October 10, 2006

The TRUE "Nightmare" Scenario

I'm mad as hell at the GOP, and I have been for years. I've made no secret of my anger and disappointment with what is supposed to be the "conservative" party in this country working overtime to enact a comprehensive agenda of "socialism lite." I'm also quite disappointed in our party's dismal and hamfisted performance in the War Against Being Scared. (Then again, I've gone from being "concerned" in 2001 to "pissed off" in 2006, so perhaps there has been progress.)

Given my own feelings, I can certainly relate to other conservatives and libertarians who are frustrated by and disgusted with the Republican leadership. If I were represented by a RINO, or a member of the current House leadership, I'd probably have a very tough time getting motivated to help out. As it is, I'm fortunate to be represented by some true reformers, and they have my full backing. I don't have to hold my nose to back them, because I really couldn't ask for better representation. If I were living in Denny Hastert's district, or Tom Reynolds' district, I'm sure I'd have a tougher time mustering the energy to care about the fate of either. There is a point that you get to. I'm not there, but I can probably see it from here if I stand on my toes & squint.

Even as angry and frustrated as I am with the party leadership and the GOP as an organization, I'm still cognizant of the fact that there are solid conservatives within the party, and lots of them. I'm also cognizant of the fact that there are few, if any, among the elected Democrats who could even remotely be considered "conservatives." I'd love it if there were more libertarian-minded Republicans, but I suppose you go to war with the party you have, not the party you'd like to have. Given the choice between "crazy/evil" (i.e. Senator Palpatine,) and "stupid/corrupt" (ie., Senator Jar Jar,) I'd still go with the latter.


For my part, I'm not willing to attack those who've simply had enough with the GOP as a whole. I don't consider them "cowards," nor do I consider them "petulant crybabies," "naive bedwetters," or whatever. Funny how many people don't hesitate to launch a virtual attack over the internet that they'd never have the balls to do in real life. I think we could all do with a toning down of the rhetoric on this point, and I'd ask other bloggers to think twice before they launch nasty perjoratives at people who agree with them 99% of the time, but aren't 100% on board on this one issue.

For any of you who choose to "stand down" this election, I ask that you thoroughly satisfy yourself that you're fully prepared to face the consequences of Democrat control of the House and/or Senate for at least two years, and possibly more. Think carefully about what that would mean to our country. It probably wouldn't mean any crazy new legislation being signed into law. It might, in fact, mean the absence of any new legislation for a while. It could be complete gridlock in the middle of a significant troop deployment overseas. That could cause a mess.

While understanding the frustration, I'm not sure holding your nose and supporting the GOP this time around necessarily has to equate to a total capitulation to all the corruption and socialist bullshit we've been getting from the party for at least the last six years. For those of you who are, like me, beyond frustrated with the party, you do have the option of getting involved and beginning the slow process of working to change the party from the inside. No, it's not easy, but it can be done.

Speaking of change, I've noticed that some of the party operatives read this blog, and to you I have a suggestion: fear of the Democrats keeps some of the conservatives and libertarians in line, but the most frustrated conservatives and libertarians may not step back into rank without a little lovin' from the party. A message of contrition and a demonstration of commitment to core principles on the part of the party leadership might go a long way toward rebuilding solidarity.

Finally, we've all heard some nightmare scenarios being trotted out, and they're very scary, to be sure. The Dems could certainly cause a lot of noise and trouble given two years in control of even one house of Congress, much less both houses. The worst case scenario would not, however, be for the Democrats to take over and do all the crazy things we're all afraid they might do. Although that would please the Deaniacs and Kossacks to no end, going into full Cynthia McKinney-style "crazy mode" would set the Dems up for political disaster in 2008 at nearly all levels, and virtually guarantee a Republican White House next time around. It would be much worse, in the long term, for the Dems to spend two years legislating with a generally centrist agenda, biding their time, avoiding the real hot-button issues, siding with Bush on some "comprehensive immigration reform" package, etc. etc. That would set them up for further electoral gains in 2008 and a White House win. That, IMHO, is the true "nightmare" scenario, and it's a good bit scarier than any of the other nightmare scenarios being bandied about these days.

By Ragnar Danneskjold, Typical Bitter Gun-Clinger at 08:01 PM | Comments |