This is the second in a series of informal essays that I will be publishing at irregular intervals on the 2012 presidential candidates.It is generally directed at Objectivists--and to their specific concerns--but those who are not Objectivists may benefit from it anyway.
The first dealt with Santorum.See: Why Santorum Must Be Defeated - fightingstatism
http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/why-santorum-must-be-defeated
Most of the series will be circulated privately so that it cannot be used later by the Democrats, but those parts dealing with the worst candidates--whom I will be opposing publicly--will be public. Many have adopted a kind of ABO attitude( i.e.:Anyone but Obama) towards the 2012 presidential election.There is a danger in personalizing this election.Obama is,in fact,our enemy.But he is not our only enemy.As Obama is fond of pointing out,there are Republicans who have advocated(indeed,even pioneered) the same policies and ideas that he has.
These policies will really be no less immoral,or destructive if they are carried out by someone with a R after their name,then if they are carried out by someone with a D after their name.
What's more,our goal should not be simply to get rid of Obama.It should be to reverse his agenda(and the agenda of statists more broadly).
How do we do this?
As Ayn Rand noted you cannot trick people into freedom(i.e. you cannot pander to the lowest common denominator & then "institute freedom",once in office.You will be reversed at the next election.)
Contrary to the claims of those who denounce "purity"(by which they seem to mean a principled,consistent,moral stance) the best way to win a battle of ideas IS TO HAVE ONE.
The only way to wage such a battle is with someone who understands--& who is capable of articulating--the principles of Individual Rights & Limited Government.Such a person need not be perfect(though to the extent that they are flawed they risk defeat & failure) but neither can they be a mee-toist weakling.Nor can they be a cowardly mediocrity who is more concerned with being liked by our enemies in the news media then with winning. Nor can they be a Neo-conservative/Rockefeller Republican(who are not even Conservatives,much less Objectivists) who "recognizes" the "fact" that the welfare state is a "reality that we must conform to",and who simply wish to do it "better"..."differently" etc...
Rather they must be someone who understands that the welfare state is irrational and must and will fall,one way or another.(Either by repealing it,or because it goes bankrupt).
They must understand that the collapse of the United States,at best, would be a catastrophe for us,and at worst could mean the end of Western Civilization.(fn1)
They must understand that Enviromentalism--as a ideology--is a anti-humanistic religion masqurading as a rational belief system,which seeks to impose a totalitarian neo-asceticism on us(fn2).And that no compromise with it,or appeasement of it,is possible if we are to survive. The problem is that all of the likely 2012 nominees are,to one degree or another,deeply flawed.We may have no choice but to go with the least bad one of them.But that is not yet the case.
And that is the purpose of this series:To identify the problems with the existing candidates and to seek out alternatives who have not considered running,and to evaluate them,and,if possible,persuade them to run. I am through with passively accepting the existing candidates as if they are representative of the best we can hope for.
I ask all who are reading this to put forward the best potential candidates you can think of.Potential candidates other than those listed below.
Now I will list the likely candidates and explain why they range from flawed to horrendous.I will deal with them,individually,in a series of separate essays.
Michele Bachmann(Declared)
Jeb Bush
John Bolton
Herman Cain(Declared)
Chris Christie
Newt Gingrich (Declared)
Rudy Giuliani
Jon Huntsman(Declared)
Bobby Jindal
Gary Johnson(Declared)
Peter King
Bob Mcconnell
Thaddeus Mccotter
Sarah Palin
Ron Paul (Declared)
Tim Pawlenty(Declared)
Rick Perry
Charles Elson "Buddy" Roemer
Mitt Romney(Declared)
Rick Santorum(Declared)
Obviously,as circumstances change,I may add to,or subtract from,this list. ROMNEY:
Romney is one of the three worthies(along with Huntsman & Pawlenty),who are deemed "serious"(or as I call them LERS:Liberal Enough Republicans),by the MSM.They have been so named,presumably,so that they can ideally remove any serious ideological threat to Obama,and at worst,ensure that the most malleable Republican gets in.
Romney's nomination would be a godsend to Obama & a possible death-blow to the GOP(since it would likely lead to a Tea Party third party).Once nominated Obama would be able to declare that,except for a few "extremists",the debate over the Individual Mandate(and the debate over Global Warming),is now "settled",and that it is simply a matter of how to implement Robama's(Obomney's?) policies.
