March, 2008
Ideals, Unreals, and Accomplishments
Bryan Griffin
I was asked to represent the UF College Republicans at a debate, recently, sponsored by the university student organization “Chomp the Vote”, aimed at educating students about political current events, and inspiring them to vote. I attended, and while arguing for the right, got a good chance to listen to what the students from other parties believed. Aside from the random 45 year old representative from the Libertarian party at a student debate, all who were selected to represent their parties seemed very politically informed and fluent.
However, what I heard coming from both parties were echoes of delusion – promises made by those in places of power within their parties that held no hope of being fulfilled. The Democrats, in my opinion, have truly lost their true representation – what was once the party of the worker, unions, and southern farmers is now figure-headed by rich, ego-inflated politicians like John Kerry, Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton. None of these candidates, despite what they may say, have ties to the southern farmers or the union workers; they are all multi-millionaires with private jets, appetites for power, and a lot of ‘green rhetoric' to scare the world into giving them Nobel prizes.
I have always said the Democratic Party is a party of ideals, and this is a point that I wish more of my fellow students would grasp. It would be great to give everyone medical care for life. It would be great to give everyone big welfare checks, and support the theory of “equality of outcome”. It would be great if there weren't people in the Middle East, Islamo-facists and religious fundamentalists, who wanted to kill innocent Americans simply because we carry that title. It would be great if we didn't need to drive to work, use oil or gas, or could afford solar panels on our roofs. But these ideals are entirely unachievable, and any who claim that they can deliver such results to the American people by being elected into office (figurehead Democrats) should be reviled. These promises are rhetorical, empty, and used to garner votes. And, if one isn't careful, they can easily be lead down a path of false hope by these pandering politicians.
I would like to take a closer look at the two leading Democratic Candidates: Senator Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. Both say that the country needs to “recover” from the Bush administration. Both act as if the country should be “sorry” for protecting ourselves from terrorists, “sorry” for freeing the people of the Middle East, and “sorry” for not providing every single person in the country with a giant check from the government on which to live. Our country was not founded on “sorries”. It was not founded on equality of outcome, or an isolationist foreign policy. Our country has been, and always will stand for equality of opportunity, and the commitment to democracy throughout the world. Neither of these people should be asking for any such “sorry”, and neither should be elected to office.
The Obama campaign has hypnotized millions into a giddy appetite for change. This brings to mind the tactics of Democratic Presidential hopeful Robert F Kennedy in 1968. He was, as many say Obama is, just smart enough not to outline any real policies in his speeches. Obama has done a magnificent job of keeping any real numbers from the midst of his promised welfare, Medicare, and social security plans, and it works – if you stand for nothing, there is nothing for people to be against. Sure, the Medicare, welfare, and social security systems are flawed, but what is your plan, Mr. Obama? You are a junior senator from Illinois, with a little business experience, a history of dabbling in cocaine, and NO executive experience. How do we know you will not be a fledged ducking once elected – squirming around in unfamiliar territory, with responsibilities far beyond any experience you have had, wasting time the American people simply do not have? At least Mrs. Clinton has been president before.
I say Clinton has been President before because she has been – her and Bill have always been strategically cooperative in their political ploys. One can simply look at their marriage to discern the strategy and politicking behind all that they do – who in their right minds, without political ambitions beyond the sanctity of marriage, stays with a person who has cheated on them numerous times? And, beyond the personal realm, Hillary has had the opportunity to deploy some of her “greatest” government subsidiary programs on test sites across the country – and they have been proven to be flawed. Her “Hillary Care” plan, as it is likened to be called, had a trial run in the state of Oregon, where it failed miserably. But she fails to mention this, just as she fails to mention her irrefutable history as a money grubbing lawyer in Arkansas working at her Rose Law firm, which was indicted in a number of scandals. I suggest two books that, I believe, show true inside into the person and character of Hillary Clinton, by two very credible sources. The first is called, “Unlimited Access” by Gary Aldrich, a former member of the Clinton FBI detail. The second is called, “Rewriting History” by Dick Morris, one of Bill Clinton's political advisors.
The problem with the Democratic platform, when it comes to welfare, Medicare, and social security, is the fundamental fact of government that those who handle money which is not theirs are less accountable than those who handle money which is theirs. When we pay our taxes, and send our money to the government to be redistributed in the assistance programs [Medicare, welfare, social security], every government employee along the loop reaches in for a bit of the money. For example, if you send $100 to the government, a fraction goes to the tax collector, a fraction goes to the mail service, a fraction goes to congress, a fraction goes to the processors, and the accountants and the redistributors and the welfare office and on and on. By the time your money gets to a person to be used, more than half of it has gone to pay the federal employees to actually get there. What is worse, when a Congress person decides to make a law, they don't really care how much of your money it takes, so long as it gets them reelected. The Citizens for Government Waste resently named Representative Jack Murtha, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, as the largest pork barrel spender of 2007, with a record of 72 proposed pork-barrel projects totaling a bill of 149.2 million dollars.
