Numerous so-called "conservative" pundits have repeatedly bemoaned the fact that many conservative voters at the grass-roots level have "abandoned" the Republican Party. Let's get one thing straight here: conservatives did not abandon the Republican Party. The Republican Party abandoned conservatives. We were the Party of Ronald Reagan, not John McCain. We support lower taxes and less government involvement in our lives. We are single-issue voters, and the issue is freedom.
The Republicans talk about wanting a "big tent". The problem is, they are going about it the wrong way. Most sincere conservatives are never going to vote for a liberal, regardless of the label he applies to himself or the party to which he adheres. Most Democrats are never going to vote for a Republican, no matter how far left of center he travels. The fact is, the Republican tent has never been bigger than it was during the Reagan years. Ronald Reagan delivered a message of freedom, self-reliance, and hope that resonated with voters from both parties and all across the political spectrum. Reagan is the man who said "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" He knew the wisest foreign policy was to let other people fight for their own freedom, while we supported them from the sidelines (Nicaragua, Afghanistan). He knew to speak unambiguously, even boldly, and to call out evil when he recognized it. He took his office seriously, yet was both great enough and humble enough to laugh at himself.
After Reagan, we had Bush the Elder. He ignored the lessons of the Reagan era, and engaged in tax increases and an expansion of government with such policies as the 'War on Drugs', new regulations, conflicts in Panama and Iraq, expanded peace-keeping operations, and other trappings of his 'New World Order'. After eight years of further government expansion and encroachment under the Clinton administration, we tried handing the reins back to the GOP, in spite of the disappointment over the lack of follow-through by the Republican congress on their promises in the "Contract With America". Eight years of Bush, the Younger saw some of the greatest expansion of the Federal government since the New Deal with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. It also increased the degree of governmental encroachment of civil liberties with the "Patriot Act", and left us fighting expensive conflicts on two fronts. The problem we have encountered is that rather than demanding good candidates who represent our values, many voters have opted to settle for whatever lukewarm mediocrity the Party has decided to place in front of us. Some of the best candidates, in terms of small-government/free-market/pro-civil-liberty/rule-of-law values, have been marginalized, slighted, and ignored. This was particularly true in the last primary.
This begs the question: where is a liberty-loving, small-government voter to go? If the Republican Party wants the votes of Reagan Republicans (a.k.a. libertarians and true conservatives), the Republican Party must represent the values espoused by Ronald Reagan. This is pretty-much non-negotiable. The difference between a Rockefeller Republican and a Democrat is so small as to be meaningless. In fact, there are many who, like me, believe that the United States has evolved into what is basically a one-party system. Voting in an election implies that you sanction and agree to abide by the results of that election, and that you recognize the legitimacy of the winners to make policy. When the only menu choices available are "Big Government - Option D" and "Big Government - Option R", what reason is there for a true conservative (a.k.a. a "classical" liberal) or libertarian to go to the polls? What meaningful difference is there between the Democans and the Republicrats? True liberty-lovers will not vote for big government, higher taxes, and increased regulation of everything except our borders. If the Republiclowns do not want to represent conservatives and libertarians, then conservatives and libertarians will find someone who does. For some voters, the motivation may be nothing more than an act of voting their conscience. For others it may be an attempt to teach the Party a lesson.
In a recent editorial, Laura Hollis asked how that lesson was working out for those of us who refused to toe the party line. I would have to answer that it is, in fact, working out quite well for us. This last presidential election was between two liberal Democrats, one of whom called himself a Republican. On one ticket, we had a big-government, liberal, Democratic senator, with a big-government, liberal, Democratic senator running-mate. On the other ticket, we had a big-government, liberal, Democratic-wannabe senator, with a small-government, conservative, Republican executive running-mate. Small-government voters saw through the Republican Party smokescreen. If you do not think John McCain was a Democrat (or at least a big-government statist), you really need to look at his record in the Senate. He crossed the aisle so many times, his staffers started wearing orange, reflective vests and carrying little, hand-held stop-signs. Electing a good lieutenant in the hopes that the chief executive meets an untimely end is a poor political strategy, unless you happen to live in Ancient Rome.
Had McCain been elected, we would have had four years of a mediocre, bland, left-wing RINO administration. This would have done far more harm to our Republic in the long run as the Republicans in the Congress would have marched in lock-step with the big-government, statist agenda of the POTUS for no other reason than his party affiliation. With Obama in power, there is a lot more foot-dragging in the advance of big government. Not only is there opposition from the usual suspects in the GOP, but several blue-dog Democrats have joined the resistance as well.
More importantly, the rapid push of a statist or socialist agenda by the Obamunists has had the added benefit of actually alerting the frog in the pot. Just look at the level of grass-roots opposition that arisen in the blogs, Tea Parties, and town hall meetings. Americans are rediscovering their love of liberty and limited government, and limited-government politics are enjoying a new-found popularity. We are living the first Chinese curse (and I am doing my best to realize the second curse as well).
Furthermore, the lesson of history clearly demonstrates that the Republican Party can be replaced. When the party was founded in 1854, it was a fringe party made up largely of single-issue voters and focused almost exclusively on the issue of slavery. However, when Abraham Lincoln won the Presidency in 1860, it replaced the Whigs as one of the two major parties in the United States. Today, small-government-advocates are interested in many issues like minimizing business regulations, ending the 'War on Drugs', getting the US out of foreign conflicts, preventing further socialist encroachment into the private sector, minimizing or eliminating counter-productive gun restrictions, and so forth. If all Reagan Republicans, libertarians, Constitutionalists, Tenthers, opponents of the Patriot Act, opponents of Obamunist health care, Tea Partiers, and others could find a small-government party to stand behind, and then stand behind that party, they would be unstoppable. As a result, the Republicans, like their predecessors the Whigs, would fade into the dustbin of history.
Ultimately, however, the question is, how should you vote? The "wasted vote" argument is a non-sequitur. Is a vote for a RINO who stands diametrically opposed to everything in which you believe (e.g. secure borders, free-speech, smaller government, gun-ownership, etc.) any less a wasted vote than voting for a third-party candidate who supports your beliefs and values? If anything, I would argue that voting for 'the lesser of two evils' is a wasted vote because it is still a vote for evil. Which of your freedoms is the least important to you? It is like making a conscious decision as to which finger you would prefer to smash with the hammer you are swinging. It is just such voting that has gotten us into our current mess. I would argue that your vote is only wasted if you love liberty and still insist on voting for one of the two major parties.
