For what do we stand?

A party of principles, not personalities

By Alexander Marlow
From the December 2006 Print Edition

I am a sore loser. I used to cry when I struck out in little league, and I would occasionally feign a limp if I lost a race. So, it hurts that my Democratic friends and foes enjoy the spoils this election season while I toil in front of my computer trying to comprehend exactly what happened and what it means. However, it is somewhat easy to accept this Republican defeat. If truth were told, the November election was a tremendous triumph for the Republican Party.

We now know that the Democrats won the Senate narrowly and also took control of the House of Representatives, but let’s delve a little deeper to get the entire breadth of the results. The successful Democrats were not from the Ted Kennedy/John Kerry liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Take for example Jim Webb of Virginia. Webb, who is both a decorated Vietnam vet and a former Reagan adviser, takes a hard line on illegal immigration and is pro–gun ownership. You would never have guessed that he is a Democrat, especially since he cites Ronald Reagan as his favorite president. Yet he is now occupying the seat of Republican George Allen, a man who many thought could have been the next Republican president. Bob Casey running as a pro-life candidate from Pennsylvania illustrates this point as well, unseating Republican Senator Rick Santorum.

The government will be divided for the next two years, meaning not much will get done. Many on the right are concerned that leftists like Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi will begin to implement a left-wing agenda. This will be true on choice issues, as we can already see a proposal to raise the federal minimum wage (blatantly ignoring economic common sense), but how much will the left accomplish? In my estimation, not a whole lot. Considering moderates won the election for the Democrats, comprehensive national health care, an immediate Iraq pullout, amnesty for illegal aliens, or impeachment of the president probably won’t even see the floor for debate.

In fact, there is a good possibility spending will decrease. For starters, it can’t get much higher. The Democrats were savvy enough to campaign on fiscal responsibility, so you can rule out any significant spending increases, or else they run the risk of looking like George "No New Taxes" Bush.

That brings us to the Republicans. In this wayward party that has somehow become more fragmented than a crystal vase dropped from the mantle piece on to the hearth, there is nowhere to go but up. They lost to a party that stands for nothing, except perhaps for abortions on demand and fighting the elusive evils of global warming. Sadly, Republican leadership lacks charisma today, and that was our downfall. A change of the guard should not just be welcomed; it should be required.

Two political bases energize the party: the family-values social conservatives and the libertarian-minded fiscal conservatives. I am in the latter group. I like the Republicans’ intentions on social issues, although I don’t always agree with them, but I stay loyal because they are the party that claims to grant the people the most fiscal freedom. For the last six years, this has not been so. George W. Bush has increased spending to its highest rates since Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society. In this election, the Republican base sent a crystal clear message to the party: no one is really entitled to prescription-drug entitlements, and no one is feeling secure about Social Security. Or, in other words, stop spending.

I’m sorry to report our party has become infiltrated by crooks, perverts, spenders, and moderates. The crooks, such as Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney, personify some of the most fraudulent elements of politics, and within this past term, have sullied the Republican name. The spenders are the current congress and administration that have trampled on the legacy of fiscal responsibility set forth by Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Newt Gingrich. That would of course render Mark Foley to the pervert category.

Nevertheless, in my mind, the most pernicious of all of these groups may indeed be the moderates, led by John McCain. McCain developed weak border-security measures with Ted Kennedy and drafted the left-wing McCain-Feingold bill to reform campaign finance, which represents the exact opposite viewpoint of Reagan Republicans. He has spoken ill about key religious leaders, clumsily flip-flopped on a gay-marriage ban, flip-flopped on abortion, and has come out against using the constitutional process to stop the Democratic filibustering of conservative judicial appointments. Continuing to put faith in this man alienates the exact people that make the Republican Party possible.

In view of these Republican foibles, had the party won, I would have been troubled. I would have been concerned that members of the Republican base had said that they don’t demand anything better from their leadership.

These next two years will be a test for both parties, but the Democrats’ goal is much simpler. The Democrats need only not misstep, and they will have a shot at the presidency. They proved they could do this in the Clinton years, and their crafty political strategy to run moderates this year shows they are learning from their recent losses. Besides, they have already groomed a candidate who is intelligent enough, experienced enough, articulate enough, and most importantly, shrewd enough to achieve anything: Hilary Clinton.

The Republicans have nothing of the sort, but that is not reason enough to despair. Had no one given the Republicans this splash of cold water, no one would have told them that things are not okay. We need to get back to our roots. We need fiscal responsibility, we need to preserve American values, and, most importantly, we need to have the courage of our convictions.

When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld resigned the day after the election, it demonstrated Republicans are still clueless. Bush still believes inviting Nancy Pelosi to lunch and kicking out conservatives in his cabinet is what America wants. He is wrong. Americans need a political party they can trust to defend them, to protect their values, and to stand up to those on the left and say it is not acceptable to buy votes with programs paid for by future generations.

Still, we needn’t fear. As a result of this election, the politics of this country are, in all likelihood, destined for a rightward movement. How can this be? The Republicans will revert to their conservative roots, and the Democrats will move away from liberal ideals to moderate ones. This means that both parties will be more conservative! This is good for Americans.

There is little the Democrats can do in these next two years to make a significant impact. They still are not unified, and they do not have a coherent party platform. Thus, after these 2006 midterm elections, the party that stands to benefit the most is the Republican Party. This election has the potential to mimic the 1964 election, where despite an enormous defeat at the polls, the Republicans were able to form a coherent ideology that endured for 40 years. If this election can refocus the party, if we can learn to move the spotlight away from the moderates like McCain and big spenders like Bush, and move it back to our fiscally conservative base, not only the party, but the country will benefit. I, for one, trust that we can accomplish this.

Rejoice, Americans, for a new age shall soon be upon us.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot