Alan Keyes in a stunning speech to the Constitution Party of New Hampshire made the following statement:
Because I think we are just shy of the decisive crisis for the future of our republic. And I don’t say those words lightly. In one respect–and I could go through it in detail, I’ll go through it a little bit in a minute–I would have to give you a report, if I were just speaking as a political theorist, as someone who has spent a good part of my life studying and thinking about the roots of self-government and the American Constitution: I don’t see a single area required for the perpetuation of liberty in which today the United States of America satisfies the requirements of that perpetuation.
That means, y’all, that the republic is not in danger of collapse, but has already begun to collapse. And what we shall decide in the course of the next couple of years is whether or not that collapse shall move along to an irretrievable conclusion. I believe that this is going to result in a great crisis of our nation and of our political institutions.
The statement bears some weight. While Keyes is known as a moral Conservative, he also has a PhD in Governmental Affairs from Harvard, so such statements are not to be dismissed out of hand.
As I look at our Republic, what occurs to me is that we are possessed of three great problems:
1) Those who are tearing it down bit by bit
2) Those who don’t care
3) Those who care, but have been caught up in the game.
Those who are tearing it down will disagree with my characterization, and those who don’t care won’t be reading. Indeed, they have their new toys and as long as money keeps flowing in, who gives a rip about the republic and the government?
So, I address those who I believe have been caught up in a game of politics, a game the establishment of both parties would very much rather us play than focus on them. Oatney rightly calls this election a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. As Michael Barone writes the nominee for 2008 could redefine both parties. This is the first election in 80 years that we’ve had a chance to fundamentally change directions. There’s no incumbent President or Vice-President running.
Oatney writes of the establishment candidates:
The party establishment is divorced from the grassroots of the party at the very root of the tree. The frontrunners are one liberal, former New York Mayor Rudolph Guiliani, and a liberal trying to suddenly become a conservative, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. With one of these candidates, the Rockefeller Republicans are trying to regain control of the party outright. John McCain is a heavyweight that could also do this to a point, but we can’t pinpoint where McCain stands on much of anything aside from campaign finance reform (which party liberals love), and that is why he will do poorly in the South.
Shaun and Oatney engaged in a back and forth over Mitt Romney that has heretofore ended with this remark:
So who do we have that can win then? Most of the people I have seen you support I’ve never heard of before!! Is there enough time beat a name that was in the white house for 8 years? Years, I might add, that people thought were successful, even though the keen eye can see those years were merely the incubation period for nearly every problem we have today.
So I ask again…who do we have? Can it be done?
I think the first question needs rethinking. It presumes that we have a way of knowing who can win. The problem? Nothing can really tell us if they can or not.
Who would have thought the Governor of a tiny Southern State would win the White House in 1992. Clinton had an extremely small base from which to launch a national campaign. Ronald Reagan’s 1962 Gubenatorial Campaign against the father of the Brown dynasty was an unprecedented manuver. Arnold as governor of California? Never will happen. Never is a nasty word for politics, because rarely is it true.
Sadly, many Conservatives have bought into media hype. Too many have stopped being advocates for candidates who share their values and have become advocates for what they think can win.
I’m confounded by bloggers who one day speak of the evils of abortion and the next rationalize a case for Rudy Giuliani based on absurd logic that his views on abortion are quite moderate (if you call supporting partial-birth abortion moderate, you live in New York City or San Francisco.) They speak against the evils of government cracking down on free speech and the next day advocate for John McCain. They speak against out of control government one day and then advocate for Mitt Romney despite his big government health care fix.
Principle at this point becomes so seperated from reality that what we claim to be and what we are becomes a gulf apart.
I think a couple things have happened along the way to bring us here. First is the wasted vote argument which in the case of one vote makes no sense. "I don’t want to elect a bad candidate by voting for the best candidate, so I’ll vote for a less bad candidate."
