I'm a Republican. I come from a family of "yellow dog" Democrats, who I'm sure have looked upon me with contempt at times, and if I am to be honest, I've looked at them in a similar light. From my perspective, I believe my occasional contempt toward my Democrat family is somewhat deserved, as we share many of the same values, and the party I have supported is the one which most closely, or at least at one time, supports these values, where as the one they have long supported seems to favor much legislation which is in opposition to their values and morals. Go figure why people vote the way they do. Why did I become a Republican? Truly, I don't know. I can remember being in elementary school and we, the class, participated in a mock election. I voted for Nixon. In hindsight, maybe not the best choice, but it shows that I had this conservative frame of mind early on. My first real election, I voted for Ronald Reagan, one of the greater Presidents in modern history, and this has been followed by Republicans who were far from being good Presidents, but still likely better than the alternatives. It does show that their has been a very bad decline in the quality of candidates though, and this in large part due to the party itself, and in whom they, the leadership of the party, have supported. For several election cycles, it has seemed that the choice is this bad candidate or the other worse candidate. Some choice. There have been, and are good candidates for both Executive and Legislative offices, but for many years these individuals have been overlooked, and the worst of the worst are the ones who receive the nomination. So, I still say I am a Republican, and I am still registered as such, but my disillusion has steadily grown, in direct relation to my self education, and today I am a different type of Republican. In fact, I'm sure I would most accurately be described as a Libertarian, but I'm not ready to make that an official status. I still have hope that the Republican Party can evolve to a more constitutional and liberty minded platform, and there are quality candidates campaigning under the Republican umbrella, but time will tell whether they will receive support from the powers that be, or will be overshadowed by the party's had picked choices, who follow the status quo, meaning the continuation of federal growth. Today's Republican Party, is in fact conservative, at least it is if your definition of conservative is moderation, as they do tend to desire the growth of government, at a somewhat slower, or more moderate pace than the Democrat Party, but desire of growth they have none the less.
I believe in a Constitutional federal government, meaning the federal government described and intended in the Constitution of the United States. All of the mystical interpretations of various clauses, and selected quotations supporting a more active role of the federal government are in my opinion, clearly not what was intended by the founders of this nation. Isn't it more logical to assume that the equally valid quotations supporting the type of government set forth clearly within the wording of the Constitution, without any abstract interpretation, but instead relying on the words as written, is the intended function and more importantly, limitation of the federal government? An even superficial study of the American Revolution, and the founding of the Nation, will show that the colonists had a deep mistrust of government abuse, and much of the writing of the time, especially that which motivated the American colonists, involved the philosophy of liberty and natural law, which is the most compelling evidence that the intended federal government was to be limited in scope and function, with a defined number of functions allotted to it, and those being the ones that only a "federal" government could accomplish. Article 1: Section 8, clearly spells out the powers delegated to the US Congress, and Article 1: Section 10, clearly states the powers prohibited of the states, therefore it follows that those powers not specifically delegated to Congress, nor prohibited of the States, in fact belong solely to the states or the people. In fact, to be clear that there was no misunderstanding, The 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, say this very same thing. How is that so hard to comprehend?
So, this brings us to the subject of this post, Dr. B. J. Lawson. If we were to design a candidate, with a primary consideration in their makeup, being a honest and faithful interpretation and a real expectation of having them follow the US Constitution as the supreme law, we would come up with someone very much like, if not in fact, B. J. Lawson. He, is known, both during this election and the prior one in 2008, for handing out pocket sized copies of the US Constitution. If we were to select another quality; What about a true understanding and deep love of liberty? I'm all for that, and once more, B. J. Lawson would fit the description perfectly. There is for sure, a general lack of understanding of the philosophical and political concept of liberty, in this nation. Sure people understand the general meaning of the word, but have never really thought about it in depth, to really understand the concept on a more philosophical level. The Libertarian Party itself, is often criticized on grounds which true supporters of liberty would accept as the the only correct position. That is the thing with the concept of liberty; You can't pick and choose which aspect of liberty is acceptable and which one isn't. Either you are pro liberty or anti liberty. Of course some liberty must be restricted, or else there is anarchy, and that is the reason that governments are instituted in the first place, to protect the individual and society from lawlessness which would occur with unlimited liberty. A certain amount of liberty is surrendered for the sake of society, but only enough for society to remain cohesive and for the protection of an individual's rights and that of their property. Other than this minimum, liberty should remain an individuals right, just as any other natural right. Too many people erroneously believe that their expectation of morality, of right and wrong, allows them and society to infringe on another individual's right to liberty, but in doing so, liberty is lost, and every little piece of liberty wrongly taken, makes the next usurpation that much easier to perpetrate, and the loss that much easier to accept, until liberty becomes a difficult to understand concept. That, unfortunately is where we have been heading for a long time.
to be continued.......
No comments:
Post a Comment