Rules for Republicans, Too

Not long ago, Barack Obama and the Democrats were invincible. Republicans not only had substantially reduced minorities in the House and Senate, but they didn't even have a leader.

Suddenly Obama seems quite vincible, with his signature project, postalizing the health-care system, in deep trouble. How could that have happened?

Andrew Breitbart, a Washington Times columnist, argues that the opposition's lack of leadership, far from being a hindrance, has been a necessary condition for its effectiveness. He notes that the tactics of the left have long been informed by Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"--the bible of so-called community organizing--and especially this rule:

"Rule 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)" For years, of course, the obvious target was President Bush. Since last year's campaign got under way, Bretibart notes, the left has set its sights on a series of lesser targets, with varying degrees of success: Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, Rush Limbaugh, Carrie Prejean. But with the exception of Palin before her resignation, none of these people actually held political power. For the moment, the Democrats have a monopoly on power, which makes them vulnerable to Alinskyite tactics. As Breitbart writes:

The time to re-form, mobilize and counter-attack has been upon the conservatives for decades. This isn’t 1955 anymore. You can’t run the Green Bay Packers (or the Giants, Colts, Bears, etc.) playbook from 1955 and expect to win. The game changes. When (if) you put the TV on, Lawrence Welk and the band ain’t performing anymore (at least not live), you get some drivel from MTV.

I’ve aways viewed the AIDS outbreak as the start of radical leftism really organizing and getting in peoples’ faces. After coming out of the closet in the late sixties/early seventies and then accumulating some power and money, they used the power of the group or mob (albeit small) to intimidate and bend change to their favor.

The time to rethink conservatism as something that is just reactionary in nature and counter-attack is LONG overdue.

And contrary to the fossils in the NFL, who still want to play like it was 1950, the spread offense is effective and is the future of football. In politics, the spread offense means that you pick off individual congressman who are weakest first...that being the “Blue Dog” Democrats, who were so-called “conservatives” recruited by Rahm Emanuel to take over red districts and put Nancy Pelosi in power. Every one of the Blue Dogs needs to be soundly defeated by their conservative constituents in ‘10.
In addition to those obvious targets, the corrupt Dems, such as Murtha, should be attacked. Harry Reid, with his land deals, should be included on the Senate side.
All politics is local, and changing a few dozen seats is the key to turning the country around.

It's not enough to change the party in power. What American citizens need to do now is remind all elected officials of their constitutional duty to protect and defend the Constitution and the principles which made America a place of liberty for oppressed individuals from all over the world. That Constitution limited government's power and reach into the lives of its citizens. It freed individuals and bound government.

Now is the moment in America's history for a principles-based debate. For too long, we have allowed politicians always to focus attention on this or that "issue." And, as a result, we have allowed freedom and opportunity to be limited, and liberty for citizens to be diminished. Coercive government control, whether by a king, a feudal lord, or three branches of a government, is still coercive control by some imperfect persons over other persons.

The current debate is not solely about health care. It's not about the auto industry, or the banking establishment. It's about liberty for individuals in a society versus tyrannical government control over the livelihoods, the earnings, and life and death decisions of each of those citizens.

The American Constitution was not supposed to allow that! Its Framers intended, through its protections, and through Article V, to put "We, the People" in charge to "bind them (elected officials) down by the chains of the Constitution" (Jefferson). They seem to have forgotten that.

Can anyone who reads Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Madison, or any other Founders actually believe their Constitution allows the principles of the Declaration to be violated in such a way by those elected to positions of power in government?

Any citizen whose passion is liberty should not be tricked into accepting such "compromises" of their liberty. There is a time and place when liberty is so threatened that, on behalf of our posterity, we should stand and declare to our elected officials in both Parties:

"This is a matter of principle. It is not negotiable. Stop taking away our Creator-endowed rights to be free to succeed or fail. Stop your arrogance in believing you were elected by us to take what we work hard to earn and 'redistribute' it in the name of 'compassionate conservatism' (R) or 'economic justice' (D). Sometimes you even try to fool us by redistributing it back to ourselves, as in 'cash for clunkers.' It is neither compassion nor justice! It is tyranny! Don't compromise away the future of your great-grandchildren!"

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.