Is the Constitution Outlandish?
This week, the Sacramento-based Tea Party Express endorsed Sen. Mike Lee for re-election … in 2016. In throwing their support behind the Utah Republican, the group stated that Washington, D.C. needs “more conservatives like Mike Lee to protect the Constitution and the American people, he’s fighting for what is good for this country.”
While the 2016 endorsement is unique in that the 2014 elections haven’t even occurred yet, far more striking was the response by Utah’s Democrat Party Chairman Jim Dubakis and what it says about the ideological differences between progressive liberals and traditional conservatives. It does not bode well for tackling our country’s pressing issues anytime soon.
Dubakis said of the endorsement: “All he’s [Mike Lee] involved in is this outlandish constitutional view. That’s his constituency. That’s his passion. That’s his whole reason for being. It’s not the people of Utah.”
Pause for a moment. Think about that statement.
Our country’s operating agreement and national mission statement is “outlandish”? Dictionary.com defines outlandish as “freakishly and grotesquely strange or odd.” I don’t find the Constitution grotesquely odd. Do you?
Is this Dubakis’ view alone? Or does it represent how many progressives view regarding our country’s founding document.
Mr. Dubakis philosophy is akin to telling a Christian the Bible is outlandish, a Muslim to disregard the Quran, a Jewish Rabbi to ignore the Torah or Mormons that their “Proclamation on the Family” is too old school for today.
Mr. Dubakis has brought to the forefront the crux of today’s political divide and dysfunction in Washington. While self-proclaimed good government types (who usually have the political principles of road kill), moan and groan that all we need to do is become bipartisan, they miss the fundamental point: When two parties and ideologies are on polar opposite ends, where is common ground to be found?
Solving our nation’s pressing problems is imperative. From fixing our growing and untenable entitlement debt to immigration reform, we need resolution now. However, what the know-it-alls who just scream bi-partisan miss is a key point: Bipartisanship means reaching middle ground and frankly, that just may not be possible when two sides disagree on basic fundamentals.
We are not talking President Obama’s style of bipartisanship, i.e., do what I want and we can be bipartisan and live happily ever after. We are talking real agreement. That is why the coming elections are crucial.
How can conservatives reach agreement with people like Jim Dubakis who view our nation’s Constitution – a beacon to the world – as just some archaic, “outlandish” piece of paper with no relevance in today’s governance?
Take abortion for example. How can there be middle ground when one side views it as murder and the other side as a basic medical procedure?
How can we reach closure on tax reform when 50% of adults don’t pay any income tax?
Can it really happen when there are more people receiving government assistance than those who pay for that bill? Can we solve our entitlement and debt problems when one side thinks money grows on the well-manicured lawns and finely trimmed trees of the top 20%?
Those who are acquainted with Mr. Dubakis in Utah know him to be a decent man with a good heart. But what he did this week is clearly delineate the difference between the two sides.
The reality is this: one side is going to win this ideological war and guide the future of our great nation. Conservatives would still like it based on that “outlandish” Constitution. At the end, the victor will do the heavy lifting. Are conservatives ready to step up and spend their free time educating their neighbors and the public about what is at stake?