Much to my mother’s dismay (she comprises half of my readership—the other half are random people who get here from accidentally clicking on the wrong result in a Google search), I have been noticeably absent from Pros and Cons for about 45 days (my last post was December 15th—you do the math). There are a myriad of reasons for this, but I am making the time to break my self-imposed exile from Opinionville because . . . well, because I’m fed up, discouraged, and generally ready to mutiny. Here’s why:
We have no viable conservative candidate to run against Obama in November.
Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.
We have the front-runner, Romney, who at this point in the cycle appears to be the inevitable nominee. (Note I say “appears.” I don’t pretend to know this for certain.) Ugh. This man is a big-government Republican, not a big-government conservative. Oh, sure, he’s got some—even a lot—of policy positions that I like, such as his stance on China, and national defense, and overseas funding, and even some of his economic and tax ideas (though these are rather weak). But he clearly doesn’t have a grasp on what it means to be a limited government conservative. Let’s look at the latest kerfluffle.
During a CNN interview this past Wednesday morning, Romney stated that he’s “not concerned about the very poor—we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.” Of course, the media and lefties were immediately in a big huballoo about this obviously insensitive statement, because they interpreted it—or, rather, misrepresented it—to mean the Romney doesn’t care about the very poor. What an arrogant, insensitive rich 1%-er! Throw context and meaning out the window, this guy is clearly an oligarch.
I object to Romney’s statement from an entirely different standpoint; in fact, perhaps a 180 degree different standpoint. In this statement, Romney clearly doesn’t have a problem with the federal government funding social programs. In fact, he says that if these programs are not working, he will fix them. Because, as we all know, the federal government is supposed to be propping up the poor. Except that it’s not. In fact, a true conservative would state that he would return tax dollars to the people and to the states, so that they can take care of their own poor. The federal government should not be a redistributor of wealth from the populace to the poor.
Let’s look at another statement he made in one of the recent debates, when he was asked about financial regulation. I can’t recall the exact question he was asked, but his answer was that banks are not over-regulated, they are poorly regulated. In other words, he indicated that we should be regulating banks, just doing it well instead of poorly. What he should have said is that banks should be de-regulated to succeed or fail, according to market principles. But Romney clearly believes that government regulation is appropriate and acceptable. Hardly the conservative position.
Moving on, let’s look at the runner-up, Newt Gingrich. According to a 2007 interview, ol’ Newt wants to increase the size of the State Department by 50%. Not the budget, not the building, but the size. The context of the interview clearly indicates that he wants to increase the size of the State Department’s total structure. Bigger government—yeah, that’s what the people are looking for. Newt also seems to think—much like Obama—that the president can ignore seperation of powers to do things like, oh, force judges to testify before Congress regarding their decision. What a morass that would create. There’s actually a Constitutional remedy for rogue judges, but it’s not Newt’s remedy.
I’ll say this for Santorum: he’s pretty conservative. What really worries me is his foreign policy, particularly his insistence that we should continue to send millions or billions of dollars to governments that are arguably hostile to America, simply because they may have a nuke or six. I’m not talking about Iran—that’s a whole different issue, and Santorum may be right on Iran—but Pakistan, as well as any other nuclear power in the world. We call that appeasement, and it’s entirely unacceptable. Further, he has clearly stated that he fought for earmarks for Pennsylvania during his time in the Senate because, essentially, that’s what everyone else was doing, and he was there to look out for Pennsylvania. Well, no, he was there to look out for the United States. Granted, this is one of those politically philosophical questions that reasonable men can debate. It’s also one of the reasons that the Seventeenth Amendment should never have been enacted, and should be repealed. (Originally, the Constitution provided that senators would be elected by the legislature of each state, not by the people, making that position less of a “populist” position, and more of a national one. The Seventeenth Amendment changed it to provide that senators have to be elected by popular vote, making them much like representatives, and arguably influenced more by state issues rather than national ones.) Nevertheless, the conservative position would have been to refuse to fund earmarks, particularly when we are dealing with extreme national debt and deficit. I’m not nuts about the “everyone does it” argument.
And speaking of nuts . . . there’s Ron Paul. Obviously there’s no way I can make an argument that he’s not a constitutionalist, but I can argue that he would be a huge threat to national security. Let’s just ignore Iran. Let’s abandon our allies. Let’s repeal the Patriot Act and legalize drugs. Then we can all sit around and get high, eat Cheeto’s and watch news coverage of the Arab glass parking lot that used to be Israel. (I realize that’s a little over the top, but then, so is Paul.)
And there we are, folks: your contestants. Let’s give them all a big hand, can we?
I’m voting for Bugs Bunny. Worst thing he ever did is miss that left turn at Albequerque.