While many Republican moderates and some conservatives support the Bush administration, most of them agree
that those from the Left are plain dead wrong on their opposition. How nice it would be if it was that simple! The fools game
of believing that political rhetoric is consistent with actual policy action is the one factor that can be countered upon
to win every election. If Republicans really stood for limited government, we would support them at every turn. But we all
know better or at least we should understand the real record doesn’t support the discourse.
When it comes to those from the broadest definition of leftist orientation, what possible common similarities
could philosophically conservative Americans have with the Liberal cause? Few is the most appropriate reply, but if you dig
deeper you might uncover the true Achilles heel of the Left. The most sincere and honest proponents of legitimate social causes
are adept at understanding and articulating the problems. Is there anyone who could conclude that a Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson
or a Noam Chomsky is wrong on every challenge they present to the present system of political power? Hardened Republicans
make a disastrous mistake when they ignore or suppress legitimate injustices.
Only a fool would ignore current trends and consequential results from the demographics that impact every
election. So what needs to be the response from committed conservatives? The foremost constructive strategy requires a recognition
that real systemic and serious problems permeate the society and are compounded by each successive administration. Defending
a status quo or providing support for “business as usual” is destined for total failure. The Left exists
because it taps into the discontent that lies just under the surface of civic society. The Liberal position completely discredits
itself when it offers up collectivists solutions to indisputable inequity. However, the strength in their influence stems
from the appeal in their outrage. The idea that all people are equally treated within any society is as preposterous as believing
that those holding political power really administer their regimes with the a paramount motivation of the best interests of
the people.
The core value that must be adhered to with constant vigilance is that of keeping all forms of government
LIMITED in scope, reach and authority. The Left senselessly champions utopian apparitions of equality through the coercive
force of State mandate. For them the view that government must provide a solution is gospel. No bureaucracy is too large for
the Socialism sickness. If a social crusade fosters government expansion, as their prescription, only a malignant tumor will
grow upon the aggregate society.
With that said, why is it appropriate to forge temporary alliance with the aforementioned enemy? Well, there
are rare times when they understand the problem and can offer up a valid approach to oppose a harmful policy. This willingness
to interlace with ‘strange bedfellows’, need not endorse their motives as pure or even sincere. When an established
policy is wrong, it needs to be overturned. The criteria that applies is our test of achieving “Limited Government”.
When Nader condemns the Corporate/State Axis we applaud his condemnation. However, his lunacy for swelling
concentrated regulation defies the most practical norms of Economics 101. Jackson long ago abdicated any moral authority,
and his foul optimism resembles an extortionist more than a reformer. But for those who remember the 1988 Presidential campaign,
he argued a compelling case that addresses persistent issues. No doubt the only limited form of self restraint he would ever
support is that of voluntary child support for illegitimate offspring. Nevertheless, the mainstream Republicans relinquish
the perceived high moral ground to the phony preacher.
The programs of both Nader and Jackson would be disastrous for our country. Yet, they have a significant following.
So why won’t Republicans learn the lesson that they will never be able to out socialize the collectivist? When the GOP
turns to Liberal issues and espouses Leftist policies in an attempt to beg for votes, the principal of Limited Government
is betrayed. The social agenda plan of the Left is pure Marxist. Why not start calling it by its rightful name?
Now Chomsky has an entirely different twist. If you confine his theories to his opposition for foreign involvements,
his resonance has a familiar theme that is lost to many Republicans. The mistake that most conservatives make about the MIT
professor is that his form of anarchism is irrelevant. They would rather assail him for being a Marxist/Socialist, and ignore
his critique of U.S. foreign policy failures. When Republicans abandon consistent conservative standards, because the messenger
is opposed to the Wall Street perversion of Capitalism, they forego their own responsibility to confront the errors of official
policy - namely - internationalism.
The Left is consistently wrong because they place an inherent and misguided trust in the State. When they
invoke the human spirit and rally the cause of the masses, conservatives need to take note. Economic and social issues are
liberal miscarriages, when put into practice. But the definition of good government is spelled LIMITED . . . It applies
to foreign policy, as well. Continual foreign adventures obliterate our traditions. Just maybe, professed protectors of our
conservative heritage will see a temporary ally in those who oppose the rush to destruct. Politics make strange bedfellows.
Lying down with the enemy may prove to be the befitting intercourse that will save what is left to conserve. There will be
time enough, later; to delouse ourselves from the liberal disease. For now the question is: can we survive the policies of
our friends?
SARTRE - October 24, 2002
