Connect with us

Everything

GOP’s hidden contempt for limiting government is why they’re failing

Published

on

Ask an average Jane or Joe on the street which party is in favor of limiting government and most with a basic understanding of party politics will point to the Republicans. Shrinking government has been a mantra of the GOP since FDR’s New Deal, but in recent decades it’s been nothing more than that: a mantra.

In reality, the GOP has embraced big government at progressively stronger degrees since Barry Goldwater lost his election. They had Ronald Reagan do what he could to slow the growth, but the federal government grew even under his watch. It wasn’t all his fault; fighting the Establishment has always been a challenge for small-government Republicans, even the Gipper.

Today, we’re seeing the culmination of the GOP’s hidden contempt for limiting government manifest in its most blatant form: inaction.  Despite control of most states, Congress, and the White House, they’re tiptoeing the line between their mantra and their true feelings. This is most obviously seen in the debacle they’re trying to call an “Obamacare repeal.”

For seven years, they’ve railed against the notion of government-run health insurance. They’ve campaigned on the idea that if they had the opportunity, they would roll back the damaging policies of Obamacare. Now that they have the power, they’re impotent. Why? Because they don’t really want government to get out of health insurance. It’s too lucrative. It gives them too much power over wealth distribution. It enables them to do things they couldn’t do if the free market economy took the reins in the health care industry once again.

This is why they were able to pass a clean repeal in 2015. They knew it would get vetoed. Now that they have a President who allegedly wouldn’t veto a clean repeal, it’s only spoken of by actual Federalist-minded conservatives. The rest sit back and make excuses for why they won’t pass the bill they passed two years ago. These excuses are hollow, but more importantly they’re often flat-out lies.

The Republican Party is not a party that embraces limiting government. They are the party that will accept slightly less government than the Democrats. With their opponents now pushing further to the left, it should surprise nobody that the GOP is lurching to the left along with them. Why? Because they can. Because conservatives and Federalists feel they have no better option than to accept the lesser of two evils. This more than anything else is why the Federalist Party must rise. If the GOP will only pretend to want to limit government, a party that will truly act on the promise to defend the Constitution and reduce the influence of DC over states and individuals must become viable.

There are three areas that Federalists must attack in order to succeed: Congress, the Presidency, and the electorate itself. Let’s look at why all three need an infusion of Federalist-thinking for the betterment of the nation.

A Congress that won’t relinquish influence

The concept of “enumerated powers” has been lost on today’s variation of Congress. This isn’t new. It’s been growing since FDR opened the floodgates.

Getting people who are willing to relinquish influence and the benefits of wielding it is why the Federalist Party must always take the high road when selecting candidates and representatives. This means finding people who aren’t life-long politicians, who find no allure in favors or kickbacks, and who are essential incorruptible. We’re not so naive to believe anyone is perfect, but we can as a group watch carefully and hold our representatives accountable. We can also put in the right measures to monitor potential avenues where corruption can sneak in.

Congress is unwilling to give up an ounce of power once it has hold of it. We don’t believe every GOP Congressman and Senator has always been corrupted by the benefits of state-run health insurance, but now that they’re in the driver’s seat many of them have been convinced of the benefits. Why give up control over something so lucrative?

Unfortunately, their attachment to power is hurting America and her citizens. We need consumers to drive the health care markets which means that any form of mandate cannot be allowed. Once insurance companies know they’re offering commodities rather than mandated services, the consumer-driven market can drive down costs and improve quality. That’s how it works in other industries. The health insurance industry is no different.

These concepts aren’t lost on Congress, but embracing them requires a willingness to relinquish influence. Most will not. Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and others are willing to fight to get the national government out of health care which is why they’re Federalists even if they still retain the (R) next to their names on the ballot. Someday soon, this will change.

A President who’s concerned about himself

Politico, which I admittedly rarely read because of its left-leaning nature, put out a surprisingly strong piece about the GOP’s failings. They start off the article, “GOP despairs at inability to deliver,” with a very telling statement:

The Republican Party is more powerful than it’s been in more than a decade — and yet it has never seemed so weak.

What they missed in the article is that one of the biggest reasons for the GOP’s weakness is in the mentality of the President himself. It’s not that some of his policies are liberal because some of his other policies are conservative. It’s not that he’s too new or inexperienced. It isn’t even that he lacks the intelligence. The main reason the President is damaging the GOP is because he’s more interested in protecting and promoting himself than in leading the nation.

We’ve seen this narcissism in the White House before. In fact, the most narcissistic President in the modern era just left the Oval Office. With Trump, it’s slightly different. His narcissism and desire to protect himself are accentuated by his most unfortunate character flaw. When he feels threatened, he isn’t the fighter that he and his most vociferous supporters want to believe he is. Instead, he uses the weakest defense mechanism available to him: the victim card. Everyone’s unfair to him. Everyone treats him badly. He’s just a poor, defenseless President and the mean [fill in the blank] are being mean little meanies to him.

