We are
seeing popular movements rise up because of a lack of government response to
what is seen as problems. Occupy Wall Street, the Tea Party, Black Lives Matter
and the Bundy/Oregon militia are a cross section that reflect the notion that people are looking for someone, anyone, who will STAND
up and 'get things done'. Of course, get things done the way each group
believes is best.
As I watch a
wave of support growing for one such strong leader, I have to ask what the
principles and values are that lead so many ‘conservatives’ and Tea Party
members to support a candidate who so clearly is not a small government,
anti-establishment, liberty loving practitioner?
The Tea
Party was ORIGINALLY ignited because of the bank bailouts, the auto bailouts
and the stimulus. The Tea Party first pointed their finger NOT at President
Obama, but President Bush.
The intent
behind the 9/12 projects and Tea Parties were those values and principles that
had zero to do with political parties and candidates, but spoke to how we, as individuals
lived our lives and expected our government to operate. Principles that
respected the Constitutional responsibility of the State and the limits placed
on the federal government. Principles and values that we said were our 'bottom
line'.
Small
government, adherence to the Constitution, and self-responsibility were central
to those principles and values that would guide us in how we pick
candidates, elect our representatives, senators, city council and school board
members, judges, sheriffs, and presidents. Core principles and values we lived our lives by.
We experienced true ‘change’ elections, only
to be disappointed that so many of our ‘conservative’ candidates turned out to
be JUST like the rest of the ‘good old boy’ club that did not practice small
government, liberty loving, constitutionally based actions.
Today we are
nearing another ‘choosing place’.
A strong,
brash leader may, indeed, be able to walk into board rooms and say 'DO THAT or
YOU ARE FIRED'. A strong leader may, indeed, make billions of dollars and even
make trade and tariff decisions that ‘gets the other guy’ (whether that is
China or Mexico or anyone else that we think needs to be ‘got’). The strong
leader can say over and over again, ‘we will do it’; ‘we will build it and they
will pay for it’…and the crowd cheers.
Don't we need to ask how these things will be
accomplished? DOES the 'means' justify the 'ends'? Is that important to us?
What is it that guides the potential strong leaders? What is
their individual guide for making decisions? To what standard do they guide
their actions in order to accomplish their goals? To what end does their
actions lead? A bigger, more powerful federal government that has fiscally and
maybe even socially conservative practices, or, are they guided by an old,
time-tested, foundational document our country has used as the basis for our
Law?
For those
who consider themselves conservative, does it matter if the government tramples
on the rights of 'those guys' in order to get to our stated goals? Is it OK for the government to take land away from private
landowners so that a 'good' big business can accomplish something we think needed for the community? Does the community or government get to decide what is
best, or, do individual rights matter equally and protect, even when the
community/government disagrees? For those of us called conservatives are those
ideals still a core value?
Has
conservative turned into the mere opposite of liberal on the pole of big government? Is the ONLY difference between conservatives and liberals
the kind of programs we support, rather than bigger government vs smaller, constitutionally
based government?
Is liberty
for ALL still a conservative value?? Do we still support the lone voice as much as we
do the voice of the masses? Does an individual still have the same rights and
protections as the majority?
Remember
your values and principles when you are making these caucus and primary
decisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment