In response to Burr Deming’s Trapped in the Palace of Cows
The Republican Party is caught in a new sociological vortex. It began when non-liberals forced out liberal Republicans. So the party shrank and grew more conservative. The new conservatism meant that conservatives could make life unbearable for moderates. And so the party shrank a little more, and grew yet more conservative. Conservatives who were not extreme enough followed, and now extreme conservatives who consider even talking to Supreme Court nominees have reason to worry. Some will eventually leave voluntarily. Some will hang from electoral scaffolds.
– Burr Deming, April 1, 2016
Mr. Deming, you may be correct about the inevitable demise of the GOP; however, I don’t think a lack of moderation is the reason why. After all, extremism increasingly abounds in the Democrat party.
Indeed, only a generation ago, it would have been unthinkable that a self-avowed socialist could have made a viable run for president with budget-blowing promises of free college educations and many other dangled carrots of increased entitlements. Economics and history are no longer objectively taught though, so the dangers of socialism simply aren’t apparent to our youth these days. The candidates for the Democrats fall to either a principled socialist or a corrupt and jaded establishment candidate, accordingly.
Yes, Trump is about as dangerous as they come as an insurgent candidate, but it isn’t because he evokes extreme conservative principles. His answer the other day on what the purpose of the federal government was is quite telling as an example of this fact. After all, on nearly all major issues he was reliably a Democrat only a few short years ago. Mitt Romney was even ironically disgusted with Trumps hair-pin turns on policy issues.
The Republican Party will cease to be a viable national party if they do not stand for constitutional and moral principles. Their attempt to pick “moderate” candidates that don’t espouse those principles is why they have alienated many of their party members. But let me assure you, it isn’t a matter of moderation versus extremism. It is a matter of constitutional principle versus a misguided and failed “anything to win” populist mindset.
Frankly, if the presidential race does eventually come down to a contest between Hillary and Trump, which seems to be the very personification of a choice between to evils, I will not choose the lesser. I will chose neither evil.
T. Paine can also be found at Saving Common Sense, a site devoted to the virtues of conservatism.
“…a self-avowed socialist could have made a viable run for president with budget-blowing promises of free college educations and many other dangled carrots of increased entitlements.”
He does not claim that these things are free. His plan involves raising just about everyone’s taxes to pay for them. The notion that proposals like universal health care, “free” college education, and raising taxes to pay them are extreme is ridiculous, especially given the sorts of systems that many other developed countries have.
There is also a difference between the sorts of socialism that we have seen commit atrocities and ultimately fail and the sort of democratic socialism that Sanders espouses, despite conservatives’ either disingenuous or ignorant attempts to conflate the two. Perhaps there would be less confusion on the matter if economics and history were “objectively taught.” Or perhaps there wouldn’t, since neither subject is sufficiently objective (or even just sufficient) to support claims like “socialism is dangerous” or “socialism is totally safe.” Indeed, the question with which most of us wrestle is not whether or not to accept socialism, but how much of it to accept. And that’s because most of us are neither communists nor anarchists, conservative rhetoric about how the government can’t do anything right notwithstanding.