Apparently one of the attractions of Barak Obama for some Democratic voters is that he's seen as an agent of change. There's some question about his experience and his accomplishments. There's also some question about what he will actually do if he's elected to the Presidency, but he is seen as "the candidate for change."
Meanwhile, quite a few conservatives (including myself) have waxed despondent over the presumptive nomination of John McCain to the Republican candidacy for President. He is, after all, no conservative. Sure, he's a Republican, but he's one of the most liberal of Republicans. He has more in common with Edward M. Kennedy than with Ronald Reagan. He is also, sadly, typical of the sort of politician that seems to represent the Republican party over the last several years.
About eight years ago, Republicans nearly nominated John McCain instead of George W. Bush. When his bid for the Presidency failed that time, Mr. McCain didn't fade into obscurity. Instead he went back to his Senate career and earned media praise as a "maverick" Republican willing to stand up against his party and to work together with the Democratic party.
Some four years ago, there was talk about a John Kerry – John McCain Presidential ticket. Imagine that, a Democratic candidate with a Republican running mate. I don't think that anyone ever really took that idea seriously. Certainly John McCain seemed to quash the idea when it was brought up. Even so, the media played it for what it was worth. John McCain is, after all, a media darling among the Republicans. Now he's received the endorsement of Republican party leadership.
Two years ago, it was obvious that many voters were dissatisfied with the direction the Republican party had taken. There was talk about teaching Republican leaders a lesson. Republicans lost in that election in a big way. Conservatives really lost.
Now I find myself in the uncomfortable position of actually considering voting for a Democratic candidate. It's not that I find either Hillary Clinton or, more likely, Barak Obama to be preferable to a Republican, because I don't. It's not that I couldn't bring myself to vote for John McCain under any circumstances, because I could. He is, after all, much more conservative than either of the Democratic choices.
No. The reason I would consider voting for Barak Obama, or even Hillary Clinton, is because if they became President Republicans in congress would find it much easier to oppose their initiatives than they would the same initiatives if proposed by a Republican President. Unfortunately, I don't trust the current crop of Republicans in Congress.
I don't particularly like that position. In the battleground of ideas, conservatism is looking pretty weak. It isn't weak, but unfortunately conservative candidates have been. After the 2006 elections, conservatives have appeared more and more in the media to be obstructionists, preventing Congress from "getting things done." It hasn't helped that only in the last year or so has President Bush managed to find his veto pen and used it to "block passage" of "important Congressional initiatives."
Liberal candidates haven't exactly been pinnacles of strength either, but they have the media on their side. They have captured the terms of the debate and turned them to their own advantage. While conservatives laughed about BDS, and prattled on about how the left seems to be motivated only by hatred, liberals have come to be perceived as agents of change.
This isn't really anything new. All one has to do is look at the labels to see that the perceptions will follow. Conservatives are obviously about conserving the status quo. Liberals, who often prefer not to be called liberals, but rather "progressives" are obviously about "progress" and "change".
Look at how we express ourselves too. Oftentimes conservatives will talk or write about the moral or cultural decay they see in our modern world. Liberals will talk or write about liberties and freedoms that they are seeking to secure. Conservatives talk about the past and liberals talk about the future. Conservatives talk about responsibility while liberals talk about ending "oppression".
Is that really the way things are though? Are liberals really agents of change? Are conservatives really agents of stagnation?
Perhaps it's time for a conservative revolution again. Maybe it's time to stop talking about all of the things we're "against", and start talking about what we stand "for". Maybe it's time to take back the language. I think that a true conservative is really an agent of change, and that it's time we express it that way.
Conservatives distrust "big government". So do liberals, or at least you'd think that they do to watch Hollywood's movies. Oftentimes the heroes are the ones who are fighting the leaden and heavy hand of government intrusion. Remember "Enemy of the State"? That movie was about a man who became the target of rogue NSA agents after he accidentally received evidence of a political assassination.
Of course the villains in that movie were "right wing" types and "conservatives". Will Smith's character was a liberal Lawyer, and his wife Carla was as liberal as they come. The key question though was "Well, who's gonna monitor the monitors of the monitors?".
It's plain that there's a distrust of government on both sides of the political aisle. Conservatives have owned that distrust for a long time, but liberals have co-opted it and twisted it into a fear of the parts of government that are necessary.
Our founders believed that the necessary function of government was to protect men from harming one another, and to ensure that men have the opportunity to live free and productive lives. Oftentimes it seems that liberals believe that the necessary function of government is to provide for us. Conservatives spend more time railing about the "nanny state", while liberals worry about whether their government is looking into their bedrooms.
We should be able to change this. Conservatives should work to change it.
Liberals seek change. Barak Obama's rise in popularity is evidence of this, despite his lack of a substantial record and the fact that ideologically there's practically no difference between him and Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton's waning popularity is also evidence of this, in particular because she's seen as leading the charge back to the days of her husband's days in power.
Conservatives seek change too. The elections of 2006 are evidence of this. Conservatives were obviously fed up with the Republican party morphing into the party of big government and entitlement. This is also why in some way's John McCain's rise to power mystifies me.
