Archives for: June 2012, 07
In response to Ryan's
No Debate If We All March in Conservative Lockstep
A good man knows when to put his principles aside to achieve the ends that his principles are meant to achieve in the first place. What you are really saying is that core conservative principles are always good. Clearly, those conservative politicians who part with their principles do not agree with you--unless, of course, it is politically expedient to do so.
There is a distinct difference between being pragmatic or compromising and abandoning one’s CORE principles. It is true in politics as it is true in relationships and life in general that we must often compromise or be accommodating by moving in a direction that we would not normally proceed on our own volition in order to be a productive part of society; however, when one claims to be a stalwart conservative, or liberal, or Christian, or atheist etc. there are certain basic core beliefs that one must steadfastly adhere to or one ceases to be that very thing one claims to be at his very essence. I would submit to you that one’s core principles should not be jettisoned simply as a means to an end for political expediency or to simply get along with the in-crowd. By doing so, we ultimately end up populating the world with unprincipled buffoons who’s only goal is what is best according to whatever crowd one is hanging with at any given moment in time.
Such was the case with the self-professed “conservative” Senator Bennett. When Bennett strayed from his avowed conservatism and continuously voted for decidedly left-of-center legislation, those voters who thought that they had a conservative senator championing their causes finally had had enough. In former-Senator Bennett’s case, he was met with a Republican primary challenge by Mike Lee to whom he lost. It is not supposition on my part that Bennett was replaced, and Senator Hatch is in dire jeopardy of following suit, because of his liberal actions when he told his constituents that he was a solid core conservative principled man. Indeed, Bennett’s straying from core principles is the very reason given by the challenger in that primary election and confirmed by the voters accordingly in his defeat.
Regarding my previous statement, “The cost of regulation has been far more detrimental to growth and the economy then would have been a totally unregulated business environment," you responded, “It is impossible to prove this. Moreover, while cost-benefit analysis should be a politician's bread and butter, there is more to consider than growth and the economy. Regulations are often intended to, you know, protect people. When we can settle upon the monetary value of a person's life, health, and happiness, perhaps our analyses will be more effective.”
I would concur that it would probably be nearly impossible to quantitatively prove my initial assertion based on the fact that there are myriads of variables involved and statistics could probably be manipulated to end up with the result one wanted to prove based on their assertion; however, intuitively and from just a common sense standpoint it is easy to determine the incredible amount of money and time that are spent due to regulation. I further agree that some of those regulations to protect people, their health, and their primary well-being etc. are absolutely necessary.
It is when we start passing draconian regulations intended to satisfy some small special interest group or make laws that are economically devastating which provide no net gain to the well-being of people that is at the kernel of the issue, in my mind. For example, when the EPA considers deeming C02 a “pollutant” based on specious special-interest “science”, one has to wonder what the ultimate cost to the economy and ultimate well-being of all Americans will be in trying to curb this naturally occurring gas that is VITAL for plant life on this earth. The cost of such foolish regulations end up being drastic, and not just monetarily.
We need to adamantly avoid all unnecessary and unconstitutional laws and regulations, or amend the Constitution accordingly to accommodate such laws. Ultimately, if one were to read the Federalist Papers and a vast preponderance of the writings of our Founders, one would recognize in their brilliance that we need to govern strictly as the United States Constitution mandates. Did you know that James Madison originally argued against including a Bill of Rights in that Constitution as he thought it was unnecessary? He said that the federal government was not authorized to do anything more or less than what was specifically enumerated within that document, hence our liberties should never be in jeopardy accordingly.
Despite Madison’s brilliance, it is a good thing that the opposing Founders won the day and had the Bill of Rights amended to it. While Madison was technically right, others saw the need to specifically list those rights of all Americans that shall not be infringed upon (Obama’s attack on our first amendment liberties of freedom of exercise of religion notwithstanding). It is a good thing the Bill of Rights was included as one can clearly see that the monstrosity of the federal government today has grown far outside of those powers specifically enumerated to them in the Constitution, and indeed have usurped many of our God-given and Constitutionally mandated freedoms.
It is my contention that standing by those core principles, as conservative constitutionalists, we will restore our country to economic power and universal liberty for all Americans. Abandoning principles when one finds them to be inconvenient and ignoring the supreme law of the land in our Constitution will only ensure the further erosion and ultimate collapse of this government supposedly of We The People.
In addition to his valued contributions here, T. Paine preserves and protects Constitutional core principals on his own site.
Please visit Saving Common Sense.