Connect with us

Conservatism

Granting hero-status to any politician is dangerous and leads to disappointment

Published

on

Granting hero-status to any politician is dangerous and leads to disappointment

What do Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama have in common? They are the political heroes of the last two generations. Obviously, they belonged to opposite sides of the political spectrum, but barring an upcoming scandal hitting Obama, he will be revered by the left for decades. In fact, Obamalore will actually outshine reality within a decade just as Reaganlore has done since he left office. Just as conservatives love Reagan, liberals will love Obama.

The reality is that both had major problems with their Presidencies. Don’t get me wrong – Reagan was exponentially better than Obama. There might be a wee bit of bias in that statement considering that Reagan was a limited-government federalist while Obama amassed the most power to the executive branch in history, but objectively the state of the nation is much worse following Obama than it was following Reagan. That doesn’t take away from the fact that Reagan’s greatness still fell short of his legend in many areas. He was unable to enact much of what he’d hoped and promised. Conversely, he is responsible for enacting some damaging political moves from the Supreme Court to amnesty. Still, he is up there as one of the greatest Presidents in history, yet he still falls short of true “hero” status. Why? Because he was just a politician. We need to understand what that means in order to see how to move forward.

In the 2016 election, at least four politicians were unofficially anointed as heroes by their supporters. Donald Trump was the hero of the populists. Hillary Clinton was the hero of those who embrace identity politics. Ted Cruz was the hero of the conservatives. Bernie Sanders was the hero of socialists. Three of the four failed to make their hero stars shine brightly enough. President Trump has disappointed many of his faithful followers by failing on Obamacare and the wall (so far), while going left on the bump stock ban, tariffs, and criminal justice reform.

The reality is all four “heroes” were doomed to fall short of their expectations just as Obama, Reagan, and every other President since arguably Abraham Lincoln. Why? Because politicians are by the nature of their jobs incapable of being heroes. The demands made of them by those who worship them can never be fulfilled.

That’s how it’s supposed to be. As Americans, we should never view politicians as our saviors. The core of our governmental system is designed to prevent heroes. In fact, when the system is working in its purest form, our politicians really shouldn’t even be leaders at all. They are not given office to be vaunted. They are to do two things: defend the Constitution and act as public servants to the people. We should not look to them to solve problems. We should look to them as the people who can represent us, who can stay as much out of our way as possible so WE can solve the nation’s problems ourselves.

This is extremely important to understand because it’s the basis for federalism in the first place. If the founders wanted politicians to solve problems, they would have built us into a kingdom. All-powerful kings can solve problems, thought they never actually do. Of course, the founders also realized that empowering any individual, office, or body of officials with the power to solve problems alone would invariably lead to them being the ones creating bigger problems. They embraced the notion of individual freedoms as the zenith of government, but somewhere along the lines we forgot this.

Government starts with the individual. As American citizens, we are granted much more personal power than any other country’s citizens. That means we have more responsibility, but it also means we can accomplish more for ourselves, our families, our communities, and our country. From the individual, American government should work its way down to the family followed by the community, city, county, state, and finally to the nation. That means that the federal government should not only be the lowest level of government. It should also be the final safety net. Our system allows for checks and balances that relegate the federal government to be the last line of defense only, not the tip of every spear as it is today.

Let’s look at this in practical terms. An elderly man, for example, is ultimately responsible for his own well being. When he needs help in any way, it’s his family that should be the first to intervene. When the burden is beyond their resources, the community should chip in what they can. Then the city. Then the county. Then the state. If all else fails (which is almost certainly would not if the system is working properly), then the federal government would be the last line of defense to make sure that this person does not fall through the cracks and end up dying prematurely, alone in his bed.

Today, the federal government does everything it can to insert itself into everyone’s lives, particularly those who are deemed “at risk.” We are quickly heading towards a society where the federal government instantly intervenes and maintains the “welfare” before any other level of government steps in to help. This is a problem. Why is it even possible? How did we get to this point? The answer goes back to the original premise: there are no heroes in politics, but that hasn’t stopped Americans from trying to find them.