Yes, he’s that juvenile.

It’s unlikely the Federalist Party will be able to mount the support or fundraising necessary to put up a serious contender by 2020, but we’re certainly going to try. Our desire to never run in an election unless we have a chance of winning it will prevent us from going down the road of futility that the Libertarian, Constitution, and other third parties travel every four years. With that said, we will do what we can as long as we remain realistic.

An electorate that clings to slogans

I wish I could find the article with the exact poll numbers, but I’ll have to present some striking data from memory. Two years ago, over 70% of Republicans wanted free trade over fair trade. Around September or October of last year, the number was down to under 40%. Why? Because the electorate bought into a slogan.

Never in history has there been such easy access to real information. The Internet has empowered the people to be informed if they choose to be. Unfortunately, the masses are either clinging to “fake news” or ignoring news altogether.

It’s imperative that the electorate changes how it receives and perceives information in the coming years. It’s inexcusable that over 40% of GOP voters prior to voting for Trump believed that he was born into poverty, that he’s a self-made success.

We need to be the most educated electorate in the world, not one that falls for false slogans like “drain the swamp” or “yes we can.” We need an electorate who realizes that smaller government yields far superior results than constant government overreach.

We need the electorate to learn.

The tenets of small-government federalism can and should ring true for a majority of Americans. We’ve seen the results the Democrats delivered and we’re seeing similar results from big-government Republicans. This needs to change quickly. Federalism is the answer.

Christian, husband, father. EIC, NOQ Report. Co-Founder, the Federalist Party. Just a normal guy who will no longer sit around while the country heads in the wrong direction.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinions

It isn’t Never-Trump or Always-Trump destroying conservatism, it’s Sometimes-Trump

Published

on

One of the craziest—or should I say laziest—accusations leveled against me by Trump’s die-hard loyalists whenever I dare to call him out for breaking a campaign promise, getting caught in a lie, or promoting unconstitutional non-conservative ideas, is that I’m a liberal. Sometimes, they go so far as to accuse me of working for George Soros.

As I’ve said many times in response, I don’t work for Mr. Soros, but since money’s been a little tight at the Strident Conservative lately, if anyone has his number, I’d appreciate it if you’d send it my way.

It’s a sad reality that these pathetic taunts are what passes for political discourse in the Age of Trump. Gone are the days when differences could be civilly discussed based on facts instead of emotion.

Another sad reality of this behavior is that it’s a sign that the end of conservatism is near, as Trump’s small army of loyal followers attempt to rebrand conservatism by spreading the lie that he is a conservative and, using binary logic, accusing anyone who opposes him of being a liberal.

This rebranding effort has had an impact. Last week, RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel warned Republican hopefuls that anyone who opposed Trump’s agenda would be “making a mistake.”

McDaniel’s threat was issued following the GOP primary defeat in South Carolina by conservative Mark Sanford after he was personally targeted by Trump himself. Sanford’s crime? Disloyalty to the NY Liberal.

Another source of damage to conservatism has come from evangelicals and the so-called conservative media. In the name of self-preservation, they choose to surrender their principles by promoting the lie that Trump is a conservative. Some of these voices have taken to labelling conservatives who oppose Trump as Never-Trump conservatives, or worse, branding them as liberals and/or Democrats, as was recently written in a piece at TheFederalist.com:

“Trump may be an unattractive and deeply flawed messenger for contemporary conservatism. But loathe though they might be to admit it, what’s left of the Never-Trump movement needs to come to grips with the fact that the only words that currently describe them are liberals and Democrats.”

Then there are those who have adopted a Sometimes-Trump attitude about the president, where everything Trump does is measured using a good Trump/bad Trump barometer. While it has become fashionable for Sometimes-Trump conservatives to stand on their soap boxes condemning both Never-Trump conservatives and Always-Trump faux conservatives, I believe that this politically bipolar approach to Trump is the greatest threat of all to Constitutional conservatism in America.

Sometimes-Trump conservatives have accepted the lie that it’s okay to do a little evil in exchange for a greater good. Though they may fly a conservative banner, their lukewarm attitude about Trump is much like the attitude we see in the Laodicean church mentioned in the Book of Revelations (3:15-16).

“I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”

Trump is a double-minded man unstable in all his ways (James 1:8). When lukewarm Sometimes-Trump conservatives choose to overlook this reality, they end up watering-down conservatism to the point that it has no value or power to change America’s course.

