As the GOP debates its direction (why is it even a debate?) there is a term being tossed around by the establishment. They label those who are a perceived problem in the GOP as "purists".
Some information:
"Republicans will uphold and defend out party's core principles: Constrain the federal government to its legitimate constitutional functions...Spend only what is necessary, and tax only to raise revenue for essential government functions...those who created this bloated government will not admit a single mistake or abolish a single program." - 2008 Republican Platform
"Reducing the size of government. Streamlining the bureaucracy. Returning power to the states. These are all stances the Republican Party, in opposition to the Democratic Party, adopted early in our history. The Republican Party, since its inception, has been at the forefront of the fight for individuals’ rights in opposition to a large, bloated government." - Republican Party of Pennsylvania
So who are the "purists"?
They are those who believe in principles of limited government. They believe in the words espoused by our platforms, documents, the Constitution and the principles espoused by our Founding Fathers. What do "purists" expect?
Government should spend less than it takes in - no deficit spending.
Government should not rely on borrowed money - credit card spending is bad for a government.
Public debt is a useful tool, when used sparingly, but public debt is exploding and out of control.
Government should not intrude on private operations - which means government shouldn't "help" business or other efforts.
But, here is the dirty little secret. Politics is the business of handing out "stuff" in order to gain and/or retain power.
The "purists" say that the GOP should not be doing such things.
The "hypocrites" or pragmatists declare that in order to get elected or re-elected, the GOP must hand out cardboard checks, do "good" things for society and wield government power to make people happy - and expand government spending and power in the process.
This is THE battle line among Republicans. Should government be limited or should principles of Big Government power be utilized to help the GOP gain and or stay in power?
Well, the "purists" believe in our Founding Principles. It is that simple.
The "hypocrites" believe in power and saying and doing whatever it takes to be in power.
I know which side I am on. If I am called a "purist", thank you.
Since this is the debate that has been established the debate must be carried out. Many examples of hypocrisy will be supplied over the next several months on this blog.
We either believe what we say or we don't. If we don't, I wish that elected officials and their political handlers would have the spine to declare it. If they govern one way and are upset that people point that out, I simply say that they are to blame.
Follow our principles or declare new ones. But that is a "purist" sentiment. However, hypocrites want the other option - do whatever we want while pretending to operate under a banner of declared principles even if we don't follow them at all.
Otto von Bismarck declared that hypcorisy is "When you say that you agree with a thing in principle (and) you mean that you have not the slightest intention of carrying it out in practice."
So the simple question jumps out at all of us. If Republicans advocate policies that go against our stated principles and support Big Government are they not hypocrites? And if those who declare that violations of our DECLARED principles are wrong, are we purists? And, if so, is that so bad?
Which would you rather be - a hypocrite or a purist? Once again, I know which side I stand on.
As I stated, since "purists" are being attacked, many examples of "hypocrisy" will have to be detailed and explained on this blog. The people can easily determine, with common sense, if the "purists" or the "hypocrites" are wrong. Much like Thomas Jefferson, when that debate is waged, I will ALWAYS side with the common sense of the people.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
You are aware Thomas Jefferson squandered a lot of the government's money for his own benefit? That is one of the reasons John Adams and he did not get along. Adams despised the fact Jefferson would use public dollars on trips, clothing, furniture, dinners, etc. Jefferson was forever in debt.
Great point. I read the Adams book by McCullough. All these folks touting Jefferson should realize that he was basically the Bill Clinton of his time.
Jefferson, like Clinton was an idealist. He was great with theory, but not so great in practice. A flaw exhibited by many great men.
I prefer Lincoln as an ideal Republican.
What is the government going to do when the people can't afford the tax burden anymore? They are playing a shell game.
Rendell raising the P.I.T. won't stop local Govs from raising taxes as well.
Why can't they learn to live within a budget? We do.
"Jefferson would use public dollars on trips, clothing, furniture, dinners, etc."
All the money politicians spend is public money! They re merely glorified welfare recipients.
Actually, Jefferson was IN DEBT because he spent his own money on many of the things you mention. Brush up on your history.
In fact, Jefferson greatly reduced the public debt, cut the size of the federal government in half and eliminated almost all internal taxes.
John Adams greatly increased the size of the federal government and greatly increased expenditures.
The reason they did not get along was mainly the brutal election between them. Jefferson opposed the 'pomp and circumstance' that Adams loved, that tight connections with England and, of course, the Alien and Sedition Acts.
You have it backwards.
“Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children.” -2008 Republican Platform
“As Republicans we believe in … protecting the sanctity of marriage and the rights of the unborn.” -Republican Party of Pa. “Principles of our Republican Party”
PROVE YOU ARE NO HYPOCRITE - Stop avoiding social conservative issues. Or are we social conservatives to be dismissed as “purists?”
TJ was indeed known for sucking at the public teet.
He SOLD his collection of books to the Library of Congress.
When he was Minister to France he routinely spent US government money on traveling around Europe, lavish dinners, parties, clothing, women and wine.
How such a brilliant man could be so frivolous, esp. with public monies, is perplexing.
Anon 10:42,
I do not think that social conservatives are "purists".