It would be the greatest victory achieved through bluster on the one hand,and cowardice on the other,since the Rhineland was surrendered to the Nazis. Romney has repeatedly made the "conservative case",for the Individual Mandate.He is routinely trotted out by the left as their golden boy,and with good reason:He is,despite efforts of his defenders to argue otherwise,one of the chief Republican enablers of Socialized Medicine(along with the "Wise Man" Dole,the thankfully ex-Senator Bennett,and Gingrich). But Romneycare was a STATE law,and this is a FEDERAL law,you say?
Exactly.The whole debate over Obamacare will be reduced to whether the State Government,or Federal Government should be violating our rights;with morality thrown out the window.
What's more,(as shocking as this may be to many Federalists),Federalism is not a fundamental moral principle.(Which is one reason that it does not resonate with many Americans).It is a legal question.And yes the rule of law is important,but it is NOT a moral principle.The law can be wrong and can be changed.Morality cannot.Morality forms the basis of laws.
With Romney as a candidate the moral fire will be gone(At least in the campaign if not among individuals),the base will be demoralized,and the ultimate victory will likely be Obama's.At best Romney's nomination will make it dramatically more difficult to repeal Obamacare(we will have to split our time between attacking Obama and arguing with Romney)at worst we risk total defeat. The same is true for global warming. Whoever wins the moral debate,will win the ultimate battle. The only reason that I am hesitant to declare that Romney's nomination would spell total doom is because Mccain's nomination did not lead to Global Warming becoming part of the official platform of the GOP.Nor did Bush/Rove's "compassionate conservatism" lead to a permanent change in the GOP.Nonetheless we cannot--and need not--take the chance.
Romney would be nearly as bad as Mccain(nearly,because on a purely political level he would at least attack Obama rather than attacking Obama's critics).He,along with Gingrich and Santourum(see above),would be a nightmare for the GOP. As if to provide a dramatization of the role of morality--and moral certitude--in political debates,see this bizarre performance by Romney in his debate with Ted Kennedy,during the contest over Kennedy's Senate seat.Note that Kennedy,a drunkard and adulterer,(whose drunkeness and irresponsibility cost a young woman her life),is self-righteously denouncing Reagan,(a man who despite his many flaws is a giant by comparison).Note how the belief that he is right,that he is in the right,moves him to speak with passion and energy.And note how Romney,who either accepts these same principles,or desperately wants the voters to think that he does,cowers.Cowers before a man who has innocent blood on his hands,and who is attacking a man revered by much of the country,(and by much of eastern europe),for helping to speed the fall of the Soviet Union.
This is what moral conviction(even if it is delusional)gives to people.And what moral surrender,(or appeasement)takes from people. "I was an independent during the time of Reagan/Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan/Bush.” (Skip ahead to 2:30 for the segment)
HT: Romney Denies Being Republican During Reagan Era (Video) | Yes, But, However!
http://yesbuthowever.com/romney-denies-being-republican-5000849/
YouTube - The Real Romney?
Mitt Romney’s Second Gaffe: Endorsing Man-Made Global Warming
http://blog.heartland.org/2011/06/mitt-romneys-second-big-gaffe-endorsing-man... Is Mitt Romney Being Honest About His Health Care Plan? - Sally Pipes - Piping Up - Forbes
http://blogs.forbes.com/sallypipes/2011/05/23/is-mitt-romney-being-honest-abo...
Romney’s Fix - Mark Steyn - National Review Online
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/267220/romney-s-fix-mark-steyn
Romney, Gingrich Flunk Poli-Philosophy
http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/56-health-care/997-romney-gingrich-flu...
We Stand FIRM: Massachusetts Unravelling
http://blog.westandfirm.org/2011/04/massachusetts-unravelling.html
RomneyCare could be radioactive for GOP | Philip Klein | Columnists | Washington Examiner
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/04/romneycare-could-be-...
Mitt Romney defends Massachusetts health care law in Las Vegas speech - Kasie Hunt - POLITICO.com
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52424.html
Mitt Romney defends individual mandate in Nevada | The State Column
http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/mitt-romney-defends-individual-mandate...
Boston.com Ryan criticizes Romney on health care Stephanie Vallejo, Globe Staff / Mar 2, 2011 By Matt Viser, Globe Staff WASHINGTON -A top congression
http://mobile.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2011/03/ryan_cri...
The failure of RomneyCare, doctor shortage edition | Philip Klein | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/05/failure-romn...
