Has it really come to this?!

As I am writing this the day before the Super Tuesday primaries, it is widely anticipated that John McCain will be the Republican nominee for President in '08. What a tragedy for Conservatives(C) and True (commonly referred to as "classical") Liberals(TL) alike. As Rush Limbaugh opined on his broadcast today, it is the liberal media that have characterized McCain as a "maverick" Republican. To the sane among us, he is not a maverick, he is a liberal in Republican clothing. Rush's well-taken point was that he is no maverick with respect to MSM/Liberal establishment, with whom his politics resonate. As for his characterization as a Republican "maverick" by the MSM, turncoat would be a more apt description. He can only be described as a "maverick" Republican from a liberal standpoint. From a Republican standpoint, he must be viewed as a liberal Republican, as evidenced by the support he is getting from Sen.'s Snow and Collins, Gov. Schwarzenegger, Rudy (who I at least believed would appoint constitutionalist judges) and for-the-love-of-God the NY Times! His self-description, as promoted by his TV ads, as a "true conservative" is chillingly Orwellian.

Furthermore, he is a liberal by inclination. He has obviously, and by his own admission, expended little effort in contemplating the essential fundamental economic principles that make Capitalism not just the most productive anti-poverty economic system ever devised by man, but, precisely because it has raised more of humanity out of poverty and oppression than any other system, it is simultaneously the morally superior system, as well. Not coincidentally, it is the only economic system perfectly consistent and compatible with the fundamental, non-negotiable, natural human right to personal liberty, as enshrined in our founding documents.

Given his class-warfare rhetoric in rejecting the Bush tax cuts, his assertion on Katie Couric's show last week that the book, other than the Bible, that he would choose to take with him to the White House, if he were permitted only one book, would be "The Wealth of Nations", is hard to swallow. That book is a difficult read for a trained economist, never mind someone who admits to economic ignorance as Mr. McCain has done. He would do better to take "Common Sense" by Thos. Paine or "The Federalist Papers" (if as Hillary contends, that would be her choice, if she read it she certainly did not comprehend it) from the same era, or Henry Hazlet's "Economics in One Lesson" from the mid-twentieth century, or perhaps Frederic Bastiat's "The Law" from the mid-nineteenth century. All four would be commendable residents in any American's library.

The only reason John McCain is unaware of the demonstrable superiority of capitalism, is the same reason that makes passionate and otherwise intelligent people liberals: intellectual laziness. Mr. Limbaugh also hit on this briefly in the course of characterizing the necessarily gruelling nature of the intellectual commitment to reason that leads one, inevitably, to a commitment to personal liberty (which Mr. Limbaugh somewhat sloppily equates with conservatism. I can only hope that he continues his journey). People who avoid this hard work remain or become liberals by default ("Unless you think hard about political questions in our culture, you are liberal by default. You have to think your way out of liberalism." - Heather MacDonald). Mr. McCain is a "default" liberal precisely because he makes no attempt to contemplate the founding principles of this nation for which he has so bravely and selflessly sacrificed.

Would that he applied the same tenacious passion to the intellectual heavy-lifting required to lead one out of 21st century liberalism, as he heroically applied in the face of unspeakable brutality in captivity in Hanoi. I would just like to digress here for a moment to add that I will always hold Mr. McCain in the most esteemed awe and admiration for his sacrifice on behalf of American generations unknown and unseen to him, including myself and my children, in his service in combat, as well as in his dark days of captivity. That is a debt that can never be repaid to him, nor do I believe that he would dishonor that sacrifice with any expectation of reward. That was Benedict "Hero of Saratoga" Arnold's particular sin, and I am as certain of Mr. McCain's innocence of it as I am of my own name. Likewise, we American voters, especially us veterans, should not devalue that sacrifice with any misguided sense of obligation to repay it by reward of office, especially the highest office in the land. There is no reward, other than a continued and deep sense of gratitude, that might be remotely adequate to compensate him for his sacrifice.

