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.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Judiciary

Why Neil Gorsuch stood alone as the only conservative perspective on the Yakama Tribe Supreme Court case

Published

on

Why Neil Gorsuch stood alone as the only conservative perspective on the Yakama Tribe Supreme Court

The judiciary is supposed to have one guide when forming fresh perspectives: the Constitution. As they examine the constitutionality of laws and other government actions, they often refer to previous rulings as precedent while looking for similar rulings as justification for leaning one way or another, but at the end of the day it’s the Constitution alone that is supposed to guide their judgments. That’s why we should look for judges who have originalist perspectives, not necessarily conservative ones (though, let’s be honest, the vast majority of originalist perspectives will align with a conservative perspective).

Part of conservatism is conserving the original intent of a law, or in the case in question, a treaty. The Yakama Tribe signed a treaty with the United States government that gave them control of a huge amount of tribal land in Washington state. Part of the exchange included the ability for Yakama traders to use U.S. highways for free.

Washington charges per gallon for fuel trucked in from out of state. One Yakama company claimed the 1855 treaty meant they were not to be charged this tax. The decision in the Supreme Court went mostly along expected political leanings with the “conservative” Justices wanting to charge the tax and the “leftist” Justices siding with the Takama Tribe. The tiebreaker turned out to be Neil Gorsuch, who went to the “leftist” side but with the only conservative reasoning to drive a vote.

The dissent claimed the treaty allowed for free passage on highways just as any American citizen can travel, but that the taxes set by Washington must still be paid. Only Gorsuch recognized that the original intent of the treaty was to grant the tribe free passage, as in free of charge regardless of what the U.S., state, or local governments wanted to charge. This is the right perspective. It’s the conservative perspective.

Should the other Justices who voted like Gorsuch get kudos as well? Probably not. I haven’t read their statements, but it’s safe to assume they ruled based on the party politics of supporting Native American rights whether they’re justifiable or not. Gorsuch ruled based on a proper interpretation of the treaty.

Conservatism and originalism go hand-in-hand when judges take the politics out of what they do. It’s hard. I’m not a judge so I shouldn’t… judge. But this seems to be a case where party politics played too much of a role. Gorsuch was right.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Snopes downgrades truth about Beto’s arrests to ‘mostly true’ because a meme got his band’s name wrong

Published

on

Snopes downgrades truth about Betos arrests to mostly true because a meme got his bands name wrong

Fact checkers are all the rage in the age of fake news. Unfortunately, all of the major fact checkers are left leaning at best, downright progressive at worst. That’s why I make it part of my daily routine to check the checkers to see what they spun today. This latest installment is minor in the whole scheme of things, but it highlights the intense need to protect Democrats whenever possible.

Snopes took on the task of fact checking the following statement:

Beto O’Rourke was in a band called the El Paso Pussycats and was arrested at least twice in the 1990s.

This is true. Beto was arrested twice, which makes him an ideal candidate for the party of lawlessness and disorder. But Snopes, in their certified fact checking wisdom, decided to pick the statement about the arrests that included the name of his band. The statement they chose had the wrong name for the band, using their album name instead. This was enough for them to downgrade the statement from “True” to “Mostly True.”

Not a big deal, right? Actually, it’s bigger than one might think. When people search for Beto and look only for things that are true about him, they will not be shown information about his arrests. The site could have picked literally any other claim about the arrests to fact-check, but had to dig deep to find an internet meme from his failed Senatorial bid last year in order to find one with a statement that included something incorrect in it.

Beto ORourke Arrest

You’ll notice they made sure to mention that both charges were dismissed. The circumstances behind the dismissals seemed to do nothing to negate the crimes he actually committed.

This is just another example of the “fact-checker” running cover for a Democrat they like. The meat of the fact, Beto’s arrests, won’t be found on this site as “True” because they were selective in how they wanted to frame this narrative.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Education

‘Academic’ journal editor Roberto Refinetti tries to explain why they published absurd hoax papers, fails miserably

Published

on

Academic journal editor Roberto Refinetti tries to explain why they published absurd hoax papers fai

An under-reported story last year revealed multiple “academic” journals, where only the highest levels of academic thought leadership is allowed to publish, put nonsense hoax articles in their publications simply because they perpetuated radical progressive thought. These peer-reviewed journals were willing to publish utter garbage as long as the garbage smelled like the hyper-leftist garbage they normally publish anyway.

Libertarian pundit John Stossel tried to interview the editors of these prestigious journals which were hoaxed, and was only able to find one willing to go on camera. Roberto Refinetti from the academic journal Sexuality and Culture came on air to discuss the hoax and the problems with academic journals. But even he was unable to come up with a valid response about why these journals were so easy to fool.

Stossel read some of the reviews from “experts” in the field that were used to determine whether or not the papers should be published. When Stossel noted that one of the reviewers was an idiot, Refinetti rushed to the defense by blaming the hoaxers and said, “They made up data that he or she [the reviewer] wished he had but he didn’t, so when he sees, ‘Wow, these people did this study that I wanted to do and they got the results that I thought should be there, this is great!'”

In other words, Refinetti came to the same conclusion as the hoaxers and Stossel: Some if not most of those who review these papers make their decision based on whether or not the conclusions fit their worldview, not whether or not the papers were actually correct.

This is just one of many examples of why leftist academia, which is the vast majority of all academia, operates with the sole goal of reinforcing their biases rather than informing students or giving the education system proper facts about the world.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report