About Me

Name:Brian Garst
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

The New Ideological Battlefield

When Patrick Henry orated for military action against the British, he finished his speech with the famous phrase, "give me liberty or give me death." The oft repeated assertion represents a high-point of American exceptionalism. But that phrase alone does not adequately represent Patrick Henry's argument. For while he used the word "give", he understood that freedom is never given. In the broader context, his closing offers up a deeper truth: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" What Patrick Henry was really calling for was not a gift of freedom but a will to fight for it. He recognized the fundamental truth that freedom cannot be given, only earned.

A will to fight is what we are sorely lacking. Speaking to war torn Britain in 1940, Winston Churchill implored his countrymen to stand strong, such that a 1000 years hence future generations would look back and say, "This was their finest hour". How will our descendents regard today's American resolve? If things continue down their present course, this will surely be regarded as our weakest hour. Never before have a people so strong been incapable of winning against an enemy so militarily weak. But that is where we sit today, incapable of defeating our enemies for no other reason then we refuse to try.

Granted, Global Jihad is not a typical enemy. It's tied to no single country, and instead manifests itself across all borders and boundaries. Its fighters do not merely follow the orders of some government official, but are true believers in their cause, capable of acting decisively without instruction. Global Jihad is a shared ideology with self-confidence, determination and aspirations for a global empire; a deadly combination. In contrast, America is following the example of Europe and tossing its shared ideology in favor of a secularist conglomeration of identity groups. When Theodore Roosevelt was warning against the rise of "hyphenated Americans", he referred to Americanism as "a matter of the spirit and of the soul." Europe has already lost its soul, and America is quickly losing its as well.

The stark reality is that many, particularly in Europe but also a growing number here in America, believe in nothing. When you worship at the altar of multiculturalism, embracing all values but believing in none, you have nothing to fight for. The result of this ideological paralysis is being played out right before our eyes. Americans need to watch closely as our cross-Atlantic brethren commit suicide by acquiescence. Lacking convictions, Europe was ripe to be conquered by the first strongly held ethos to come its way. As a result, Islamic radicalism is now sweeping across Europe like wildfire. If Americans cannot find our common cause again, we could be next.

It is not that we are incapable of waging war, as we do that quite well. Against a standard enemy with an army, tanks and planes we have no problem calling to arms. But our eventual victory in such battles is quite assured, thanks to our superior forces and technology. Where we stumble is against an enemy of ideology where our victory is not assured. That is the new kind of war we face. The rules have changed. Women and children are no longer respected; they are targeted. Land and borders are no longer strategic objectives; they are largely irrelevant. We need a strong soul to win this war.

We have a soul, but it's hidden away like an embarrassing child. European elitists scorn at American exceptionalism as a sign of barbarity and American leftists gleefully concede the point. In their view we are behind the times in our refusal to relinquish control of our lives to our government and control of our national safety to transnational organizations that function as little more than tyrant debate clubs. But they have it backwards; American exceptionalism and self-reliance is not the problem, it's the solution. It's the only solution. The ideological battlefield is not limited to the mountains of Afghanistan or the sands of Iraq, it's being fought right here in America. Every important decision that we turn over to the government, from education to health care, is a defeat for American exceptionalism and a victory for our enemies. In order to achieve their goals, jihadists must rely on a weak America incapable of sustaining her will for survival. And the bigger our government gets, the more our survival instinct dissolves.

This is a war that every American can participate in. Recognize that there do exist ideals that are righteous and worth fighting for. Believe in your hearts that the world is better, rather than worse, thanks to America. Understand that individualism and self-reliance are the bedrocks of American exceptionalism. When you do these things, you are defeating our enemies.

Cross-posted at Conservative Compendium.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong

The RINO's are raging, and not surprisingly their anger is directed at all the wrong places. Of course, since it should all be directed at themselves, anywhere is a wrong place. But they somehow managed to find the most wrong place of all to fume at: conservatives. In a rambling diatribe of a press release that could only have been written by a high school sophomore in a state of confused delirium, RINO group Republican Main Street Partnership declares, "Far Right Soley Responsible for Democratic Gains". Aside from the fact that these intellectual heavyweights can't even spell "solely" correctly, the memo reads like your typical lefty blogosphere brain dump full of hate and half-baked nonsense.

"Tonight the American people made it clear that our party’s decision to ignore the middle of the American electorate was a disastrous one," said Sarah Chamberlain Resnick, Executive Director of the Republican Main Street Partnership. "For the last two years centrist GOPers have warned the leadership of our party of the consequences of pushing a legislative agenda cow-towing to the far right in our party. Our warnings were ignored, and now our party is paying a devastating price."

"Republican candidates all across the country were hit by Democratic ads attacking the GOP for failure to raise the minimum wage, failure to advance embryonic stem cell research, and failure to pass strong ethics and lobbying reform," continued Resnick. "If leadership had listened to our centrists members, we could have taken issues like this off the table. Centrist Republicans in the House and Senate pushed all session for an increase in the minimum wage, for expanded embryonic stem cell research, and for real ethics and lobbying reform."


Since when has the content of Democratic attack ads been the measuring stick of Republican success? Should the Republican party really be rated on how well it adopts Democratic platforms? The press release concludes with this bit of moronic double-talk:

"What the extreme right of our party has worked to destroy – centrist Republicans will now step in and rebuild," continued Resnick. "The Republican Main Street Partnership is committed to bringing back Ronald Reagan’s Republican Party. The extreme right has had their turn at the wheel and the results have proven devastating for our party and our country."


