The current attacks on Mitt Romney for changing his political views are a bit short-sighted. Truly, we want a candidate who will stand for his beliefs regardless of the political cost or outcome. Yes, it would be nice to have a candidate who believes what he has always believed without change. However, if this is the criteria for trust, why attempt to convince others to change views? If a person, once pro-choice, cannot be trusted upon changing to pro-life, why try to convince abortion supporters to change? What good are debate and discussion if we are going to only trust those who maintain their view despite the evidence?
Personally, it can be preferable when one says, “I once held view ‘A,’ but evidence convinced me otherwise and I know hold view ‘B’.” Such a person demonstrates thoughtfulness in their views. Rather than regurgitating the view of a parent, teacher, professor or preacher, they think through issues to find the truth. Those who have never changed any views were either very lucky to be spoon fed perfect truth without error, or (most likely) they have put little thought into their beliefs. Why would we automatically reject the thoughtful converted one in favor of someone who shows no sign of thinking through positions? Simply agreeing with us, is not proof of deep thought or even reasonable views.
Several years ago I was discussing with a friend his childhood in a very strict Anabaptist sect which I won’t name. He told me that his father used to say, “Beware the converted.” Though the Christian gospel requires Christ’s people to reach out to the unbeliever, this group became so untrusting of outsiders that even those responding to the message of Christ and seeking membership among them were held in suspicion. This would shock most Christians, but this is exactly how does this differ from how we treat those who change their political views.
When a candidate stands up and says, “Yes, I was once pro-choice, but now I’m pro-life.” We should celebrate a victory and ask what convinced them. It is possible the argument or experience that convinced them would work on others. Don’t forget, even Ronald Reagan—hero of the conservative movement—was once pro-choice. While I cannot attest to Mitt Romney’s credentials as a pro-lifer, I am not going to spend years working to convince others that life begins at conception and then slap a candidate who says he now agrees simply because he once disagreed. There is a certain place for giving the benefit of the doubt.
Last night Republicans in Iowa spoke out about the future of this country. The final results are interesting because the party mainline candidate won, but only by eight votes (according to the numbers published by Fox News). Right on the tail of the winner was Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. Santorum is so close their results are almost indiscernible and Ron Paul slipped ahead enough times to cause the mainline GOP pundits to develop a twitch.
It is of course easy to tell what happened. A set number of those attending decided their primary qualification was a sense of electability and held firm for Romney. Then the ideologues were split among Santorum and Paul. Of course, this was inevitable. Santorum appeals more to the evangelical, social conservative, while Paul appeals more to the fiscal conservative. Being libertarian many of Paul’s views on social issues would be seen as libertine and unacceptable to most evangelicals. Sometimes I think I am the only libertarian evangelical in the world—though I know a couple others who may qualify.
Since Iowa is a state where voters can show up at the caucus and change their affiliation to vote, a large number of independents supported Paul. This of course skews the numbers for Santorum because it means the lion’s share of rock-ribbed conservative GOP voters in Iowa must have voted for him. Had Paul not been in the race, it is likely many of his GOP supporters would have selected Santorum as the anti-Romney candidate, giving Santorum a runaway evening.
Last night is a perfect example of what will happen if there is a third party run by a serious candidate. Unfortunately, Paul refuses to take such a run off the table. He did so early in the race declaring that he would not go third party but would run as a Republican, but recently on a late night talk show he said a third party run was still possible. In Iowa, Santorum was the candidate closer to the values of the state. Don’t get me wrong. I am not a Santorum supporter and believe he has much to answer for and could be very vulnerable in a general election, but Iowa is not the beltway. He should have been a shoe-in, but with the addition of another ideologue candidate taking away a large enough number of the base and a good number of independents, Iowans ended up with a candidate they have little in common with—one whom the majority of the state did not want.
This scenario is going to keep playing itself out. State by state, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum (or Perry in some) will split the conservative vote and Paul will bring in enough independents to pad his numbers until we end up with Mr. Romney as the official candidate for our party. I fear the skewed numbers will convince Paul that he has a shot and he’ll leave the GOP at the last moment to run a third party candidacy. If this happens get ready for four more years of Obama.
From time to time we hear of some terrible scourge to civilized society that the government must do something about. Of course the government in question is always the federal government. The media doesn’t seem to even realize that this country has multiple layers of government so everything gets made into a federal issue. Beyond the problem of always looking for a federal solution, there are difficulties with the problems to be fixed. Many times things need a solution, but is legislation the only solution?
Every time a law is passed it chips away freedom. If the law forbids some action then you are no longer free to take certain actions. If the law requires an action then you are no longer free to refrain from acting. For this reason, I often point out that the freest time in America is when Congress is in recess. This nation has, on the federal level, 535 people paid full time to do nothing more than make laws and seek reelection. I know some will point out that the job of our Senators and Representatives includes meeting with constituents, but these meetings are primarily for three reasons: reelection, build support for legislation and get ideas for other legislation. With the majority of their time consumed with keeping their job and enacting laws the greatest threat to the freedoms we so love is Congress.
