Minutiae
~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.
