Let me address the points of a comment left from “Heidi” on my piece about John McCain. Here is an “open letter” to the critic of my thoughts.
I’m flattered that you would take the time to raise an issue with my opinions. Before I begin, permit me to say a kind and genuine “thank you” the reader for her comments. However, I must respectfully and firmly disagree. In the spirit of debate, I hope you aren’t offended by the vigorous defense of my points and a vehement attack of yours.
When I started reading your critique, I shrugged with indifference. By the time I reached the last paragraph, my stomach churned and I choked on my own disgust. I’ll grant your initial points without a second thought, for they offer no damage to my claims. But your final arguments are in dire need of attention.
On your first point: You claim that John McCain lost because the circumstances (and the odds) were against him. Even if I fully concede this point, it does not harm my argument in the least. But allow me to take issue with anyway. The logic inherent in your claim implies that John McCain could have won the election had the circumstances been different. Perhaps you are right. Apparently it doesn’t take much to win an election under the right circumstances. My point is that McCain should not win, regardless of whether he could or couldn’t. I took issue with his ability to judge and act with principle, his leadership qualities, and the content of his message.
In the end, you are right. The odds were against John McCain. Unfortunately for you, conceding that amounts to nothing towards my argument. Statistically, John McCain (as you dutifully noted) could have won the election if the circumstances were right. However, my original points assert he is not what is best for the country. Regardless of McCain’s ability to win, my point remains he doesn’t belong in office; he’s not a political leader, he is not principled, and ran a weak campaign. Take my mild concession and cherish it, it’s the only one you’re going to get.
And now to your next (and far more unsettling) contention: you argue “moderates are what the Republican Party needs”. And frankly madam, I don’t give a damn what the GOP needs. I am preoccupied with a far nobler task: fighting for what our country needs. You close with the patronizing and dramatic “country before party, my friend”; ironically that is exactly the point I was trying to make. However, you speak as though I should take for granted your ideas, your moderate concessions, are good ideas. I reject your reasoning. Just because they are moderate does not make them good.
Apparently, there has been a misunderstanding. To avoid talking past each other, I would like to point out where we differ. We both seem to value country over political party. We both want the best for our country: prosperity, liberty, and justice. The area in which we differ is on how to obtain the best for our country. I firmly defend limited government, personal liberty, free markets, and moral laws as the means to achieve the best for our country. If you would like to have a debate over the best way to achieve prosperity, liberty, and justice let us do so. But that is another argument entirely.
My complaint remains that for years, Republicans have been drifting left-ward along the political landscape. The cause of this drift is two separate yet equally pernicious reasons. First and more recently, GOP leaders, congressmen, and the like noticed the unpopularity of their president alongside the advent of the opposition’s marginally radical and socialist darling, Barack Obama. They interpreted this swell in the left-wing movement as a turbulent wave threatening to capsize their fragile vessel. Instead of standing tall and holding fast (as I argued they should), they abandoned ship.
The second reason is far more frightening. Government has a malignant quality about it: it grows and can only be removed with arduous and surgical effort. Congressmen realize it is easier to take their cut of the legal plunder rather than oppose wasteful spending. Arguing for complex issues like morality in law and free-markets becomes a burden too daunting for who were once conservative politicians.
The Republican Party is resurrectable, its victory gained from sticking to its conservative principles. And vindication will come as this country becomes great, society prosperous, and the people free.
Dear “Heidi”:
I’m flattered that you would take the time to raise an issue with my opinions. Before I begin, permit me to say a kind and genuine “thank you” the reader for her comments. However, I must respectfully and firmly disagree. In the spirit of debate, I hope you aren’t offended by the vigorous defense of my points and a vehement attack of yours.
When I started reading your critique, I shrugged with indifference. By the time I reached the last paragraph, my stomach churned and I choked on my own disgust. I’ll grant your initial points without a second thought, for they offer no damage to my claims. But your final arguments are in dire need of attention.
On your first point: You claim that John McCain lost because the circumstances (and the odds) were against him. Even if I fully concede this point, it does not harm my argument in the least. But allow me to take issue with anyway. The logic inherent in your claim implies that John McCain could have won the election had the circumstances been different. Perhaps you are right. Apparently it doesn’t take much to win an election under the right circumstances. My point is that McCain should not win, regardless of whether he could or couldn’t. I took issue with his ability to judge and act with principle, his leadership qualities, and the content of his message.
In the end, you are right. The odds were against John McCain. Unfortunately for you, conceding that amounts to nothing towards my argument. Statistically, John McCain (as you dutifully noted) could have won the election if the circumstances were right. However, my original points assert he is not what is best for the country. Regardless of McCain’s ability to win, my point remains he doesn’t belong in office; he’s not a political leader, he is not principled, and ran a weak campaign. Take my mild concession and cherish it, it’s the only one you’re going to get.
And now to your next (and far more unsettling) contention: you argue “moderates are what the Republican Party needs”. And frankly madam, I don’t give a damn what the GOP needs. I am preoccupied with a far nobler task: fighting for what our country needs. You close with the patronizing and dramatic “country before party, my friend”; ironically that is exactly the point I was trying to make. However, you speak as though I should take for granted your ideas, your moderate concessions, are good ideas. I reject your reasoning. Just because they are moderate does not make them good.
Apparently, there has been a misunderstanding. To avoid talking past each other, I would like to point out where we differ. We both seem to value country over political party. We both want the best for our country: prosperity, liberty, and justice. The area in which we differ is on how to obtain the best for our country. I firmly defend limited government, personal liberty, free markets, and moral laws as the means to achieve the best for our country. If you would like to have a debate over the best way to achieve prosperity, liberty, and justice let us do so. But that is another argument entirely.
My complaint remains that for years, Republicans have been drifting left-ward along the political landscape. The cause of this drift is two separate yet equally pernicious reasons. First and more recently, GOP leaders, congressmen, and the like noticed the unpopularity of their president alongside the advent of the opposition’s marginally radical and socialist darling, Barack Obama. They interpreted this swell in the left-wing movement as a turbulent wave threatening to capsize their fragile vessel. Instead of standing tall and holding fast (as I argued they should), they abandoned ship.
The second reason is far more frightening. Government has a malignant quality about it: it grows and can only be removed with arduous and surgical effort. Congressmen realize it is easier to take their cut of the legal plunder rather than oppose wasteful spending. Arguing for complex issues like morality in law and free-markets becomes a burden too daunting for who were once conservative politicians.
In sum, my point is this: the Republican Party was a movement conceived in and thus cultivated an exclusive set of principles. For the most part they are known today as conservative principles. Among them are limited government, personal liberty, free-markets, and moral laws. I believe these foundations are the best way to achieve prosperity, justice, and freedom in this country. I believe the Republican Party is still the best vehicle in which to convey these principles, hence my protests. Therefore the good of this country is contingent upon the degree in which they remain dedicated to these ideals.
The Republican Party is resurrectable, its victory gained from sticking to its conservative principles. And vindication will come as this country becomes great, society prosperous, and the people free.
2 comments:
Steve, your master debater skills know no bounds. Democracy fails when the masses realize they can vote themselves a paycheck (paraphrased from ... somewhere).
So yeah, my point is that the GOP is our only real hope for limited government principles.
Nice work Steve. This country was founded as a "conservative" nation.
Post a Comment