Why would people looking for a “leader” vote for someone to not lead?

Romney’s speech last night, as well as his previous speakers, captured the movement of American freedom. Well done!

Yet articulating the American movement of freedom, as inspiring and vitally important as it is, must be accompanied by solutions in order to enhance freedom, which by American political culture includes equality of opportunity and also citizen equity (Are the poor getting poorer?). To Republicans, the way for the American republic to best advance freedom is to exclusively wait for “the 50 laboratories of democracy” to figure it out. Thus, as we heard at the 2012 Republican National Convention, many of the solutions for healthcare and education called for States to solve a list of problems as expounded by various speakers.

There’s the paradox–the Republicans want a President to “lead” by, well, deflecting to states. In this way, we can understand the unfunded “No Child Left Behind” mandate by George W. Bush. The national government “sets standards” and then waits for the states to figure it out. But really, is that leading?

In a moment of crisis, a leader maneuvers solutions to win the battle (i.e. the war on this or that). But the Republican’s 2012 domestic agenda is to deflect the solution to the states and thereby not lead. There certainly are solutions to free higher education (see Mass.) at the state level–but in effect; this Republican platform says “A Republican President will not call for national policy to fix huge domestic problems–and we will repeal the previous national solutions!”

Why would people looking for a “leader” vote for someone to not lead?

From N. Awakening (my 2009 novel on American politics):

The Republican Party is clearly in need of reorganization (chapter 11). If the 2012 Republican load-bearing platform planks become: (1) anti-abortion (when over 80% of Americans approve of abortion in cases of rape or incest and when the woman’s health is endangered)[1]; (2) anti-gun regulation (as if kids need fully automatic weapons); (3) anti-judicial activists[2] (when 7 of the 9 justices as of 2008 were appointed by Republican presidents); (4) Beef up the border (when the locals living on the border repeatedly disapprove of this policy because it makes no sense when confronting reality); and (5) Wait to Hate (because they are not enumerating specific reforms for all governmental agencies—and thus will wait to hate the current reality before the next election), then Republicans will be truly become bankrupt.

As for the Neo-con Republicans, Tocqueville correctly surmised, “For that reason all nations that have had to engage in great wars have been led, almost in spite of themselves, to increase the powers of the government. Those which have not succeeded in this have been conquered. A long war almost always faces nations with this sad choice: either defeat will lead them to destruction or victory will bring them to despotism.”[3]

These are not choices voters will choose.

The youth need a republican platform[4] that addresses healthcare, higher education, public education, entitlements, the Green Revolution and the economy![5]

[1] Thus, abortion should always be (initially) legal—case closed.

[2] Why doesn’t the right wingers acknowledge “an activist court” when the Rehnquist and Robert’s court over the past 30 years have overturned liberal decisions? In this sense, Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and even Kennedy have been “activist judges.” Should the times never change?

[3] Italics added to remind your of the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Paper.

[4] The Wedge of 2008: All Republicans believe in limited government and states rights, but the Libertarian Republicans believe that limited government also extends to the moral freedoms of people—these Republicans do not condemn gays, a woman’s right to choose, other religions… They despise it when the Moral Republicans prey on people’s fear and openly seek biblical mandates and mantras, knowing full well that our country was founded by (predominantly) Deists (who sometimes invoked The Almighty, but never the “Lord” Jesus Christ). The Libertarian Republicans would like to focus on how limited government might interact responsibly with the ailing economy, broken healthcare system, fading entitlement reserves and our children’s future. Which faction will emerge triumphant in 2012? 2020? Or will it be 2052 when the Libertarian Republicans finally wrest the party from the Moralites? Or will the Machiavellian Republicans (Neo-cons) reemerge from the grave?

[5] Solve the Green Revolution and you approach a more solvent economy—that’s where the money waits. And people will be healthier too! For example, shut down car plants could become (initially) subsidized green plants… the government should auction the company once profitable.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s