We hear much from the mass media about political attack ads and the divisiveness of the Republican primaries. Why the divisiveness? I would argue that it is a symptom, not a cause:
Consider the mass media's motivation to maximize profits. Given a choice between educating and titillating, the media too often chooses the latter. This generally leads to more heated discourse versus insight, encourages emotional reaction versus a reasoned debate.
The intensity of the campaign for the Republican nomination is in part due to the vulnerability of the Obama Presidency. Given unfavorable public reaction and the failure of Obama's policies, his reelection is in doubt. The relatively large number of candidates declaring for the nomination is because they sense that Obama will very possibly be a one term president.
Part of the acrimony in the Republican primary is due to a split in the party itself. Paradoxically, there is not a significant difference in philosophy among the candidates. There is, however, a long standing debate between conservatives and more centrist, establishment party members. This conflict is heightened by the critical nature of our problems as well as the ultimate prize of the presidency and control of the party.
No candidate has inspired wide spread support and confidence in his leadership. There has been some modest levels of enthusiasm for Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. But in the absence of major differences in policy, the issue of electability has been in the forefront. Attacks have highlighted each candidate's weaknesses for what will surely be a hard fought general election.
We are at a crossroads: larger government or smaller, more regulation or less, more spending or less, more taxes or less, more debt or less, a society governed from the top or one with individual choice and freedom, a confident and bold America or a diminished America. The stakes are high and time is of the essence! It will not be kind to us if we make the wrong selection.
If candidates really believe that the country is in deep trouble and conservative principles and ideas are the best remedy, they must put aside their personal ambitions in favor of the public interest. They must stress that conservatism is vastly superior to Obama's policies; that the road to prosperity is to increase the size of the economy and not to divide it into ever decreasing, smaller shares. America does have a bright future if only we grab hold of our destiny.
Politicians should follow the example of our founding fathers who risked all in order to gain the freedoms that each of us cherish. They should follow the example of statesmen, not political partisans.
Consider the mass media's motivation to maximize profits. Given a choice between educating and titillating, the media too often chooses the latter. This generally leads to more heated discourse versus insight, encourages emotional reaction versus a reasoned debate.
The intensity of the campaign for the Republican nomination is in part due to the vulnerability of the Obama Presidency. Given unfavorable public reaction and the failure of Obama's policies, his reelection is in doubt. The relatively large number of candidates declaring for the nomination is because they sense that Obama will very possibly be a one term president.
Part of the acrimony in the Republican primary is due to a split in the party itself. Paradoxically, there is not a significant difference in philosophy among the candidates. There is, however, a long standing debate between conservatives and more centrist, establishment party members. This conflict is heightened by the critical nature of our problems as well as the ultimate prize of the presidency and control of the party.
No candidate has inspired wide spread support and confidence in his leadership. There has been some modest levels of enthusiasm for Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. But in the absence of major differences in policy, the issue of electability has been in the forefront. Attacks have highlighted each candidate's weaknesses for what will surely be a hard fought general election.
We are at a crossroads: larger government or smaller, more regulation or less, more spending or less, more taxes or less, more debt or less, a society governed from the top or one with individual choice and freedom, a confident and bold America or a diminished America. The stakes are high and time is of the essence! It will not be kind to us if we make the wrong selection.
If candidates really believe that the country is in deep trouble and conservative principles and ideas are the best remedy, they must put aside their personal ambitions in favor of the public interest. They must stress that conservatism is vastly superior to Obama's policies; that the road to prosperity is to increase the size of the economy and not to divide it into ever decreasing, smaller shares. America does have a bright future if only we grab hold of our destiny.
Politicians should follow the example of our founding fathers who risked all in order to gain the freedoms that each of us cherish. They should follow the example of statesmen, not political partisans.
