~The small, precise or trivial details of something~
I have witnessed, over the past year or so, among many friends on social media, an explosion of outrage, angst, bloviation and most troubling, outright rejection of every single Republican presidential candidate over the most trivial of issues. The ideological purity demanded by a large portion of the electorate for their pet issues is very troubling and I fear will lead to another term with a mafia state Democrat residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
I sadly admit that I myself have participated in this insanity, and have voiced my intention to either not vote or symbolically vote for a non-viable candidate in a third party if my preferred guy does not claim the Republican nomination. But lately it has occurred to me that we may be cutting off our nose to spite our face with this stubborn demand of ideological wholesomeness that seems to consume many of us today.
The concerns are real, and I don’t mean to make them out to be anything but, however I think we tend to be blind to the forest for the trees on many of these issues. For instance, why would someone refuse to support a Marco Rubio as a Republican nominee vs a Hillary Clinton because he is not perceived to be tough enough on illegal immigration? He would almost certainly be better on the issue at the end of the day. Or why would one reject the idea of pulling the lever for Ted Cruz were he chosen by the GOP vs a Bernie Sanders? Because he is too extreme? Versus an admitted Socialist?
Can anyone really believe that Rand Paul’s insistence that sending troops into combat on some foreign battlefield requiring a declaration of war from congress is more dangerous to our national security than a president that emboldens those who seek to do us harm through support and arms against some dictator that has kept the radicals at bay in his own country and then works against those allies that are battling them? Why exactly is Jeb Bush a bigger threat to your liberties than a party that believes you have no right to the tools of self defense against, among other things, an oppressive and over reaching federal government?
Granted, some folks have real problems with stands that certain candidates have made on issues that the media has forced into our faces. I submit that we are letting the media guide our thinking on these issues and losing sight of the big picture. What difference does a candidate’s stand on the issue of a few pet civil liberty issues make when the alternative is a candidate that would take away all civil liberties? Why refuse to support a candidate because you don’t like their position on marijuana legalization and insure that we end up with a president that will destroy the economy to the point that you couldn’t afford marijuana if it was legal in your state? Yes, these are important topics to be sure, but pale in comparison to the bigger issues at play.
The Supreme Court is also a very large consideration that must come into play. With the advanced age of some of the current justices, undoubtedly the next POTUS will be nominating at least a few appointees to the high court. I have heard many on the Libertarian side express concern that a conservative president might make appointments that will be bad for civil liberties in some cases. This very well could be true but I would argue that the alternative could be much worse. There is no doubt that many cases of government and executive over reach into the affairs of the private sector will be coming before the court in the years ahead, especially after the presidency of Barack Obama. And liberal justices have shown that adherence to the strict constructionist view of the constitution will not sway their leftist ideology in decisions. So while a constructionist court may trample a few civil liberties, a liberal court could have a far more devastating effect on the republic, the economy, and our civil liberties as they are not guided by the restrictions placed on government by our constitution but rather by the utopian goals of leftism. Is a cop requiring a proper subpoena to search a car in Georgia a bigger issue than our entire system of government and the restrictions of same transformed into a liberal hegemony?
We are in the midst of the primary campaign season, and I understand us all having our preferred candidates and backing them through this process all the way. That is as it should be. But at the end of the day, we must take our role as voters seriously and make a choice based on what is best for the republic and future generations. We have an imperfect system, with any candidate they will have some deficiencies as far as representing what is important to us. I think however we should support an eventual nominee if they recognize at least some restrictions on their power. The current crop of Democrats, emboldened by the latest of their party to occupy the post, will see no hindrance to their tyrannical aims and we need to keep in mind what we could lose if we let the wrong person be elected to the highest post in the land.
Thomas Jefferson said in his first inaugural address:
“I shall often go wrong through defect of judgment. When right, I shall often be thought wrong by those whose positions will not command a view of the whole ground. I ask your indulgence for my own errors, which will never be intentional, and your support against the errors of others, who may condemn what they would not if seen in all its parts.”
Of course the elephant in the room may negate all of this lecturing on my part…….. But remember, I said Republican candidates, I don’t consider him a Republican.