Republican presidential candidate John Kasich enjoys a significant distinction over his rivals in the running for the nomination of the Grand Ol’ Party. The surging governor of Ohio has received the endorsement of not just the Boston Globe but the New York Times as well.
In their endorsement, the Times stated that Kasich was “the only plausible choice for Republicans tired of the extremism and inexperience on display in this race.” ( Have you ever heard the Times critique Obama for his extremism and inexperience?)
The Globe opined, “…John Kasich, whose record as governor of Ohio shows him to be a pragmatic, fiscally responsible executive, but one who is also concerned with helping the poor”. (Are they implying that pragmatism and compassion are mutually exclusive?) The Globe went on to say that Kasich is a moderate conservative willing to compromise in pursuit of results.
Real conservatives reacted with disgust to this endorsement of Kasich by the liberal media establishment. When questioned about it, he defended himself by saying, “What conservatives have to know is they have to say, ‘look isn’t it nice to have a conservative like me liked?’ And, maybe they ought to think about it because if I get elected president, the Republican Party and the definition of conservatism is going to change.” [emphasis added] (I thought by definition the definition of conservatism can’t change.)
During the last debate in New Hampshire, Kasich was asked just how he would change conservatism. After rambling through his usual canned speech about his accomplishments in Ohio, he did get off to a good start with expressing the need for economic growth. However, he then morphed into the big government monster we all should fear. He pleaded about reaching out to those in the shadows, helping the mentally ill, the drug addicted, and the working poor. He then asserted we must reach out to the developmentally disabled and minority communities. He then ended with saying, “…conservatism should mean not only that some rise through conservative principles, but everyone has a chance to rise.…” (I bet this guy has a picture of Franklin Roosevelt on his bedroom wall.)
Donald Trump was then asked by the moderator to state why he should be considered a conservative. And he made it abundantly clear that he has no idea what conservatism is. Trump stammered and stuttered about the root of the word conservative and then blathered that we want to conserve our money, our country, and our wealth. This was followed by the obligatory boast that no one can do that like he can. In all seriousness I have to ask, has this guy put any effort into understanding our founding principles and the responsibilities of the position he’s running for?
Conservatism in the context we are discussing here is very easy to define. Conservatism is about putting this massive, malignant enterprise we now call the federal government back into the box called The Constitution. The Constitution grants only seventeen powers to the federal government. Just seventeen. It now seems that there are thousands.
For instance, the Constitution grants the federal government the power to tax and spend to provide for the nation’s defense and general welfare but not to bury us in mountains of debt nor use this power as a weapon to silence those that would challenge its hegemony.
The Constitution grants the federal government the power to establish the rules of naturalization that define citizenship. It does not grant the power to open the borders in order to change the complexion of the electorate and guarantee it unassailable power.
The Constitution grants the federal government the power to regulate commerce with other countries and between the states. It does not grant the power to mandate that citizens must buy healthcare that the government certifies as acceptable.
Big government statists defend this gross mutation and attack conservatives as being cold, uncaring and heartless. Yet it’s their big hearts that have left us massively in debt and created an unimaginable burden on citizens yet to be born. Their lives will surely be diminished from ours. How compassionate is that?
Conservatives believe the framers of the Constitution were right in very specifically and severely limiting the power of the federal government. They were determined to avoid the certain tyranny of our current course and they knew that the success of the country depended on decentralized power and decision-making. That’s why most of the powers of governance were left to the states. Conservatives want to again set the balance back to where the Framers had originally place it.
How are we going to accomplish this with candidates that want to water down conservatism by relabeling it moderate or compassionate? How are we going to accomplish this with candidates who can’t even coherently define it? We can’t.
The next president must be a rock solid conservative who will not be looking to make a deal. We have to have a president that understands that government as prescribed in the Constitution is far more compassionate than the socialism we are careening into. We have to have a president that is willing to stand on principle and not compromise away the future of our children. We have to have a president that will articulate and promote our Constitutional foundation to an ignorant nation.
I believe there is just one man that can do this. Ted Cruz.