The minions of the twin-party sham are doing their best to pretend that the results of the special election in New York’s 26th Congressional District prove a) that voters are rejecting the need to discipline Washington’s spending/debt frenzy and b) that candidates who run using the tea-party label to appeal to grass-roots conservatives dissatisfied with the GOP’s sham opposition to the Obama faction simply hand victory to the Democrats.
This line of propaganda aims to discourage grass-roots adherents of liberty from looking for alternatives to the different shades of socialism offered by the God-shy fraternal twins of government addiction that currently masquerade as opposing parties. It also has about as much to do with the facts of the situation as the blatant propaganda Pravda used to spew in service to the oligarch’s of the Communist Party in the old Soviet Union.
First, of course, is the widely known fact that the so-called tea-party candidate, Jack Davis, was an Obama faction fraud, who flaunted the tea-party label precisely to set up a perception that would discredit it. He supported Obama in 2008 and received money from leftist Democrats in support of his past political activities as a three-time Democrat candidate for office. Though he sloganeered as a supporter of fiscal discipline, he apparently has no problem spending public dollars on the slaughter of nascent human offspring in the womb.
Second is the obvious fact that the GOP began from a damaged position, especially with the voters who value at least outward respect for the moral culture that sustains liberty. The GOP incumbent was from his office untimely ripped because of behavior that smacked of what used to be called moral turpitude (known today as an “alternative lifestyle”). Like the Miss America pageant after Vanessa Williams’ involuntary exposure in Penthouse magazine, the Republicans needed a candidate for New York’s 26th District whose commitment on the moral issues could counter the temptation toward disgusted indifference such a scandal understandably encourages among the party’s moral constituents.
Instead the GOP leaders served up New York Assemblywoman Jane Corwin, a choice more than faintly reminiscent of Dede Scozzafava, the cozy-with-leftist-Democrats Republican they notoriously promoted to represent another district full of solidly conservative Republicans, New York’s 23rd. Neither the socialist Democrat, the cozy-with socialism Republican or the once and future fan of socialism who pretended to be a tea-party alternative offered authentically conservative voters in the district a choice likely to represent their views in any real sense of the word.
The common characteristic of these “give them no real” choices is their commitment to abortion. The Democratic victor is a typical promoter of a woman’s illusory right fatally to wrong her nascent offspring. The fellow playing the role of a tea-party candidate thinks funding child murder is a form of fiscal discipline. And the GOP candidate’s abortion view coincides with the deep pro-life convictions of the people who hold the original Roe v. Wade decision (abortion only in the first trimester) in high esteem.
All this points to the moral of the real story line of the special election in NY’s 26th. The record of GOP leadership puts the Party at a moral disadvantage. They do nothing to overcome this disadvantage when they flog candidates who embrace the moral culture of the Democrats, while claiming to be the champions of fiscal responsibility in government. Most conservatives, and indeed many Americans in general, know from their own life experience that fiscal discipline requires moral courage, which only very rarely arises in connection with self-indulgent hedonism when it comes to other aspects of life. They have also come to the common-sense conclusion that a culture that encourages people simply to surrender to the impulses of passion is precisely what incubates a population ripe for the false promise of government dependency that fuels the debt/spending frenzy that is bankrupting the nation.
Even so, I continue to wonder when the people who have these common-sense convictions will cease to be blind to the other fact substantiated by the outcome of the special election. The current party system is itself deeply dependent on government spending and government control of power in other forms. The government-addicted politicians responsible for it purposefully engineer election scenarios that offer right-minded people no choice that represents their common sense. Instead, they contrive situations and set up a propaganda line that herds people into their arena of power and locks them in with the perception that seeking better choices than they have will assure that the worse choice is all they get.
Will the scales ever fall from the eyes of voters sincerely interested in restoring and maintaining America’s decent liberty? Will they see through the propaganda ploy of engineered political outcomes like the special election in New York’s 26th? Voters won’t get good choices until they stop allowing a bad party system to decide what their choices will be. They won’t get good choices on Election Day until they are making their choice from among candidates they have searched out and lifted up for themselves, because these candidates truly and consistently represent principles and policies that establish and sustain not our selfish individual passions, but the idea of right and a common good endowed, as our founders said, by the Creator God.