Extremism in the Defense of Liberty

I always liked Barry Goldwater. It was 1964, and I was voting in my first presidential election - I was 18. Barry Goldwater was my man for president. Several years later, I was an active member of the SDS, a Commie front group. What made the difference? Disappointment that a sensible guy like Goldwater was so mistreated by the media. It turned me against the system. It took a number of years and the Lord Jesus Christ to turn me back to right thinking again.

It can't happen to me again, but the seeds of unrest have been deeply planted in my soul.

Goldwater's acceptance speech at the Republican convention of 1964 featured, among other notable quotables "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! " His words are still true but many who have claimed to be conservatives in our day have forgotten them.

Col Alan West, a man whom I support and admire, came out publicly sounding as if the recent debt-ceiling compromise, which he voted for, was a victory for fiscal conservatives. This post, written on the 6th of August, the day that the US debt rating was (predictably) down graded to AA+, is exactly what should have been expected as a consequence of such careful incrementalism as my friend Col West has embraced. He might have been attempting to appear "moderate" on the talk shows, but as Senator Goldwater so sagely said "...moderation in the defense of liberty is no virtue."

He, and others who we thought were genuinely committed to a pitched battle on the budget, with a mandate to win it - not just make a noisy show and then fold - should have forced the Senate - in a test of wills - to pass a real spending cut crafted by the House - and forced the President to pass or veto real spending cuts - 5 or 6 trillion immediately. The bill passage should have been charged with the explicit warning that there was no compromise on the spending cuts and no compromise on tax increases. For them to fail to pass the House budget plan would be to step out on their own and in effect proclaim that they, the Senate and the President, would be responsible to precipitate a government shutdown and a default.  The House leadership should have made it crystal clear that if the Senate and President failed to pass or agree to the cuts, then there would be no further budget legislation coming out the House - in other words, this is your final chance.

I know the Media portrayed it as if the House would be responsible for a shutdown and a credit default, but think this through - the House passed a responsible budget bill that would have prevented all that. It was the Senate and President who refused to agree. But the Lib/Dem Media turned on the House, telegraphing that it was the House who had to to compromise. But why should they have had to do that? Why not just turn the whole question around and point out that the House had no other choice but to to pass large budget cuts. There could be no compromise on the future of the country. Put the onus back where it belongs: on the Senate and the President.

But the House Republican leadership blinked - and fell for the idea that they were the ones who had to compromise. When Boehner announced that "the House was not going to precipitate a default" on FoxNEws Sunday with Mike Wallace, he gave the whole ball game away. The media pulled off a slight of hand and played the hapless House leadership for a loss. They (again) got manipulated by scare tactics when they held all the cards for a victory, (if played right.)

Victory is all a matter of how the game is played, folks. The Republican "leadership" is still the lame, scared, vacillating, cowardly and calculating  - and may I say witless - midgets that they have been for generations. I can honestly see why many independents don't trust them: they are wimps. And much of the time, they deserve the scorn of the voters. Were it not for the desperation of a substantial bloc of frightened and responsible voters (of all political stripes) that see our country going quickly into oblivion, and our liberties with it, there probably would not have been a change in the 2010/11 House composition. But the voters had nowhere else to go. And when they handed the House over to the Republicans, they were asking for bold, dramatic action, not political maneovering to avoid blame and political heat. There is no way to resolve this problem without somebody taking hits. Hurt must be in the lexicon of any leader brave enough to storm the Liberal welfare state bastion. But the reward of victory is none other than life from the dead for our poor hurting nation.

The leadership should have been chosen out of the newer and bolder group, for this battle is not won through knowledge of legislative tactics, but through playing a game of brinkmanship against the Liberal establishment. House rules based on seniority inevitably put the oldest and most senior in line to inherit the leadership role. But since when is seniority the measure of leadership? Here is one case where this seniority principle ill-served the best interests of the people of the United States.

The Republican party possesses the needed leadership in the present composition of the House - but they were never consulted or considered. I consider Alan West to be of that calibre, even though I think he made a mistake in hitching his wagon to Boehner's failing star.

And the battle can be won: I say this without fear of contradiction. There is a huge voting bloc in this country that has been holding its breath and yearning for someone - or for some gutsy group - to come along and take on the Libs, exposing them in their lairs as the planless, clueless, heartless, power-hungry thugs that they are. The Libs have most of the media in their pocket but the Internet is still free. Dramatic and creative action could force even a reluctant and hostile Media to dance to the tune of an aggressive use of power and political theatre. Reagan was really good at this, going over the heads of the reporters and seizing the TV spotlight for his own use. The Media cannot control that, and if they try to shut out one who has caught the public's imagination and admiration - the media itself will be pummelled by the public. All that is lacking is such a leader. 

To those who say that the Republicans would have been ceaselessly blamed on every evening TV network broadcast featuring poor grannies whining about their social security check, or the medicare payments being cut - that is no doubt true; however, in 1864 Admiral Farragut had to run the gauntlet of the Confederate guns of Mobile, Alabama to capture the city. He had to suffer a violent cannonade from the shore batteries, and sunken mines. He paid the price of one ship sinking from a mine (called "torpedoes" back then), bravely saying "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead," and he won the city.

So it is with this kind of situation. If the Republicans are so frightened about taking fire from the Media, then they might as well concede defeat right now. The Media is hostile to conservatism in general, and Republicans in particular, and will remain so until it is decisively defeated in public. (Who knows? Some in the media might be publicly critical of Republicans because they have behaved so contemptibly and been so unworthy of support for years. Who knows the allies that might be lurking, hidden and waiting for a hero to come along?) But that will never happen until a brave principled stand is taken - and the violence of the cannonade and the torpedoes damned - until victory is won.

Old Line House and Senatee Republican leaders are particularly unsuited to this kind of fight because they lost the psychological fight years ago: they have been beaten in their minds, and thus are not capable of thinking like an aggressive leadership party. They have been trained to think like losers, and they act like it. When the Media and the dirty Dems pull their strings this gang runs for cover and folds their tents. We need a new generation of leaders who have not been brain-washed.

Back to the what-should-have-beens: If the House had held the line and forced the Senate and President back to the table for large across the board  spending cuts now, not spread incredibly over ten years, we would have seen the stock market take off like a rocket, because the government fiscal path would have been reset on a genuine correction, rather than more debt increases, as usual. Instead, the post-compromise stock market voted with it's feet, correctly assessing the “compromise” to be as hollow as its rhetoric. 

Had the Republicans won the round, even through a temporary government shutdown, and credit default (Which I absolutely believe would have been averted), then the positive rebound of the Stock and Credit markets would have shoved the MSM criticism off the front page and exposed their manipulation as crass political theater. Nothing succeeds like success.

Sadly, the one big bugaboo the Media threatened the Republicans with - a downgrade in the US Bond rating - happened anyway, so a substantial part of the power and advantage of the constitutional budget hammer that we voters handed the House in November was squandered with the weak-kneed "compromise" that allowed the Libs to preserve their spending, and Obama to be able to campaign without the debt issue hanging over his head daily. He also won’t have to answer for the increased spending as he goes into what should have been a very negative election cycle for him. 

Goldwater said "Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice." The word extremism is a pejorative today, but that is only because the Left Media use it to bash those who stand up to their manipulation. Seize the term and reverse it and ram it down their throats. Isn't it really "extreme" to crash the economy through out of control spending? Or is it really "extreme" to balance the budget?  If that is being extreme, then this is the time for a little “Extremism in defense of Liberty.”