Monday, January 21, 2008

Republicans must not give in and cater to middle

It seems that too many people in the republican party believe that they need to do whatever it takes to win in 2008, as opposed to sticking by the core conservative principles that got them to this point in their careers.

Many republicans loves both Huckabee and McCain because, even while they are both socially conservative, they are both domestically liberal. What I mean by domestically liberal is that they believe, as I've stated in an earlier post, that government is the solution to the problems that ail this nation.

These liberal republicans, or moderate or middle of the road republicans, believe that in order to win the presidency they have to cater to democrats and independents who also believe that the best way of solving people's problems is via the government. What better way to win votes.

I think this approach is a mistake. And I'll give you one recent but good example: George Bush. George Bush was encouraged by Rove to cater to the middle on education, so he had Ted Kennedy write his education bill.

What did this get GW. Instead of his poll numbers going up, they bottomed out. He became more liberal on education, catered to the middle as the experts recommended, and it got him poll numbers in the 30s.

Not only that, but the grades of our students have not improved under Bush's education program, despite doubling the amount of money spend on education. That is proof that liberal tax and spend programs do not work.

I'm not saying it was just his liberal education policy alone that caused Bush's poll numbers to decline so dramatically, but his liberal domestic policy in general; his eagerness to ignore conservative principles at the expense of votes. His amnesty program is another good example.

And, in my humble opinion, McCain was mislead by his own people, because supporting a domestic agenda will in no way lead to more votes for the republican party; it will lead to more votes for democrats.

Because domestic liberal policies only lend themselves to keeping people trapped in poverty, keeping our schools inferior to other nations, and bringing in more poor via the amnesty program.

And what to democrats need? That's right, victims. The more victims in America, the more government programs liberals (republicans and democrats) will have an opportunity to propose in order to "make these victims feel good", and to "make people feel good that they are doing something to help the poor."

But these programs don't help the poor. Look at welfare and LBJs "War on Poverty" as a perfect example. While these were intended as a program to help the poor get back on their feet and to "end poverty as we know it", it has trapped more people into poverty.

"The War on Poverty" has failed the American people, it hasn't benefited anyone. But that doesn't matter to liberal republicans candidates for president like McCain, or the democratic candidates. Because they know these types of liberal domestic policies make people feel like they are doing something good for people -- or even themselves.

In the 1988 campaign George Bush Sr. said, "Read my lips: no new taxes." He said that to cater to consrvatives. Then, once he was in office, he sponsored a domestically libearal tax bill to raise taxes. This is another great example of what I'm talking about.

He was poorly informed to do this by his advisors to cater to the moderate voters. And what did it get him? Voted right out of office. It got us Bill Clinton, who had to pretend to be conservative to get elected.

John McCain's voting against the Bush tax cuts is another good example. Mike Huckabee raising taxes is another good example.

On the democratic side, Hilary and Obama both declaring that they will raise taxes and incorporate more government programs to help the needy (i.e. socialized medicine) are more examples, and good reasons to keep them out of the White House.

But good reasons for the liberal media to support both of them too.

Who is better at solving problems? Is it government, or the people? Competition has made the American economy the best in the world. When people are allowed the choice between one product or the other, they don't buy products that are bad.

This is exactly why I am domestically and socially conservative.

Thus, if people had the right to choose where to send their children, they certainly wouldn't send them to failing schools. Competition is the best way to solve our educational problems, not more governmental programs and more governmental money.

And, even though GW knew this, he was encouraged to sign on to the Kennedy plan to cater to more voters. He traded in what was best for the American people for votes.

Ronald Reagan in no way catered to the middle. He had core conservative values that he believed in, and he stuck to them all the way to winning 49 of 50 states, and was a popular president. Conservatism has won every time it's been tried, and just because of recent troubles in the republican party is no reason to turn the tide.

It is very tempting to cater to the middle, as most members of the media support the moderate candidates. They are all excited about McCain and Huckabee, while seeming to ignore the charge by Romney. They tend to make it appear that these moderate candidates are more popular than they really are.

Voters will vote for who they think is best either way. And my bet is that if a candidate comes out charging conservatism, the power of the people, freedom, and the ability of people to solve their own problems, that candidate will win hands down.

Even last night, as I was working, I overheard a conversation between two of my co-workers. I heard the name Obama come up and then health care, and all of a sudden the light came on in my head.

I thought she was going to note her support for this candidate, but instead she said, "It scares me what would happen if the government had that much control over my health care."

"Yeah, there are enough problems already caused by the government," the other chimed in. A feeling of joy rushed through me.

People want more choices, and the ability to make them, and given the choice, the best programs prevail. If there is ever a way to solve people's problems, it is not ia the government, but the people.

They should have the right to choose, and that's exactly what a conservative agenda would allow them. It would do many things for people, from lowering their taxes and allowing them more options with their money, to providing them a choice in education.

Republicans should not cater to the middle and compromise on the core conservative values because they believe that's what's needed to do to win. They should not nominate a candidate just because he does cater to the middle, as both McCain and Huckabee have.

1 comment:

Elroy said...

You're right. Winning at any cost might destroy the republican party this time. A close election between the republican candidate and Obama (if he is the nominee) could divide the country far worse than the 2000 election did. And another George Bush would be the object of that scorn and ridicule for the next 4 or 8 years. It might destroy the republican party. Better to push conservative principles and lose than winning as a "compassionate conservative". At least you have layed the ground work for the next election when the democrat big government solutions have failed.