My main focus is the limitation of government. As tyranny gains hold, the social issues will be irrelevant because government will be too powerful to do anything about them anyway.
I do take comfort in the fact that opposition to abortion is growing - due to technology and the understanding of the development of the fetus and its viability much earlier than medicine realized.
As a conservative, I don't seek national mandates from the federal government. Or worse, from the judiciary. These debates should be waged at the state level.
Nor do I like the labels of "pro-life" or "pro-choice" because they allow the other person to define the term. We need to debate specifics to resolve the issue.
I will post about the social issues soon, because they do need to be discussed.
Anon 4:56,
Please cite some specific sources and quotes. Based on my EXTENSIVE reading of Jefferson (Dumas Malone's six volume series is the most comprehensive) your facts are very wrong.
Since you laid the charge, please provide some evidence.
The Republican Party would have been dead long ago if the so-called purists didn't figure out how to co-opt the social conservatives.
The beliefs of both groups are so opposed. The only way to ensure the success of the social conservative agenda is through government mandate at some level; which is exactly the kind of thing limited-government conservatives abhor.
The funny this is that neither group can succeed without the other.
Nice thought experiment. (just tracking follow-up comments.)
You are confusing a “government mandate” with a Constitutional mandate. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees our rights to “life, liberty, and property.” The Declaration of Independence rightly states “…That to secure these Rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed.” There is little reason for a government to exist other than to secure our rights.
In the example of abortion, the government abdicated its solemn responsibility to protect the fundamental rights of a certain group of citizens, who are allowed to be “terminated” by another group of citizens. The role of government should be limited to only that which is spelled out in the Constitution, but if the Constitution is only partially enforced, it is wholly ineffective as a guarantee against tyranny.
I confuse nothing.
The pro-abortionists would argue that the "group of citizens" you refer to are not citizens.
I do think that their needs to be greater legal advocacy for the unborn which I would argue is required for "due process".
However, the "right to life" is in the Declaration, not the Constitution. And one "group of citizens" is routinely allowed to terminate the life of another group - criminals.
Some Big Government types (like Colin and Arlen) would argue that we need higher taxes and more government spending. So what? Why would you advance a pro-abortionist argument except to paint us social conservatives as “purist?” If so, then you are a hypocrite.
Have you read the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
“…nor shall any State deprive any person of LIFE, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (emphasis mine)
The Fourteenth Amendment mandates due process and EQUAL PROTECTION to any person within its jurisdiction, citizen or not. The belief that these rights include the unborn has been articulated in every national Republican platform since Roe v. Wade.
And convicted criminals, by definition, receive due process of the law.
Huh, what are you smoking? "Advanc(ing) a pro-abortionist argument"? Are you reading something else?
First, the post had nothing to do with abortion.
Second, I am pro-life.
Third, pro-abortionists would argue that Roe v. Wade supplied "due process" as well. I disagree, but that does not change the fact that they believe that "due process" applies. They would also argue, again, wrongly in my opinion, that a fetus is not a "person". So while you and I would declare that a fetus - at some point - is a "person", they would not.
What is needed are solutions, not debates over definitions. We need arguments that work - and are working - with the general public. Again, using the labels "pro-life" and "pro-choice" muddy the debate. Specifics must be argued. More on that later...
And, yes. I have read the entire Constitution INCLUDING sections that did not make it into the document. I have read the Federalist Papers AND the Anti-Federalist Papers. I have also read much of the correpondence between participants at the Constitutional Convention as well as volumes of analysis of the document.
Your response, Joe. I was reading your previous response where you alluded to the pro-abortionist argument.
Look, I’ll make my point as clearly as I can, and then I’ll shut-up for now.
It is irrelevant whether you are pro-life or not. You and others have made it clear - in the Morning Call article of June 3rd, the Business Matters segment the following week, and elsewhere - that social conservatives have no place at the table.
And then you write your blog post where you label as hypocrites those who paint you, a fiscal conservative, as a “purist.”
Now, don’t take this as a personal attack, because it is not meant to be that. By if you do not see that social conservatives will find this to be hypocritical on multiple levels, then I must respectfully impress that point upon you now.
No, you’re right - the post had nothing to do with abortion. It’s an omission that speaks to the title of this post.
Okay, so we are getting on the same page.
I agree that social conservatives have to be part of the solution. More and more polls are showing that the position of the social conservatives on many issues are indeed the majority position of the public.
I only advocate that we advance the position issue by issue, policy point by policy point, which the Leftist extremists (or supposed GOP 'moderates') will have a hard effort to beat or ridicule.
I will post some thoughts on this matter soon.
I only advocate that to win, we have to win in a smart way and avoid the opponents efforts to label us as extremists. We need to show that 'they' are the extremists. This is quite easy to do if we understand the method.
You can be right, but if you wage the fight stupidly you can lose. If we are right, and wage the fight in a convincing manner we can only succeed.
That is what I suggest. Will we win everything in one argument? No. Can we advance our agenda in a smart way? Yes. Remember, the first abolitionists were considered crazy extremists in the 1830's and 1840's. Two or three decades later, slavery was eliminated. Who prevailed and who was right?
Post a Comment