Skip to content

Collectivism and its impact on the Presidential campaign

February 3, 2008

Collectivist thought surrounding elections is that once a candidate is thought to emerge the frontrunner, everyone should line up in support of that candidate. What happens when the newly crowned frontrunner is fundamentally flawed? Whether you want to admit it or not, that’s how we wound up with George W. Bush. He emerged the frontrunner after the 2000 South Carolina primary (sound familiar?). The rest of that story is now history. Why then, are Republicans so eager to commit the same mistake again?

At a time when most people say they want change, the Republican Party is on the verge of anointing an heir apparent to the Bush legacy. Do they really want 4 more years of mediocrity? Or is it possible that people just want to reach an end of the primary campaign, no matter the result?

One of my coworkers was concerned because the New Hampshire primary election did not produce a clear frontrunner. Now, here we are a month later, heading into Super-Duper Tuesday, and the guy who assumes he’ll get the nomination is already overflowing with endorsements and is boasting that he can win in November.

It seems that a lot of people believe that this fellow deserves their votes simply because he is said to relish “poking a finger in the eye of conservatives.” And why shouldn’t they think that? The mainstream media has been telling them that is the case for quite some time now. But does that qualify him to claim conservative credentials and to pick up the mantle of a re-incarnated Ronald Reagan? I don’t think so.

Again today, the mainstream media is telling us that since the Senator from Arizona has emerged as the party’s frontrunner, conservatives are giving him another look. Perhaps some will be tempted to hold their noses and vote for him. Sometimes people are tempted to surrender their ideals because they perceive a tidal flow in a different direction. But you do get what you pay for. In this case, it’s tainted meat.

Sen. McCain did not support the Bush tax cuts, because he said the tax cuts benefited wealthy Americans. Well, it is true that an across the board tax cut does mean that people who pay taxes will benefit more than those who do not pay taxes. That doesn’t mean they’re getting something for nothing. It simply means that Uncle Sam doesn’t steal quite as much of their wealth. Now, the Senator claims that he’s always said the reason he didn’t support tax relief was that it wasn’t accompanied by spending cuts. How Reagan like. Is it that he can’t remember, or simply can’t tell the truth?

The Senator said he wasn’t well versed in economics, but when asked about the comment, 12 minutes later, claimed that he was misquoted. Yes, live video coverage has a tendency to misquote politicians. However, the Senator has a demonstrated lack of understanding of economics.

With regard to the invasion of Iraq, the Senator demonstrated typical neocon hubris by proclaiming that the combat operations would be easy and result in an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time. But last month, appearing on CNN, he claimed that “the American people were led to believe that this would be some kind of day at the beach, which many of us fully understood from the beginning would be a very, very difficult undertaking.” Considering that he was one of the people leading the American people to believe in the day at the beach scenario, once can only wonder what he’ll dream of for any “pre-emptive wars” he would initiate, if given the opportunity.

Do we really want our troops in Iraq for 100 years, as suggested by Senator McCain? Can we continue to project force in 130 countries? One of the fundamental questions that must be asked is the role of the U.S. military. Will we continue to be the policeman of the world, building an empire based solely on military prowess? If that is indeed to be our destiny, how will it be funded?

Working with the lush from Massachusetts, Senator McCain tried to unleash amnesty for illegal immigrants “undocumented workers.” He now claims that he was unhappy with the bill that he helped author! The dirty little secret of the “shamnesty bill” is that businesses were the sole beneficiaries. Importing workers who willingly accept less money without benefits clearly does not benefit the American workforce. In fact, the many social services provided free to illegal immigrants encourages a constant flow of “undocumented workers” into the United States. And those social services, such as free medical care, free schools and welfare are paid for by U.S. taxpayers, thanks to people like Senator McCain.

The other downside of the illegal immigration issue is that we are losing our national sovereignty. The current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue does not care about that, and neither does Senator McCain. Hell, he doesn’t even have the integrity to tell the American people that he not only knows about the soon-to-be North American Union, he embraces it. And yet collectivists seem now, as lemmings, eager to join together to support John McCain.

Senator McCain seems to have difficulty remembering his positions from day to day. Here’s a video, aptly titled “John McCain vs. John McCain.” This is particularly telling video record of the real John McCain.

Here’s how a few of the more famous names in conservative media have weighed in.

Rush Limbaugh says that a McCain nomination will destroy the Republican Party.

Ann Coulter says that if the general election is between Senators McCain and Clinton, she’ll actively campaign, and vote for the Senator from New York, because Hillary is more of a conservative than McCain.

Sean Hannity says that McCain is not a conservative, but he could never vote for a Democrat.

So where does that leave us?

I don’t think that a RINO (Republican In Name Only) like John McCain can win a general election against a real liberal. He’s too much like them. Why choose a cheap copy when you can have an original?

First and foremost, don’t fall into the trap of doing a thing just because everyone else appears to be doing it. Collectivism is never a good thing, and even worse when mixed with politics.


My best advice is the same that I’ve given all along. Look beyond the rhetoric, the sound bites and look at the real issues confronting us today. Examine each candidate’s position and verify those words with their voting records. Make an informed decision, and then cast your ballot.


No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: