I frequently hear many in the “conservative ranks” comment how the Democrats may have their differences, but they all rally around the candidate in an effort to win. This is true in many instances, however, this year might possibly be an exception.
This year the Democrats have nominated one of the most unliked people in the history of national politics. Of course, Hillary Clinton denies all of the accusations and puts them off to the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” but never has there been anyone with so many questionable things from their past. It seems to be an endless list of corruption, inside deals, pay for play and bodies littering her political landscape.
Besides being unlikeable and having a history of destroying those who might stand in her way, she has a shrill, obnoxious voice, and a completely uninspiring presentation. Now with evidence that Bernie Sanders was cheated in several instances, many see her simply as a “bridge too far.” However, most Democrats and many Independents will pull the lever for her, nonetheless. This is more a reflection on them than on her.
The bottom line is that most democrat policies are based on feelings and the fear that any alternative is simply unacceptable…a step back in time and away from progress. Their differences much of the time are over different feelings and how different solutions will be perceived. In the end, their fundamental agreement is that the common man cannot govern himself and needs more centralized control, for the good of the collective of course.
We always hear that the Democrat party is a “big tent,” however, if one looks at the Republican party, there seems to be a rather large “big top” on this side of the aisle, as well. I see a marked difference in the two parties. While the Democrats operate on feelings and theory,Republicans typically claim to operate on constitutional principles, at least, that is the party platform, generally speaking, adhering to smaller less intrusive government, lower taxes, etc.
It is no secret that the Grand Old Party says one thing and does another, at least the establishment and leadership are that way. I’ve written in the past how the progressives have taken over both parties. Conservatives…true conservatives by definition, not by self-appointment…operate and make their decisions based on facts and principles.
Progressives, on both sides, operate based on feelings and elitism.
If we look back at history, we see not much has changed since our founding. It is estimated that roughly 10% of the population was fully behind the Sons of Liberty and the Revolution. Maybe another 20% leaned in that direction. The majority was content to let the King and parliament set the laws and regulations, after all, they were willing to sell their liberty for the security of the world’s largest power of the day. Sound familiar?
Conservatives are often told we are stuck in the past, inflexible, not able to progress from the old ways. When it comes to things constitutional, all compromise is always away from the Constitution, never towards it. When every person who has ever taken an oath, it is to defend and protect the Constitution, how can they keep that oath and compromise?
Well, it depends on “which” constitution you take the oath to defend. Considering this constitution that is about 3,000 pages long:
This is what they take the oath to defend. But it is a document that changes at the shim of congress, SCOTUS, and Executive Orders. How do you know what you are defending?
Our constitution has a mechanism to change with the times. Conservatives are not against change, we are against unconstitutional change. Article V authorizes either ⅔ of the states or ⅔ of both houses of congress to propose amendments so that the constitution can keep up with society and its needs. Then ¾ of the states are required for ratification so a very solid majority is on board with the changes.
I was visiting with a friend recently and discussed the comment made by FBI Director Comey regarding Clinton’s server and email situation saying that just because she did not face charges does not mean others can avoid prosecution. That was clearly a statement outlining tyranny. Lady Justice is supposed to be blind, she cannot tell who is before her, name or station in life means nothing. She has a scale to weigh the evidence and a sword to execute justice. When the elite may break the laws others cannot, there is no justice.
Where do we draw the line? If we are to act and speak based on principles, when do we reach the point we are okay with compromise? Do we give in to get along? Do we give in for the “greater good”? Do we give in to avoid a fight?
I see my job as a writer make you think, not to tell you what to think, not to tell you what to do. We should all be informed so when we make our choices we do so with a clear conscience and knowledge of the available facts. I’m sure we’ve all made decisions in the past that had we known more might have changed our decision.
Whether you are in a discussion with your spouse or neighbor, or you are voting for dog catcher or president, understand the facts and then act accordingly. You may not like your options or where you find yourself, but then, no one ever promised us a rose garden. In fact, I always told my kids when they complained something was hard or not fair, “Life’s tough, then you die. The sooner you accept that the better off you will be”.
Accept the challenge, make yourself better informed and help those around you.We have allowed Progressives to paint us in a negative light and it will be very hard to overcome the negative connotation many see in being a “conservative”.
Progressives are very good at redefining themselves once they are viewed in a less than favorable way. Perhaps we need to seek a new name or term for ourselves, one that defines us as constitutional patriots seeking to preserve liberty and equal opportunity for all…not a select elite few.