Posted on 12/11/2014 4:18:43 AM PST by Kaslin
We all know people who believe that they know more than we do, who look down on us and believe that they are better than we are. They believe they are smarter than the rest of us, and if they have control, then they can control the outcome and make whatever it is better. This is the same belief that led the U.S.S.R. into centralized planning and control. We all know what happened to the Soviet Union.
Contrast this to President Reagan's belief that "There are no great limits to growth because there are no limits of human intelligence, imagination and wonder," and that "the most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
Reagan believed that the American people had the drive, the ingenuity, the smarts to accomplish great things -- as long as they were not squelched by their own government. His core belief was that the best solutions come from the people themselves rather than from a centralized government.
This week, both Democratic and Republican "elites" have been making news. On Tuesday, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor and Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber was questioned by House lawmakers about comments he made that were caught on video. During a 2013 speech, Gruber had said that a "lack of transparency is a huge political advantage," adding that it was not the attributes of the bill, but the attributes of the voters that allowed the bill to pass. "Call it the stupidity of the American voter, or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass."
Gruber apologized Tuesday to House lawmakers for "thoughtless" and "insulting" comments. His defense: "I was using glib, thoughtless and really inexcusable language." It is fascinating that his focus was on his improper language, rather than on his incorrect beliefs.
Republican elites had their time in the headlines this Tuesday, too, which could be seen in the New York Times article, "G.O.P. Donors Seek to Anoint a 2016 Nominee Early," by Nicholas Confessore. "Dozens of the Republican Party's leading presidential donors and fund-raisers have begun privately discussing how to clear the field for a single establishment candidate to carry the party's banner in 2016, fearing that a prolonged primary would bolster Hillary Rodham Clinton, the likely Democratic candidate," wrote Confessore.
Whenever you read, "clear the field," be concerned. Simplistically, Democrats believe that a centralized government run by people who know more than everyone else would produce better outcomes -- while Republicans believe that the common man (and woman) should retain the majority of control and activity. View this as a top-down versus bottom-up view of what works best.
While a primary in which the field has been cleared may allow for consolidated fundraising along party lines, it would not allow for all views and ideas to be heard and debated. Part of the democratic process requires only a winnowing of candidates, but also a testing of ideas and policies.
While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush might be the top candidates mentioned in the article, there are other potential candidates whose voices should be heard. Just last week, while Bush was meting with possible supporters, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Ohio Gov. John Kasich were hosting workshops and meetings with key advisors. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas will more than likely be running as well.
"Some donors said they believed it was now inevitable that the primary would feature more than one establishment candidate along with several from the Tea Party wing," wrote Confessore. "In that case, the donors said, they would probably seek to avoid committing substantial resources or coalescing behind any one candidate until later next year."
Clearly, the candidates and the bundlers would like to coalesce and simplify the process, which would be to their advantage. But the primary process, especially for Republicans, involves a belief that it is better to be led by the collective wisdom of the American people than by a few elite sitting in a room together.
Just a comment on the picture. Left (Tavenner) looks like she’s awkwardly raising the Sieg Heil, while Gruber’s Sieg is classically Gestapo.
I repeat my thought that conservatives need a Secondary.
That is, the candidates that consider themselves to be conservatives should be culled to one by a secondary.
The winner of the secondary must then be endorsed by all who ran as the conservative candidate in the Republican primary.
In our current state of affairs, one primary is not adequate for selection of the party nominee
“We all know people who believe that they know more than we do, who look down on us and believe that they are better than we are.”
Of course.
They’re called the United States Congress.
I think it’s entirely reasonable to point out that the looonnggg 2012 GOP primary season and the interminable debates severely damaged whichever candidate emerged from the fray.
We had the most amazing sequence of “leading conservative contenders,” each shot down in sequence by the media, their conservative opponents or themselves. Leaving Mitt, the last man standing, as the candidate.
It is, IMO, entirely reasonable for conservatives or Republicans to avoid such an unedifying spectacle this time around.
So I suggest conservatives coalesce around a favored candidate and stick with him/her.
Based on 2012, not gonna happen. The conservative movement shoots itself in the foot till out of ammo, then reloads and starts in again.
amen
Shackles in the town square.
There has been no accountability in this administration because
the coveted MSM has chosen sides also.
You are really saying we are a different political party.
——You are really saying we are a different political party.——
No, not at all. As I have repeatedly posted and suppose I should have posted it again, “we” are the conservative wing of the Republican party, the GOPc.
We are the GOPc and include the wide diversity of conservative thought. Those that chose to not be part of the broad group designated as the GOPc in essence declare themselves to be politically irrelevant.
The GOPc is the intraparty opposition to the GOPe
You would like to think so, but party leaders disagree with you and care more about independents than party faithful whose vote they know they can count on.
/johnny
...believe that a centralized government run by people who know more than everyone else would produce better outcomes = Yankees
You have correctly stated the dogmatic position
That is incorrect.
/johnny
Ok, I’ll agree if you can answer my question......
Who is the Conservative member of the House or of the Senate that is not a Republican?
The party doesn't care about those that 'hold their noses' and vote.
They are the ones that are irrelevant.
Witness the focus paid not to the GOP-C who the party hates, but to independents, that can actually push the party to a more conservative stance.
If we are so 'irrelevant' why do you waste time on us?
/johnny
Sour grapes BS and you know it
Conservative republicans have NO leverage, and the party ignores them.
/johnny
Until they contemplate turnout. It is becoming increasingly evident that a substantial fraction of the conservative vote often doesn't.
/johnny
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.