The dictionary defines the word "compassion" as a feeling of deep sorrow and sympathy for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering. The word "compassionate" is defined as some having shown compassion. As such, by virtue of the words alone and nothing to do with the actual definition of the words, "compassionate" conservatism has made an unwanted return to our statewide and national mainstream. Governors Bob McDonnell, Jane Brewer, John Kasich, Rick Scott, Brian Sandoval, Susana Martinez, and Rick Snyder of Michigan have all made up their minds on the issue of the ACA, tax increases, spending binges, and in so doing have proudly, or shamefully obliged the ever expanding hand of the federal leviathan. Make no mistake, these so called "evolving" sentiments toward the greatest threat to individual health and freedom in the 21st century is but a feeble attempt by these red state governors to attract blue state admirers. I'm especially disappointed in Rick Scott and Jan Brewer.
I've never considered myself a Reagan conservative, although one of the greatest speeches from a public figure I had ever heard was Mr. Reagan's speech in 1964 during the Republican National Convention; the year Barry Goldwater was nominated to run again Lyndon Johnson. Reagan also spoke truth to power and as a result systematically transformed the Republican Party from a party of establishment northeastern types to one of the grassroots where citizen duty and conservative philosophy reign over political posturing, political appeasement of the left, and the well connected in Washington.
As for the pale pastels Mr. Reagan spoke of in 1975 during his speech at CPAC: Today the Republican Party is doing exactly what Ronald Reagan said they would do in the 1970s: I use this direct portion of his speech: "I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents."
Was Ronald Reagan unknowingly describing the present state of the GOP and at the same time giving a detailed look at the future of the party? Perhaps, because like clockwork it seems as Mr. Reagan said in '75, after every defeat Republicans go digging in the crates once again for the same old excuses, same old success proof strategies, and the same old group within the party to which blame is heaped upon unfairly and irrationally. This very quote from the speech is exactly the same response to every butt whoopin' by the so called "smart people" who make their bones as Republican know-it-alls.
We're told by S.E. Cupp, David Frum, Steve Schmidt, and David Brooks to denounce Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, as if that has anything to do with whether or not we win elections in the future; if such was the case then perhaps the Democrats should consider denouncing their radio equivalents in Randy Rhodes, Mike Malloy, and Stephanie Miller. The problem is none of those people I named could ever win an election, and at least two of the Republican governors I named in the beginning of this post will likely lose their reelection bid when the time comes; of course I speak of Rick Snyder and John Kasich. So at the end of the day Republicans will ask themselves if their rush to appease national liberalism was worth their political demise.
Yet this is another lesson taught but never learned by the Republican establishment. That the politics of political accommodation and appeasement have always and without fail landed Republicans in the losers column legislatively and in terms of election victories.
As a Christian I can't in good conscience sign on to what these governors determined to be "compassionate" decisions based on the expansion of Medicaid. My friends, compassion isn't in any way wedded to the state, especially when the state so actively works against the very foundations of Christianity and morality in such ways under this current administration. Is the state compassionate? Tell me, is it compassion or deception? And if not deception how can the federal body be compassionate as to on one hand create the safety net and with the other ransack it like pirates on the high seas?
Is it compassion or deception? How can the government show compassion through soft tyranny? How can one's life be saved and controlled at the same time? Do these governors reason? Do they not know to whom they've constructed this, a much dangerous alliance which openly seeks to discourage individual liberty? The government can't be moral, only fuctional and a necessary evil. However because government can go astray because flawed men control governments, the constitution was needed to draw the line in the dirt between outright tyranny and freedom guided by life lessons and personal growth.
I'm not one who endorses the complete destruction of the safety net. I've benefitted from federal loans and my sister has used food stamps in the past. So when I speak on these issues I know both sides of the fence, as do many people in America. Although I would never endorse expanding programs that I know are in desperate need of reform and restructure. I support the Department of Education, but I would have never supported the idea that government can essentially freeze out private banks in terms of offering loans to college students. What's more egregious is that this measure was built into the ACA (Affordable Care Act.) For the last three years now I've wondered what on Earth student loans have to do with health care reform, and I have yet to receive an answer to my question.
At the end of the day Republicans are increasingly making deals with a devil who continues to trap them within their own contract. One of the most widely quoted bible verses, Matthew 16:26-"what do you benefit if you gain the world but lose your own soul?" What do these governors think they'll benefit if they sell out to the federal government? A government mind you they assailed in order to gain political office. Rick Scott as many on both sides are pointing out built his entire, not some, not most, but all of his gubernatorial aspirations around the opposition to the Affordable Care Act. Now all of the sudden he's surrendering to it? John Kasich of Ohio likes to use biblical reasoning for his conversion to the government faith, but does it serve the poor best to relinquish their freedom to the government?
And the bible does command that we obey authority and pay our taxes. But this Medicaid expansion wasn't forced upon states so it's not like they had to agree no matter what. So one must conclude whether it was political or of compassion.
I believe the poor need a hand up not a hand out. I believe it's better to preserve the freedom of poor people than to compromise their freedom. Ronald Reagan said in his 1975 CPAC speech that our party can't be all things to all people. He's right, Republicans need to stop trying to pander to every group rearing its head above the horizon. We can't be the homosexual party and the evangelical party, we can't be the party of morals and the party of immoral behavior all at the same time. We can't be the party that promotes the rule of law and the party of amnesty at the same time, while trying to be the party of appealing to southern white males and urban blacks.
We can't be the mood ring party and survive. Stop listening to these elitist, MSNBC and CNN Republicans who run in liberal circles. Pale pastels do in fact control much of the Republican Party state, local, and national, but if we're to reverse the title of my post which declares the death of Bold Color Conservatism in 2013 America, we need to start standing for principle and standing against the politics of popularity contests.
Let the Democrats have the stupid voters, we need to focus on the stupid voters who are ready for an education.
Let me conclude with this: Jesus taught us many things, among those was how to pray, he taught us about Hell as a warning to the unsaved and saved alike, and he also taught us about caring for the poor. As a Christian I believe government can take care of the poor in ways the community cannot, and vice versa. But I cannot in good moral adherence promote the idea that government ought to care for the poor at the expense of the greatest tool God gave man: His freedom. At some point the Utopian idea of "everybody is okay" just doesn't line of up with reality. Just as I said Republicans can't be all things to all people, government can't be all things to all people unless those people are willing to give up their liberty.
So remember this commandment since we want to cast government as the great moral staff of good Christian principle: "Thou shalt not steal" Remember that, because while these governors use the bible to excuse their decisions, just remember that all those people being thrown into this expansion of Medicaid are the same people who the government will steal from like they've been stealing from those who pay into social security and Medicare. Maxine Waters and other politicians used federal housing programs to steal money, I'm sure there are other examples out there.
El Fantasma, Estudiante de Manos de Piedra
(The Ghost: Student of Hands of Stone)
They call me El Acero jab Ciervo