Is RomneyCare Different from ObamaCare? | John Goodman's Health Policy Blog | NCPA.org
http://healthblog.ncpa.org/is-romneycare-different/
RomneyCare Is Problem, Not Part Of The Solution - Investors.com
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=572211&p=1
Romney’s Fix - Mark Steyn - National Review Online
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/267220/romney-s-fix-mark-steyn
5 painful health-care lessons from Massachusetts - Jun. 15, 2010
http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/economy/massachusetts_healthcare_reform....
We Stand FIRM: More Massachusetts Gaming
http://blog.westandfirm.org/2010/07/more-massachusetts-gaming.html
We Stand FIRM: Flirting With Unintended Consequences in Massachusetts
http://blog.westandfirm.org/2010/12/flirting-with-unintended-consequences.html
We Stand FIRM: Interview With RomneyCare Author Jonathan Gruber
http://blog.westandfirm.org/2011/03/interview-with-romneycare-author.html
We Stand FIRM: The Next Stage in Massachusetts
http://blog.westandfirm.org/2011/03/next-stage-in-massachusetts.html
Behold the 1099-Romney
http://lucidicus.org/editorials.php?nav=20110211a
» Physician licensure targeted
http://mamedicallaw.com/blog/2010/01/13/physician-licensure-targeted/
Romneycare a big bust - BostonHerald.com
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/2011_0412romneycare_a_big...
We Stand FIRM: Lucidicus On RomneyCare
http://blog.westandfirm.org/2011/04/lucidicus-on-romneycare.html
We Stand FIRM: State Updates: MA, CA, CO
http://blog.westandfirm.org/2011/05/state-updates-ma-ca-co.html
Pajamas Media » Massachusetts: The Canary in the Coal Mine for ObamaCare
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/massachusetts-the-canary-in-the-coal-mine-for-ob...
What Mitt Romney did to Massachusetts | The Right Scoop
http://www.therightscoop.com/what-mitt-romney-did-to-massachusetts/
Truth Squad: Romney's Health Care Speech - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/05/13/us/politics/13romney-text.html
Mitt Romney on health care, then and now - USATODAY.com
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-05-12-Romneyspeech13_n.htm
POLLS:
Thomas F. Schaller: Romney rivals leave their mitts on — for now - baltimoresun.com
Huckabee, Trump, Romney Set Pace for 2012 GOP Field http://www.gallup.com/poll/147233/Huckabee-Trump-Romney-Pace-GOP-Field-2012.aspx
NJ: GOP insiders say Romney's still on top - Politics - msnbc.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42324230/ns/politics/
Romney is not the front-runner; no one is | Michael Barone | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/05/romney-not-f... Romney wins early New Hampshire straw poll | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/22/romney-wins-early-new-hampshire-straw-poll/ Romney and Huckabee watch | Michael Tomasky | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2011/jan/21/mittromney...
Huckabee, Palin, Romney Lead GOP 2012 Poll
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Huckabee-Palin-Romney-GOP/2011/01/20/id/38... In a sense it is surreal that after Mccain's defeat,after the Tea Party,after Climategate,& after Obamacare we are seriously discussing whether the Republican who paved the way for Socialized Medicine in Massachusetts,and who unquestioningly supports the global warming hypothesis,should be the Republican nominee.That Romney is seriously regarded as a candidate by so many Republicans indicates to me a failure to grasp not just the issues,but even the most elementary mechanics of persuading people to accept your beliefs. fn1.
By "Western Civilization" I mean the values of Reason, & Political Liberty,(including Freedom of Speech, Individual Rights,Representative Government etc).If the US and Europe fall,China and/or Islamists could lead the world into a new Dark Age.With Chinese style technocratic dictatorships in the non-muslim parts of Asia,and Neo-Medievalistic ones in the Islamic World(possibly including Europe). fn2: I hold that Enviromentalism is a anti-humanist neo-pastoralist,neo-ascetic movement that has more in common with Jainism(see below) than with any rational belief system.It is a movement which places "Nature","The Earth","Mother Earth",and various forms of wildlife on a equal footing with Man.In short the problem with Enviromentalism is NOT that it seeks to prevent human beings from being poisoned,but that it does NOT concern itself with human beings & human welfare.Instead upholds the belief that "Nature" is some form of intrinsic value,apart from it's value to Homo Sapians.This is why we see a vast effort expended to preserve the spotted owl under the mystical rationalization that it's destruction will(somehow) throw off the "delicate" "ecosystem" of the Earth,leading to some unexplainable cataclysm.
(Though in fairness even Jainism is less anti-humanistic) Jainism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism
No comments:
Post a Comment