Republican: A Party of Losers?

liberty-bellMany high profile Republicans are advising conservatives not to put up too much resistance to Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court.  Their argument is that opposition to her appointment would further alienate Hispanic and other minority voters making future Republican gains more difficult.  Republicans taking this position demonstrate their inability to learn from past experience.

They are the same Republicans who gave us “moderate” John McCain as a presidential candidate in the last election.  They are also the ones who describe the Republican Party as the “party of the big tent”.  A more accurate label would be the “party of losers”.

Losing is something at which the Republicans have a lot of experience. They have been consistently doing it since the early twentieth century.  The few wins they have experienced have been short lived.  When they do win, they repeatedly fail to build on those victories, and the benefits they gain soon give way to the persistent counter-attacks of the Democratic Party.

Contrast the Republican’s experience at losing with the Democrat’s experience at winning and you get a completely different picture.  Franklin Roosevelt taught the Democrats how to win and they have been building on those wins ever since.  Decade after decade they have persistently advanced their agenda.  They never concede defeat.  Devastating losses, such as those delivered by Reagan and Gingrich are only temporary setbacks.  They always comeback stronger than before, never changing their goals or tactics.

Those who argue that negative criticism of the opposition is counterproductive have not been paying attention to the manifold successes of the Democratic Party, particularly over the past eight years.  Every decision or policy of George W. Bush was consistently criticized and every appointee was demonized.  These tactics drove the popularity of Bush to historical lows with little if any negative consequences to the Democratic Party.

The same techniques were used against Judge Bork, Justices Thomas, Roberts and Alito, as well as Attorneys General Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales and others, all without negative consequences to the Democrats. I am not suggesting that Republicans ought to use the same tactics.  I am suggesting that we need to forget about our fears of repercussions and the mistaken fantasy that we can win over minorities and independents by compromising our principles and accepting the premises behind the Democrat’s socialist programs.

The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor by President Obama presents an opportunity for the Republican Party to make some real headway in the struggle for the loyalty of the American people.  That is, if it has the courage and the smarts to take advantage of the opening we have been given.  Obama and Sotomayor share the same worldview and the same goals.  Both reject the Constitution they are sworn to protect and defend.

Neither understands the meaning of a constitutional government or the historical importance of the Constitution to the continuing liberty and indeed, the very existence of America.  The discussion of Sotomayor during the confirmation process gives the Republicans a rare three-month opportunity to educate the American people about the principles on which the most successful nation in history was built.

While most Americans do not fully appreciate the Constitution as it relates to their daily lives, almost all of them have a reverence for the “idea” of the Constitution.  By using the Sotomayor confirmation process as an opportunity to clearly inform the American people about the importance of constitutional and republican principles such as limited government, elimination of unnecessary taxes, and a strong national defense, we can set the stage for a “wipeout” of Democrats in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Check out the new Conservative Forum


6 responses to “Republican: A Party of Losers?

  1. jackofspades83

    How exactly does Obama reject the constitution? He was a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. I haven’t seen him do or say anything that would signal distaste with the constitution.

  2. Obama has never been a professor of anything. He was a part-time lecturer in the University of Chicago Law School for eleven years while also working at a law firm representing various radical clients, mostly community organizing groups. One of his biggest clients was ACORN which he represented in lawsuits forcing mortgage companies to grant sub-prime loans to low income applicants. During this time he was also an Illinois State Senator.

    As to his rejection of the Constitution; for starters, he rejects the enumerated powers doctrine. He has stated publicly he considers the Constitution to be a flawed document that needs to be continuously updated. And he rejects out-of-hand the Tenth Amendment. Most politicians ignore the Constitution in favor of political expediency. Obama has raised it to an art form.

  3. jackofspades83

    The Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank case that you referred to simply mandated that banks not racially discriminate against giving ANY sort of loan. Considering that Citibank offered sub-prime loans, and that these loans are considered legal in the US, you are right in a very limited sense. If sub-prime loans are to be considered legal and offered to the public, institutions are constitutionally mandated to provide equal access in terms of race/ethnicity, and that is exactly what that case was about.

    Also, there seems to be an inconsistency in your argument. You chide Obama for considering the constitution a flawed document that needs to be continuously updated. Yet in the next sentence you also object to him ignoring an amendment to the constitution. If the constitution need not be updated then any amendment would be unnecessary, including the 10th amendment. If something needs to be amended it’s obviously not perfect and therefore, flawed.

    Like any document, the constitution is open to interpretation. I don’t think that Obama disregards the constitution, but rather he seems to disagree with your interpretation of a point of constitutional law.

  4. Jackofspades83 – I compliment you on your obvious debating skills. I particularly admire your skill in changing the meaning of the words “constitution” and “flawed” as demanded by the context of my comment. For a proper definition of the word “constitution”, please see Article VI of the Constitution. I use the word “flawed” in the context of various interviews by Obama such as the 2001 NPR interview where he criticized the Warren court for not addressing the question of “redistribution.”

    Of course the Constitution is not perfect, but it has proven to be closer to perfection as a blueprint for governance than any other constitution in world history. Since space is limited for comments I recommend you read a previous post “Obama’s Flawed Constitution” if you are interested in understanding my position on the subject.

  5. jackofspades83

    I read your post on “Obama’s Flawed Constitution”, it’s a good review of American history, but it doesn’t elucidate exactly why Obama’s view of the constitution is “flawed”, it only seems to state it. However, your final comments seem to indicate that you are upset with his Keynesian style economic programs. It seems to hark upon what I often find to be a trivializing debate in American politics, between the forces of “small governance” and “big governance”. Size of governance is of relatively little importance, what matters is if the government fulfills the task that it’s citizens wish it to pursue, and does so effectively. Size is not an indicator of competence.

    I would be more interested in hearing a debate on why his Keynesian economic polices are harmful, by contrasting perceived weaknesses in it’s arguments, rather than a blanket perception that government is “too large”. What constitutes too large? If your answer is simply the constitution, I would argue that it isn’t of much practical use. Our government was not founded upon unquestioning allegiance to written law, or else we would still be subjects of the British empire. Our government was founded upon the will of its citizenry. The constitution was merely an agreed upon covenant of the people at that time with its government. The constitution, and the amendments that encompass the bill of rights, are new covenants forged at the expense of the older ones. Once again if we were a nation bound to the constitution, black men would still only have 3/5 of a vote each, women would be completely unrepresented.

    Our society was built upon the traditions of the past and the enlightenment ideals we used to look to the future. While our society should look to the past with respect and admiration, it is not in keeping with the very nature of our founders to allow ourselves to be unquestioningly bound to the mores of the past.

  6. Jackofspades83 – I always enjoy a good conversation, but you give me no frame of reference to support your views. If the Constitution carries no weight, private property is meaningless, contract law is immaterial, the experience of American history is irrelevant, and the experience of other nations that have implemented the economic theories espoused by Barack Obama is ignored, what is there to discuss?

    We simply disagree as to the type of nation we prefer to live in. I prefer an ordered civil society, governed by the rule of law, where citizens live in liberty, make their own decisions and enjoy the fruits of their OWN labor.

    At age seventy-five I will not be around when it really hits the fan. It angers me however, when I see our public officials robbing my children and grandchildren just so they can continue to enjoy the heady experience of absolute power over the lives of others.

    Also, I didn’t say Obama’s view of the Constitution is flawed. I said he views the Constitution as being flawed. His view of the Constitution is, in my opinion, dangerous. From his position as President, he has the power, and seems to have the intention of completely destroying everything I hold dear.