My Republican Manifesto, Part 2
Category: Red vs. Blue
June 7, 2010 | BY Byron Bradshaw
Howdy, everyone! In my last post I discussed a bit of syntax and gave you some background and insight into my own life. We left off with me saying that in while in college, the Republican Party began to appeal to me. I want to talk a bit more about that now. BUT, before I begin, I want to start with a warning: post is not for the fainthearted. I’m going to attempt to explain the theory of my political beliefs with being theoretical. Also from time to time, I will (not just might) say things that you won’t not agree with. So batten down the hatches and take a deep breath, because here we go…
It’s a fact that no two single people are the same. We don’t look, act, think, or feel the same way. Our life experiences, while are sometimes similar and run parallel, never are identical. Therefore the government shouldn’t treat its citizens as if they are all the same. In an individualistic society like ours, the only true way to achieve happiness is personal liberty. Individual rights (and the responsibilities that go with them) are intrinsically the foundation of a free and happy society. Because of this, for me the single most important value that that a political party can prioritize is limited government. By limiting the reach of government into individuals’ lives, its citizens are therefore empowered. In The Declaration of Independence states that men are born with rights of life, liberty, and property. These rights were endowed by a higher power and are inalienable. We’ve all heard that phrase, but I don’t think we’ve taken the time to really think about what they mean. It simply means that rights are not conferred us by our government. Government was instituted by men to protect the rights they already have. The only reason a government exists to protect its populace. Nothing more, nothing less.
This is the absolute basis for my identification of the Republican Party, and you’ll find me referencing this as I make many of my arguments over the course of our journey here. In fact, it bleeds into my other “core” belief: government spending must be reigned and taxation must be controlled. Lower taxes mean that individuals are given the power to make their own economic choices – and most of the time those choices are infinitely wiser than any government would make. Economic freedom expands prosperity as. Too much government regulation stifles a country’s opulence. Sadly, today’s Democratic Party would rather sacrifice economic growth in order to steer behavior, choices, and change the way every citizens live their lives. If our government is truly limited and acting constitutionally, there is no need for the out of control spending that most Democratic Party members seem to enjoy.
Our free economy has given our country the highest standard of living in the world. It rewards us for hard work, creates unbelievable opportunities, and reveres charity. Freedom means choices, not mandates. For me, the Republican Party absolutely embodies these ideas of limited government and free(er) economies. These are the foundations on which I base most of my political convictions. I know I don’t agree with every sing le thing listed in the Republican Party platform. However, this party is the one that exemplifies the values that I hold dear and therefore is why I can proudly say: I identify with the Republican Party.
Whew. How was that for y’all? Hopefully I didn’t get too muddy in my explanations. If you need further clarification on why I believe what I do, or have any questions or comments, please feel free to leave your thoughts below. I’d LOVE to hear from my readers.
“None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license.” –John Milton
About the Author
Byron Bradshaw: Byron is a recent transplant to New York City. Before his move to the East Coast, he was a Texas boy. He grew up on a small ranch outside a tiny town in Central-Northwest Texas. While a student at The University of Texas at Austin, Byron got his first taste of politics through an internship with a Republican state senator. After graduating from UT in 2008, Byron worked for a large Republican fundraising/consulting firm that provided advice in new media, direct media, event planning, grassroots, speech writing, and television commercial content to clients that ranged from State Representatives, State Supreme Court Justices, and U.S. Congressmen. During the 2009 Texas Legislative session, Byron worked as a clerk in the Committee Coordinator’s office. Byron lives with his partner, Scott, and their dog, Bentley. In his free time he enjoys tennis, choral music, trips to the “bark park,” and supporting gay and lesbian Republican organizations.
I have many, many issues with the assumptions underlying this posting, but I want to touch on one more general issue specifically: you say “the only reason a government exists is to protect its populace.” This statement is vague beyond comprehension (and has no basis in American jurisprudence). As a result, it is simultaneously under-inclusive and over-inclusive, and it therefore can’t serve as the basis of a coherent political philosophy. Here is how it’s under-inclusive: The preamble to the Constitution of the United States (the supreme law of the land) establishes our government for far more than simple “protection,” including, first and foremost, to “form a more perfect union.” Protection is but one of several reasons the Founders articulated in establishing the constitution. Promoting the general welfare is just as important a consideration as is, say, insuring domestic tranquility or providing for the common defense. Why give the power of the government to provide for the general welfare such short (or non-existent) shrift?
Your statement is also over-inclusive, because nowhere do you define what you mean by “protection.” If you mean military protection, this statement is at odds with your desire for reining in tax revenues and government spending (unless you mean all spending BUT military spending). But if you say that “protection,” simple, undefined protection, is the government’s role, why isn’t ensuring that more people are covered by health insurance a form of protection? Isn’t it fair to say that taxing the citizens to provide them with, e.g., effective public schools, is a form of economic protection? Aren’t social security and Medicare kinds of economic, social, and health protections? You see where the slope leads without a precise definition. Everything fits, except for that which you arbitrarily exclude.
