If You Value Limited Government, Don’t Vote Republican
Perry is slipping to Romney in the polls. For the left, the good news is that Romney is slightly more moderate than Perry and so less likely to pass extreme measures. The bad news for the left is that Romney is just as politically deft, a good deal more intelligent, more able to outmaneuver his liberal opponents and still pretty much guaranteed not to support Roe v. Wade, Gun control, welfare, gay marriage, taxing the rich or national health care (don’t believe the rhetoric – given the beating he’s taking over the issue he’s probably MORE likely to push for a repeal than Perry, not less). He’s also more likely to beat Obama in 2012.
This last bit is bad news for the rest of us as well.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t support Obama. I don’t agree with his policy decisions and I don’t think his agenda is good for the economy. The thing is, Obama isn’t the only politician in Washington. And he’s not the only one facing re-election either.
Odds are, 2012 will bring in a Senate with a Republican majority and the House Republicans will hold their majority. Also, the Supreme court, which is leaning 5 to 4 towards the Republicans, could easily see the retirement of two liberal judges – Ginsberg and Breyer. This sets up the Federal Government to be the most lopsidedly single party we’ve had in recent memory. And much as I dislike Obama’s policies, I dislike the idea of a single party government even more.
Gridlock has always been the biggest ally of limited government we have had. The country has NEVER done well without it. It has been a major factor in the disaster that was the first part of Obama’s presidency (face it, pretty much everything he has done to worsen the economy happened before the republicans took over the house). It was the worst part of Clinton’s Presidency and caused him to reverse course in the middle of his first term (remember in 96, when he said “the era of Big Government is over”? How about when he reduced the capital gains tax? Guess which party was in control of Congress at that time. Then guess which party was in control when he balanced the budget and we actually had a surplus.), it was the worst part of Bush Jr’s presidency (He didn’t veto one single bill his entire first term and he enacted “no child left behind”. This is also when pretty much all of his increases in spending occurred) and it proved so disastrous for Johnson that he refused to even run for a second term and allowed formerly unelectable Nixon to get into office.
With a Republican president, senate, house and supreme court, the country effectively loses its brakes. That means that even if we DO start off in the right direction, if we veer off or overshoot, nothing will be in place to avert a crash. Indeed, with everyone pushing in the same direction, we’ll only accelerate.
What’s worse is that even the small, internal checks and balances will be plowed under. For instance, with a 5-4 split in the supreme court, there is wriggle room for swing votes. With a 7-3 majority, however, the supreme court will become a rubber stamp for the Republicans. Not even FDR had THAT kind of freedom. At that point, we no longer have a Republic, we have an oligarchy.
Right now, Intrade.com has the presidential race results undecided about which party ends up in power. Essentially there is a 49% chance that our federal system of checks and balances will be suspended. That should give anyone who values limited government – even the most devoutly Republican one – cause to re-evaluate what he wants to come out of this election.
If nothing else, consider what happens to the party in power every time gridlock breaks in this country – re-electing Obama may actually be GOOD for the Republican party.