As the fog of the election clears, those who truly wish to restore the nation to its constitutional foundations seem to be falling into two camps. One camp asserts that, as a result of the re-election of Barack Obama, conservatives in Congress should simply give Democrats and liberal Republicans what they want, allowing them to own the ensuing and inevitable destruction of the country. The other camp pledges to double down on conservative principles and continue the fight to obstruct the agenda of liberalism. Both approaches are valid.
Some would say that those who wish to step back to allow the left to wreak its havoc on the nation have chosen a “radical” road, but, actually, this path is not radical at all.
For those who are familiar with Alcoholics Anonymous and other addiction programs, this “letting go” approach is what sometimes works best when you’re dealing with the most severe alcohol, drug, gambling, or congressional spending addict. In twelve-step programs, family members and friends of those who are addicted are urged to stop enabling the addicted, quit trying to talk them out of their futile dysfunction, and to step back and allow them to “hit bottom.”
It’s not radical to think about the left as severely dysfunctional. In many ways, it’s probably more radical that Barack Obama was re-elected. A narcissistic president whose administration has lied to the country throughout several significant scandals, whose record of achievement is nil, and who has harmed the country in countless ways through an ideology that thwarts the Constitution, as well as through total incompetence? Is it too “radical” to allow the worst to happen fast, without obstructing it, so we can rebuild faster? After all, it’s the slow but steady drip of freedom-robbing policies, the small increments of socialism that make the “transformation” promised by Barack Obama so torturous.
Now, a lot may disintegrate naturally, even over the next few weeks and months, let alone four years. We should continue to evaluate whether this is working toward restoring the country. Valid an approach as it might be, however, it is still likely that conservatives will be blamed for the fall-out, so unthinking Americans may still flock to the left or whoever appears to be compromising and “getting along.”
The second road- continuing the fight- requires an integration of steadfast will, a certain amount of practical knowledge, a passion for the things this country was founded upon, and patience. To go down this road means that we learn what we did wrong yet another time, and we perfect our methodology.
So, what did we do wrong during this campaign? I reject any notion that says, “America’s demographics have changed,” “Conservatives must agree to amnesty,” “Conservatives must be more inclusive,” etc., etc.
Conservatives have wonderful candidates and strong leaders of both genders and from all backgrounds. We have Sarah Palin, Susana Martinez, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Herman Cain, Allen West, Mia Love, and now we even have Artur Davis- just to name a few. Conservatives have no lack of “minority” representatives; it’s just that we celebrate the fact that they are Americans first and foremost. Conservatives also have extraordinary leaders of varied backgrounds who are destroyed by members of a complicit, corrupt media that tears these individuals down because they do not belong to the left.
America’s “demographics” have been changing since the nation began. Because the Constitution is based on freedom for all, it applies to all people, regardless of ethnicity or personal characteristics. Barack Obama and the Democrats ran a campaign based on identity politics, a concept that is diametrically opposed to the idea that is America. Barack Obama ran a campaign that divided Americans. Conservatism, because it celebrates each individual’s potential, regardless of personal background, unites everyone on the basis of what is possible for everyone in a free country.
How ironic, then, that one of our downfalls in this campaign is the fact that Republicans did not have a “ground game” that brought enough voters to the polls to vote for Mitt Romney. It’s ironic because the “ground game” is the “individual” aspect of the campaign. It’s the part when we contact “individual” voters and get them to the polls. Why did we fail at that, when that should be our specialty, because we believe in the individual?
Let’s learn from this and choose the road to continue our fight. Let’s not abandon even one conservative principle. Instead, let’s educate and explain conservatism to the individuals on the ground, by any means we are able.