Tuesday, March 22, 2011

What's Wrong with the Right?

The events of last month's CPAC, (Conservative Political Action Conference) were but another battle in the long war between the Republican Party and true conservatives. While Congressman Ron Paul won the annual presidential straw poll for the second consecutive year with 30% of the vote, much of the GOP, Fox News, (the purportedly bastion of small government) and even the administrators of the poll itself were less than enthusiastic about the results. Rush Limbaugh's dismissal of the poll last year saying, "CPAC wasn't conservative this year because a libertarian won" seemed to echo among the establishment in attendance.

But what of the Tea Party movement? The countless speakers at CPAC almost unanimously touted the Tea Party as the vindication of conservatism itself, and as a mandate to address the out-of-control spending and restore adherence to the Constitution. Writes the Huffington Post:

Not so long ago, the Republican Party and its conservative base weren't sure what to make of – or how to treat – the emerging rabble-rousing ranks of the latest political phenomenon.
No more.  Everyone from House Speaker John Boehner to the decades-old Conservative Political Action Conference is embracing, if not celebrating, the libertarian-leaning activists who upended the Republican establishment and helped the GOP post huge congressional gains last fall.

Celebrating indeed.

But despite the apparent new-found devotion to the Constitution and 'limited government', the Republican Party continues to disregard and even insult the one man who was "Tea Party" before the Tea Party was cool.

Just a few weeks later, Austrian economist and Euro Pacific president Peter Schiff had Fox News contributor, (and former Bill Clinton aide) Dick Morris on his radio show  to promote Morris' new book, Revolt!: How to defeat Obama and Repeal His Socialist Programs. But Morris wouldn't be on the air long, as Schiff began to look further into Morris' supposedly anti-socialist view of government.

 Early in the interview Schiff asked Morris for his thoughts on the results of the CPAC straw poll and what was taking place philosophically within the Republican Party. The former Democrat leaves no doubt in saying, "I strongly oppose Ron Paul. I think he's 'horrific'." Morris elaborated on this by noting Paul's opposition to the "War on Drugs" and "War on Terror" were clearly unacceptable in his mind. Though Morris admitted we were losing the "War on Drugs", he claimed it was because "we aren't fighting it" and that every high school student in America and student-loan recipient should be drug-tested. Clearly, Dick Morris wants smaller government.

As Schiff remarked upon the perpetual police-state his guest seemed to be in favor of and how student-loans themselves were a form of socialism and inevitably lead to higher tuition rates, Morris promptly hung up without bothering to comment.

The opinions of Dick Morris and much of the GOP establishment at CPAC are unfortunately the prevailing sentiments of many "conservative" Americans. While attending the event in D.C. last month, I came across some attendees at the "Reagan-palooza" party being held in honor of the Gipper's 100th birthday in a local bar. It didn't take long for many of the GOP faithful to grow sour in the presence of such "radical" notions as adhering to the entire Constitution.

As such encounters tend to go, myself and my colleagues were frequently dismissed as "isolationists" and "Anti-Israel", (though no one bothered to explain how desiring free trade and friendship with all nations was 'isolationist' or 'Anti-Israel') simply for stating the fact that neither war in Afghanistan or Iraq is constitutional, let alone in the best interests of maintaining our security, liberty and economic prosperity.

Perhaps the most perplexing comment of the evening came from a young man sitting on a bar stool next to mine who claimed, "This isn't the 1700's, the government has to do what's necessary to protect America." Over the course of a bourbon-infused hour, this self-proclaimed "conservative" had agreed with me and my friends on numerous issues such as the skyrocketing debt, the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare and the ever-increasing burdens of regulations and taxes on the private sector, (prior to him realizing we were supporters of Congressman Paul). It was not until we brought up the massive debt, unconstitutionality and burdensome taxation attributed to our foreign policy that he changed his tune.

I had a similar discussion this past weekend via Facebook in a conservative forum known as "ReFounders" in which a lady claimed she didn't dislike Ron Paul,  only that she believed in "pragmatism" rather than "rigid principles". Much like the gentleman in the D.C. bar, she essentially believed the government must do what is "necessary", even if the Constitution doesn't permit it.

My question to both of them is this: How is that mentality and approach to government ANY different than that of Obama and the Democrats that so many "conservatives" claim to oppose? And to the lady's remarks in particular, if one sacrifices principle for the sake of "pragmatism", how does the principle survive?

For too long the grassroots “Right” has betrayed its limited government roots for the sake of pragmatism and bought into what was once considered a foolish argument among conservatives: that the State has our best interests at heart and must do whatever is needed. If Americans ever hope to reduce the size of government, they must first realize standing firm on principle is what is truly necessary.