The liberty or patriot movement is up and running across the land. Several people who have been characterized as “Tea Party candidates” were elected to Congress in the 2010 elections. In addition, the ranks of “Tea Party-affiliated” governors, statewide office holders and state legislators were increased. With such a significant outcome and with the momentum of the Tea Party/patriot movement continuing, does this suggest that victory for those who love liberty is just around the corner? Probably not. As the Congress convened in 2011, and the new House Republican majority selected its leaders, the failure of the Peoples’ House to aggressively reduce the cost and size of government in early legislation caused some alarm bells to begin ringing in the patriot community. There was some early “leakage,” as some so-called “Tea Party” candidates voted for Continuing Resolutions, and suggested that they were willing to support an increase in the national debt ceiling if certain conditions could be met.
There is a gnawing suspicion that not all “conservative” Members of Congress—new and older members—are totally committed to fiscally responsible government. Some may suspect that many conservative officeholders are not dedicated to significantly reducing the size of the federal government. Many of the Congress persons expressed their support for smaller, Constitutional government when they were campaigning. Most of them declared that they would not tolerate the massive tax and spend, borrow and spend policies of previous generations. And yet, a mere three months into the new congressional season, many citizens feel a sense of betrayal. It is an uneasy skepticism that suggests that things have not changed very much…if at all.
We come to the problem that has vexed us, the electorate, since the founding of our republic: How do we choose whom to support for public office? Clearly, candidates of all stripes and persuasions have mastered the language so well that they can tell us what we want to hear. Even the most profligate spenders can insist that deficit spending be eliminated and the national debt be reduced. In their beady little minds they believe what they’re saying because they would eliminate the military or other programs preferred by their ideological opponents. But…government continues to grow, spending increases and the debt balloons despite the protestations and promises of most of the political class. How do we, the people, right this rudderless vessel? Perhaps if we identify the REAL issues, the REAL problems, then we will be better equipped to choose better candidates to support and promote.
The underlying issue facing our nation today is one of individual liberty or personal freedom. The huge national debt steals the freedom from future generations as they are either forced to survive with fewer resources or to exist in a country and economy that has collapsed. Their freedom has been compromised by the unrestrained spending of past generations. The annual deficit, also, is a freedom-based issue. As government continues to spend more than it collects for programs that are targeted to please a few but must be financially supported by all, the individual liberty of each and every citizen—the payers and the payees—is usurped by an overreaching and overspending government. The national budget and the budgetary process negatively impact the personal freedom of our nation’s citizens as the Congress and political leaders choose to initiate, support and fund a multitude of programs, agencies and bureaus that interfere in the lives of citizens by limiting their choices.
As noted earlier, all politicians have mastered the language of fiscal responsibility…with dismal results. What we rarely hear on the campaign trail is the politician who is a champion of liberty…of freedom. Nearly all of our most difficult issues can be forcefully and successfully addressed if viewed through the prism of personal freedom for each and every citizen. Not just lip service to the nebulous generic concept of freedom, but passion and commitment for individual liberty is the criterion by which all candidates should be judged. The love for personal freedom is not often expressed by our political operatives because they either believe it’s a quaint but outdated notion, or they are astute enough to discern that individual liberty could undermine their power to decide what is good, proper and right for the rest us.
As for me and my house, we will only support candidates for office (any office) who identify individual liberty for all as the fulcrum on which their vision of our nation is balancing. No other point of view will suffice. No matter how fiscally conscious, how debt-abhorrent or how responsible a candidate may claim to be, liberty must be the anchor, the guiding principle. Without personal freedom as the primary element of our nation, every other priority is just another description of tyranny…soft or oppressive…tyranny. Liberty must be the guiding principle.
Face Book: www.facebook.com/pages/Earl-for-Ohio/
I heard this alarm a year ago when Secretary of State candidate Jon Husted began claiming to have "tea party values." I know at least two, but certainly not more than four or five members of the entire General Assembly who might genuinely hold the values that support the continuance of liberty. Except for Ron Paul, there is no one in the entire Congress that I would trust (the jury is still out on Rand).
ReplyDelete