Posted on 03/05/2009 10:15:25 PM PST by EternalVigilance
Some people, now including a National Committeewoman from South Carolina, have expressed the view that Michael Steele is unfit to be leader of the RNC. I think this assessment is only partially correct. What is left unsaid of course is that the GOP is unfit to claim leadership of the conservative base that is the mainstay of Republican electoral hopes. Steele's erratic performance isn't a matter of personal inadequacy. He's a capable and generally well-spoken individual. He suffers however, from the fact that the Republican Party has ironically become a perfect illustration of the "house divided against itself", the Biblical metaphor Lincoln immortalized in our political history the last time the United States passed through a period like ours. The unprincipled materialists in the Party's big money base, and the otherwise insubstantial politicians who depend upon it for survival, are at war with the grassroots conservatives. Both love America for its freedom. But when a grassroots conservative uses the term, he means liberty, the chance to do as much and go as far as talent and/or hard work will get you; the opportunity to live under laws that reflect your sense of decency; and the character that takes the responsibilities of self-reliance and citizenship seriously. When the unprincipled materialist speaks of freedom, they mainly seem to mean freedom of action (the opening to do whatever it takes to preserve what you've got and get more.) Taken in the latter sense, freedom has no substantive meaning or value. When it's useful it's good. When it's not useful, it's expendable.
Confronted with someone like Obama, the grassroots conservative recognizes by instinct and reasoning, that liberty is under threat. The materialist, on the other hand, considers what can be made from the tidal wave of government spending; the flood of cheap labor across unenforced borders; the profitable acquisitions available as prices fall and cash flow problems ripen otherwise undervalued assets for the taking. Any times can be good times for those positioned to take advantage. Money's never lost but when it's also gained, by someone. "O'er forms of government let fools contest", whatever makes a profit, that's the best.
The Obama faction is synthesizing communist goals and political tactics with means drawn from the playbook of National Socialism (translated as "globalism" these days). This gives the materialists lots of room for calculation. For all the talk of negative markets and depression, not far from the surface they have a pretty shrewd hunch that this guy Obama is someone they can work with. He has to throw sops to the leftist populists, of course. But eventually, as he uses the rhetoric of populist hope and change to gather the reins of control into fewer and fewer hands, the burdensome complexities of American politics will be streamlined and simplified. It won't be quite as straightforward as bribing the vanity of self-important tyrants in Africa or the Middle East, but it will be far easier than riding the ornery and unpredictable currents of a really free electoral process, and laws made by representatives who do more than rubber stamp the party line.
Into these and other such practical calculations, intrudes the clamor of people concerned about the Constitution, the moral principles, the loss of control over income and livelihood, and the surrender of self-respect involved in becoming slavish dependents of government and corporate bureaucracy. The materialists think that talking about these concerns is all well and good if it gets votes from well meaning people who care about them. But that 's only so long as none of it really determines actions or policy. When push comes to shove, human achievement consists in a few people doing what they do best, while the others do what the best ones tell them. Once upon a time they called it aristocracy (from a Greek word for the power of superior people), and the privileged few were called, "the nobility" and "the quality." The ugly abuses it involved took the shine off those fine words, however, so now they call it progress, change, globalism, the new world order. The privileged ones are stars, decision makers, or celebrities. Actually it's the same old story, though now equipped with better technology and relieved of any real regard for conscience by the pseudo-scientific ideologies of evolution and behaviorism.
Sometimes in the course of a bureaucratic or corporate power struggle the one who was in charge realizes that others are no longer talking to him, but to each other. The outcome may still seem undecided, but a perceptive player recognizes it as a moment signaling defeat. It's not so much that he has lost. It's that he just doesn't matter anymore. For some time now, on issues like border security and immigration, the massive bank bailout, the push for same sex marriage and the like, the people have been in that position. They thought they were in charge, but now the elites talk only to one another, working out the terms on which the end of constitutional, democratic self-government in America shall be unveiled to the entire world.
