Greater Expectations

You are probably familiar with the fable about the Emperor’s New Clothes. If we were writing a story about today’s gallant knights who are running for office to save our nation, we would probably note that they’re wearing tin-foil armor. They are clothed with the fragile protection of expediency that they expect us to assume is principle.  Every candidate from every party or movement is to some degree a flawed warrior. For those of us who must choose our standard bearer, we are faced with the unenviable task of choosing a lesser leader. When we consider whom to choose, we should reflect about what our previous choices have yielded so that we do not compound one error with another. We do not require a leader who wears the faulty armor. We must have leaders who have principled minds and courageous hearts.

While at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last week, I was struck by the dichotomy of passions that I witnessed. On the one hand supporters of various candidates and issues were vociferously promoting their “new best thing,” while on the other hand the overall tenor of the event was tenuous and somewhat subdued. For some Mitt was the best choice, and for others Newt or Rick was the obvious pick. Dr. Paul’s support was somewhat muted because of many liberty-oriented groups decisions not to participate in this year’s cattle call.

http://youtu.be/5BjhJLhSbYg

Is that all there is? Is this the best that America has to offer? Are Mitt, Newt, Rick, or Barrack the true guardians of liberty that our Framers had hoped would succeed them? Are Mitch McConnell and John Boehner the most virtuous and courageous people available to lead the Senate and the House of Representatives respectively? Yes, each of them is flawed….dangerously so, but those of us who are dissatisfied with them and their positions, policies or practices have not explicitly identified our criteria for leadership.

While we may choose to support the most electable or the best option available, we are admitting that our standards have sunk to the point of non-existence. Even in our local or congressional races we celebrate people whom we believe are better than the incumbent but are sorely deficient in principle, integrity and honor. Although we may whine about the paucity of principle among our candidates, we ignore the ones who are steadfast and solid because we perceive that they cannot win. That observation is true because it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we settle for lesser candidates in order to win, we shall always lose in the longer run. By promoting or electing lesser candidates what do we win? Perhaps a little more time before the Republic implodes, but not much else. We allow them to chisel away at our liberty and deny us the use of our property bit by bit.

Times have changed, Patriots. When we yet enjoyed our inalienable G_d-given rights and our Constitutionally-protected freedom, we could occasionally afford to elect an unprincipled charlatan or two. Today, however, the landscape has been altered. Each and every day we encounter another abuse from our government, and we cry for men and women of courage and principle to stand up and say “No More!” We must exercise our “greater expectations.” Close enough is not good enough any longer. Electable but seriously-flawed candidates will continue the destruction of our Republic and the future for our progeny. Greater expectations must be the order of the day and all our subsequent days. We have been identified as an exceptional people and nation. An exceptional people does NOT elect inadequate leaders just because they call us exceptional. An exceptional people insist that leaders be principled, honorable and honest. Maybe we should demand the “NOTA” (none of the above) option in our elections until we begin to attract the quality of candidates who are worthy of the Founders’ and Framers’ visions. We should exercise our greater expectations.

We have recently celebrated the 200^th anniversary of Charles Dickens’ birth (b. 7 February 1812), our present constitutional republic has been in effect for 225 years, and our Declaration of Independence was issued some 236 years ago. Our greater expectations have been submerged in expediency and pragmatism as we march toward our tyrannical nirvana. Our liberty has been forfeited on the altar of electability and we have selected or elected leaders who compromise away our heritage….while we allow it. I am painfully aware that no one is perfect. I also know that the perfect candidate cannot satisfy the expectations of 312 million people. If we are convinced, however that a candidate is resolutely committed to identifiable principles then we can choose to support or reject that candidacy for legitimate reasons. Without a clear exposition of principles…we are blindfolded in the dark while trying to detect the least objectionable contestant.  

