Daniel McCarthy: GOP Leadership Action Needs to Match Rhetoric

Mike Pence has said as much in letters to his colleagues several times. It is the lesson of 2006 and 2008. It is time for the governing to match the rhetoric, and now people are paying more attention. The GOP will either walk the walk or it will go the way of the Whigs.

“How long do politicians have to keep on promising heaven & delivering hell before people catch on” – Thomas Sowell

Daniel McCarthy:

I’m not the biggest fan of Eisenhower or Nixon, but they (and Reagan) are clearly preferable to this post-Reagan Republican Party. Those presidents won national majorities for a reason. They weren’t strict conservatives, but they certainly weren’t any less conservative than the Bushes, McCain, or Romney. They didn’t pretend they were going to abolish the welfare state — often, they didn’t even pretend they would cut the welfare state — unlike so many of today’s Republicans, who don’t follow through but do use their rhetoric to polarize. That gives us the worst of both worlds: big government plus the delusional sense within one party that it represents the antithesis of big government and may freely hate other Americans who don’t mouth the mantra. And what goes for big government goes for Judeo-Christian values, a strong national defense, and all the rest: the GOP’s rhetoric occupies a separate mental compartment from its actions, even as its voters and ideological apologists continue to believe that there is a profound moral difference between them and the rest of the country. It’s a losing strategy, and worse, it’s made the country ungovernable even as government grows.

About Chuck Norton

Political issue strategist and communications professional. I write about politics, education, economics, morality and philosophy.
This entry was posted in 2012 Primary, Lies, True Talking Points and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Daniel McCarthy: GOP Leadership Action Needs to Match Rhetoric

  1. waldo4accord says:

    Daniel, thanks for a great post. Unfortunately too many in the media, as well as bloggers and readers are too focused on getting the best zinger in than finding common ground. Polarizing comments do nothing but push the sides apart further and certainly don’t do anything to capture those voters in the middle – which is just what we need to do in this election. Nice job!

    Political Arena Editor Responds:

    Waldo, thanks for stopping by, but your statement begs the question – what middle ground.

    One side is intent on bankrupting us Saul Alinsky style, the other is having an internal struggle between traditional small government conservatives and big government establishment Republicans.

    One side supports Israel and their tolerances for all religions, gays and Democracy, the other is propping up Muslim Brotherhood regimes and acts almost as an apologist for militant islam’s desire to subjugate women, kill gays and genocide the Jews.

    One side believes that government should not have a monopoly on deadly force, the other wants to take away guns to make sure that government has that monopoly.

    One side wants government centralized education with private competition stomped out, the other doesn’t.

    One side wants central control over the economy for the purpose of social.economic engineering, the other wants more economic freedom.

    With all due respect, one side must defeat the other, there is very little middle ground any more since the Saul Alinsky inspired Democrats tossed out the JFK, Lieberman, Zell Miller, Sam Nun, Pat Caddell, Artur Davis, wing of the Democratic Party.

    • waldo4accord says:

      Daniel, thanks for the response and an opportunity to reply. There is no doubting the fact that one party, one candidate must win and one must lose. The middle ground isn’t necessarily the parties or party lines, but rather the voters in this case. I do not believe that the voting public is so clearly polarized at the extremes. People are complex. You can have someone who believes strongly in abortion, is against drilling in national parks, and is open to raising taxes; but is a hawk on military matters, a fiscal conservative, Pro gun and wants better control of immigration. It happens.

      I think there is a group of people in that middle ground that believe in a meritocracy and want their children to have a shot at the American dream, and don’t believe in an entitlement society. How many families have a registered Democrat and a registered Republican? I am sure there in some middle ground happening there.

      And yes, without a doubt the Democratic Platform conveyed at the convention demonstrated the extremes you mention. I believe the Republican’s offer a different, more optimistic choice.

      Daniel, I agree with all of what you have written, except for the size of the middle ground with respect to the people that can make a difference in this election – the voters. Believing there is no middle ground is a slippery slope. Once you believe that, then there is no reason to “reach across the aisle” and instead, focus on “winning the argument” or getting in the best jab; something we see all too often today. Then we have lost.

      Thanks again for the great post and thought provoking response. I will check back in for other posts as well, and look forward to being inspired.

      Political Arena Editor Responds:

      Thanks for stopping by! While Danial McCarthy wrote the piece in the quotes, I am the editor Chuck Norton, just so you know who you are chatting with. I know, it gets confusing😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s