This all leaves us C/TL adherents with a choice between a Republican liberal, or a Democrat liberal. If I become convinced that McCain will appoint judges to the Supreme Court such as Janice Rogers Brown, or Sam Alito, I will cast a ballot for him come November. If not, I will stay home. Absent that confidence in judicial appointees, this is less a choice between Tweedle-dumb and Tweedle-dumber, than a choice between the lesser of two liberals. And for me, that is no choice at all. If he can't be relied upon to appoint constitutionalist judges, then, per Mr. Limbaugh, I'd just as soon the blame for the debacle which will ensue in the coming years were not laid at the feet of the Republican party. With all the flaws exhibited by the GOP, as evidenced by the validity of McCain's candidacy, it still is not as riddled with anti-American liberal sentiment as the Democrats.

For my 2-bits, I wish the GOP would foreswear the self-destructive diluting primary process, and revert to the "smoke-filled room" method for choosing a candidate to put before the American people.

The Founders were deeply concerned with the "one man, one vote" forms of democracy that had proven disastrous and short-lived throughout history. The electoral college was meant to be a bulwark against tyranny of the majority, and against power hungry megalomaniacs. Especially in this day and age, the average citizen cannot possibly be sufficiently informed (especially given the largely successful propaganda effort from the liberal media/academia/Hollywood cabal) to make a truly intelligent voting decision, and the younger they are, the less informed and wise (and consequently more liberal) they are likely to be. Liberalism is dependent for its ascendancy on ignorance and intellectual vacuity. Of course, today's average liberal politician is so much wiser than the Founders were (NOT!) and they have flattered the ignorant masses that they are indeed sufficiently informed and wise to grasp the issues at hand and directly elect all of our representatives, the president included. It has become a point of ridiculously false pride that everyone is just as smart and informed as anyone else. This is just as demonstrably false as the premise that everyone is just as tall or short as anyone else. It's objectively absurd. The Founders instituted the Electoral College precisely in anticipation of this kind of manipulative power grab by those motivated almost exclusively by the need to grab it. Unfortunately, the Electoral College has proven vulnerable to liberal predation. This is why we end up with people who advocate "stimulus packages" and anti-1st amendment legislation on one side, and mortgage rate freezes and socialized health care on the other (not that the Republicans are blameless in the progress of socialized health care, as evidenced by Pres. Bush's prescription plan). The first step on the path to knowledge and wisdom is the admission of ignorance. There is no shame in ignorance, only in the conceit that one is not ignorant. We are all 95% ignorant, at least. This is obviously objectively true. We must have, as individuals, in all humility, enough imagination to imagine that there is a great deal that is beyond our imagination. That is true wisdom as well as humility.

In the halcyon days of my youth, the political parties would decide what they stood for, BEFORE choosing a candidate. Then they would search for a politically viable candidate who could be counted on as a standard bearer for those views, and decide upon that candidate in private conclaves, outside the purview of the press and public. We have already, to a dangerous extent, mistakenly devolved the elections to the public at large, but the party selection process is not (or at least should not) be subject to approval of elected politicians and appointed bureaucrats. The parties could re-introduce some of the cautionary distance between the public and their candidates, which has been corrupted (from the Founders' perspective), by this near religious commitment to the one man, one vote heresy.

There is nothing new in the one man, one vote political philosophy. The philosophy was well known in antiquity. The Roman emperors offered the citizenry circuses to buy their votes. Our would-be rulers offer us stimulus packages and "free" health care. Direct voting for politicians inevitably introduces the lowest common denominator effect to the process. The Founders tried to protect us from that (Benjamin Franklin warned, "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."), but like much of their wisdom, it has been successfully obscured by our would-be rulers. A bold move on the part of the GOP might restore some semblance of reason to the process and yield candidates who are truly dedicated to the ideals of liberty, property, and the rule of law. Whether a direct vote would elect them is anybody's guess, but given the current state of affairs, it's hard to imagine how it could be any worse.

BTW:
I was deeply moved and heartened watching the Super Bowl, by the reading of the Declaration of Independence which was so eloquently delivered to all America by sports figures who are revered by so many of our children, as by so many of their elders. I am hopeful that the sentiments of our Founders took root in their hearts. It is unlikely that such a reverent reading of our Founders' eloquence was ever witnessed by them in their educational experience. I can't imagine a more productive and beneficial use of those precious $4M/minutes than that to which the NFL put them last night. THANK YOU!. And thank you, Jordin Sparks, for your moving and emotional rendition of our National Anthem. BRAVO!!!