All of the time, cases arise where people in congress will tack on random projects that pertain to their electorate (the group of people they are elected from) to get votes, with no concern for whose money is being used, and how much of it. If the government wants to buy a hammer, they buy a gold plated hammer, and they pay three people to do it. What do they care? It's not their money!
This is where the Republican ideal comes in. The Republican motto is less government – especially when handling money. The Republican Party believes, as do I, that the individual can handle their money far better and more efficiently than the institute of the government. If one wanted to support a fellow citizen, far more money would reach that person with a direct contribution to a privatized welfare or Medicare company than if the government has to pay thirty circles of people to distribute it. Fewer taxes, means two levels of benefits: first, the receiving party gets more, because less of the money has been dipped into by the government. Secondly, the taxpayer keeps more of their money to reinvest into the economy as they see fit – and this stimulates economic growth in the country. If you keep the $100 you were going to pay to the government to waste, you can buy $100 of stocks or give a small business $100 for a TV and cause growth in the country's GDP – the Gross Domestic Product. The better the US's GDP, the better our dollar does and the stronger the American economy becomes.
Privatization is another important factor of the Republican platform. To exemplify, say a road is to be built in a city. If the government heads the project (as the Democrats would have – Democrat party = higher taxes and more government), the road can be built at whatever cost, and in whatever time table the local government agency heading the project sees fit; after all, who are they accountable to? However, in the Republican, or conservative sense (privatization of infrastructure, lower taxes, less government) a private company would be hired, which would put their skilled (another big difference between private companies and the government) employees on a strict time table and budget, and be held accountable to a contract for the work - because money means something to this entity (the private business). A better road will be built faster and more cost efficiently.
The Republican platform does believe on spending money on the military. In fact, the protecting the people is the government's primary job – according to Republican principle. And, the government can best handle the military because a government receives international recognition and legitimacy to act with that military. Further, the President in office must act with the knowledge at hand to protect the people - since he is the head of the military (Commander in Chief). Despite what you may believe about WMDs or the connection between Al Qaida and 9/11, the intelligence in 2001 told the administration that Sadaam was a threat – and his dictatorship has since been removed. Again, idealism crops up – the Democratic Party believes that we should have handled the threat and been out by now. Yet, being the responsible country we are, we followed through with our commitment to set up democracy in the country after we removed the oppressive regime. This type of commitment takes time – look at Japan. We did the same thing after WWII – set up a democracy after removing an oppressive regime, the Meiji Period. This took time (about 25 years, with troops still in Japan today), and now they are one of the most prosperous and cooperative (not to mention free) countries in the world. This democracy took strong root, but it takes time! The Middle East has never had such freedom and democracy, and to institute one in the middle of chaos will take more than a decade. I cannot stand it when the Democratic Party calls it a failure, when adequate time has not been given for success. The area must be stabilized, not only for the freedom of the citizens of the middle east, but so that we have strong, democratic allies; so the religious fundamentalists have no harbor for their terrorist activities; and so that the maniacal dictators will not have the power to arbitrarily set the price of oil. The Republican Party loves freedom, not war. Do not be fooled by idealist pacifists, hippies, or organizations like the Students for Democratic Society (SDS). War is not liked by any party, but at the least the right can recognize when it is a necessity.
I'm not trying to plug McCain in this article in anyway, but I do wish to make one point about his character. McCain has always been level with his constituents. He is honest about his platform, and history. This is evident in his demeanor around the Republican Party – he knows he has made decisions maligned from the conservative platform, but he has been nothing but honest about them, and never tried to cover them up. He will send the troops necessary to establish democracy to Iraq, see our commitment through, and cut taxes where we need them cut. The media will try to bring up things about him in a negative light, and I compel you to see through the media's agenda. Look at what he offers: not empty promises of “change” but a solid record of accomplishment.
I titled this article “Ideals, Unreal's, and Accomplishment”, because I want you, the college-aged voter, to look past the rhetoric of the candidates and the flashy liberal idealisms of Hollywood to what the country truly needs: accomplishment. Please look past the stereotypes of Republicans being “obsessed with money” or “war-lovers”. Look at the conservative principles the party stands for. And, if the Republican Party abandons those principles, look towards the next party to pick them up. Nothing ideal can be accomplished, for we live not in a perfect world, but something accomplished would certainly be ideal, wouldn't it?