resurrectionsong

November 30, 2003

GOP Legitimacy on the Line

Bush and our present congress are doing something that is absolutely killing me: destroying any legitimacy that the GOP had in claiming to be for smaller government. Cal Thomas has notices, and, frankly, he's pretty cranky about the whole thing.

The Republican "oath" says, "I believe that the proper function of government is to do for the people those things that have to be done but cannot be done, or cannot be done as well, by individuals, and that the most effective government is government closest to the people." Would some lawyer please sue the Republican National Committee for violating truth-in-labeling laws?

Smaller government and less spending? That's a joke. Eleven years ago, Newt Gingrich, who would soon become Speaker of the House, blasted Democrats for seeing "no contradiction between adding a billion and a half dollars in pork-barrel (spending) for the politicians in their big-city machines and voting for a balanced budget amendment." Now that Republicans are doing precisely what Democrats did when they were in the majority, what shall we call these overspending Republicans? Hypocrites? Liars?

There most certainly is a component of hypocrisy in this. We in the GOP have long complained about the spending habits of Democrats, and now that we have control of the purse strings we look worse by comparison.

No doubt we needed to see a rise in military spending both to cover the continuing war effort and to shore up weaknesses in our forces since former President Clinton did his damndest to gut our armed forces. Did we really need the new Medicare entitlements, though?

We Republicans own the responsibility, in essence, for turning in another massive social spending plan that has the potential (like Social Security) to end up bankrupting our nation. And this time we have no one to blame but ourselves.

This year, my single most important issue is the continued war on militant Islam. There is nothing more important in my mind than that. This doesn't mean, though, that we in the Grand Old Party should sit back and allow our elected leaders to continue down a path of which we do not approve. The question, though, becomes not one of a message that we want to convey ("Hey, people, control the spending and return to the roots of the Republican party!"), but how best to convey that message.

There is a serious danger in voting the bums out. If you believe, as I do, that the war is the most important issue facing our nation, then the Democrats offer no real alternatives to the Republicans. While our current administration may make mistakes, the Democratic options are far more frightening.

We can't afford to either cut and run away from our obligations or our own security issues, nor can we afford to hand the entire affair over to a flaccid UN to ruin. Worse, while I'm complaining about current Republican budget issues, I can say without a doubt that the tax and spend situation would be worse with any of the Democratic candidates for the presidency.

The time when the Republican Party stood for something worth standing for is over. The "G" in GOP might as well stand for government. Smaller, less intrusive government with less spending and lower taxes is the stuff of history books and fond memories for a party that once had a purpose. But Republicans, having tasted power, are now drunk with it. Like the Democrats before them who became inebriated with the wine of success, Republicans now seem interested only in preserving their elective offices.

I can't say that I fully agree with this, but there is a point to be made. The difference on social spending between Democrats and Republicans has grown paper thin. There is still a strong difference between the parties on issues of national security and international relations, though, and I know which side I generally agree with.

I like the Bush administration. I like the decency and leadership that our President has brought to his office, and I absolutely love the backbone that was revealed post 9/11. If only he could show a little fiscal restraint and a little more than lip service to free trade, he would be amazing.

As it is, I still believe that we need him for four more years. I believe, just as well, that we need to be far more forceful in pushing our leaders to be far tighter with those purse strings.

Read the article on TownHall.com.

Posted by zombyboy at November 30, 2003 10:11 PM | TrackBack

Comments

We are in a bind this election cycle. We have a President who is spending like a Democrat domestically, while doing a splendid job on national defense.

The only "alternative" to re-electing him would leave us vulnerable to more terrorism, while spending even more in an effort to prove that the same Republicans who enacted the biggest entitlement in 40 years are a bunch of flinthearted right-wing extremists.

Great campaign tactics, but as a Grand Political Strategy, it sucks. Big time™.

Posted by: McGehee at December 1, 2003 05:32 AM

Why are you so sure about the tax-and-spend-ness of the democratic candidates? I'll point out that Vermont, when Howard Dean was Governor, had a balanced budget, and ended up with a nice surplus in its "rainy day" fund.

Posted by: Brian at December 2, 2003 04:37 PM

On taxes, Dean has already stated that he would roll back some of the Bush tax cuts. While I'm not pushing for new tax cuts right now, I'm not rushing to let anyone increase rates, either--even if it is just on the rich.

Dean also thinks that universal health care is a "realistic goal". I think this is one of the most frightening ideas to come down the pike in a long time.

Dean thinks that Social Security can be solved by raising payroll taxes and the eligibility age. This both annoys me from the tax increase standpoint and from the sheer foolishness of believing that this is a permanent solution to the Social Security problem.

What he did in Vermont is one thing, but the actions that he has said that he would take as President are quite different. Not only do I dislike the idea of burdening the country with massive taxation and a socialized health care package that would end up being larger even than Medicare or Social Security, I think that his moves would tank an economy that is moving rapidly into a recovery.

Posted by: zombyboy at December 2, 2003 04:53 PM