|
Enduring Principles
An argument offered in opposition to returning the Republican Party to its conservative roots that trace back to the tumultuous battle between Party liberals and conservatives in 1964 goes something like this.
The world has changed a lot since the Cold War era of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. The imminent threat of USSR missiles is gone. We face economic competition from overseas businesses that wasn’t present in that era when, for example, Ford, Chrysler and General Motors manufactured more than 90% of the world’s automobiles. There is no hope to ever reduce government spending, so Republicans might as well use big government to accomplish good (non-liberal) ends. The Party must change with the times.
Of course times are different. But, this argument misses the point that fundamental principles and absolutes are permanent. They change neither with time nor the whims of politicians worried about their fate in the next election.
In a 1926 speech celebrating the 150th anniversary of America’s Declaration of Independence, President Calvin Coolidge said,
“It is not so much then for the purpose of undertaking to proclaim new theories and principles that this annual celebration is maintained, but rather to reaffirm and reestablish those old theories and principles which time and the unerring logic of events have demonstrated to be sound.”
|
He said this in his world of 1926 that bore little resemblance to the world of 1776. He understood that absolutes are forever.
Now, let’s fast forward to 1964. The fundamental principles that Goldwater and Reagan advocated were those of America’s Founding Fathers. They advocated a government whose powers are limited to those explicitly granted by the people to the government, which are focused primarily on providing for defense of the nation and protecting the rights of individuals. They were both strong advocates of capitalism and opposed government interference with and regulation of businesses. Like Coolidge, these two men fully grasped the uncompromising nature of absolutes.
Reflecting Thomas Jefferson’s vision of good government Goldwater said,
“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”
|
What part of that statement is out of date in today’s world?
Today, the United States government is far larger and even less efficient than it was in 1964. Shouldn’t today’s Republican Party be advocating a reduction in the government’s size to remove its pervasive interference in our daily lives?
We pay far more taxes today than we did in 1964, which is a direct transfer of our liberty to politicians. Shouldn’t the Republican Party be proposing a reduction both in government spending and taxation to extend our freedom?
We have so many laws that so constrain our industries that they have great difficulty competing with less regulated/taxed overseas competitors. Shouldn’t the Republican Party seek to repeal such laws to help strengthen our businesses?
New federal legislation routinely falls well beyond the scope of the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution. Shouldn’t the Republican Party advocate backing only legislation that is constitutionally permissible?
Republicans have become enamored with “earmarks,” add-ons to bills that are generally for local infrastructure and that make a mockery of the concept of federalism, let alone the fact that they usually violate the Tenth Amendment. Shouldn’t the Republican Party forsake earmarks and tell its office holders to explain to their constituents that their main interest is in liberty and that, in that cause, they will do the very best they can?
One of Reagan’s most profound observations was that, “We are a nation that has a government, not the other way around.” Shouldn’t the Republican Party reaffirm that principle rather than using ever-expanding big government to accomplish whatever ends it deems to be good?
In his 1926 Independence Day speech, President Coolidge also said,
“If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary.”
|
The last two sentences hold the key to why the current Republican Party leadership is no longer fit to lead.
|