You raise several interesting points here. Candidates "go negative" simply because it works. Despite the protestations of the public, negative ads work. In a society where character matters slamming your opponents on that issue "scores points" with the candidate's base and even undecided voters. Sure, people say it leaves a bad taste in their mouths but they sure do lap up the one-liners and zingers in ads and at debates. So, where there is demand there will be supply.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I agree with you that there is not a large difference in the Republicans' philosophies. It is not clear to me that either Romney or Gingrich are NOT "big government" Republicans (or RINOs). From what I've seen Rick Santorum has been the only candidate consistently and forcefully adovating and defending a Constitutional Republic which just so happens to be the system of government we live under (or used to live under).
We are indeed at a cross roads. However, the situation is much more dire than you describe. What is at stake is the choice between a Constitutional Republic that respects individual sovereignty, inalienable rights to life,liberty and pursuit of happiness and a divisive government (a good thing) that has separation of powers. At the other end is a utopia - a statist society of an all-powerful, top-down, centralized government run by a Leviathan (Hobbes) or "Philosopher King" (Pato).
What you see as more government/less government, higher/lower taxes, more/less regulation are merely TACTICS to OBSCURE this larger issue.
Take the current un-Constitutional assault on the First Amendment and attack on religion in general. To summarize, the masterminds are forcing church-based health care companies to offer birth control which goes against their teachings. They (the churches) might just as well stop being churches! This assault has nothing to do with healthcare but everything to do with wiping away any institution that gets in the way of "government worship". All allegiance must be to the government and the church is one (of several) buffers between the individual and the government. So, the masterminds conclude that it (the church) must be attacked.
Two other quick examples. The U.S. Constitution is basically a document of "negative" freedoms. I don't mean "negative" in the perjorative sense but, rather, as "freedom from". That is, it states what the government CAN'T do to its people. The Constitution puts limits on government power and that's why powers are ENUMERATED and not PLENARY. The other concept of freedom is "positive freedom" or "freedom to" do something. Statists/Uptopians/Leftists accenutate the latter and squash/ignore the former.
Second example - on checks & balances. Locke was very clear on their importance because those with authority to pass laws (with consent of the governed) should not be the ones enforcing them. Statists/Utopians/Leftists want to blur and eventually erase these separation of power so the government becomes GOVERNMENT "Big G". This is yet another assault on our individual sovereignty because it again removes a buffer between the government and the individual.
My advice to Republicans is stop making this election about liberal vs. conservative. The libs have the upper hand in that debate because liberal sounds nicer. It isn't nicer but why try to prove a negative? Instead, make this election about individual sovereignty and the Constitution. That'll drive the Democrats crazy because they have no counter argument.
I agree with "anonymous" that this election is critical. What kind of government will we have in the future, one that is based on constitutional principles or are we heading toward one where "individual sovereignty" and limited government is a thing of the past?
ReplyDeleteThis crises did not come to us overnight. The unalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator (NOT the government!) have been under attack for many years all in the guise of economic and political necessity. We should all be wary when Washington DC comes with gifts in the form grants, loans or earmarks because they invariably will have strings attached. This lesson has been slow in coming and after many years of dependency, we should not wonder that our historical freedoms have been curtailed.
The most recent example of this is the government directing the Catholic Church to provide for their employees health insurance that includes contraception coverage. All persons of faith should be outraged at this edict for it is in direct contradiction to the first amendment that prohibits any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF--"(caps are mine). And rest assured, that if this edict is successfully implemented, others will follow!
I tend to disagree with the outrage over this contraception issue. Its just manufactured to divide the country even furhter. Noone can make you take contraception, that is a choice in the way you live your life/practice your religion. But, as an employer and health care provider, you have certain duties to support the well being of your employees, many of which are not Catholic. This is not being pushed on the Catholic employers specifically, rather it is expected of any sound business entity with female employees. Noone expexts the Catholic church to suddenly endorse contraception or force it on their employees. They are free to advise against its use just as they always have. Maybe I have misread the news on this, but it seems to be much ado about nothing. Also, there doesnt seem to be much outrage from the female base of the Catholic church, which is telling. Once again, i could be mistaken on that point.
ReplyDelete