The recent discussion on “unity at all costs” has apparently been on other people’s minds as well. Over on “Pursuit of Liberty“, David is looking for “Banzai Republicans” – those who might have a low probability of success, but, as David says, one in which “the attacker could still hope to both live and be successful”. “Show me the Republican leader who is willing to end their political life in order to maintain a principle in which they should not compromise”, he says.
Over on “Politics Elevated”, guest blogger Monte Bateman has a post titled “Republican Party Epic Fail“. He uses even stronger language for the the Republican party’s drift away from the “principled patriots” of the past.
Just as we need to refocus and redouble our efforts to reassert the principles upon which our great nation was established, we also need to retake the Republican party away from the usurpers who have stolen it away from those of us who aligned ourselves with the GOP because of what it stood for (I’m intentionally using the past tense here). If we fail to take back the Republican party, it’s no great loss because there are one or two existing parties the conservatives can relate to that would be a fine substitute. But there is no substitute for The United States of America. We cannot afford to lose our great nation and the principles upon which it stands. And yet because of the leadership within the Republican party, we have long ago lost the vanguard of principled patriots within the party who saw it as their duty to prevent traitors from entering our ranks and selling our great nation down the river. In fact, our current party leaders have done much to encourage negligent behavior, and now are engaged in hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth over the loss of our freedoms. In my humble opinion, such hand wringing is merely an act. What they are really upset about is that they are no longer in charge of the process of stealing away the most basic of freedoms from the American people.
Connor, over at “Connor’s Conundrums” has a post titled “A False Plea for Political Unity”. He starts off:
In various political gatherings I attend and view there are inevitably a handful of people who will vocally complain about perceived divisiveness and “in-fighting”. Their main argument is that it is counter-productive to spend our time and energy focusing on internal problems, and that our efforts would be better spent opposing the other party (whatever that means) and fighting for our common goals.
This argument has at least two problems. First, it is a smoke-screen for maintaining a status quo that the “establishment” would rather not see changed. By calling any attempt to root out corruption or improve internal processes “divisive” (simply because somebody who shares a party affiliation opposes the action), the person uses a red herring to deter anybody from changing the system they have worked hard to nurture and take advantage of. Second, any pleas for unity are disingenuous when there are strong or important disagreements between two or more people; any facade of agreement is deception at best, and a flat out lie at worst, when behind the scenes there is bickering and malcontent.
Morgan Philpot, Utah GOP vice-chair, recently commented that
“Steele’s hat analogy is flawed and hypocritical. Using his logic, Republicans should not be fighting nor complaining about Democrats because we all wear our “American” hat. (Which is, by the way, a more important distinction than Republican or Democrat.) Plain and simple though the two parties are dependent upon each other for their continued success. Granted, their power ebbs and tides but without each other who would they use to pit Americans against each other. Any party in America that fails to embrace principle and dissemination of power will do what it does best and that is continue to tread on the Constitution and empower itself and those who maintain its combination. There is only one real battle, those who love agency against those who love power.”
While I agree that the GOP needs to do far more in reaching out to Hispanic, Black and Women voters, I maintain that a party without principle is one that will never reach the hearts of the American people. I don’t think we need to keep doing what we’ve done – at least not in recent history. I do advocate – as Chairman Steele said (one area where I agree with him) – a “renaissance”, a return to standing on principle. There are a few who do – but far too few. I don’t ask for perfection. I don’t expect to agree with everyone on everything. I do expect there to be a “line in the sand” on some issues and that ALL issues be filtered by principle, not political expediency.
What HAS surprised me in this discussion is how many from the left seem to mock those of us on the right who actually want and expect our leaders to be principled. You want us to stand for nothing? We expect – and even demand – leaders to have principles that govern their decisions. John Adams said it well when he said “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”.
Recently, the Salt Lake Tribune took Congressman Chaffetz to task, calling his earmark reform proposals “
Today, Senator Harry Reid announced that the health care reform bill will have a public option. There’s a shocker – I was sure there wouldn’t be, since the Baucus bill didn’t have a public option…kidding – I am kidding. Of course there is a public option. 
Anyone still remember that Obama promised an “open, transparent” administration? Yeah, me neither…. In one more move demonstrating he was all rhetoric and no action, the White House has told Congress it will not make available any of the czars who work in the White House and don’t have to go through Senate confirmation. 