Truly I do understand the terrible fix that we’re in, but we’ve got to cure ourselves of the self-defeating strategy of falling for the first girl that shows some thigh or the buff guy with the six-pack abs. We must demand more of our candidates….more depth, more principle, more integrity and more courage. Glitter and almost-good enough does not cut it. The John Boehner’s of the world are absolutely undermining our liberty and our nation. Obama and his Marxist clan are destroying our nation. Unprincipled Republicans are allowing it. We must not be complicit. We must be insistent and consistent.

cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Split Decisions

Pundits have characterized current social and political discourse as “polarizing.” They claim that individuals and groups with varying positions have “dug in” and are stubbornly promoting their positions and not allowing for civil disagreement or “progress” on vexing issues. They seem to believe that every problem has a solution and every disagreement can be settled by consensus. My difficulty with that observation is that their “solutions” and their “answers” usually involve the growth of government…..locally, statewide or nationally. For example if my point of view is that the problem under consideration is not a constitutional requirement for government, my position is absolute…..any other solution must include government. So if I seek “common ground” with my opponents, I am in essence denying my original principle of no government involvement.

Put another way….if your position is “zero” on a scale and your foe is at “100” on the scale, any movement by YOU is a surrender of principle. A movement by your opponent is still a partial victory for him, and with the inevitable sliding and growing of government the ultimate rating will be greater than 100. Yet, if you or I refuse to violate our principles, we are ostracized for holding fast to our polarizing positions. Aside from whom our daughters choose to marry, most other highly contentious debates and disagreements are centered on the role of government in our lives.

National Healthcare

Our most recent national debate over the role of the federal government in our personal healthcare is nearly a century old. It impacts every region, every interest group and every person in our country. Some of us who rightly, I believe and know, resist extending government’s reach into our health and well-being are thought to be intransigent and uncompassionate because we appear to be denying quality healthcare for the less fortunate. At the present time our governments already control roughly half of the healthcare spending in the United States. The “poor” as defined by the government’s own statistics represent 25% or fewer of the population. It should be clear that if the poor are underserved with healthcare, the government is failing to properly use the resources they have already confiscated from taxpayers. Why then would any reasonable person be willing risk the integrity of the healthcare system by giving them more power and additional resources? Yet, those who want more government control and those of us who believe governments exercise too much already are polarizing the issue. We are asked to find a common ground (somewhere between 50% and 100%) so that the nation can move forward. I believe the best common ground is less than 10% involvement for government….just enough for battlefield medics and military hospitals. There is no common ground. Statists, big government socialist advocates must be defeated…..or we shall lose. There is no common ground.

EPA Overreaching

Though they may seem to be a national issue, the practices of Richard Nixon’s rogue agency EPA are very regional or local with their negative impact. Along with other bloated agencies the EPA has come very close to placing a stranglehold on the commerce of the United States of America, but it has done so by intruding into one business, one community or one property at a time. In addition its broad scale interventions into the marketplace have placed burdens on our producers that severely limit our global competitive stature. So therefore, if the EPA continually expands its portfolio and control over our lives and our abilities to earn productive wages, where is the common ground if someone seeks to limit my capacity for living and producing? The local nature of most egregious EPA actions allows it to run rampant over our freedom. The “not in my backyard” attitude of too many citizens gives the EPA license to run roughshod over my liberty, and as long as they are not directly or negatively impacted, they allow it…..perhaps even applaud it. There is no middle ground between my stance for freedom and the EPA desire to control my life. There is no middle ground.

When liberty or freedom are at stake….particularly mine and yours if you care about it…….there can be no middle ground. Almost free is not free. In fact I would argue that when government is the controlling agent, “almost free” means that before too long you will be noticeably less free as government increases its power. There is no middle ground. There is liberty, and there is tyranny. Oh yes, we can at times voluntarily subordinate our own desires for the common good….but to yield them to government means that our freedoms will never be returned to us. Polarization is absolutely necessary when freedom is in jeopardy and government control is the alternative. My greatest frustration with the Republican Party has been is willingness to trade away my freedom despite its stated philosophy and numerous party platforms. It has been eager to sacrifice my personal liberty so that the GOP can share power with Democrats, socialists and progressives. I find that position repulsive and unacceptable because there is no middle ground. I will not stand there, and I shall not seek it. It is here for liberty I stand….. first, foremost and forever.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

    

Good Grief!

