Good grief! Have I stumbled into a lousy re-make of “Groundhog Day?” As I view the GOP debates and listen to the “informed” pundits, I recall that I’ve heard all this garbage before. This movie should be titled “The Lesser Evil Again.” For more than 150 years the two old parties have followed similar paths at differing speeds to lead us to the same result….socialist state followed by fiscal collapse followed by either violent anarchy or tyrannical totalitarianism. Yet, the pundits, our “leaders,” and even some frightened constitutional activists plead with us to accept the lesser evil because another path would lead to loosing. Here’s a news flash: winning with the lesser evil guarantees that we lose…not just the party, but everyone loses.
The most predictable behavioral aspect of American voters, self-identified conservatives and progressive-leftists alike, is their predictability. They continually select lesser candidates in order to avoid losing to a worse candidate while sacrificing principles for short-term political gain. Clearly, our elitist statist leadership is exactly what we deserve because we appear steadfastly committed to handing them the reins of power. We are engaged in a march toward national suicide because we continue to promote and elect career politicians whose lack of political courage places their fingers on the trigger of our demise.
Most of us prefer the familiar over the unfamiliar. Our tendency is to continue repeating our behaviors until circumstances force us to change. For example, during the past several election cycles U.S. voters have allowed the mass media to define the candidates and design the criteria for choosing. Media buzz-words such as “extreme,” “frontrunner,” “electability,” and “isolationist” are sprinkled through the broadcast or story to tilt the coverage and audience perceptions. By choosing which candidates to vet and which elements of their pasts merit reporting, the media construct the public images of the various candidates. Many of us who consider ourselves to be politically aware and astute, nevertheless, swallow the media meme, and we choose our preferred candidates based on the media definition of “electable.”
A recent Battleground Poll suggests that roughly 55% to 60% of the voters in the United States self-identify as “conservative.” Any discerning observer would view that number skeptically because the term “conservative” roams all over the philosophical, ideological and political map. Many conservatives truly desire a constitutional government that confines the federal beast to its enumerated powers. Others appear to be “OK” with a massive federal apparatus that wanders far beyond the Constitution as long as private-sector markets remain unhindered. Another group of conservatives are focused on lifestyle issues and view the federal machinery as a force for coercing and limiting certain personal choice. It seems, therefore, that a conservative majority of voters in the 55% to 60% range is meaningless. Divided priorities, “winning over principles,” and accepting media definitions merge together to create a majority comprised of a collection of poorly defined or articulated minorities.
It appears that while many profess to desire change…especially a return to constitutional principles…they are unwilling to fully commit to candidates who have the principles and the courage to implement the new direction. Their attitudes are similar to the MBA graduate who dreams of becoming CEO but is afraid to leave the comfort of the mailroom in order to enhance his career. So-called constitutional conservatives pine for principled candidates who honor ALL of the Constitution, but hesitate to vote for them for fear of “splitting the vote” or backing a possible loser. So, as a consequence, they vote for the “lesser of two evils” and elect a certain loser while insuring that the nation, too, becomes a loser. Weak-willed voters and weak-on-principle candidates are a combination that will lead to the collapse of our nation. It is impossible for weakness compounded by more weakness to withstand the tides of chaos and destruction. Despite the principles of mathematics wherein two negatives yield a positive, the opposite is true in governance.
Normally I have a good head of hair. I sometimes cut it very short to make it easier to work around the farm, but it does not qualify me as presidential material. Neither does a winning smile nor a resonant voice guarantee that one has the capacity to govern a massive nation. Many years of political service may actually be a detriment for a candidate who is committed to reform because she or he has become too familiar with the status quo. Looks, appearance or poise are not the best criteria for a political leader. Principle, character and consistency are the traits that we should seek for our elected officials.
The lesser of two evils is definitely lesser and obviously evil. We can no longer permit our nation to be in the hands of lesser types who lack a moral and principled compass. We must choose courageously if we expect our elected officials to act with courage.
Comment: cearlwriting@hotmail.com
Tues. & Wed., 6-7pm, 1370 WSPD www.wspd.com
No comments:
Post a Comment