- Text smaller
- Text bigger
The elitist faction mouthpieces of GOP hackdom are already spinning the results of the votes in Iowa and New Hampshire in an effort to stampede voters in the GOP stock pens onto the Inevitability R.R.’s non-stop express train marked for Romney Junction.
Forget the fact that Romney’s Iowa win hangs by the dubious strand of a handful of contestable votes. Forget the fact that these days the New Hampshire electorate is swollen with left-leaning refugees from Massachusetts, who have moved to escape the socialist paradise crypto-socialists like Mitt Romney helped them to build. New Hampshire no longer resonates with the authentically conservative base that the GOP’s elitist leadership has been leaving high and dry ever since the Reagan years gave way to dynastic politics of the Bush era.
For people still faithful to Ronald Reagan’s solidly conservative worldview, the Romney/Paul one-two punch leaves much to be desired. Both share a view of freedom that ignores the constraints upon government power implied by respect for God-endowed unalienable rights. Romney’s record on health-care legislation while governor of Massachusetts shows that he will put us on a track that takes us to socialism more surely than Obama. Paul’s “blame America first” stance on foreign policy and national security issues means that he will continue Obama’s kowtow/appeasement track when it comes to the threat from terroristic Islamic imperialism.
The thing I liked about Reagan is that he didn’t want to leave open any doors that admit the destruction of the United States. His amnesty for illegal immigrants was a mistake, but even there his intention was to clear the decks for strict border control and enforcement of our immigration laws. He didn’t believe in committing the U.S. to perpetual wars, but neither did he believe we could simply sit back and let events fester until it was impossible to safeguard America without enormous effort. Most importantly, he understood that the nation’s most important strength is in the character, courage and talent of its people – so he wasn’t afraid to respect the logic of the Declaration of Independence. He wasn’t reluctant to acknowledge and defend our God-endowed rights. Like the founders, he knew the difference between liberty and licentiousness. He saw the deep connection between having rights and doing right, as God gives us to see the right.
I think the elitist leaders of the present partisan system are determined that the U.S. must never again have a president with Reagan’s vision, wholly committed to the survival of the whole American dream. Yet many if not most grass-roots Americans want precisely that, especially those who identify with the decent outrage and activism that characterize what has become known as the tea-party movement.
I predict that neither of the elite faction’s manipulated parties intends to offer those Americans what they rightly desire. Tragically if they wait until the outcome of the sham primary selection process proves me right, it will be too late to do anything about their disappointment. But since most of these people profess to believe in the U.S. Constitution, maybe it’s time for them to ask whether this elitist partisan process is really what the Constitution envisaged. They can make their way toward an answer by remembering that on general election day voters don’t actually elect the president of the United States. They actually vote for slates of electors whose votes later decide who will serve in the office. In fact, as things stand now they will vote for electors chosen by behind-the-scenes electors they never see, from elitist faction parties that no longer represent the grass-roots people of the country.
Is there any way for grass-roots people to bypass the partisan middlemen (the elite-dominated parties) and vote directly for electors of their own choosing? Could a tea-party style process of grass-roots gatherings result in slates of electors willing to select the kind of Reagan American candidate many voters want but will not be offered? Such direct selection of slates of electors would be a constitutional rather than partisan process. But isn’t the restoration of the Constitution’s way of doing things one of the goals of people who share the tea-party spirit?
We can do better than what the self-serving, elitist faction’s sham parties are willing to do for us. They offer us “leaders” pre-screened for cooperating with their elitist goals. We want what we are supposed to have in America: representatives, willing to serve the goals and aspirations of people who know better than to trust merely in human leaders, not when their own hearts are led by one who puts all trust in God.