Along with many in the Republican Party and the conservative movement, I was profoundly shocked at the loss Mitt Romney suffered at the hands of Barack Obama, a weak president with a pathetic record. But perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised since we had a weak and pathetic candidate ourselves, but I held out hope that things were swinging in our direction. It was not to be.
The question on the minds of many, including the GOP, is how this happened. Was it because of shifting demographics? That fact certainly played a role. With millions of Hispanics pouring into the country for decades, once reliable red states are now reliably blue, as that group voted 71 percent for Obama.
Was it because the conservative white base is shrinking, or that conservative white voters did not turn out? Both are true. Romney gained three million fewer votes than did John McCain in 2008, and McCain was no conservative favorite. Continue reading
It seems we never learn. Every now and then, the American people hand some poor soul, undeserving in many cases, the national levers of power. And in each and every instance, it has cost us dearly. There are several historical periods of note.
John Adams, himself a political giant, was imminently qualified for the presidency, at least on paper. But he had the most unenviable of tasks, perhaps in all of American history. He had to follow George Washington as president. And he did a lousy job.
Rather than reverse course from what Washington and Alexander Hamilton had begun, Adams built on it, continuing an oppressive system of taxation and top-down management of the nation’s affairs. A people who had just fought a war of independence over taxation now saw the imposition of an even more draconian system, one that included direct federal taxes on everything from whiskey and tobacco to land and homes. Continue reading
In the good ole days of the republic, during the 19th century, it was a cardinal principle of American politics that the man did not seek the office; instead, the office sought the man. This was especially true in presidential elections when candidates never took to the stump, especially if one held an office and was seeking a second term. That’s not to say that they were not involved, just not openly and actively involved.
Today it seems we have come full circle. Rather than concentrate on his work as president, like say, attending all of his intelligence briefings so he can know what’s going on in hotspots like Libya, President Obama has spent the better part of this year doing nothing but campaigning. Continue reading
Is Barack Obama a socialist? Many on the right say yes; most on the left say no. It is a major question that has pervaded our politics for the last four years with no definitive answer either one way or the other. But I think the answer is obvious, if one will only look objectively at the clear signs.
First of all, how do you define socialism? The historical definition is a simple one: government ownership of the means of production and the central economic planning that makes such an arrangement possible. Yet in the modern era, it has undergone a necessary re-evaluation.
In 1976, Nobel Prize-winning economist F. A. Hayek, in an updated version of his influential book The Road to Serfdom, re-defined it for contemporary times: “Socialism has come to mean chiefly the extensive redistribution of incomes through taxation and the institutions of the welfare state.” Continue reading