This is approach on the individual level (particularly in a primary) is absurd because your decision to vote for one candidate in the South Carolina Primary or another will not change history, but it’s been worked into enough people that it’s become a Pavlovian response practically, so the establishment can jerk people around at will.
Two examples:
1996: Pat Buchanan wins New Hampshire, closely followed by Bob Dole, and Lamar Alexander. Moderates unite behind Dole to stop Buchanan and Lamar’s numbers drop like a rock. Dole wins the nomination.
2000: John McCain wins New Hampshire. Bush supporters urge those supporting other candidates to unite behind Bush to stop McCain. Steve Forbes quickly drops out after losing Delaware, and many people who would have voted for Keyes vote for Bush instead.
It’s a manuever that the GOP establishment uses very well and it’s an effective measure of control. You move the candidate the right direction and the voters head your way. It all comes from the horse race focus and GOP leaders self-interested media campaigns.
I say our best to actually win is not to make winning our first question, but rather, "Is there a candidate out there who stands on principle?"
Having found that candidate, we can then go about the hard work of getting him or her elected. As much as "name recognition" is talked about for Presidential campaigns, it is less relevent than you think. We have nearly two years until the Presidential election. Given that Barack Obama in 2004, Barack Obama, in the course of one evening went from a little known State Senator to somone people across the country said they wished would run for President, two years is an eternity to build name recognition.
Now, I get to Shaun’s question of, "Who?" This is very important. So, let’s go ahead and analyze this and how I made my decision on who to support.
I’m a Social and Economic Conservative, though the issues of primary importance are the social issues. All of the men David listed do very well on that point. But, that’s not the whys of all conservatives. My goal in supporting a campaign is to support someone who stands for Conservative values and someone whom Conservatives can get together around.
The way I see it, there are several elements to the Conservative movement: There are social conservatives, economic conservatives, the immigration reform folks, and those who are concerned with the War on Terror.
If a candidate emerges that can’t be supported in good conscience by any one of these groups, than we won’t go anywhere.
We run Giuliani through and in reality he offends plenty of social conservatives as well as the immigration reform folks. McCain offends the Border folks, plus those who are concerned with lower taxes and less government. Running Romney through, he knows the words to say, but given that his conversion to pro-life is 2 years old and seemed to coincide with his decision to view himself as a Presidential candidate, his campaign’s presence at a gay rights rally, he’s not reliable. He seems to rather be a charmelon changing with the moment.
We take a look at Governor Huckabee and find that he gets high marks from Social Conservatives but his record as a tax-increasing big-spending governor kills him with economic conservatives and his stance on the border is unacceptable.
Sam Brownback is as bad on immigration as John McCain. Duncan Hunter is great on immigration and pro-life issues, but not so much on the fiscal issue.
It was last October that I purchased John Cox’s book "Politic$, Inc." I was impressed by what he had to say. What I found was a candidate who managed to be socially conservative (pro-life and pro-traditional family), economically conservative (pro-balanced budget. pro-innovation, and pro-fair tax), he’s able to fight the war on terror and will be wiser about it than Bush, and finally he takes a firm stance on illegal immigration: no amnesty and no rewards for law breaking.
His stance may not satisfy the folks who want shut the borders entirely, but to me it’s a solid position. He believes we should increase rates of legal immigration from all over the world and have people becoming here learn English and become citizens. The result of this would be a melting pot rather than the balkinization envisioned by some. Talking to a lot of people who are upset about illegal immigration, I find most have no problem with legal immigration.
I also found his life story inspiring. As he grew up in a quite poor condition to become a multi-millionaire. It’s no wonder he ignores those who say it’s impossible for him to win!
In addition, Cox has impressed me by being ready to enter this campaign and get started early as he must. He has state coordinators now in 33 states and 152 counties across America.
Certainly, I won’t take offense at those who choose to support some of these other candidates, but I believe I’ve picked someone who represents not only my values, but the values of most conservatives quite well.
I’d invite Shaun or anyone else interested to visit his website.
whereIstand Tags