I don't really believe that the Democratic party really believes in entitlements. I know that most of the Republican party doesn't. In my opinion, Democratic party leaders believe in power and so do Republican party leaders. This is one of the reason's why John McCain's rise to power doesn't really surprise me.
The problem is politicians and their lust for power. Conservatives distrust this lust for power, and so they distrust big government and career politicians. Conservatives aren't interested in power, they're interested in liberty. To a certain degree, so are liberals, although conservatives would say that they're more interested in license.
Like I said, politicians believe in power. One certain way to power is to appeal to the electorate's baser instincts. The Democratic party's leadership is full of past masters at this. They've fostered the American entitlement mentality. They exploit the moral weaknesses of their base, transforming license into liberty. They foster the idea that we're victims of oppression, encouraging the entitlement mentality.
They do this because entitled victims are dependent upon government to provide for them. A people dependent upon government is a people that empowers the politicians that promise to fulfill their needs. Entitlements are expensive though, and with that expense comes the need for the hand of government to regulate just how you must live to obtain your benefits, to cut costs. With that regulation, we become less free.
George Washington was a true leader. He also distrusted power, and set us a wonderful example. When he refused to run for re-election to a third term of office it set a precedent that eventually (but only after seeing that precedent overturned) resulted in a Constitutional Amendment. Now all Presidents are effectively term limited, even William Jefferson Clinton (although he may be trying to find a way around it).
One change that would benefit us all would be to establish term limits for Congressmen and Senators. Without the possibility of a career in the House or the Senate, the attractions of power might wane a bit. A true agent of change would advocate for this.
This sort of change faces an uphill battle though. Our Representatives and Senators are too well entrenched to find term limits attractive. They'll argue that what we need is experience in our legislators. Well let me tell you, the sort of experience they're talking about doesn't promote change.
Term limiting federal legislators would require a Constitutional amendment. That's an uphill battle in itself, and rightly so. Over the centuries since our nation was founded there have been quite a few changes to our Constitution. Not all of them have been to the benefit of the country. I'm fairly certain that you can think of one or two that might be less than popular, including one that had to be repealed, and another that helped to establish a government agency that we all distrust.
Term limiting our federal legislators might run into opposition from a large part of the electorate as well. Not for nothing have those entitlement programs been created after all.
Worse yet, term limiting our legislators doesn't really go far enough. Career politicians are indeed a problem because of their lust for power, but even worse are career bureaucrats and "staffers". Still, term limiting legislators would be an effective beginning. Making their replacements reset the Congressional staff would be a good idea too.
One of the biggest erosions of our freedoms doesn't come from politicians at all. Instead it comes from the federal bureaucracy. When a federal agency is established by Congress, it just about never dies, and our freedoms are whittled away.
We're all familiar to on degree or another with the process by which our nation's laws are established. Depending upon whether or not the law involves the raising of revenue or not, it's either proposed in the House of Representatives, or in the Senate. Then that body votes upon it and the bill passes to the other body. Then, the differences are worked out between the House and the Senate. Finally the approved bill is sent to the President, who either signs it into law or vetoes it and sends it back to Congress. Congress can then either drop it, in which case it doesn't become a law, or override the President's veto in which case it does.
At least, that's the way it's supposed to work. A lot of the laws that we have to obey don't ever go through that process. For example, the Food and Drug Administration can make it illegal to possess a particular drug without Congress ever getting involved, and without ever requiring a Presidential signature. What once took a Constitutional amendment (the 18th amendment) is now handled as a matter of course by a federal agency. THAT needs to be changed.
The FDA can make a drug illegal to possess, despite state laws to the contrary. Think about that the next time you hear about "medical marijuana" on the west coast. Federal agents can still arrest a person using "medical marijuana" on federal drug charges, even though the state they live in says they have a legal right to use it. Can you remember when the last time you elected someone to the Food and Drug Administration?
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not in favor of the use of illegal drugs, nor am I really in favor of legalizing them. The point is that unelected bureaucrats can establish regulations that have the force of law, and those regulations can trump state laws, and there's not a thing that the electorate can do about it! THAT needs to be changed.
Perhaps one way to fix this type of problem can be found in our Constitution. Some of my liberal friends are fond of telling me that we shouldn't have a standing army, because of this line from Article I section 8 (where the limited powers of Congress are enumerated):
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Wouldn't it be great if there were a constitutional amendment that said something like that regarding federal bureaucracies and their regulatory power? Perhaps something like this…
No Appropriation of Money to support any Federal Agency shall be for a longer Term than two Years; Nor shall any regulation established by any Federal Agency have effect for longer than two Years except by an explicit re-authorization by Congress Every two Years;
Now that's a change I'd like to see. I'd be willing to negotiate on the term.
Of course, proposing Constitutional amendments isn't likely to gain much traction, especially when they're proposed on a blog. Still, I'd much rather propose a positive change that moves us toward a more limited government and away from socialism than sit here complaining about the sort of change we're likely to see from Barak Obama or John McCain.
I think it's time that conservatives took the offensive. I think it's time that we were seen as the agents of change. I think it's time that we changed the rules of the game and shook up the status-quo. I think it's past time for a change in Washington. I think that the changes that conservatives will propose will move us forward.
Conservatives can be true agents of change.
Originally posted at Perri Nelson's Website.
