Novus Ordo Seclorum, Politics, Status quaestionis

CONFLICTED, BUT UNBOWED

Image

By David Beilstein

IT occurred to me sometime ago, I might be confusing readers of Crede, ut Intelligas by throwing bombs at the Republican Party on a regular basis – at the same time exuding ideas of how to reform the GOP from within; reform based upon robust classical liberal expression.

Add to this set of circumstances my admittance of being a Goldwater/Buckley/Machen libertarian; with sympathy for the localism and custom (Federalism) of paleo-conservative ideas – it becomes clear some readers may be scratching their heads at where I’m at politically.

Let me explain. I am a member of the Libertarian Party of Florida and strongly support their platform with very minor exceptions when it comes to American national security issues. Moreover, I agree with the political objectives of the Cato Institute, those being summarily, free minds and markets – freedom of religion, freedom of speech, individual sovereignty, freedom of association, property rights; a constitutional government restricted to its enumerated powers.

Such principals gather numerous riches culturally and financially for all Americans based upon individual circumstance, rather than the witchcraft of social-science collectivism. The Republican Party, then, especially over the last 20 years, has not stood robustly for these ideological principals in my humble opinion – especially now. In becoming a moralistic, progressive-light party, they have lost my support. I do not believe the Republican Party offers voters a better American future – but a slower burn into impoverishment and despair compared to Democratic statism.

Democratic fortunes rise because they are more politically adroit – more communicative, and far more ideologically consistent. They are animated and culturally astute. Republicans are luddites in many ways; trying to sell typewriters to a generation wide-eyed over iPads.

Of this I am sure. I comprehend the arc of political history. I’ve done the reading (from many another points of view) and it must be admitted – third party politics is south of useless. Classical liberals whom I would vote for joyously become high office holders in the Republican Party – not the Democratic Party, or any other party.

So, I am both conflicted and unbowed. Unbowed in my desire to see classical liberalism articulated and fought for (even viciously) against the statist left. And I am conflicted because while the GOP angers me to no end – it is the only party classical liberals can rise in and thus make some kind of difference in local and national politics.

The end result should become clearer. This conflicted and unbowed station I linger in results from the need to call out the Republican Party harshly; but it also entails my bellicose promotion of the GOP being taken over by consistent classical liberals – libertarians, classical conservatives (paleo-conservatives) – in order to commence an effective dismantling of collectivist policies and government.

President Obama must be defeated regardless of his reelection. The Democrats effectively defeated former President George W Bush regardless of his reelection in November 2004. It can be done but muscular ideological presumptions and political savvy are required to do it. The GOP does not have the stomach – the guts – to commence such an attack.

They are slow and hobbled – a colourless block of sheep without sense and principal.

Until this changes, the GOP, even while not listening to a small cat like myself – will get ideological munitions fired at them from Crede, ut Intelligas on a regular basis. In our current tabescent times, Republicans are a party underserving of support. One can argue the Democratic Party surely is not either. But the problem remains a conventional wisdom fluttering around in the GOP that will not defeat what is obviously so vile in the statist DNC. So Republicans not being Democrats – or being less fetid than Democrats – does not help us. Tuesday,

Nov 6 – if anything – proved that. Romney was less bad than Obama obviously. He was a decent and honourable man. His policies would have promoted more wealth and more productivity – producing more jobs and more risible income for those working…

But Romney lost and Obama won. And Barry Obama should not have won. What did that difference obtain for classical liberals – for American individuality and libertas?

Advertisements
Standard

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s