As lukewarm Sometimes-Trump conservatives point to the Always-Trump and Never-Trump factions as the reason for today’s conservative divide, remember that it’s the unenthusiastic, noncommittal, indifferent, half-hearted, apathetic, uninterested, unconcerned, lackadaisical, passionless, laid back, couldn’t-care-less conservative imposters in the middle who are really responsible.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and FacebookSubscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Video Double play: Busting the gun grabber’s musket myth.

Published

on

By

Gun confiscation bingo

Two videos that eviscerate the Liberty Grabbers ‘One shot’ musket myth.

It is a bedrock principle (if they have any) of the Liberty grabber Left that back during the ratification of the US Constitution the only weapons in existence were flintlock musket that took 5 minute to reload. Thus there wasn’t any school violence because it would have taken too long for the perpetrator to kill anyone.

As it typical of the lore of the national socialist Left, this is a lie of the first order. A previous video celebrated the “Assault Weapon” tricentennial, which was bit of the tongue in cheek variety since there were other repeating “Military Style” weapons in existence before this time period. These will be detailed in future articles. Meanwhile we present two videos that also bust the ‘Musket Myth’, one a short presentation from the Royal Armouries on the Jover and Belton “Flintlock breech-loading superimposed military musket”

Royal Armouries
Published on Aug 30, 2017
Curator of Firearms, Jonathan Ferguson, gives us a peek at the Flintlock breech-loading superimposed military musket, by Jover and Belton (1786)

This is a very relevant piece since the inventor Joseph Belton corresponded with the Continental Congress in 1777:

May it Please your Honours,
I would just informe this Honourable Assembly, that I have discover’d an improvement, in the use of Small Armes, wherein a common small arm, may be maid to discharge eight balls one after another, in eight, five or three seconds of time, & each one to do execution five & twenty, or thirty yards, and after so discharg’d, to be loaded and fire’d with cartridge as usual.

“It was demonstrated before noted scientists and military officers (including well known scientist David Rittenhouse and General Horatio Gates)”

This destroys the mythology that the founders had no knowledge of this type of repeating firearm technology that existed already.

The second is a humours dissertation on the subject from video raconteur Steven Crowder https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/

from a few years ago that also eviscerates this bit of Leftist mythology.

Published on Feb 10, 2015
People have been telling us for years that the 2nd amendment was written in a time of Muskets, and that it doesn’t apply to the evolved weapons of today. Is it true?

So why is this important?

Two primary reasons. One that these factual examples demonstrate that the founding fathers knew of these technological advances. Therefore, they destroy any Leftist pretences that the 2nd amendment be confined to muskets. Second that, school violence is something other than an issue of guns.

Continue Reading

Immigration

House proposal makes DACA permanent and grants citizenship to illegals

Published

on

When Donald Trump issued an executive order in Sept. 2017 rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) order issued by Barack Obama, he was cheered by his adoring fans for appearing to keep one of his campaign promises regarding the illegal immigration problem. However, as the old saying goes, appearances can be deceiving.

The reason I call it deceiving is because Trump’s order was merely a technicality—sort of a Rescind-In-Name-Only moment—used to buy the time necessary to make DACA permanent, which has been his “big heart” goal from the beginning.

Of course, any permanent legislation needs to come from Congress, which should have been problematic for Republicans who campaigned for years against Obama’s handling of illegal immigration. But in today’s Republican party—owned and operated by Trump—such commitments have become secondary to the requirement to please Dear Leader.

For example, just days after Trump’s deceptive order, Mitch McConnell went on record in support of negotiation with Democrats and the president—but I repeat myself—to save DACA and create an amnesty plan and eventual citizenship for approximately 1.8 million DREAMers.

Though past attempts have failed, election-season fever is sweeping Washington, so Trump and Republican party loyalists are making another push to get the job done.

After conducting several days of Nancy Pelosi-style meetings behind closed doors, Paul Ryan released an immigration plan yesterday that will legally protect DREAMers while also providing over $23 billion for another Trump promise—a border wall.

Wait a minute! I though Trump promised us that Mexico was going to pay for the wall. I suppose that’s just another in-name-only moment for the New York liberal.

Back to the House proposal. DREAMers can apply for “nonimmigrant status” which is essentially a newfangled way to say visa. The extra visas necessary to handle these requests will be available due to new restrictions that will lower the number of legal immigrant applications, which means legal immigrants will be effectively moved to the back of the line.

But that’s not the worst part.

Once obtained, these visas become the first step on a pathway to citizenship, which means that years down the road, 1.8 million illegals—probably more—will have jumped the line to US citizenship ahead of legal immigrants, despite the rhetoric from Trump and the GOP claiming otherwise.

Though this proposal may or may not pass, making DACA permanent and creating a pathway to citizenship are broken promises. But as I wrote a few days ago, breaking promises has become a job requirement in the age of Trump and today’s GOP.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and FacebookSubscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.