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 losing. 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

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tues. & Wed., 6-7pm, 1370 WSPD   www.wspd.com

Calling Out Congress

My columns have been rather tough on Speaker Boehner and the GOP House. Several readers have forcefully reminded me that the Democrats hold the Senate and the Socialists are entrenched in the White House. They seem to suggest that I should ease up a bit because Boehner et. al do not have the absolute power necessary for implementing significant change in government practices, policies and procedures. That observation is true……….but the GOP controls the budgeting process, and can initiate legislation that the Senate may reject or the President may veto. Said legislative initiatives would create clear lines of demarcation and force the Progressives/Statists/ Lefties to defend the indefensible….their insistence that the United States drift into Third-World status because of their massive spending, borrowing and taxing schemes. If the GOP House is unwilling to force the issue again and again, the people (voters) will rightly conclude that deal-making and business-as-usual politics remain the standard practice even with a divided House and a frustrated populace.

As Libertarians, Tea Party members and conservatives who desire smaller constitutional government, lower taxes and more personal freedom, we have no impact on the statists in government. They loathe us while they fear us, and they are not about to accept our proscriptions for sound governing. The conservative members of the House GOP caucus are another matter. They are aware of the potential support or fury of our liberty coalition. It is, therefore, absolutely mandatory for us to hold them accountable…..in all ways, all the time. Already we have witnessed some slippage during the debt ceiling fiasco. Some of the newer hot shot members as well as some of the incumbents decided to follow the path of deal-making expediency rather than stand for principle. We can send a daily barrage of emails and phone to Senator Schumer’s office, and they will have no positive effect for good government. If we follow the same tactical program for a newly elected “Tea Party conservative,” he or she will be more likely to hold the line against the overwhelming tsunami of big government. If we hesitate to “call out” the newer and conservative members, then we may be chagrined to discover that they have become enmeshed in the “business as usual” trap.

Every general knows that he cannot command the opposing troops. His influence and power are limited to his own command. He must maneuver his own troops to attack or counter the weaknesses and movements of the enemy. The battle for our nation is warfare of the highest order. At stake are liberty, prosperity and our future. So far the contest has been relatively non-violent, but a government that has demonstrated that it is willing to use coercion and force may resort to extraordinary measures to preserve its power and control. This observation may sound somewhat grim, but it should alert us to the necessity for maintaining pressure on those in government who claim to be our allies for the restoration of our republic. If we back off and permit them to falter, the consequences could degrade into a scenario far worse than our persistent badgering of our affiliated elected officials. In a medical analogy….we’ll be treating the scratch to prevent the infection.

One more analogy to illustrate the importance of maintaining the heat on right-thinking politicians: when an opposing baseball player commits a mental error, our team exploits it. When a member of our team has a “brain fart, “we get on his case to insure that he has the correct mental attitude to help us succeed. Holding the opposition accountable is a pipe dream. Our influence is best used to support and sanction our alleged compatriots in office. Firing off a bevy of emails and phone calls to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi may generate some perverse level of satisfaction, but they will have no substantive effect. Communication with those who share our principles and our goals will inform them that we are here, we are engaged and we are watching. Efforts and watchfulness are best spent where they can be most effective and rewarding. In addition, it is much easier to move a pound than it is a ton, so it follows that it will be much easier to influence someone whose position begins close to ours than a politician whose stance is light-years removed.

The sum total of my rough treatment of Boehner, Cantor, McCarthy, McConnell and their flock of GOP cohorts is that the statists are unsalvageable in my view, but the residing Republican members are either with us or may be convinced to join our movement. Unfortunately some RINO’s may be beyond recovery, but that’s what primaries are for. If too many of the GOP leadership and significant numbers of members resist the return to Constitutional government and principles, then a third-party alternative will become more likely. As a forty-two year member, activist and office-holder as a Republican, I made the third-party move to libertarianism to avoid the rush. Besides, the Arlen Specter’s, Lincoln Chaffee’s, Olympia Snow’s, John McCain’s, Lindsey’s Graham’s, and a collection of RINO’s, weasels and chickens convinced me that I no longer wished to be a part of such a compromising menagerie of weakness.

Comment:    cearlwriting@hotmail.com        or         www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com