Originally Posted by detbuch
(Post 912640)
The Economist, by implying that Republicans are flirting with extremist requirements of their candidates, is, as Spence likes to say, the pot calling the kettle black. It narrows the requirements to extremely narrow and untrue parameters, and disregards the apparent diversity of views both by the candidates and the voters. It's not true that all require that abortion has to be illegal in all cases, nor even in common cases. Most understand that it should be, as it once was, a State issue, and some have called for a federal ammendment only because in those States that have voted for the ban, the constitutional will of the people has been overturned by a Court. But such an ammendment is not the responsibility of the POTUS, so is not an election issue, and there is no debate or requirement in the campaigns. There is no unanimous requirement that all illegal immigrants summarily be deported--not by all voters nor by all candidates. But there is a consensus that illegal is illegal and some method of legalization must be accomplished and the continued influx of illegal entry be stopped. Neither the voters nor the candidates believe that the 46 million that don't have health insurance "have only themselves to blame," but most believe that the Federal Gvt. has no authority to mandate that all must buy it. Again, most believe it is a State issue. There is no solid Republican conspiracy that says global warming is a conspiracy. Most believe there is warming, most don't believe it is either as serious, nor as man made as claimed, and some do believe that there is a political agenda influencing the attempt to create a worldwide government control of emmisions which would unnecessarily cripple the global and especially the U.S. economy. There is no massive belief that any form of gun control is unconstitutional. Most believe in at least some form of basic licensing qualifications and there is a diversity even in the degree of regulation. There is no irrevocable requirement against any or all forms of tax increase. There is certainly a strong desire to reform the tax code. I have not heard the extreme view that Israel can do no wrong or that the Palestinians can do no right. There is strong discussion and desire, but no absolute requirement to abolish all regulatory agencies. And there is a very valid discussion as to the Constitutionality and propriety of those agencies, and to the defacto legislative transfer of power to them so that we have a growing and already huge administrative form of central gvt. rather than a representative one, which is not only unconstitutional, but goes against the Economist's call for sound economics, individualism, and entrepeneurial pragmatism--as do, frankly, lax immigration, government mandated insurance, and unsound anti-business tax increases.
The above views are characterized as cranky, extreme and backward-looking. That is certainly debateable, but they can be colored so if the views are distorted toward the extreme as the Economist has done. And the Economist has some further cranky and extreme depictions such as "uncompromising views on god." So what God does the Economist understand to call for a compromised belief? The Republican electorate is religiously diverse. As are the candidates. Some voters may not vote for a Mormon. Most will. John Kennedy overcame the anti-Catholic prejudice. Such is the price of individualism. And this business that the Republican party is being "dragged further to the right" instead of remaining predominantly right of center. To the right of what? To the right of the Founders? To the right of Abe Lincoln or, to the right of Teddy Roosevelt, all of whom it mentions as models? Or Reagan, who had a very different Democratic party to deal with. A Democrat party that was farther to the right of the present day Democrats than the Republican party is to the right of the Founders, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, or Reagan. The Republican party, in case the Economist has not noticed, has been dragged far to the left of what it once was. Any shift to the right is a necessary corrective if we wish to preserve the republican, representative, constitutional form of government which, I assume, the economist would wish to be preserved. "Right of center" has shifted to the left as well, since the "center" moved with the leftward shifted parties. If elections depend on the vote of the "center," we need a national, educational, discussion on what the center should be--citizens of a government founded on established principles of individual liberty, or collective dependants of centrally orchestrated social experiments.
|
