THE PARTY OF KNOW by T. Edwin Perry
Democrats have enjoyed the luxury of calling names and pointing fingers, claiming that Republicans in Congress have become the “Party of No,” an unending obstacle to their Progressive Agenda of Social Justice and Entitlement Expansion. And, with few exceptions, the Democrats have embraced their position as the “Party of I Don’t Care.” Regardless of how many times the People have appealed to their sense of duty, of obligation and political self-preservation, the Democrats have ignored them in favor of a prejudiced position that the People don’t know what they need or want, and that only Government can solve their problems.
But, before you think this is just a Democrat Slamfest, which sounds like a WWE Special Event (Tonight only: Harry Reid vs John McCain and Nancy Pelosi vs Sarah Palin in a Cage Match to the Death!), let’s be fair: while the Republicans have successfully remained united throughout the opposition to the Healthcare Reform Debate, they certainly share a significant portion of the blame over our Nation’s current economic woes. They’ve been responsible for as much out of control spending and lax oversight over Federally-insured investments, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as any Democrat could ever claim.
So what comes next? My answer to that question is simple: the Party that recognizes the problem and addresses it first will be the Party in power after the next elections. If the Democrats are able to come out and convince people that they are working in their best interests, they will maintain their power over our Government. If the Republicans, however, are able to stay strong and embrace the Conservative interests of the Tea Party Protestors and other disenfranchised Americans, then the power of this nation is likely to shift dramatically, and it will happen as early as the Mid-Term elections in November. But to do that, the Republicans will have to be more than just the “Party of No:” they’ll have to become the “Party of Know.”
They are going to have to make sure that they Know what their constituents expect, and that means listening more than talking. It means reading the bill, knowing what it entails, and taking that information to the People. It will require a rebirth of CONSERVATIVE ideals, not just watered down “Liberal-Light” politics as usual. And if they succeed in wresting power from their Liberal counterparts, it will also require a change in their actions once they take office. They’ll have to remain responsible to the “Big Picture” of reducing the size and oppressive power of Government, and working to repeal the bad legislations of the past ten years.
In the history of this Great Nation, no Social Entitlement has ever been repealed. Once in place, they grow and expand and become entrenched in the daily lives of our Citizens. People who would never have asked for a handout forty years ago rely on their Social Security Benefits every month because they were sold on the idea that it was a retirement fund. People who would never have asked someone else to pay for their lunch in their working years now rely on everyone else to pay for their healthcare through Medicare. And, if allowed to stand, the Healthcare Reform of 2010 will become another ever-expanding, ever-oppressing Social Entitlement. Whether successful or not, the first and foremost task on the agenda for Republicans if they are to take power after the Mid-Term elections will have to be to repeal this law. If they press the point and don’t back down, even if it is vetoed by the President, they will ensure the support of the population for following a Real Mandate to TAKE BACK the Power from those who have sought to usurp it.
But if they waver, if they falter, if they fail to stay true to the real Hope and Change that Americans will demand of them, then I fear that all will be lost, and the United States that I know will be gone forever.
Twitter: Lawwoman99
, on April 19th, 2010 at 10:31 am Lynn Brauer(Quote) Said:
As we’ve discussed before, there needs to be a third party – one that represents the people and not the special interests. One that refuses to take money from corporations. One that refuses to take donations over the personal donation limit (on a side note – why am I limited to $500 contribution when corporations can spend as much as they want?). Someone who truly represents the people.
There are guys out there like that (my congressman, Bill Young, seems to be one of them), but most of the politicians are looking out for someone other than you or me. I refuse to vote Republican or Democrat unless I have to. I’d rather throw away my vote on a third party candidate than support the schmuks that say they represent me now!
While I agree with your sentiment, Lynn, there’s one problem with the 3rd party approach (at least at the Presidential level). The “all or nothing” apportionment of electoral votes essentially makes anybody that can’t draw 50% of a state’s votes totally useless.
Furthermore, we end up with the potential to have two strong candidates and a third mediocre candidate where the 3rd candidate takes the lead simply because the strong candidates split the majority of the vote (consider what would happen in Florida if Charlie Crist did, in fact, decide to run as an Independent – he would split a majority conservative vote with Marco Rubio and potentially give the Democrat the winning vote count).
That said, I could *totally* get behind a “Brewster’s Millions” style “none of the above” option on *every* ballot – a winning vote for “none of the above” would negate the right of any of the current candidates to run again.
Steve, I’ll go one step further. Not to sound like a boring historian, but in 1814, following the War of 1812, we essentially had a ONE party system: everyone was a “Jeffersonian Republican,” and it remained that way through the Administrations of James Monroe and John Quincy Adams. There was just one problem: the “Republican Party” was a TWO PARTY SYSTEM! Everyone shared the same name, but the party was decidedly split between the remanants of the Federalist Party, which would become the Whigs, and the more liberal “Jeffersonians.” The public had no way of knowing who really stood for what position, because they were all Republicans. That’s one of the reasons why Martin Van Buren instigated the creation of the Democrat Party and the Candidacy of Andrew Jackson, specifically to split the party. (Of course, it was also to hide the debate of slavery behind the Partisan Politics of a two party system, but that’s a topic for another day.
Today, we don’t have a two party system. We have a two party system in the Republicans between the Conservatives and the Moderate/Progressives, and a three party system in the Democrats between the “Blue Dog” Conservatives, the Liberals, and the Progressives. As Van Buren intended, we still get distracted by the fight between Republican and Democrat, and rarely see the larger picture: we don’t know what the candidate really stands for.
Take Scott Brown as an example. He was elected due to a groundswell of CONSERVATIVE support, but Brown is more a Moderate/Progressive than a Conservative Republican. Of course, we didn’t know that BEFORE he was elected, and we didn’t really have a better choice.
That said, you are correct that the creation of a third party has, historically, been disasterous for the Republicans, generally siphoning off support for their candidate, providing insufficient support for the third party, and invariably handing the election to the Democrat. (As an example, I give you Ross Perot.)
And, Lynn, I’d give you this question: “Is it a ‘Special Interest’ if you agree with their agenda?” If you have an interest in the Environmental Reformation of Energy Production, wouldn’t you be in favor of an Environmental Corporation providing funding to a candidate who espoused your interests? I despise George Soros and everything he stands for, but if he wants to spend his money to achieve his goals, I believe he should have the right. Rather than fighting to limit financing, maybe we should be investigating our candidates to determine what they really stand for.
And lastly, any idea you get from a Richard Pryor movie is usually a bad one, Steve. The “None of the Above” vote would result in NO government, NO representation, and eventual anarchy, and that would be worse than what we’ve got.
I’m not saying we don’t need a change. I’m just saying we need to be careful which direction we go towards.
See… now there you go… we (collectively) can debate politics in a civil manner… but attack Richard Pryor movies and now we’ve got an issue on our hands…