David Limbaugh
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
It's going to take real courage the next four years for Republicans to swim against the tide and oppose Barack Obama -- in whom so many have placed their hopes, almost to the point of idolatry. But if Obama governs in a way that's consistent with his promises, the country's future security and prosperity will depend on spirited opposition.
It's bad enough for the liberal media to deify Obama, but it's almost unbearable for right-wing commentators and politicians to jump on this bandwagon, as well, as if Obama's personal attributes have blinded them to the policy dangers he represents.
During the Bush years, the left blamed Bush for the absence of bipartisanship, when, by any rational measure, they were the ones whose relentless vitriol made bipartisanship impossible.
Forgive the analogy, but their reversal of blame is reminiscent of a memorable scene in the movie "Animal House," when fraternity hotshot "Otter" pressured the hapless legacy pledge, "Flounder," into lending him his brother's car. When Otter returned the car after having demolished it, Otter chastised Flounder for entrusting the car to him. "You (screwed) up. You trusted me."
Now, after eight years of this poison, the same specious theme from the Bush bashers has found a new application: "Republicans must work with Barack Obama and restore a spirit of collegiality to Washington," as if they have any moral authority to be lecturing, but even more importantly, as if a spirit of collegiality will solve America's problems.
To be clear, I am not advocating that Republicans return the same mean-spirited partisanship with which the left pummeled Bush. But conservatives must not abandon their principles in pursuit of the seductive, illusory goal of bipartisanship.
You'd think this principle too sophomoric to articulate, and so do I -- almost. But have you been listening to Republican politicians and "conservative" commentators lately behaving as if their eternal salvation depends on jumping aboard a train headed in the opposite direction from everything in which they profess to believe?
These words expressed today by David Limbaugh cause my title for this posting:Today we watched our new president take the oath of office, promising only to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. He has already publicly stated that he believes it is a flawed document because it lays out what the federal government cannot do, and not what it should do. He will be our President for at least four years. Everybody is 'wishing him well', and 'success' and a 'great term'.
Although I will hope that he has a healthy four years and that nothing untoward shall come to him --- I cannot, in my heart of hearts, wish him well or great success. For to do so would be the same as saying I hope that in four years:
- The federal government is running a national health program
- The federal government has grown by 600,000 employees
- The federal government will have overridden the Second Amendment
- The federal government will have ignored the Tenth Amendment
- The federal government has used the IRS to redistribute wealth
- The federal government will decide what kind of car I may drive, and when I may drive it
- The federal government will have nationalized many former privately owned companies
- The federal government will be further along the road to full Socialism than at present
As a neo-federalist, I believe in the least federal government possible, with control of our day to day lives in the hands of local and state government who are directly answerable to us.
Thus, I am faced with a Hobson's Choice. I am either 'for him' or not. Fortunately I don't have to be against him. So to answer my own riddle - "I am just not for him".
No comments:
Post a Comment