Some years ago a (during the Clinton Administration) 18 army Rangers died “in a raid to capture Somali warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid.“ Because the Clinton Administration had denied a request by U.S. commanders for additional armor, a controversy arose about whether the requested armor would have averted or significantly reduced U.S. casualties. Does anyone think the people who stirred that controversy, by seeking and publicizing the facts, were helping the enemy?
Even at the individual level its common sense and SOP for combat personnel to check their weapons before going into a situation. Seeking an alternative when a weapon is found to be defective isn’t helping the enemy.
That’s in the military where, on the other hand, it’s normal to expect the troops to accept and fight with the weapons they have been issued. The objective in combat is to defeat the enemy. No one would suggest that each soldier has the right to select the weapon that he thinks best represents him.
In America’s constitutional republic, what’s the purpose of politics? Thanks to the mentality fostered by the elitist forces that control the current fraternal twin-party sham, many Americans are inclined to answer, Defeat the Democrats, or Defeat the Republicans. But, as I’ve discussed at length elsewhere, in the constitutional republic established in the United States, the purpose of politics is to provide for a government that represents the consent of the governed. Representation, of, by and for the people- that is the purpose of politics.
As we have just noticed, however, even if the purpose were simply to defeat the other guys, as the elitist manipulators want people to think, it would still be absurd to suggest that people who look at the facts and raise questions about the actions and aims of the candidates imposed upon them by the elitists, should sit down and shut up. In real warfare when soldiers check their weapons, pointing out the problems they find (e.g., “These clips are defective.”) isn’t aiding abetting the enemy.
But when the whole point of the exercise is representation, citing facts that make it clear that the choices offered don’t represent you, or anyone else who shares your views, is strictly indispensable to achieving the goal.
I’m pretty sure that readers who have kept up with my recent articles (here and at WND) have already figured out where I’m going with this. What I’m getting at is fairly simple. Principled conservatives (as opposed to the pro-forma conservatives who just want to preserve the status quo, which at the moment means, at the very least, inertial socialism) want to preserve America’s liberty. They want to preserve constitutional government based on the moral premises articulated in America’s Declaration of Independence. They want to preserve self-government, i.e., government of, by and for the people. They therefore want to say no to socialism, elitist tyranny, and the dissolution of moral character that saps the people’s the capacity for conscientious independent decision and action.
With this as the overall objective (the purpose, as it were, of their participation in the political contest) how should they regard a candidate who promises to beat the other guys, but who is found, on examination, to be inclined to implement politics that are very much like theirs? It’s pretty self-evident. Even if he wins the engagement, the war is lost. By advancing him, they move the ball across the wrong goal line.
Thanks to the wisdom of America’s founders, however, everything does not depend on who becomes President of the United States. The U.S. Constitution equips Congress with everything that’s need to keep a President in check, provided s sufficient majority in Congress has the political will to do so. Thus, the key challenge facing principled conservatives in the 2012 election is to unite in a clear conservative electoral mandate that a) gives ‘Platform Republicans’ a solid majority in both Houses; and b) strongly encourages and is able to enforce the the Platform GOP’s commitment to live up to the Platform’s conservative promise.
The approach to voting I suggest for conservatives in 2012 offers a way to achieve these objectives. We vote for the GOP candidates who stand by the Platform. But since “It’s not Mitt Romney’s Platform”, we refuse to vote for the Mitt Romney. If conservatives join in following this approach then, whatever the outcome of the Presidential contest, the disparity between the vote for Romney and the vote for the rest of the ticket will demonstrate the power of the principled conservative grassroots; and that demonstration will stiffen the backbone of a conservative majority in Congress, impelling them to end what has been the GOP’s increasingly infamous record of co-operation with America’s rapid slide toward socialist perdition.
Contrary to the mindless mantra of those whose only motivation is personal hatred for Obama (rather than adamant rejection of his socialist, anti-American principles, goals and policies), the refusal to replace one socialist with another isn’t “a vote for Obama.” It’s a vote for the only result that actually represents the purpose of principled conservatives. It’s a vote that says “no” to socialism, whatever its party label. It’s a vote that say ‘yes’ to liberty and the perpetuation of true self-government. Isn’t that the vote the really represents YOU?
[WILL YOU CONSIDER USING THE “PLATFORM REPUBLICAN” APPROACH TO THE NOVEMBER ELECTION? IF YOU WILL, JUST SEND ME AN EMAIL AT ALAN@LOYALTOLIBERTY.COM. PUT “YES, I WILL” IN THE SUBJECT LINE. NO FURTHER MESSAGE IS NEEDED. OF COURSE YOUR THOUGHTS AND SUGGESTIONS WILL BE WELCOMED. AS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IDEA DEVELOPS, I’LL SEND AN EMAIL TO THE REPLY ADDRESS YOU USE TO KEEP YOU UP TO DATE. ALSO, AND ABOVE ALL, SHARE THE IDEA WITH OTHERS SO THEY CAN CONSIDER IT FOR THEMSELVES.]
Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth? (Galatians 4:16)