Monday, September 1, 2014

Bipartisanship is bad, partisanship is good, believe it or not

There's people who say things like "I wish politicians would just get along," or, "they need to work together and compromise."  Yet we may be better off when they don't.

Allow me to explain.  What if you believe people are smart and are better off when left to their own devices.  Yet you have republicans and democrats in office who both think they know what's best for you, and get together and pass laws that take away your personal liberties, your right to decide for yourself.

Do you still think bipartisanship is good?

What we really need is people who fight for our liberties, regardless who it is. We need people who defend the constitution, regardless of who it is.  We need people who push forward sound economic policies, regardless of who it is.  We need people who will protect our private property, regardless of who it is.  We need people who will protect our freedom of speech, regardless of who it is.  We need people in office who will oppose an increase in the size and scope of government, regardless of who it is.

If you have republicans and democrats in office who oppose any of this, then it is best that they don't get along.  It is better to be the party of no, and to do nothing, than to do something stupid.  It's better to do nothing than to do something that will make our lives worse.  It's better to do nothing than make laws that are risky and unproven, such as Obamacare.  It's better to do nothing than make laws that will take away our personal liberties at the expense of some idealistic Utopian dream.

For the past 100 years this is the type of system we have had.  Ever since the election of 1912, where you had a progressive democrat in Woodrow Wilson, and an even more progressive republican in Teddy Roosevelt running for President of the U.S., both parties have become victim to progressive ideals that have undermined the principles of personal liberty and private property.  It has not been done by the democratic party alone, but both parties. The reason these bad policies have passed was with bipartisan support.

Sure the two parties argue over issues, but, too often, when it comes to increasing the powers of the president, increasing government programs that give rich people and corporations more of a reason to try to gain favor over a rising governmental influence, and running up the deficit, both parties are alike.  Both parties are guilty of ignoring the constitution to pass laws they think will make people like them enough to gain votes come election time, instead of protecting liberties.  Excuse the idiom, but the two parties seem more concerned with currying favor rather than protecting liberties we worked so hard to get.

It is also for this reason that I tell my friends that it is not a good idea to "just give him a chance."  That's what one of my friends said about Obama, that "he is our president, we should give him a chance."  Why?  Why would I do that when every thing he stands for is the opposite of the values and principles I support.  That's why it's okay when people like Rush Limbaugh say things like "I hope he fails."

It's better to have a partisan divide as opposed to crossing the aisle to create programs that work to the detriment of the greatest nation the world has ever seen and will ever see.

As Ron Paul said in his 2011 book "Liberty Defined:
We have had way too much bipartisanship that promotes an agenda that has ignored constitutional restraints and free market principles... So-called moderate politicians who compromise and seek bipartisanship are the most dangerous among the entire crew in Washington. Compromise is too often synonymous with 'selling out,' but is sounds a lot better. Honest politicians who state that their goal is total socialized medicine (or education, etc.) are met with a greater resistance; while people who favor the same thing but sell it as moderate bipartisanship slip by unnoticed.  They are the ones who destroy our liberties incrementally, in the name of compromise and civility
Paul added:
Moderates are somehow convinced that they are the saviors of the country, rescuing us all from the effects of philosophical differences.  In fact, philosophical differences are healthy because they lead to the clarification of principles.  Genuine progress is going to require more confrontation, partisanship, and serius and honest discussion of the truth about government, the economy, and every sector of American life.  It also needs politicians who can hold strong to their beliefs and do not compromise their core values.  How sad a state we are in when it seems like such a stretch to expect that from a politician!  We need to bring back some understnding of the idea of liberty and what it means.  Bipartisanship will not help that process along, mainly because there are so few things on which the two parties agree that would be good for the country. 
Bottom line: Bipartisanship and Compromise can be good, as we learned when the Constitution was signed into law, but not when it comes at the expense of personal liberties.   Partisanship may look ugly, yet at times it can be the best defense against political assaults on personal liberties. Bipartisanship that advances constitutional restraints and free market principles is what is needed to return this nation back to greatness.