In Defense of the Republican Party and Partisanship

It’s become very in vogue among conservatives to beat up the Republican Party over the last couple of years. And many Republicans have deserved to be criticized for their liberal votes and policies. Medicare part D is one of the worst pieces of legislation in the last several years. There certainly have been some bad Republicans lately, both in policy and personal behavior. I believe that some have taken the easy way out by adopting a populist-yet-conservative philosophy. They say they don’t care about party, they just want people in office that listen to the people. They want politicians who believe in and understand the Constitution. They want politicians with “common sense.” They don’t care what party you’re in if you are a true conservative.
The problem with this is it doesn’t work that way. It might sound good. It might feel good, like you’re proclaiming your independence from any given party. You’re no partisan hack, you’re a free thinker! Or maybe you’re even a “libertarian.” You don’t vote for Libertarians and think they get carried away sometimes, but you like that they’re so individualistic they have absolutely no cooperation or cohesive strategy. Well, stop patting yourself on the back for a minute and think about this critically for a second. You don’t care what party someone’s in? I think you do. Have you ever once found a conservative Democrat? Can you think of one Democrat that you are glad you voted for or wanted to vote for? Have you ever seen a race in which the Democrat was more conservative than the Republican? Of course, the answer for any conservative to these questions would be no. Perhaps there’s an exception to this out there somewhere, but it would be an extremely rare exception. (Zell Miller, perhaps?) And it doesn’t pay to vote for third party candidates. Third party candidates are automatic losers. If a third party candidate actually wins election it is a candidate that is more liberal than the Republican. Libertarians have yet to win a national office. Furthermore, which would be more feasible: to elect a conservative Republican or a third party candidate? While all Republicans aren’t perfect, and there are some that are almost just as liberal as Democrats, following a rigidly idealist voting strategy is simply not helpful. A vote which is wasted on a third party candidate is not only one vote which a Republican should get, it is also an encouragement to the needless and harmful third party.
But before I go further, let me just point out how great some of our conservative Republicans are. You wouldn’t know it by listening to those “conservatives” who enjoy defaming everything Republican, but there are some great leaders in both the House and the Senate who stand for individual liberty, a strong national defense, real family values, and limited government. Leaders like Jim DeMint, John Thune, James Imhofe, and Jon Kyl in the Senate. True conservatives such as Michele Bachmann, Mike Pence, Jeff Miller, Eric Cantor, and Paul Ryan in the House. While none of these are perfect, they are all true conservatives, and they’re all Republicans. They could very well agree with those conservatives who express antipathy towards the Republican party on 100% of the issues. Aren’t the conservatives who demonize the Republican party attacking real conservatives like these? I would argue yes. By turning “Republican” into some dirty word, they are besmirching all Republicans. They are throwing the  baby out with the bath water in some delusional and self serving attempt at “objectivity” or ”fairness.”
The question is, what can an average person do to help more conservatives elected, how can we as individuals affect national politics in a way that favors individual liberty? The answer is not to waste a vote on a meaningless loser. The answer is to get involved at the local level first. Get involved in your local Republican party. Read the Republican platform. You can find it right here: http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf. I dare you to find something you disagree with in it. More importantly, get involved in the primary process. Inform yourself on the primary candidates, find the best conservative leader and advocate for him. I realize this isn’t easy. It takes work to actually make an impact in politics. But just like those who don’t vote shouldn’t complain about our politicians, those who don’t vote in the Republican primary shouldn’t complain about the Republican Party. Unless you’re a Democrat.
Finally, let me say that there is certainly more to life than politics. This is, as Jefferson might say, self evident. But politics does require a great deal of passion and knowledge from those who would wish to actually serve their country in a seemingly self-serving profession. Indeed, our founding fathers truly saw themselves and office holders as public servants. For this reason they gave office holders a meager salary. Higher office was an honor bestowed, not a duly chosen position of power. Great conservatives tend to not make a career out of politics, though it could be argued that they could better serve their country if they remained in the system. But conservatives don’t treasure the power. They don’t tolerate the types of strain that public life puts on their families. They have interests outside of politics and they realize there is more to life. But it is commitment to those individual, Judeo-Christian principles which animates a true conservative. A passion for politics does not strip someone of his social or cultural ideals, nor does it require that he lose his moral and religious foundation. Rather, true men of integrity recognize that they are inseparable. An exposition of religious principles naturally relates to certain corresponding political philosophies and vice versa. These worldviews are what separates left from right, pagan from orthodoxy.

Liberty and Justice

Something struck me today, as I was hearing of the Obama administration’s disgraceful witch hunt du jour. I immediately thought of what is quite possibly the most cowardly and immoral “justice” decision in recent history, which just happened last week with the “compassionate” release of the Lockerbie bomber. What is most abundantly clear is that liberals and conservatives have vastly different ideas of what constitutes compassion and justice. Liberals want liberty and compassion for all and “social justice” for minorities and the poor. Conservatives want liberty and justice for all and compassion for the poor and disadvantaged. Of course, the difference is in liberals’ and conservatives’ idea of liberty.
The reason that liberty is paired so closely with justice is because it is impossible to have one without the other. Liberty is neither universal nor absolute, because this is anarchy and anarchy is neither sustainable nor desireable. In anarchy, the strong abuse the weak and thus deny them their personal liberty. Justice, then is inseverable from liberty. And it is justice which liberals seem to abhor most. If you listen to a liberal speak of the justice system, they hardly ever use the word, or when they do, they don’t use it literally, but emotionally. Instead, they see the justice system as trying to fix or “rehabilitate” the convicted. Instead of protecting society and dispensing fair punishment, they are more concerned with fixing the criminals. They see the correctional system as a way to discourage criminal acts, not to right wrongs. Because they loathe personal responsibility, their “compassion” is amoral, spread equally among victims and perpetrators of crime. Which is why they can justify not only not putting to death the most evil people such as the Lockerbie bomber, but also freeing such types in the name of “compassion.”
Their compassion for those who willfully choose to kill, maime and torture is nearly limitless, particularly on the fringes of the left wing. They choose to empathize with killers as much as or more than the victim’s family (they like to say that capital punishment won’t bring the dead back, again showing their inability to understand that in a just society, actions have consequences).  And their ideas of what constitutes “torture” is laughable in the extreme, particularly for anyone with any knowledge of historical torture tactics. Somewhere along the way, they decided that any mental anguish that an interrogator might inflict–regardless of whether they are criminals or non-uniformed enemy combatants–constitutes torture or “mistreatment.” I heard one example was that they told Mohamed Atta that they were going to kill his family if he didn’t cooperate, another example was that a CIA agent fired a gun in the next room and told a prisoner that he just killed another terrorist. Such tactics, though potentially frightening, fall far short of anything approaching cruelty in my book. Perhaps they prefer the torture of the Monty Python “Spanish Inquisition” in which the inept inquisitioners tie prisoners to a dish rack or force their victims to sit on “the comfy couch”? Harsh interrogation tactics which do not injure terrorist suspects seem completely legal (since nonuniformed enemy combatants aren’t covered by the Geneva Convention) and, it can be argued, completely ethical if they are used to gain information to save innocent lives. The justice system exists to maintain the rights and freedoms of law abiding individuals, not to rehabilitate or even punish the law breaker. Therefore, unreasonable judicial leniency threatens  and erodes individual liberty.