Redstate

By Josh Painter Posted in 2008 — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

I'm one of those conservatives who has no love for John McCain. I don't even have any like for the man. I can't stand his arrogant smirk. I recoil at the very sound of his voice. When he says, "my friends," as he does too often, I want to reach into the perceived dimension behind the flat screen of my TV set, grasp him tightly around his throat and shout, "I AM NOT YOUR FRIEND!" I'm one of those conservatives who still feels his knife in my back. I have voiced my displeasure with the prospects of being forced to vote for the lesser of the evils. But, now that I'm over the disappointment of again having no conservative to vote for, I'll cast my vote against socialism.

I am not, you see, one of those conservatives who perceives no difference between McCain and Hillary Clinton or none between him and Barrick Obama. Unfortunately, there's a lot of that kind of talk on the political forums these days. The difference between McCain and his two potential Democrat opponents is as clear as that which exists between night and day. Instead of the lesser of the evils, a Democrat win of the presidency would be the evil of the lessers.

Let's look at the numbers. The American Conservative Union (ACU) ratings are useful in this regard. McCain, who may have actually been a conservative once upon a time, is a moderate now. His most recent year's ACU rating is 65. There are a few Democrats who have higher ACU numbers, but Senators Obama and Clinton aren't among them. They aren't even close. Each has a rating of 8 for the same year McCain was given his 65. That's a whopping 57 points' difference. The single-digit numbers for the Democrats peg them both as not just liberal, but very liberal. They're both solidly in Democratic Socialist territory.

Looking at it from the other direction, we can use the ratings given by the ultra-liberal organization Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) from the same year to contrast McCain with Hillary and Barrick. Both Dems have nearly perfect ADA scores of 95%, versus McCain's 15%.

This brings to mind a quotation from the autobiography, Ronald Reagan: An American Life:

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later."

McCain's 65% is a bit below Reagan's threshold, but his 82.3% lifetime rating certainly fills the bill. When the only other realistic option is below 10%, you don't quibble over the smaller stuff.

Now there's also a lot of talk from those who say that they only vote their conservative principles, therefore they will never vote for McCain. Let's examine those principles, shall we?

As anyone familiar with my rants knows, I don't see conservatism as a three-legged stool, to cite the most commonly-used metaphor. I see a superstructure which is supported by four stout pillars - fiscal responsibility, limited government, national security and moral steadfastness. My symbolism differs from the familiar models in that small government is commonly grouped under economic conservatism and varnished onto the fiscal leg of the milking stool. But the size and scope of government is about much more than purely economic matters. It is about power and has been a foundational precept for American conservatives from Thomas Paine to Fred Thompson. Besides, four legs make for a more stable platform than do three. But I digress...

Fiscal responsibility - Either Democrat would be for raising taxes, cooking up many new social programs and gleefully throwing money at them. Corporate taxes and those of the wealthy who provide goods, services and jobs would go through the roof. The result would be more expensive goods and services plus fewer jobs. The low rates of inflation and unemployment we are currently enjoying would come to a screeching halt. American productivity and her global competitveness would decrease significantly. Gasoline, already suffering from high federal taxes, would take another 50-cent-per-gallon hike. Chew on that jerky next time you're filling up the tank on the family SUV.

Big government - The current president and the preceding congress did nothing to limit the size and scope of government and in fact let it grow on their watch. But you ain't seen nothin' yet! A Democrat president and a Democrat Congress would imagine that they had a mandate to increase the size and scope of the federal government well beyond anything conservatives have feared in their worst nightmare scenarios. Health insurance, global warming, education and many more "needs" are all the excuses either Hill or Barry would require to move us that much closer to their vision of a socialist paradise.

National security - Both Democrats would be quick to snatch defeat from the very jaws of victory in Iraq. Islamic facists would be doing their version of dancing in the steets, which would likely mean beheading all those Iraqis who stood with their American allies and dared to hope for liberty. It would be a bloodbath. Like the Dems always do when they take power, they would cut the military down to the size they consider appropriate, which only sends a sign of weakness to the terrorists who would test the rookie president early and often. China and Russia would see no downside in challenging the United States, and they would take every advantage. Unfortunately, there are many useful idiots in Washington D.C. who would aid and abet them.

Social issues - Allow a Democrat victory in the general, and there goes the Supreme Court and along with it any chance of overturning Roe. The next president could be presented with the opportunity to appoint from two to four justices to the high court, and you don't need a Ouija board to guess just how judicially active such appointees would be. Abandon ye all hope of seeing any traditional definition of marriage, also. The small progress which was made under the Bush Administration to drag the courts back toward the center would be wiped out.

Awfully bleak picture, isn't it? Well, it only gets worse from there with a Hillary or Obama in the White House. If it's Hillary, Democrats get the added satisfaction of flaunting Bill Clinton in front of conservatives' faces on a daily basis on the evening news, reviving that 90's soap opera, "As The Stomach Turns."

Of course there's no guarantee that John McCain wouldn't continue to aggravate and disappoint conservatives. But it's a sure and easy bet that he won't be the disaster that either leading Democrat promises to be. And if another terrorist attack of the magnitude of 9/11 or even worse occurs because conservatives stayed home on general election day, a fair share of the blood will be on their hands.

Still think you're adhering to conservative principles if you let a socialist Dem win the White House? Still see no difference between Hillary and McCain? If your answer to either or both of these questions is yes, then your name is D. Nial, and you're up a certain foul-smelling creek without a paddle. I've got no problems with you doing that. Just don't take my country, Mr. Franklin's republic and that for which he and his fellow founders pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor along with you.

- JP