What Bipartisan Spirit?

Drudge echoes the London Telegraph with the headline "Bipartisan Spirit Crumbles?" while the British newspaper reports on President Obama's choice to pick a battle with Rush Limbaugh.

More on that in a moment.

Who declared that there was a bipartisan spirit abroad in the land? That's the real question. The evidence is to the contrary - notwithstanding the white flag of legislative surrender from all the RINOs in Congress. That surrender came months ago during the collapse of any pretense of the Bush Administration to a conservative governance.

The political conflict in the United States is rooted in philosophical and moral differences that represent entirely different world views. It is an ongoing battle by two opposing factions to the hearts and minds of a larger, third group. One group cherishes the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution and recognizes them for the God-given rights and responsibilities that they are. They believe that freedom comes from God and cannot be abrogated by any government or group. The other group believes that rights are relative, that freedoms must change to fit the times, and that reliance on a supernatural power for guidance is clunky, inefficient and often at odds with humanity's vision of the future. The first group sees government as a necessary evil and potential threat; the second sees government as the main, vital instrument of all human progress.

The third group, a vast multitude of people who don't pay that much attention to politics because they are busy living their lives. Its members cannot be conveniently categorized as they range from people who would prefer near anarchy to others who long to be wrapped in the arms of the nanny state. Some will be religious but not political; others will be more political than religious. Most will share a general libertine view of cultural issues because they are steeped in the culture of today. It is in general a materialist, consumerist, hedonistic people who have good hearts, and when they look at themselves in the mirror, which they do a lot, they see individuals who care about others and the environment.

It's the thought, you see, that counts. In general many prefer that the government take care of the business of welfare, protecting Mother Earth, and keeping us safe from terrorists and toxic chemicals in our food supplies. They want it all. The problem is that a government big enough to give you everything and protect you from all harm is also big enough to take away your precious liberty. And given enough time, it will.

This third group is not easily convinced by the first group that they should inconvenience themselves with additional personal responsibility. Thus they become the big "moderate" swing vote that progressives can woo with feel-good promises. One of those promises is that the "people" deserve bipartisan consensus on the issues. It is an empty choice built on a false premise.

If bipartisan consensus means that the progressives always move their agenda forward, then that is a loss for conservatives trying to defend the erosion of personal freedom and responsibility. Thus a true conservative should never embrace bipartisan consensus for the sake of bipartisanship itself. The only bipartisan consensus acceptable is one in which liberty and personal responsibility is advanced in some way.

We have seen precious little of that in recent years. The 1990s welfare reform was probably the last real example, and ironically that was with a Democrat as president, so there you go!

The moral of this story: Beware calls for bipartisan consensus. It's the sound right now of progressives enlisting the help of the vast muddled middle to roll the conservatives.

Finally, rather than defend Rush Limbaugh from the president, it seems Rush can defend himself quite ably and did so in this post by National Review's Rich Lowry.

There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier's plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters?

Rush also makes this interesting observative:

One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama's ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy's Rules for Radicals:

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Read the whole thing.

What's Wrong With Having Principles?

Would someone please do America a big favor and show Colin Powell how to change his political party affiliation.

The former Secretary of State, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs and soon, I hope, former Republican will go on CNN "GPS" program Sunday and declare that the GOP must quit "shouting at the world" and listen to the "heart and soul" of minorities in order to win elections in this, the 21st Century.

The problem, he says, are those stubborn principles and dogmas that conservatives cling to, instead of searching for the true feelings of this country that can only be found, apparently, among African-American, Hispanic and Asian voters. He concluded by declaring that people should quit listening to the reigning king of talk radio, Rush Limbaugh.

"Is this really the kind of party that we want to be when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instincts rather than our better instincts?"

I'm sure Powell must prefer the level-head, non-dogmatic (and non-principled) angels of our better nature like Keith Olbermann and Al Franken?

A few points must be made:

1) Many of us suspected Gen. Powell of soft-headedness when he helped Bush 41 pull the plug on winning the war with Iraq in 1991. This was reinforced this decade when, after having helped make the case for Iraq War II, the Invasion, he then reversed his personal course and attacked Bush 43.

2) The State Dept. under Colin Powell remained a contentious, near treasonous snakepit, differing little in nature from its Madeline Albright version. The kind conclusion was that he was not nearly the administrator we had thought him to be. The unkind conclusion was that Powell was as squishy as his predecessor.

3) Powell's obviously pre-calculated, cold-blooded political Pearl Harbor on John McCain with a couple of weeks left in the campaign was cowardly and crass. It served as confirmation of Powell's descent into liberal madness. Like other RINOs - Republicans in name only - he is but a fifth columnist.

4) It is inherently bigoted to insist that African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians cannot hold conservative views or live according to conservative principles.

5) There is no real need, at this time, to defend Rush Limbaugh. He's a big target, an easy target for a quisling like Gen. Powell. No one - not even politicians in Washington - are forced to listen to Rush. He has a volunteer audience because his is the pre-eminent voice of conservative principles and he enunciates the frustrations, hopes and aspirations of a vast number of Americans who feel betrayed by their politicians and the cultural elites. Rush is successful because he articulates a sound doctrine consistent with the foundational principles of this Republic. If in some bizarro moment Rush Limbaugh began to sound like Colin Powell, he would lose most of his audience and his influence.

The problem with the Republican Party, as a brand, is not that GOP officials hold conservative principles and adhere to constitutionalist dogma, the problem with Republicans is that they have not governed in a manner consistent with their conservative princples and constitutionalist dogma. There was insufficient brand recognition for many voters. It was the liberal Obama, pretending to be a centrist, versus the liberal-lite McCain, pretending to be a conservative, with the latter saddled to the tattered reputation of an outgoing administration that has done its best to strip conservatism from the GOP.

Principles are a fine thing. They are part and parcel of codes of morality and conduct that engender confidence and trust. It's a shame Gen. Powell has so little use for them. There is nothing wrong with having principles except when you proclaim them and do not live up to them. This is quite common on all sides of the political spectrum. Americans are understandably confused and more than a bit angry about their inability to trust their elected leaders to "say what they'll do and then do what they say." Having principle is such a rare commodity these days that people aren't quite sure what to make of it.

But we think the days are coming, alas, when people will rediscover the values of principles and, yes, even dogma. Future politicians beware!