Instead of taking personal responsibility for themselves or their family, there are too many today who look first to the government. Unfortunately, those seeking office have embraced this mentality as the easiest path to winning votes. They use jamming and scare tactics to set the stage for inappropriate promises. When a politician gets on stage and tells people they are going to solve problems, the righteous response from the audience is to shake their heads and say “no.” We don’t need saviors in government. We need the federal government to assume its proper role as the last resort. The final play. The safety net. Instead, politicians say they will fix things and the people cheer. This isn’t how America was supposed to be governed.

As an organization, the American Conservative Movement will not be looking for heroes. We are looking for representatives who will do what they can to reduce their own power. We aren’t looking for people to solve problems. We are looking for people who will push the government aside to allow us to solve our own problems while being ready to jump in only when there are no other choices. The American Conservative Movement isn’t looking for people to lead us. We’re looking for people to be public servants representing us.

Americans must quickly realize that politicians, by the very nature of the jobs they hold, cannot and should not be revered as heroes. They were never intended to solve problems from their office. They are supposed to make sure that we, the people, have clear paths to solve our own problems and to help those we touch to solve their problems as well. A proper constitutional republic starts with the individual at the top of the governmental hierarchy. Many seem to have forgotten this in recent decades. It’s time to remind everyone about the truth.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Conservatism

The myth of overturning Roe v Wade

Published

on

The myth of overturning Roe v Wade

Many on the right are skeptical about opening up Roe v Wade insisting that overturning Roe v Wade will not serve Pro-Life causes because it will force the issue back on the states. In such scenarios, Alabama will be the safe haven for the unborn while New York becomes the importer for people who want to kill their babies. Even if this is the case, it is still a giant win for the pro-life side to enable entire states to ban abortion. But this is merely a literal overturn of Roe v Wade, not a practical one.

Take Brown v BOE as an example of a Supreme Court case that overturned a predecessor: Plessy v Ferguson. The Ferguson ruling maintain the theoretical notion that separate accommodations could be equal; therefore, private businesses must comply with the state’s discrimination policies. It’s a pretty bad ruling, comparable to Roe v Wade, which conjured out of nowhere a Constitutional right to an abortion. But Plessy v Ferguson was overturned by demonstrating that the black schools were inherently inferior to the white schools. So Plessy v Ferguson, was overturned by the parameters of its own ruling.

The Alabama bill defines an abortion as a murder by the practitioner. This is a different animal than what the Supreme Court has ruled on before. In this case we have multiple issues. The chief issue at play is when does personhood begin? The Supreme Court, in order to strike down the Alabama law would have to rule that an unborn child is not a person, again. Evidence has changed since the Casey ruling in biologically proving that an unborn is a human being, not a clump of cells. The pro-abortion arguments against moral personhood have gotten more extreme than viability. Arguing that a fetus is not a person is a losing argument as conception/implantation are the most logically defensible points of the transfer of moral personhood.

The next issue is who has the power to define personhood? Should the Supreme Court strike down the Alabama or the Georgia law, the Supreme Court, out of their own superfluous arrogance would, once again, assert their own jurisdiction in the realm of life. If the Supreme Court rules that a state can define where life begins, they will be denying the self-evident. But what if the Supreme Court rules that inalienable rights, in our founding documents, plainly recognize life begins at creation. In such ruling the Supreme Court would be taking a hint from the Divine, and could issue a sweeping ruling denouncing abortion everywhere.

A third issue at play: does a state have the power to write homicide statutes? The state’s ability to write criminal law is on the line in this court case to come. Alabama has placed steep penalties on the mob doctors who perform abortions. The Supreme Court, in upholding infanticide, would essentially be placing limits on the state’s ability to write criminal law as it relates to homicide. The anti-Constitutional implications of this is yet another power reserved to the states impressed upon, subject to overseeing by the federal government. This ruling would enable people who kill an unborn child and the mother to only be charged with one homicide, not two. Essentially, the law in New York will be the law of the land in a worst case scenario.

What if it fails

I would advocate that Alabama and Georgia ignore the Supreme Court, instead choosing to enforce the law which they pass. The Supreme Court does not have the power to enforce their rulings, by design. So let them try. If they do not recognize when life begins or recognize when life begins and still decree that Alabama must sanction murder, then the Supreme Court is not worth obeying.

Final Thoughts

When does personhood begin? Who has the power to define personhood? Does a state have the power to write homicide statutes? These three questions need answers, and a sweeping ruling is almost certain.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Conservatism

Why Tomi Lahren’s abortion view harms American conservatism

Published

on

Why Tomi Lahrens abortion view harms American conservatism

Democrats are unambiguous and united in their view of abortion. It wasn’t always this way. As recently as a decade ago, there were a good number of pro-life Democrats winning elections and expressing their views as pundits.

Today, they don’t exist.

Republicans aren’t so repulsed by the pro-abortion people in their midst. It’s understandable that as a party that’s less focused on individual issues, one can be a Republican without checking off all the various boxes. This is fine. What’s not fine is for breaks in the ranks of conservatives. There are certain things that must remain universal among those who claim to embrace conservatism, especially among those who speak for conservatives.

Fox Nation’s Tomi Lahren is one of them. She claims to be a conservative, but she’s pro-choice. That fact, by itself, is understandable because the issue is a polarizing one in which people can be swayed to one side based on personal experience. It’s not like taxes which warrant universal scorn from conservatives. There are gun-toting, tax-hating, pro-choice conservatives.

But there’s a bigger problem with Lahren’s perspective. She’s not just attacking the Alabama abortion bill and pro-life perspectives in general. She’s doing so with an argument that flies in the face of reality.

Do we think government is the answer? No. In fact, one of the most appealing parts about the Alabama abortion bill is that it represents the first true opportunity for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. When it reaches the Supreme Court (and it almost certainly will) it gives us the first glimpse of how the current makeup of the court will react. In fact, the makeup of the court could actually be better if one of the left-leaning Justices retires soon.

Once Roe v. Wade is out of the way, we can finally express the truly conservative aspect of federalism that should have never been taken away – the states’ rights to determine their own healthcare laws.

If Tomi Lahren doesn’t like the abortion ban, that’s fine. Her choice. But to defend her choice by insinuating a challenge to Roe v. Wade is somehow an attack on limited-government tenets is false and harms conservatism.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Conservatism

Conservative Media, we need to blacklist Trump-Russia story and move on

Published

on

Conservative Media we need to blacklist Trump-Russia story and move on

To The Daily Wire, One America News, Washington Times, Blaze Media, and all others to the right of Fox News,

There was no collusion and no obstruction. It took over two years for this narrative to search under every stone and exhaust millions of dollars to, in the end, find nothing. The leftist media will not make many concessions, especially as it relates to obstruction for a crime that was not committed. We cannot as conservatives prove beyond an unreasonable doubt that Trump did not collude or obstruct. As Democrats in Congress keep the narrative on life support, the Conservative media needs to pull the plug.

The average American is fatigued by the Trump-Russia collusion/obstruction narrative. Meanwhile our effort is playing defense against a leftist narrative rather than reporting on issues both our base and the politically uninvolved care far more about. When the economy is strong and the border crisis is pressing, why is so much of our attention directed towards the soap opera clown show that takes place? Instead of countering this narrative, conservative media should starve the narrative of as much attention as possible.

An area which Conservatives have long failed, but have made great improvements towards, is controlling the narrative, the language and Overton Window of society. If we continue to counter the leftist narrative of the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory, we will continue to feed their power in controlling the narrative in the American political and cultural arena. Instead, let us make an effort to not only counter the narrative but set the narrative.

In our friendly rivalry as Conservative outlets, let us come together and collectively move on from the Trump-Russia story, discarding it as if it were a flat-earth conspiracy and move on.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending