A tug of war is under way between the Marxist-influenced, Obama-fronted Radical Progressive Movement (RPM) and the Tea Party-led forces focused on objectivism, or the belief that the purpose of government is to protect the sovereign rights of an individual. Caught off the mark and leaderless is the old-line Republican Party, having been marginalized by the disastrous nation-building exercises and fiscal malfeasance of the Bush administration. Americans now have a well-delineated choice of fighting for a Marxist doctrine that targets the centralization of all instruments of production in the hands of the state, or a system of free markets that legally prevents government from restricting an individual’s productive activities.
For the first time in my life, I see the political standoff as a distinct battle of philosophy, rather than a battle of Democrats versus Republicans. These old-line designators of separation are no longer relevant to today’s concise discussion of personal liberty, or the lack thereof. Which, of course, leads me to several thorny sticking points. How is the battle ahead to be waged? What will the rules of confrontation be? Who will call the shots on either side, and how will voters line up given a fight card the likes of which America has never seen before? Does being a Democrat or a Republican in the past hold any meaning whatsoever in this new era?
I would maintain categorically that party leadership on both sides has proven itself deficient on a grand scale. America was formed as a federal republic, but today’s America is a sadly compromised shadow of the America envisioned by her founders. The current administration, whether it wants to admit it or not, has as its playbook The Communist Manifesto. Of course, few Democrats are interested in plowing this field, most likely having never read the Manifesto and finding the word communist, on the surface, reprehensible. But under even casual examination, Karl Marx’s treatise accurately lays out the track the Obama-fronted RPM has set for a befuddled American public. Marx taught about despotic inroads on the rights of property, revolutionizing the mode of production, and concentrating all production in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation. Marx was most specific in his means of approach. His Manifesto outlined 10 specific points of attack. The complete scheme fits nicely with what we are seeing in Washington since the RPM took over.
The American voting public clearly hadn’t a clue what it was buying into in the Obama bargain. The outpouring of support for a candidate with zero practical experience and a clearly socialistic underpinning was truly amazing. But on reflection, the support for a naive neophyte was merely a complete rejection by voters of the nation-building fiscal impropriety of the previous administration.
Compounding the tailwind in favor of the unknown Obama candidacy was the lack of support for John McCain from the powerhouse one-two-punch conservative engine of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Rush rightfully could never work up any support for the moderate McCain. And the Glenn Beck juggernaut had yet to hit the road in terms of Beck’s enormously popular Fox cable show. Put a powerful conservative in place for 2012, and the real force of the Rush/Beck attack will be felt. A combination of the Rush/Beck force with the grassroots strength of Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks is likely to provide a dynamic and far-reaching foundation for the right conservative candidate.
The little sticking point for conservatives, however, is the current lack of a clear leader. At the end of the day, a mellow, proven fiscal conservative sitting governor will most likely best represent conservative voters. It had better be the grassroots TEA Party movement backed by my threesome above, rather than the old warhorses from the Republican Party, that makes the selection, or the conservative cause will not find adequate broad-base support to get the job done in a national election.
As I have outlined, it is no longer Republicans against Democrats. Today’s voters have had it with both inept, politically self-serving groups. The time for a new model is at hand. Americans must now be given a clear choice between Marxist-influenced income redistribution and government control, and Jeffersonian Republicanism and a federal republic form of government based on individual and states’ rights. It is just that simple. Call a spade a spade, and Americans will certainly hark back to the days of Sam Adams, Paul Revere, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, George Mason, Edmond Randolph, Thomas Paine, and, of course, Thomas Jefferson.