So according to the latest Rasmussen poll (Nov 30) 38 percent of likely GOP primary voters support Newt Gingrich while 17 percent support Mitt Romney. So basically 55 percent of the conservatives who participated in the poll support big government candidates. I’m a little confused. I thought conservatism was about preserving the institutions that protected our rights and promoted liberty. I thought it was about less regulation, reestablishing our constitution, sound fiscal policy, individualism, and oh yeah LIMITED GOVERNMENT. And yet 55 percent of likely GOP primary voters are supporting candidates who have less than stellar conservative records. Am I missing something here?
Yesterday on the way home from work I listened to Mark Levin attack Ron Paul’s foreign policy position and how out of touch he was with real world threats. He chastised the man in his opening segment for 20 minutes and even at one point compared his foreign policy position with those of the OWS crowd. He hinted that Mr. Paul was not a friend to the military even though Mr. Paul is a veteran and has stated over and over again he supports a strong military for national DEFENSE. He ruthlessly hammered Mr. Paul on his foreign policy position. He did go on to say that he agrees with Mr. Paul on a number of things on the domestic front; however his views on the world around us are out of the mainstream of conservatism. I like Mark Levin and listen to his show every day, but his attack on Mr. Paul left me a little confused.
Here’s why I’m so confused. In the last 10 years since 9/11 we as a people have witnessed firsthand our liberties erode away. Not by the hands of some foreign power, but through the power of legislation passed in the House and Senate by our own elected officials. America will always be able to defend our shores as long as we have a robust nuclear arsenal. We have the ability to respond anywhere in the world with the best trained airmen, seamen, marines, and soldiers within 24 hours right from our own shores. We have done it before in the past and we have the capacity to do it again in the future. Any reasonable person in America must be able to see this and yet we’re asked to believe that these big government type politicians (Democrats and Republicans) who have used the power of executive order and legislation to strip our liberties from us have our best interest as heart. We’re asked to give them a free pass for ignoring the constitution and expanding the size of government as long as they support an interventionist foreign policy position. That flawed train of thought is counterproductive and does not promote individual liberty. Here’s an idea! How about we reverse the thought process and apply the same criteria that Mr. Levin uses against Ron Paul’s foreign policy position towards the other candidates who support big government intervention in our lives. Let’s turn the argument back on them and apply it to individual liberty.
How does this sound? I want a candidate who supports a non-interventionist policy in regards to my individual rights and liberties. Now who can’t get behind that? I know two candidates who can’t get behind that and they’re the two leading in the polls; they’re track record speaks for itself. What does that say for the current state of conservatism and those who claim to be conservative?
It’s says we’re lost and that maybe I’m not the only one confused…
Liberty forever, freedom for all!