On Party Principle and Meghan McCain

Welcome Manly Rash Readers and CR Mommies!!

In her most recent column for The Daily Beast (which I refuse to dignify with a link- Google it and you’ll find it) Meghan McCain very approvingly “profiles” House Republican Aaron Schock. I’m inclined to believe that her newfound support for Representative Schock is mostly due to the fact that he’s incredibly good looking; hence her donning the article with the title “The GOP’s House Hottie". I have no issue with Rep. Schock, per se. According to his bio on Wikipedia, he seems to be a pretty solid Conservative, although there is admittedly little info in the piece.

However, reading past Ms McCain's lust-fest shows us the other reason why she is so attracted to Rep. Schock, which links into her recent criticisms of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. She seems to latch onto statements such as "We have to recognize Republican candidates in the Northeast are going to be different than candidates in the Midwest, who are going to look different than candidates on the West Coast" and tie it into the ideology she’s peddling; the idea that the only way we can appeal to "independents" is by overlooking large gaps in policy position to win elections.

This is probably the biggest problem facing Conservative Republicans today: a minority constituency within the party demanding acceptance of any (leftist) belief into the party platform and then calling it a “big tent”. There are several problems with this approach that’s advocated by Ms. McCain, who is herself only a recent Republican- she voted for Kerry and Gore and only registered R in September- and the so-called media elites (Frum, Brooks, Noonan, Parker, et al) who so frequently advocate this same position.

First of all, those proselytizing for the mushy-middle say that we need to expand the tent, reach out to certain constituencies, all of which sound good on the surface. The problem is that they expect us to do so by pushing out those who are the consistent voting base of the party: the social conservatives. They've formed a circular firing squad and taken aim at anyone who publicly professes belief in God, upholding traditional marriage, and/or overturning the judicial monstrosity that is Roe vs Wade.

I’m not exactly sure how turning off the majority of the base of Republican voters by embracing federally approved homosexual marriage and a national pro-abortion platform is going to win ANY election so you will have to forgive me for being skeptical of this approach. The bottom line here is that giving social-cons the proverbial finger on these issues in order to try and appeal to the middle is a losing strategy. No matter how many squishes we get on our side with this appeal, we still lose without the base. Period.

Secondly, and most importantly, the ideas being peddled by Ms. McCain, et al, are contrary to the very reason for having a political party separate from the DNC in the first place. Yes, I am aware that Republicans from different areas are not all going to look the same, but they should sound essentially the same because their guiding principles should be the same.

The point of being a Republican generally, and a Conservative specifically is that we oppose a large and overreaching federal government. We support the rights of states and localities to decide the majority of the issues for themselves, as is their constitutional right via the Tenth Amendment, and to legislate their decisions within their communities accordingly. If your positions on the national level do not hold to those basic premises you have no business calling yourself a Republican, much less a Conservative. If you believe that it is OK for the government to tell us what we can and can’t do on just about every level then you may as well go and change your registration to a (D) because you’re not a Republican, regardless of how much you may protest otherwise.

Now, that’s not saying that people within the Republican Party are not allowed to have their own opinions on each subject. They most certainly are and they are free to try and influence policy-making at their local level. But as soon as you step it up to the national level, you are no longer advocating for our founding principles and are treading on lefty territory.

Let’s use the Democrat party as a prime example of how this whole political-party-thing is supposed to work. There are people advocating for all sorts of issues on the left. From abortion, to national health care, to marriage, to CO2 emissions, to entitlements, they all have on thing in common: THEY WANT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DO IT. They are Statists and believe that if there’s an issue on the table the feds have to be involved. And of course, they want them to legislate that everyone must behave and believe as they do. The DNC embraces a Statist approach to solving problems, which is why all of these voting groups line up to pull the lever for them at the polls.

The thing about Conservatism (and supposedly Republicanism) is that it’s based on the principles of our founding. Do yourself a favor and read the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and The Federalist Papers for starters. If you’ve already read them, maybe it’s time to refresh your memory. The Pilgrims, and everyone following them, came to this land to escape the clutches of tyranny perpetrated by governing entities that were so large and so far removed from themselves that they could not possibly have their needs met. The Founders revolted from the same tyranny and formed a new nation based on the idea that individuals should be able to decide for themselves how they want to live. The reason for our Constitution being one of “negative rights”, as our new President likes to put it, for the federal authorities is to specifically limit the amount of power the federal government could amass and prevent it from becoming an carbon copy of what they were trying to escape in the first place.

Think about it this way: who knows better what is needed in your city, the people in Washington, D.C. or the people who actually live there? The answer is obviously the latter. The Founders knew this and it is why they gave us, the people, the freedom and the power to do almost anything we wanted, so long as we didn’t start trying to impose it on the people in the next town or state over. Each state, and even each community within each state, was designed to be able to experiment and govern themselves how they wanted to be governed, to figure out how to meet their own needs in the way that was best for them without the interference of a giant overseer.

For example, say we here in my town in sunny Central Florida decide we want to publicly educate our children. It’s then up to us to figure out how to fund it, organize a structure, arrange for facilities, hire teachers, decide on curriculum, etc. WE control it. And it’s best that way because only WE, the parents, know our children and their needs. When we abdicate that right along with our individual responsibility to the federal government, we inevitably get poor results. The feds cannot possibly know what my child and your child need. Our children are not people to the people in Congress, they are numbers. Statistics. The ONLY way to regulate anything on the federal level is by making sweeping generalizations. Check these 10 boxes and viola! You have an educated child.

Of course, we all know it doesn’t work that way. Having the education of our children mandated and regulated by the goofballs in D.C. can only produce mediocrity, at best. And the same goes for anything that requires any kind of specialization or personalization. Health care is one that immediately comes to mind.

Again, this is why the Founders put so much power into OUR hands. Conservatives know this instinctively, and while we may not always agree on specific policies, we should be banding together on the basic principle that I can do it my way in my town and you can do it yours in your town and we don’t need a King (or 500+ kings) on Capitol Hill to tell us how to best meet our own needs.

So, here’s the deal: there is a simple test as to whether or not you should be a Republican. Ask yourself, on any issue that is not specifically addressed in the Constitution, do you think the feds should handle it or should it be left to the people to decide for themselves at the local level? If your answer is the former, you’re a Democrat. If it’s the latter, you’re a Republican. And if you’ve only figured out you have an affinity with Conservatives in September of last year, please refrain from lecturing the rest of us, many who have been advocating and articulating these principles for decades, on what we need to do to win elections.