Less meta, I would say that government is not the problem, as Reagan so sound-bitedly put it. The problem, to the extent one exists, is individuals in positions of power not taking their governing responsibilities seriously. Serious governance, even serious conservative governance, does not necessarily require a hands-off attitude.
Well said (written). My thoughts exactly.
Interesting case Byron, and I’m sure as you get further into the blog you’ll be able explain much more about your personal beliefs and justifications for identifying with the Republican Party. I’m talking especially to the social standpoint of the Party. I think most of our generation (Gen Yer) tends to put their faith in the Party that leans more towards their own social beliefs (i.e. abortion, gay marriage just to name a few). I think that’s the great downfall of the bipartisan system, many over look what’s going on outside of those few standpoints.
Clint:
First off, thanks for your input, I really appreciate it. I’m happy to respond to a few of the things you mentioned.
To begin, I think your assessment that my assumptions were too general (therefore making them simultaneously over and under-inclusive) are a bit unfair. Forgive my vagueness, but I was trying to give a general overview of why I believe what I do by explaining some theories without being too theoretical. (Leave it to me to attempt something that crazy.) However, I can clarify a few things for you.
Locke theorized that the only man would leave the state of nature (existence without government) to consent to governmental rule was protection. In fact, I don’t think a generalized statement like “protection” is under-inclusive for American political thought. I’m so glad you mentioned the Preamble to the Constitution, because you can take each reason given for a new government to be a form of protection:
1. “The formation of a more perfect Union” was a protection from the old types of tyrannical government that the Founding Fathers had experienced.
2. “Insuring domestic tranquility” protects each citizen from unlawful encroachment by another (or other entities),
3. “Providing for the common defense” protects the citizens as a whole from outside forces.
4. “Promoting the general welfare” refers to protecting our society and civilization, rather than our government or us as individuals.
5. “Securing the Blessing of Liberty” protects our innate freedoms we were born with, those “inalienable rights” the Declaration of Independence speaks of.
I’d also like to defend against your over-inclusive argument. You say that my by statements are at odds with my desire to reign in tax revenues and government spending/reach. However, I think you simply misunderstood what I was saying. I do believe the government has to tax its citizens and spend money – the idea that an effective government could accomplish anything without doing that could only happen at the end of Robin Hood. (Ha!) I’m sorry if I was unclear, but my ideas were about the scaling back of government, not the abolishment. I’m sure we agree the government has to have the financial ability to operate, but the dichotomy arrives when discussing the desired reach (and the manner means are procured).
Do I think protection means ensuring health care? Absolutely not. But that’s exactly what it is: my opinion, as everything else on this (section of this) blog. You can choose or agree or disagree with them as you please (I’ll assume the latter.
) I do know something I can agree on with you, however; and that is the topic of governing responsibility. I think all of us, Republican and Democrat, should be examining our elected officials very closely to see if they are meeting the standards set before them (which should be the highest). That was another good thing about Locke: if they government is not doing its job, then vote’em out!
Thanks for commenting! I look forward to hearing your opinion on mine and Tamara’s upcoming posts.
-Byron
K:
Thanks for commenting! You make an interesting point about Gen Y being more apt to follow social issues than others. Do you think it’s because as a younger generation we tend to be more liberal than older ones (comparatively)?
In terms of this being a downfall of the bipartisan system, I can’t say I agree. In fact, other countries like Italy have sometimes upwards of 100 parties in elections! There a party could just the representative of one singular issue, and somehow these governments still find ways to cooperate and function (most of the time).
What I think is the true downfall is a totally uninterested and undereducated (politically) public. I’ve had the amazing opportunity to speak to a wide variety of people while living in New York. What I’ve found is the average American voter seems to be fairly uninterested in day to day politics because nothing seems to be “real” to them, and no one seems genuine. That, and they feel out of the loop or unable to participate, which is simply not the case.
What I do think is interesting about Gen Y is our willingness to participate. Attribute it to the internet, education rates, Lady Gaga, whoever. I still think it’s a good thing!
-Byron
I don’t mean to harp on this point, but I’m trying to understand your position. Nothing in your most recent post gives a good reason why ensuring health insurance for every citizen should not fall under the government’s power to promote the general welfare, even under your restrictive “protection” definition. You agree that government has the power to protect our society and civilization. What is a good argument for why that power shouldn’t include keeping the society and civilization from dying of disease?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I am assuming that you are for the most part referring to military power when you espouse the government’s role as protector. If that’s the case, you are calling for protection from invasion, from death by a bullet. Why not protection from death by a virus?