← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Fire Pen

Thread 8894

Thread ID: 8894 | Posts: 1 | Started: 2003-08-09

Wayback Archive

Fire Pen [OP]

2003-08-09 15:27 | User Profile

Should traditional conservatives vote for George W. Bush again, or should we actually vote our consciences in 2004? Many of us voted for candidate Bush because (1) he was practically anointed by the Republican party elite many months before the primaries and seemed, therefore, our only viable choice, and (2) he convinced us that he was a conservative, albeit a “compassionate” one. This apparent intimation that regular conservatives are unfeeling should have been a warning. Many conservatives who refuse to drink the Kool-Aid have since realized that Mr. Bush is, tough talk aside, no conservative, compassionate or otherwise.

Republicans tell us (over and over again) that “a vote for any third party candidate is a vote for the current liberal democratic candidate.” They are, in effect, frankly urging that we vote for the lesser of two evils, confident that we have nowhere else to go. Certainly it is logical to vote for someone with whom we may have some differences so long as he or she essentially reflects the more important of our goals. The first question we conservatives must ask ourselves is “Does the Bush presidency sufficiently further the conservative cause? The second is “Does the Republican party differ sufficiently from the liberal democrats? To many of us, the answer is no. Voting for a candidate and a party that consistently furthers the liberal agenda of bigger government is counterproductive.

The fact is that George W. Bush has all but abandoned his conservative base? In order to secure his reelection, the president has moved unacceptably to the left, both domestically and in foreign affairs. Currently marching to the neocons’ drumbeat and unduly influenced by Israel’s Likud Party, his betrayal of those conservative principles on which he ran are almost too numerous to list:

Record social spending, record deficits, a general expansion of government, signing campaign finance reform, Clintonian appeasement of China (both economically and militarily), weak-kneed acquiescence to affirmative action and gun control, accelerated losses of manufacturing and jobs, refusal to back conservative candidates, support for universal healthcare under Medicare, a fraudulent and ill-conceived war of empire, the police-state PATRIOT Act, the treasonous selling out of this nation by refusing to defend its borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, etc., etc., etc.

Some excuse these actions because “politics made him do it.” Others of us are just not buying it. Compromise for the purpose of furthering at least a part of one’s objectives is one thing; selling out one’s stated core principles for political gain is quite another. This is especially shameful for one who enjoys very high approval ratings, but will not expend even a portion of an abundant political capitol to fight for the principles on which he was elected. It has become abundantly clear that George Bush is just not the man we thought -- hoped -- he would be.

Well, some say (and Karl Rove is betting you’ll say it), It would be better to have Bush in the White House than some out-and-out leftist. If, however, we continue to vote for candidates whose goals are not nearly close enough to ours, we will never get the chance to vote for anyone who truly represents our concerns. The country-club Republicans will be encouraged to continue presenting us with half-baked “conservatives,” confident that we must go along for a crumb or get nothing. What is more, phony conservatives in office will damage the cause of true conservatism in the minds of American voters who may otherwise be potential converts.

Our cynical political party hacks display a thinly disguised contempt for the voters. They must be taught a lesson – a shocking lesson – that we won’t go along with a party that does not truly represent us. If this means that the Democrats win an interim election, or even two, then we will simply have to live through it. We must take the long view, just as our big-government enemies have in bringing about socialism, multi-culturism and globalism. We must look beyond the immediate short-term goal of having a Republican (albeit one in name only) in the white house.

This is the only way the Republican party leaders will ever learn that they will have to represent true conservative republican (small “r”) principles if they want our support. Furthermore, a term or two of liberal leadership may well help to usher in a true conservative revolution which would convert many millions of awakened and disgusted Americans to our side.

As it now stands, both parties are enemies of the constitution. America desperately needs a third party – a constitution party. There are already many millions of voters out there who are fed up with the either/or of the current two-party system. Two-thirds of eligible voters didn’t even bother to vote in the last national election. More than enough of them would do so if given a real choice by an honorable and persuasive leader, (such as Ron Paul, for example) who is unafraid to fight uncompromisingly for the true constitutional republic of the framers.

Conservatives should no longer be content to conserve the status quo. We should launch a counter revolution to restore the many freedoms we have lost. We should take the offensive once again, supporting those in whom we truly believe, fighting for our liberties and against a hostile government, doing the right thing for America.

*Charles Angione is a freelance writer whose columns and articles have appeared in numerous newspapers, magazines and internet sites.
*