« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

19th century slavery created the GOP, will 21st century slavery (and a feckless 2012 field) be its demise?

Will 2012 bring an end to the Republican Party? It would only be fitting that a party formed almost 160 years ago on the basis of stopping the expansion of slavery would be destroyed by its support of the modern day expansion of slavery of a different sort.

That is exactly where we stand. The GOP was formed in 1854 in reaction to the passage of the Kansas Nebraska Act which essentially opened up the West to the expansion of slavery. Many Northerners understood that mostly poor free men and could not compete with giant Southern landowners who employed slave labor. The Kansas Nebraska Act heralded the end of the delicate balance between slave and free states that had largely been in place since the ratification of the Constitution in 1788. Slave states already having disproportionate congressional power, the Kansas Nebraska Act would provide the foundation them to gain significantly more economic power to grow as well.

Drawing its membership from the remains of the Whig Party and the anti-slavery wing of the Democratic Party, the GOP’s first candidate for President, California’s John C. Frémont lost. Their second candidate however did somewhat better: Abraham Lincoln.

Fast forward and the party ended slavery (and passed the civil and voting rights acts a century later) has become a party of modern slavery in the form of big government. Although the Democrats have traditionally been the party of big government, today they share that label with a vapid GOP.

2012 is the best opportunity Americans have had in 30 years to attempt to throw off the yoke of government tyranny. In the wake of the 2010 elections when the GOP not only won an historic victory in the House, but in the Senate such small government candidates as Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Mike Lee prevailed, one would think that the party understood where the future of success with the American people lay. Unfortunately however that does not seem to be the case.

On a national scale the Republican Party cannot seem to understand its place in this historic moment in time. In 2012 the slavery that Americans face at the hands of the federal government is clear:

  • A tax code where half the population pays no income taxes and more than a third receive government subsidies. (This is at its core a massive and growing redistribution of wealth from wealth creators to wealth consumers.)
  • A federal spending binge that has more than doubled in the last two decades, consequently distorting capital markets and destroying free market solutions.
  • A nanny state that stymies a citizen’s right to live his life as he chooses and do with his property what he chooses. (Federal laws and regulations are so numerous and complex that the ABA and other organizations who have attempted to catalog them have repeatedly failed. Says one researcher: “There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime“)
  • A regulatory nightmare that grows darker each day for entrepreneurs and businesses who are inclined to try and start or grow businesses to meet the desires of markets or consumers.
  • An unrelenting growth in legislative and regulatory distortion of free markets to favor the politically connected.

Not the kind of slavery that was the catalyst for the formation of the GOP, but slavery nonetheless. And the party has been complicit in much of what brought us to this point.

In the face of such oppression, rather than offer voters a slate of candidates who are competing on the basis of who will make greater cuts in government spending, who is most willing to eliminate unnecessary and unconstitutional departments and agencies, who will do more to reduce regulation and who will allow citizens to keep the greatest share of their incomes, the Grand Old Party has as its frontrunner a big government, crony capitalist who is not beyond playing the wealth envy card. Nowhere in the GOP field is there a candidate who vows to cut government spending to what it was two decades ago. Nowhere in the GOP field is there a candidate who vows wage war on government regulation.

In 1980, when Americans saw all too clearly the consequences of an unabashedly progressive agenda, the GOP responded (despite the wishes of party insiders) with Ronald Reagan, a man who was not afraid to clearly articulate that government was the problem and that it must be restrained and cut – remember he promised to shutter the Education and Energy departments, only to be stymied by a Democrat controlled Congress.

Today, 30 years later, when federal spending has increased by 500%, when government regulation is exponentially more intrusive, when half of the population is relieved of paying for the operations of government, the GOP field is populated by big government advocates or those who want to simply trim around the edges and rearrange deckchairs on the Titanic.

A GOP victory in 2012 with a lukewarm conservative who is happy to simply slow the rate of increase in government spending and to tentatively trim government regulations will be a defeat for the American people. The country will become Greece or Italy… only more slowly. A better outcome for the country might be another four years of Barack Obama. At least by 2016, assuming the country hasn’t collapsed by then, a party might emerge that will finally present the American people with a real choice between slavery and freedom.

COMMENTS

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    …and stop buying into the meme that this cast of candidates is so poor. Seriously, this is the best set of candidates for the Republican party since 1980 or 2000. Where have you been? We have an embarrassment of potential–along with a couple of has-beens (Gingrish and Paul) and a couple of never-was candidates (like Romney). When you consider what we had to choose from last time this cycle is much better. Do not despair.

    Clearly, our republic is in serious trouble, and requires a great deal of reversal in order to avoid collapse. But such a reversal has to come from the bottom up. We can’t have great presidents unless those great presidents have been tested on the lower levels in Congress and in the states. We can’t have great Supreme Court justices unless they have learned proper jurisprudence before sitting on the court. We can’t have Congressmen able to run our nation’s budget well unless they can handle their own personal finances well.

    The work starts with we the people, and goes up through being active on the precinct level, developing quality mayors and county commissioners and state representatives and senators and lawyers and local judges and sheriffs and all of the people from the smallest city councils to become qualified to lead and govern others. Our republic wasn’t imperiled in a day, and it’s not going to be repaired and restored in a day either. And there is no workable top-down solution to make it better–it has to start from the roots and then go up to the top. If we don’t like the leaders we have, we have to take a look at ourselves and remember that leaders must come from we the people.

    • http://www.imperfectamerica.com imperfectamerica

      My concern is that we don’t have a candidate who clearly articulates the notion of individual responsibility and makes the case that the reversal of our fortunes is going to take a radical altering of the way government operates.

      While a wobbly Republican may keep us from falling off the cliff, they will not reverse the troubling trend. Frankly, I would vote for Mickey Mouse if he were opposing Obama, but it would be nice for the party to at least recognize that the SOP of the last quarter century must be stopped and reversed. In 1976 Reagan made the case for Conservatism that set the stage for his revolution. In 2012 it would be nice to have someone articulate the idea that a government half it’s current size is probably still too large and intrusive.

      • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

        …as necessary as that case is, without sounding alarmist. I mean, Perry talks (in his book as well) about hacking and slashing whole cabinet-level departments and cutting Congress’ salaries in half and that is considered extremely populist and alarmist. Politics is the art of the possible. It’s going to take a lot of chainsaw hacking to get government even close to sustainable levels, and we can’t put all of that on one man who has to win an electoral majority. It has to be a broad-based effort starting from the bottom up, and it’s going to take a lot of time, if we have the fortitude to stick with it and become the leaders we want to see ourselves.

        • http://www.imperfectamerica.com imperfectamerica

          But given the “not Romney” feeling among the Tea Party electorate right now I’m not sure such a well proffered argument would not carry the day. Unfortunately for Perry, who I think comes closest, he has been unable to articulate those positions in a compelling way during the debates. He’s my choice from the current field, but I’m not sure he’ll still be on the ballot come Super Tuesday…