In addition to being uniformly anti-Obama, the Republican field in the race for the 2012 presidency has other common attributes; one such is the extreme ideology many of them profess. Ron Paul is a leading libertarian, and his thinking is unsettling to many of us. But Ron Paul may see himself as being less interested in the presidency than in the potential to have his ideas heard.
Among the Republicans, including libertarians, evangelicals, and a wide range of anthrostrategists, we find some who support the corporate domination issue. This is not something new; following WWll, Eisenhower was called a communist because of his aversion to the military/industrial complex of the 1950’s. Further back, Judge Robert W. Archbald of the United States Commerce Court was removed from the bench by a House Judiciary Committee for accepting favors from corporations. Again, this is nothing new.
Mitt Romney still seeks the support of the Heritage/Limbaugh people, which some would agree makes him old school. Rick Perry while making some effort to distance himself from that old school thinking, is solidly in good standing with George W. Bush, and is a cohort of Karl Rove. The old school politicians are a threat to America, and all the worse for proclaiming to the naïve tea party constituency that they are solidly for the people.
Many of the Republicans agree to end taxation, a noble idea, but not consistent with rational behavior. Statist thinking restricts media coverage of the administrators and promotes corruption. To take a position that bringing the power to the 50 states will instill in diplomats’ new zeal and patriotism is not altogether consistent with human behavior. The election of 2008 was steeped in demands for new accountability and transparency, and we now see a swing of the pendulum in the opposite direction. If the tea party people have a firm belief that our free and democratic society is forever assured, they may be setting themselves up for a shock.
The strict libertarians might have abhorrence about spending our dollars on the victims of the current hurricanes in the east, or the people of Haiti, or the starving infants in Somalia. We Americans gain strength from that kind of aid. As to the protection of seekers of freedom around the world, we, in the long run, aid ourselves by coming to their defense. Add to that the necessity of keeping the oil lines open, and the world nuclear free, and we see these expenses are unavoidable. Bush supported one world government; now we have the Euro to contend with. It was Bush who invaded Iraq, and the loss of life is incomprehensible. There is no hope for any positive outcome in Afghanistan. These issues can’t be decided on a school of philosophy, they have to be considered each for its own merits. The choice is not between a new world order, or some degree of isolationism; rather a middle road might be the solution.
Rick Perry is a blusterer and can be outspoken. In November of 2010, he and Newt Gingrich published Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington, in which were listed a number of suggestions he and the former speaker had for changing the American Constitution.
The authors of the Constitution were fervent and dedicated; filled with zeal for the new nation. Now, in 2011, the dedication has taken a destructive turn, as politicians pride themselves in circumventing democratic morality.
The balance of power is a concept embraced by those espousing many philosophical systems. It is a basic premise to our way of life. The three branches of government, all equal, are to be constantly watchful for any breach of ethics and morals, and will address any impropriety; they will not rest until governmental virtue is restored. In Perry’s constitution, the Supreme Court justices, indeed, all judges, will come and go. Much like the senators and the members of the House, they will need to have concerns about their continued presence. The problem, Perry reasons, is that members of the judiciary are “unaccountable” to the people, and their lifetime tenure gives them free license to act however they want. Under Perry, the judges will have to kowtow to the politicians, and the balance will be the cost. Perry has a goal of severely limiting the power of the bench. Congress, by a two thirds majority, could override judicial decisions. The judges are astute students of the law and of the Constitution. The senators might not be so well prepared. Further, under Perry’s plan, the senators would appoint state legislators, thus depriving the people of one additional right.
The move toward a state-run America would be enhanced by the elimination of the federal Income tax. If the states have more money, the legislators in Washington will have much less. In addition to other advantages, we then will do away with some ponderous regulation, which many see as curtailments of liberty. This author favors addressing each issue of regulation separately. Keeping them in a bunch, while voicing philosophical explanations, won’t work. On that matter, credit card fees, floating rate mortgages, air pollution, and safe vehicles all may be included; that’s just the start.
Perry is a dedicated proponent of states’ rights, yet on the matters of abortion, and gay marriage, he specifically calls for national regulation. Abortion is an important issue; does that explain his departure? Perry feels the termination of unwanted pregnancies should be illegal in all 50 states. Prior to the legalization of abortion, death on kitchen-table operating venues was a common cause of mortality in women. Gay marriage is as trivial as anything that can swing an election, but here too, he would leave the decision to the feds.
Many in the Republican field are extreme in their views; this new extremism, much exacerbated by the vocal Tea Party, may cost the GOP the election. A better solution might be a new era of cooperation, and an acceptance of reality over fantasy by the Republicans in Washington.