Is the Party Over?
Many different sites, of which Hot Air is one, are doing a bit of Republican soul-searching today:
McCotter demands a return to First Principles, as did Flak, and he calls them the “enduring principles” of the Republican Party:
1. Our liberty is from God not the government.
2. Our sovereignty rests in our souls not the soil.
3. Our security is through strength not surrender.
4. Our prosperity is from the private sector not the public sector.
5. Our truths are self-evident not relative.
I would differ in some regard from the linked article, not that these principles are incorrect ( I would find them largely on target, and probably require a brain with a bit more sleep to elucidate specific differences from them at this time) but that they are being claimed by a specific political party.
I believe that these principles are incorporated in the founding documents of our nation as well as the outworking of the details of governance which were based in the same. These are Conservative principles (that is, fully supportive of those policies which tend to conserve our government, our country, and our way of life) not Republican principles. Partly, I’m sure, I say this because I am an Independent Conservative, yet I hold these views. My support for McCain was there because he was the most conservative of the viable options (because of our de facto two party system, I might add).
A political party is a convenience of sorts, providing people with a common identity so that they may collectively achieve greater things (politically speaking) than those same individuals might if they had dozens or hundreds of differing agendas.
Today, given the ability of the individual to speak out and to hear many other individuals speak out, without necessarily using the means of party to do it, I wonder if the party (like the labor union) is not somewhat a thing of the past? At the very least, will we soon see a fragmenting of the Republican party as great forces drive apart many factions which will be all too willing to blame each other for the failure of the American electorate to pick a moderate for president? Will we see then a similar fragmentation of the Democrat party as those who consider themselves moderate find that they are suffering from a chronic case of buyer’s remorse?
Is this (drive toward individualization of the party, that is, a party of one) the natural goal of the first post-modern generation? Or, will the party system survive, though not unmarked by the coming ideological battles?
Disseminate via | Facebook | Twitter | Digg | StumbleUpon
3 Comments, Comment or Ping
Bud Brown
06 November 2008, 11:08, UTC
I would add several items in re: the purpose and scope of government which I derive from my understanding of the Bible.
First, based on Genesis 9:6ff I believe a fundamental principle of conservative must be that the primary purpose of government is to protect human life. From there it is a short stretch to assert that a secondary purpose of government is to protect its citizens from predation by non-citizens, foreign government and by fellow citizens.
Second, based on Romans 13:1ff I believe that another fundamental purpose of government must be to punish crime, especially when those crimes fall under item #1 above.
Third, based on 1 Peter 2:13-14 I believe that another fundamental purpose of government must be to extol virtuous behavior. Now this particular position is fraught with potential missteps, so let me state this plainly: government’s purpose is not to make us good. That is not something that law can accomplish. Let me say it another way: government cannot force virtuous behavior (contrary to Obama’s assertions to Bill O’Reilly and Joe the Plumber!); government can only extol virtuous behavior.
Not all conservatives will agree with these principles in their desire to have a set of governing principles which are based on natural revelation without reference to special revelation. But I believe that the implementation of these three fundamentals (that government must protect human life; that government must punish evil and that government must extol virtue) would do much to create a salubrious environment for the nation’s citizens.
Michael Woodring
06 November 2008, 11:19, UTC
Bud,
A salubrious environment is much to be desired, yet we can expect that much mis-reading of special revelation (ie, misquoting of the Bible) may be in the near future of the next administration.
I believe that a similar misreading was largely responsible for the collapse of the Compassionate Conservatism under the current president. All of us ought to be compassionate conservatives, but we must do so with our own (not government’s) resources.
lexrex
18 November 2008, 9:34, UTC
nice comment, bud. you are completely correct about the intended function of government.
“Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.” (1 Peter 2:13-14, NIV)
william blackstone was THE most read and studied author at the time of our nation’s founding. he was studied in every law school. he had this to say:
“Municipal law, thus understood, is properly defined to be ‘a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what is right, and prohibiting what is wrong.”
the problem is that we have lost a collective sense of what is right and what is wrong. and michael is likely correct that the false sense of right-and-wrong may dominate the political decisions of the next administration, as it has, at times, in the current one.