Conservatism, not change, ensures American success

by BD Pisani - 2008 aug 28

This has been, to be sure, a tough couple of years for true conservatives. We've endured congressional Republicans assisting the Left in expanding government and increasing spending, autocratic Democrat control of Congress, a president who sometimes allowed his conservatism to wane, and a committed socialist poised to become the nation's next leader. But things are not always as they appear.

The creed of modern American conservatism, as first identified and espoused by Barry Goldwater and then proven by Ronald Reagan, is the true engine of American greatness and prosperity. Quite simply, it imbues adherence to free markets, championing individualism, and fiscal and moral accountability -- with minor variance, essentially the United States as it was from its birth until the 1930s.

American liberalism is also a proven commodity. We have been shown since the 1930s that liberalism as practiced in America has a mission to create as many helpless victims and despondent citizens -- all dependent on the Left -- as possible. We have seen that it is a basic tenet of liberalism to create more power for liberals by growing government and increasing its encroachment on individual liberties and economic freedom.

As you may have noticed, particularly during this year's Democrat National Convention that was supposed to be a rock star-like Messiah fest, the Democrat Party is fractured and divided. This has become obvious even with the Drive-by Media slickly covering up for their Democrat Party masters. In an election year where it should be a slam dunk for the radical Left to win the presidency and retain socialist congressional control, many liberal political advisors are now publicly expressing doubts.

Platform for change or sublime deception

Labeling something it is not does not necessarily make it so. So it is with Obama's mantra for change. Is he really going to change America? In what ways? Let's take a closer look.

Vice-Presidential candidate. Barack Obama selected 38-year liberal retread Senator Joe Biden to be his running mate. Why? Because Obama cannot speak intelligently without a teleprompter, doesn't understand the complexities of foreign affairs, knows he is distrusted by the military, knows he has no real political experience, and knows that he doesn't possess the gravitas required to con Middle America into voting for his socialist agenda. He hopes that Biden, a publicly-censored plagiarizer and failed presidential candidate overflowing with bombast, hyperbole, and verbosity, will be able to carry his water for him.

"... what does this disastrous choice for vice-president say about a Barack Hussein Obama presidency?"

Obama thinks Biden will help win over Pennsylvania (neighbor of Biden's Delaware), Catholics, men, and the working class. And Biden is ready to serve as the kind of partisan attack dog that will allow Obama to retain his false Messianic image. In all regards, Biden will fail.

In political circles, it is said that the choice of a running mate is the first and most important presidential decision a candidate makes. If so, then what does this disastrous choice for vice-president say about a Barack Hussein Obama presidency?

Policy Advisors. For all of Obama's talk of "change," he has surrounded himself with more than 300 old-school leftist policy advisors -- most recruited from the elite of Washington's Democrat Party establishment -- and many of whom will serve in his administration. This influential group of business-as-usual has-beens includes the likes of John Kerry, Warren Christopher, Madeleine Albright, Richard Holbrooke, Wesley Clark, Richard Clark, Anthony "Tony" Lake, Greg Craig, Eric Holder, and David Axelrod. If this gang represents change, I don't know the meaning of the word.

Domestic Policies. Barack Obama has vaguely laid out an ambitious agenda to further strengthen the authority of central government and redistribute America's wealth. Just a few items loosely outlined in Obama's plan, in addition to personal income tax increases, are listed below (although he will profess a desire for a middle-class tax cut just like Clinton did -- before Clinton implemented the largest tax increase in the history of the United States):

Our economy rewards entrepreneurship and investment, allowing all Americans to benefit. It is hard to see how an authoritarian, command-and-control philosophy that is out of step with global economic trends and costly for America's taxpayers and consumers can be an engine for positive change.

To say nothing of the slow, inevitable usurpation America's constitutional freedoms.

It is difficult to understand how shackling an economy that has allowed generations of Americans to prosper and propelled America to become the mightiest nation in civilized history will somehow magically, mysteriously provide the "hope" and "change" demanded by the radical Left -- the group that holds the real power within the Democrat Party.

The candidate

Barack Hussein Obama is a political hustler, a huckster who has spent exactly 143 working days in elected federal office. Before that he spent eight years as an Illinois state senator, before that he was a "community organizer," and before that he was a collegiate disciple of the radical disciplines as espoused by Saul Alinsky and a supporting cadre of dedicated socialists.

Furthermore, Obama is in many ways similar to the Clintons -- a cookie-cutter version of the far-left, statist Democrat -- but without the encumbrances of their shared disgrace and shattered integrity ... yet. I stress yet because it is important to remember that for almost all of his adult life, Obama and wife Michelle have closely consorted with, shared their family with, and staunchly defended (and still defend):

Scurrilous mentors, friends, and associates aside, the fact that Obama's Democrat Party handlers are having such a difficult time making the case for him without falling back on the tired, trite tactic of incessantly attacking President Bush illustrates a serious, fundamental problem facing Obama's candidacy -- He is an inexperienced greenhorn senator who hasn't accomplished anything of significance.

"Polling pundits indicate that Obama must have a minimum 10-point lead in the polls prior to Election Day or he will lose."

Another of the myths surrounding "The One" as he has been anointed by his Drive-by Media entourage is his claim to be able to heal the racial rift that plagues America. However, a closer look at polling data shows us that this is simply a fallacy. Polling analysis indicates that Obama simply cannot draw support from undecided non-blacks, yet more than 90 percent of American blacks support Obama.

In fact, because of the extreme and well-publicized racist diatribes of his above-mentioned mentors, coupled with his own subtle yet inflammatory charges of racism against former foe Hillary Clinton and now John McCain, it is Obama himself who is egregiously injecting race into the presidential contest. Obama, either by design or foolishness, is actually increasing the racial polarization in America.

It might be prudent for the Left to hold back their smug smiles and condescending attitudes for a while yet, because they are stuck with a deeply, deeply flawed candidate. Polling pundits Rasmussen and Zogby generally agree that Obama must have a minimum 10-point lead in the polls prior to Election Day or he will lose.

Predictably unpredictable

2008 is supposed to be a Democrat Party year -- all of the experts say so, and the Drive-by Media gleefully trumpets this message incessantly. But no matter how hard one searches, there is not even a glimmer of great, new, workable ideas from the Left. The key word is workable, because a platform containing a few slogans or economy-killing schemes without substance is hardly the vehicle that will help a new president govern, let alone be elected.

And as we have experienced so many times before, falling back on the tired, old Democrat Party play book of more big government programs, higher taxes, and more regulatory strangulation will not do anything to strengthen the economy, mend societal problems, or enable the American people to prosper.

If congressional Republicans once again embraced the principles of fiscal responsibility, limited government, and market choices that we Reagan Conservatives prize, and if congressional Republicans clearly and loudly let the American people and Reagan Conservatives know that they erred but now get the message, the party might have a shot at holding their own or even increasing representation. We could be surprised at the outcome in November.

It would be uplifting to once again see a majority of conservative Republicans in Congress (including like-minded Reagan Democrats) who embrace our principles rather than today's majority of moderate sell-outs who go along with the Left to get along while they shamelessly whore whatever values they once possessed. This is not likely to happen, but however much we conservatives are despised by those blue-blood, moderate Republicans, we are still the heart, soul, and conscience of their Party.

It must irk them to know that their Party will never be a sustainable political force without us.