That's funny, I seem to recall Reagan's party as one that stood for principled conservatism, not liberal appeasement. If you want to know the real truth on why Republicans lost, look no further than these disheartening poll results from The Club for Growth.

Q: In the last four years, do you think the size and cost of the federal government has gone up, gone down, or stayed about the same?

A: Gone Up 73.0%
Gown Down 5.5%
Stayed the Same 14.4%
Don't know/Refused 7.1

Q: All other things being equal, which type of candidate for Congress would you be more likely to vote for? A candidate who wants to reduce overall federal spending, even if that includes cutting some money that would come to your district; or, a candidate who is willing to increase overall spending on federal programs and grow the federal budget, in order to get more federal spending and projects for your district?

A: Cut spending 57.3%
Bring home projects 27.6%
Don't know/Refused 15.1%

. . .

Introduction to Questions: Now, I'm going to read a list of issue topics. When you look at Washington today, please tell me whether you think the Republicans or the Democrats are doing a better job on each issue. If you see no difference between the parties on these issues, just say so.

Q: "Eliminating Wasteful Spending";

A: Republicans 24.6%
Democrats 39.1%
No Difference 30.3%
Don't know/Refused 6.0%

. . .

Now tell me whether you think the following phrases better describe the Republicans or the Democrats in Washington.
Q: "The Party of Big Government";
A: Republicans 39.3%
Democrats 27.9%
Both 16.3%
Neither 9.3%
Don't know/Refused 7.4%

Q: Would you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The Republicans used to be the party of economic growth, fiscal discipline, and limited government, but in recent years, too many Republicans in Washington have become just like the big spenders that they used to oppose."

A: Agree 65.8%
Strongly Agree 43.4%
Somewhat Agree 22.4%

Disagree 26.4%
Strongly Disagree 13.4%
Somewhat Disagree 13.0%
Don't know/Refused 7.9%


Not surprisingly, the RINO's sent out another press release attacking The Club for Growth and praising Lincoln Chafee.

“Tonight the Club for Growth’s dishonest campaign against Senator Lincoln Chafee may very well have cost our party it’s majority in the U.S. Senate,” said Sarah Chamberlain Resnick, Executive Director of the Republican Main Street Partnership. “Harry Reid and the Democratic leadership in the Senate should call Pat Toomey and thank him for working hard to undermine the Republican majority.”

A Republican majority that counts on liberal Lincoln Chafee is worthless. This is the same Lincoln Chafee who refused to vote for President Bush. This is the same Lincoln Chafee who bragged about bringing home the pork. This is the same Lincoln Chafee who voted against Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. This is the same Lincoln Chafee who is now promising to oppose John Bolton's nomination as UN ambassador. Why the hell is this moron in the Republican party in the first place, and what does it say about a group of people who think Lincoln Chafee is where we should be pinning our hopes for majority control?

These idiot RINO's are agitating for even more of everything that the voters are rejecting. Give it up. Your brand of big government Republicanism failed. If you RINOs really want to restore the Republican party to Reagan's values, you can start by leaving it.

Cross-posted at Conservative Compendium.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What A Democratic House (And Senate?) Means

First, their agenda is rather obvious. Investigate everything. Expect the same battles, WMD's and the reasons for the Iraq war, to be fought all over again for the umpteenth time. The upside to this massive waste of time is that it's a massive waste of time. The more time spent investigating, the less time spent enacting bad liberal policies.

What little time they do leave themselves for legislation will be spent pulling the emergency brakes on the economy by increasing taxes and advancing socialized health care. However, neither effort is likely to gain serious traction. The question many conservatives are probably asking, however, is whether this means the end of the Republican revolution. In no way, shape, or form does this result indicate an end of the rightward track of the country.

Contrary to what media is going to sell you, this is not an historic election. In the long run it will have little impact. It doesn't signify a u-turn in the gradual rightward shift of the electorate, more like a speed bump. Europe is pleased to see a Democratic victory. This is no surprise, as the Democrats offer little more than the European model of secularization and self-destruction by indulgence that comes with big welfare states. But the American people aren't buying that. A recent poll by CNN found a majority believes the government is too big and is doing too much. Two years of a Democrat Congress is almost certain to be more than this small-government majority is willing to stomach.

Thankfully, Democrats can be counted on to expose their true agenda to the public before 2008. While in order to be competitive in redstate America, Democrats had to field an array of conservative candidates, their leadership is full of old liberals. Charlie Rangel, John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi are the face the public will see. With new found power, the left will make strong demands on Democrats that they won't be able to deliver without alienating the vast majority of the electorate. Gaining power may, in fact, exacerbate the severe problems already showing under the Democratic tent. The Democratic party is really still just a collection of special interests fighting for their piece of the pie. Until they find a core ideology that appeals to more than just fringe leftists, Democrats will find themselves outside looking in very soon.

In the mean time, small-government conservatives need to regain control of the Republican party. We lost some good people today, but we also trimmed some fat (Lincoln Chafee) that we can do without. It's time to start looking for new control of the party. Mike Pence, of the conservative Republican Study Committee has indicated a desire for the minority leader spot. I think he would be a good choice. A re-energized Republican party with a new found resolve for conservative principles has the potential to set the agenda, even as the minority. By appealing to the public, as well as many of the newly elected blue dog democrats, on popular conservative issues such as spending and immigration we can work to solve important issues in spite of Democrat gains. We need forward thinking and principled leadership from someone like Newt Gingrich to lead us into '08.

Cross-posted at Conservative Compendium.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »