The Democratic Party has become synonymous with government security. Democrats agitate & unite by reminding voters that America has been unfair, and without government protection, they will be alone and powerless. In so many words "freedom: is their enemy. Ironically the more dependent Americans become on government, the more insecure and fearful they become. Democrats use this fear to manipulate their votes at election time.
Obama offered hope not in an American identity but a hope that America could change from its repressive past. The enchantment of Obama to the disenchanted was derived from the fact that much of what he said was true. There has been political injustice. But instead of inspiring Americans with hope and pride in the greatness of our country and the strides we've made toward justice, he inspired people to unite around the wrongs & injustices that they have suffered because of their affiliation with a victimized group. Obama's platform was the antithesis of liberty; he offered hope in more government
Republicans have become America's minority party because they have been poor salesmen of the benefits of true freedom. As Americans have become more dependent on government, Republican have tried to use a "Democrat lite" approach, trying to appeal to voters' desire for more security. George W. Bush tried to appeal to America's need for security with his big-spending, "compassionate conservative" agenda. But few Republicans have been willing to tell Americans the truth: people are most secure when they are most free.
Few in America and in Congress would call themselves socialists. They believe they are liberals, progressives, Democrats, compassionate conservatives, moderate Republicans, or obedient religious adherents.
While they would never admit it, most members of Congress lean toward socialist policies. They're not involved in a conspiracy. Nor are they intent on destroying freedom. They are patriotic Americans who want the best for our country and our people, but they just don't understand how freedom works, and they don't understand the dangers of socialism.
The socialist principles of "equality" and "justice" sound like ideas we should all support, but the socialists' definition of equality is not equality of opportunities but an equality of outcomes. They are not speaking of equal justice under law. Socialists promote a more arbitrary "affirmative justice" government action to combat perceived discrimination or suspected prejudice. To save freedom, Americans must understand these advocates of government-imposed social and economic justice want to transform America into a social democracy that whether they know it or not, advances the cause of socialism.
It is not an overstatement to say freedom describes the highest state of human existence. For more than 2 centuries, this elusiv treasure has thrived in the US. Freedom is hard to define. We can't see it or touch it. Yet freedom has been written about and spoken of throughout history as the height of individual achievement and the ultimate goal of civilization.
By all objective measures freedom is on the decline in America. The philosophy of socialism has crept into almost every aspect of American life, and this philosophy has slowly and indiscernibly stripped many American of their prosperity, dignity, and hope for the future.
This personal conflict encouraged me to think more clearly about the difference between a secular government and a secular society. One is good; the other is destructive. We do notwant a government that represents a particular religion or forces a particular religion on its people. Our government should be religion-neutral or secular.
But we also do not want a government that purges religion from society. We do not want a government that prohibits religious-based moral judgments by individuals or private institutions. We do not want a government that excludes constructive values and principles. And we do not a government that promotes destructive behaviors opposed to the traditional values of our nation.
Carter missed the real cause of America's problems. Government was trying to do too much. Government becomes "incapable of acting" when it attempts to serve a large number of particular needs rather than promoting the general welfare. When the federal government began to involve itself in planning specific aspects of America's culture and economy, it was inevitable there would be destructive and costly consequences.
An individual making his own choices based on his own values, according to Friedman, was the essence of freedom.
Friedman also argued that the free operation of the economy provides a backstop to the centralization of power in the government sector. When economic and social decisions are made in the private sector and wealth is held by individuals, the size and scope of government power is restricted.
It doesn't take a legal scholar to see that the main purpose of the Constitution is to limit the role, scope, and power of the federal government. It does this by dividing and specifying the duties and powers of the federal government and by reserving all other powers to individuals or the states.
Reagan won the hearts and votes of the American people by shifting the debate from a myriad of confusing political issues to values Americans recognized immediately as their own. By reminding Americans of our goodness and strengths, Reagan held up a mirror and helped us see ourselves at our very best. Reagan made us believe we could get across any river on our own. Reagan convinced Americans that freedom would work for everyone and that the big-government welfare state was just a fox clothed in deceptive political promises.
Unfortunately the cause of freedom has had too few articulate champions since Ronald Reagan.
Reagan knew every generation of Americans must make a choice between freedom and socialism. Today that choice confronts Americans more urgently than ever before.
| |||
| Candidates and political leaders on Principles & Values: | |||
|
Retired Senate as of Jan. 2015: GA:Chambliss(R) IA:Harkin(D) MI:Levin(D) MT:Baucus(D) NE:Johanns(R) OK:Coburn(R) SD:Johnson(D) WV:Rockefeller(D) Resigned from 113th House: AL-1:Jo Bonner(R) FL-19:Trey Radel(R) LA-5:Rod Alexander(R) MA-5:Ed Markey(D) MO-9:Jo Ann Emerson(R) NC-12:Melvin Watt(D) SC-1:Tim Scott(R) |
Retired House to run for Senate or Governor:
AR-4:Tom Cotton(R) GA-1:Jack Kingston(R) GA-10:Paul Broun(R) GA-11:Phil Gingrey(R) HI-1:Colleen Hanabusa(D) IA-1:Bruce Braley(D) LA-6:Bill Cassidy(R) ME-2:Mike Michaud(D) MI-14:Gary Peters(D) MT-0:Steve Daines(R) OK-5:James Lankford(R) PA-13:Allyson Schwartz(D) TX-36:Steve Stockman(R) WV-2:Shelley Capito(R) |
Retired House as of Jan. 2015:
AL-6:Spencer Bachus(R) AR-2:Tim Griffin(R) CA-11:George Miller(D) CA-25:Howard McKeon(R) CA-33:Henry Waxman(D) CA-45:John Campbell(R) IA-3:Tom Latham(R) MN-6:Michele Bachmann(R) NC-6:Howard Coble(R) NC-7:Mike McIntyre(D) NJ-3:Jon Runyan(R) NY-4:Carolyn McCarthy(D) NY-21:Bill Owens(D) PA-6:Jim Gerlach(R) UT-4:Jim Matheson(D) VA-8:Jim Moran(D) VA-10:Frank Wolf(R) | |
|
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
Click for details -- or send donations to: 1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140 E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org (We rely on your support!) | |||