This is what really makes the Steele-Limbaugh match-up a distraction from the main event. While they appear to mix it up, the Republican Party stands quietly by as the Constitution is shredded, the country run to bankruptcy, and the people turned from sovereign citizens to bleating subjects, grateful for admission into the electronic presence of their betters. And as cover for it all so-called Republicans, like Mel Martinez, flattering the power of the people with the false notion that their will is superior to the Constitution which alone perpetuates their sovereignty.
Now, don't get me wrong. I still believe the overthrow of the republic can be undone. But the turnaround will not begin until the conservative grassroots abandon the dead end goal of saving the Republican Party. Let the so-called leaders play out their charade, while the citizen leaders, instead of watching, set to work on the achievable miracle of saving the Republic. Visit aipnews.com
For more current writing from Alan Keyes, please visit LoyaltoLiberty.com!
We can’t win with a third party strategy.
Granted, in states which allow a candidate to run under more than one Party label, it might make some sense.
But, again, if you can not get a majority of Republicans to support you, how on Earth will you get a majority of the General Population to agree with you??
I thought Keys wasn’t a Republican anymore.
The Obama faction is synthesizing communist goals and political tactics with means drawn from the playbook of National Socialism (translated as "globalism" these days).
the Republican Party stands quietly by as the Constitution is shredded, the country run to bankruptcy, and the people turned from sovereign citizens to bleating subjects
I still believe the overthrow of the republic can be undone. But the turnaround will not begin until the conservative grassroots abandon the dead end goal of saving the Republican Party. Let the so-called leaders play out their charade, while the citizen leaders, instead of watching, set to work on the achievable miracle of saving the Republic.
Well done, Dr. Keyes! Thank you.
I don’t know who “Keys” is, but Alan Keyes is no longer a Republican, no.
I used to like Steele, but when I read about his feelings regarding legislation on what he refers to as "assault weapons" he lost me.
Pay close attention and perhaps we will be able to show you a completely principled but eminently practical strategy that will break that paradigm.
I did not read about his views on assault weapons. Please don’t tell me he’s for banning them. I would cry.
bookmark
Michael Steele Wants an Assault Weapons Ban
On the issues ^ | Unk | On the Issues
Posted on Monday, March 02, 2009 3:54:31 PM by vivalaoink
"Q: Should people have access to buy assault weapons?
[Michael Steele] A: Society should draw lines. What do you need an assault weapon for, if you're going hunting? That's overkill. But I don't think that means you go to a total ban for those who want to use gun for skeet shooting or hunting or things like that But what's the point of passing gun laws if we're not going to enforce them? If you want to talk about gun control, that's where you need to start. We've got 300 gun laws on the books right now. At the end of the day, it's about how we enforce the law."
I called Michael Steele's office to get a response on the following quote from a Washington Post interview, and his secretary said, "Mr Steele doesn't have any opinion at the present time about the Second Ammendment or any future AWB."
How can the leader of the Republican Party not have an opinion on the AWB? Oh wait, he already does....
Nicely done Dr. Keyes. I think he might feel at home in Texas ;^)
Heh...
I love Rush Limbaugh, but the conservative radio shows rarely touch social issues anymore. It's all taxes and business all the time. Rush at least makes it entertaining. Hannity is horrible.
But that's basically the nature of the modern GOP, and results in he complaints Mr. Keyes and many of us have about the party as a whole. It's a party of small and medium range businesses. When their interests mesh with ours, we get a 1994 style tidal wave. The rest of the time, it's a house divided against itself.
I turned away from Alan a long time ago, after he said that fathers behind on alimony/support should be caned (Singapore style). He’s a politician.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. If you’re going to make such a claim you need to be able to prove it.
After seeing your post, I talked to one of the people who has handled his archival materials for about a decade and they have no idea what you’re talking about either.
So, link it or retract.
...and a popular publication?
If Alan Keyes wants to lead he should start by convincing Republican Party that he can be a leader. When he manages that, he will be in a position to lead the rest of the country.
I pretty much agree with everything he wrote.
There is a fault line out there.
It about the lack of principle and conviction about fiscal matters coupled with the lack of committment to federalism.
Think about the storm that Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court created because she wasn’t a federalist.
No one doubts the pro-life convictions in the GOP, its just that insiders want to water down fiscal conservatism and federalism.
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.