So what is the solution? Is it to be found in making Congress part time, similar to many state legislatures? This will actually change little. The best thing is to elect officials who understand the Constitution and honor their pledge to uphold it. For example, earmarks would not be a problem if constituents stopped electing people who shell out federal dollars to get reelected. Of course this is hard when many who balk at earmarks attack their own representative for not bringing home enough project money. Most Americans oppose earmarks, except for the ones that come home to line their own pockets. We need elected officials who are statesmen first and foremost. Such people do the right thing, even if the next election means a job hunt.
We also need passion on the floor of the Senate and House where those who believe strongly for and against any legislation are encouraged to fight it out tooth and nail—verbally of course. Instead of pandering to the CSPAN cameras, let’s have heated debates with partisans (yes, I said partisans) fighting to the point of exhaustion to prevent anything unconstitutional from leaving either floor. Breaking a sweat in defense of one’s beliefs has been replaced with looking good for the cameras.
The next thing we need is an informed electorate that will hold its representatives responsible by demanding for each vote the constitutional grounds upon which that person voted. If a politician is unable to give good constitutional reasons for a vote he or she should look for other work. Until the American people realize that this is our government that has been allowed to rob us of wealth and chip away at our freedoms there will be no meaningful change. I hear complaints all the time about how bad politicians are. Can you imagine any business owner having nothing but complaints about an employee continuing to employ that person? We must realize that the politicians are our employees and if they are not performing up to standards (the Constitution) then we must fire them.
Americans for the most part are polite, at least conservatives are. For years we’ve seen conservative speakers shouted down by unwashed and unproductive liberal professional protesters. On college campuses you can usually tell the speakers political views by the volume of the audience. It is good to finally see conservatives getting in their verbal shots at liberals. During a town hall meeting in Philadelphia with HHS Secretary Sebelius and Senator Arlen Specter, brotherly love quickly fled the room. The issue at hand was healthcare and the people of this country are finally recognizing the liberal agenda for what it is—an effort to seize as much of the economy as possible and control the lives of the American.
Recently Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) stated, “House Republicans are more united than they have ever been before in our commitment to fiscal discipline and limited government.” When I hear these quotes I am torn. Part of me wants to believe. I have twenty five years with the Republican part and want to see the GOP succeed. I don’t mean merely succeed at winning elections, but succeed at effective leadership. Unfortunately, I am skeptical. The most recent Republican majorities were committed to bigger budgets, bailouts and expansion of government. For too long the only difference between parties was one of honesty and hypocrisy. The Democrats at least admitted their plan to expand government power and increase taxes. They claimed these were needed for the good of America, but stupidity is not the same as dishonesty. The Republicans preached limited government and lower taxes while spending like sailor on shore leave and increasing entitlements.
In response to the Tax Day Tea Party movement, ACORN has recently announced their intention to counter-rally in support of President Obama, his tax policies and budget. I doubt this was doubted by anyone. They support Obama for several reasons. With pork in the budget, the potential of ACORN involvement in the census and their past activities having a president in office beholding to them is a boon. They get more money, more authority and lower the chances of prosecution from an Obama justice department. Obama gets a ready made protest anytime he needs it.
There has been talk on some conservative blogs about people getting angry enough to riot in this country because of the actions of the Obama administration. I have a hard time imagining riots in the streets. This is because of who is upset now and who was upset in the 60s. The protest culture of the 60s was made up of the idle–college students, welfare recipients, societal drop-outs, etc. Hippies had time to riot and protest because they did nothing productive and had no responsibilities. College students had time to protest between classes and parties when daddy’s money or government aid paid their way. All that idle time could be turned to mischief. Everyone wants to feel they are doing something useful; you either get this sense through your job or another outlet. They did it through protest and misguided attempts to change the world. The protests had the added effect of making their laziness look like sacrifice: “Man, I can’t get a job; there is too much that needs changed.” (more…)
The only thing that will save the GOP is to snatch the party reigns back form the elitist, moderate sell-outs (spelled R-I-N-O) and return it to the conservative principles of the grassroots. I could go on about this for hours, and will in the future, but for now I’ll hand it to RebuildTheParty.com and let them tell you in the following video. (more…)
The current attacks on Mitt Romney for changing his political views are a bit short-sighted. Truly, we want a candidate who will stand for his beliefs regardless of the political cost or outcome. Yes, it would be nice to have a candidate who believes what he has always believed without change. However, if this is the criteria for trust, why attempt to convince others to change views? If a person, once pro-choice, cannot be trusted upon changing to pro-life, why try to convince abortion supporters to change? What good are debate and discussion if we are going to only trust those who maintain their view despite the evidence?
