason to offer.
Sorry to be a bit of a downer today.
View previous entries.
Make a comment.
Name: The Mom
Date: Saturday, Jan 21st 2012, 8:42 AM
I totally DREAD voting this election. It's not even a matter anymore of picking the least worst of the lot. What happened to good strong competition??
|