RSS Feed MenuApparently, Senator Jim DeMint recognized the foolishness of his statement that he could live with thirty Republican Senators as long as they were principled. While this type of bravura bought King Leonidas and Henry V undying fame, it’s not the optimum strategy for a regime of majority rule. In expiation, he has penned this piece for the Wall Street Journal.
I particularly liked this line:
Moderate and liberal Republicans who think a South Carolina conservative like me has too much influence are right! I don’t want to make decisions for them. That’s why I’m working to reduce Washington’s grip on our lives and devolve power to the states, communities and individuals, so that Northeastern Republicans, Western Republicans, Southern Republicans, and Midwestern Republicans can define their own brands of Republicanism.
I also liked his point that all of the Republican Party ought to be against same-sex marriage, and abortion policy being set by the courts. What conservative principle is advanced by judicial supremacy, especially when unmoored by the text or history of a Constitution or statute?
The Republican Party historically and in my lifetime has usually won as the party of freedom. Equality is the Democrats’ gig and if we can successfully point out that income equality is unjust and requires tyranny we can peel away Democratic votes. The death of Jack Kemp and DeMint’s article dovetail for me. Kemp’s message that statism was not good for anybody, and that includes blacks, Hispanics, the native born and the immigrant, is one we have not pounded home enough. His message of freedom advancing equality, properly understood, is needed now. If the state must be involved in health care, or education, it should be to facilitate choice and not impose a one-size fits all bureaucratic nightmare. Perhaps we should issue a bumper sticker “Statism – Its bad for children and other living things.” When I was young, Jack Kemp was seen as the future of the Republican Party. That he died never having been president is a loss to the nation. However, if Jim DeMint can rebound from “Thirty Senators or Bust” to pen a short, sweet, clarion call to what the Republican Party should be coast to coast, perhaps there is cause for the quarterback’s irrepressible optimism.
barker13 // May 4, 2009 at 6:23 am
From John’s bio:”The views expressed here are solely his own, which he views as unfortunate.”(*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*)Good for you, John! A man after my own heart! Now… onto John’s piece…”Apparently, Senator Jim DeMint recognized the foolishness of his statement that he could live with thirty Republican Senators as long as they were principled.”Yes. How… er… foolish. What the Republican Party – as envisioned in perfect form by the editors of NM – really needs is more UNprincipled elected representatives.Yep… that’s it. (*SNORT*) (*CHUCKLE*) Onto DeMint’s piece…”…conservatives are right to remind moderates that Republicans only succeed when we rally around clear principles.”(*THUMBS UP*)Rally around AND stick to! That’s the ticket. It’s when Republican act as hypocrites that the public turns away from the GOP.”The real mistake is that Republicans became more concerned with staying in D.C. than reforming it.”And turned aside from their PRINCIPLES in order to retain power… which ultimately they didn’t precisely BECAUSE they had turned aside from their principles.”To win back the trust of the American people, we must be a “big tent” party. But big tents need strong poles, and the strongest pole of our party — the organizing principle and the crucial alternative to the Democrats — must be freedom. The federal government is too big, takes too much of our money, and makes too many of our decisions. If Republicans can’t agree on that, elections are the least of our problems.”Anyone disagree…??? (Anyone who calls him or herself a Republican that is?)”We can’t win a bidding war with Democrats.”Who disagrees? Who believes we should try as a matter of… er… pragmatism?”Freedom will mean different things to different Republicans, but it can tether a diverse coalition to inalienable principles. Republicans can welcome a vigorous debate about legalized abortion or same-sex marriage; but we should be able to agree that social policies should be set through a democratic process, not by unelected judges.”Yep.AND… we need to explain to voters why this is so… why judicial activism is dangerous no matter which ideology it seeks to advance.Good for DeMint!BILL
sinz54 // May 4, 2009 at 9:32 am
I don’t think that Jim DeMint believes a word of this Wall Street Journal piece. It was probably written for him by one of his staffers, after DeMint got ridiculed in the media for saying he would rather have 30 ideologues than 60 big-tenters.When DeMint blurted out he would rather have 30 Republicans who all vote alike, he was admitting his real feelings on the subject.As Michael Kinsley once said: “A ‘gaffe’ is when a politician blurts out the truth.”