Green Room

‘Inclusiveness’, it’s not just for insults anymore

posted at 5:24 pm on May 4, 2009 by

There used to be a time when ‘inclusiveness’, and its derivations, was only used as a slur against Christians.  “Christians don’t include Gays,” or, “Christians don’t include Adulterers,” or – my personal favorite, “Christians are not inclusive of other religions.”  Of course, the first two are patently false, the last one is true or Christianity wouldn’t be a religion.  Christianity is defined by a book of rules, regulations, suggestions, and edicts.  That book is, obviously, the Bible.  Most other religions have laid down a similar set of rules which define their core beliefs, traditions, world-views, and laws.  Many are shared between differing religions, some are in direct contradiction to each other.  Some make sense, others…well not so much.  But do not want to discuss religion.

Political Parties, in many respects, share the same construct as religions.  There are a defined set of beliefs which are used to draw in others with similar views.  They are also used to reject those with views which are in direct contradiction to the Party’s.  Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Whigs, and others are all defined this way.  Chaos would ensue if it were otherwise.

The defection of Arlen Specter has touched off another firestorm of debate over the future of the Republican Party.  His own words, given as one of the reasons he left, “The Republican Party has moved to far to the Right,” are preposterous, and show either his confusion, or his dishonesty.  The Republican Party was built upon the foundation of adherence to our Constitution, individual rights, and smaller government.  Lower taxes is often used as a defining belief, however it really is an effect of having a smaller government.  In foreign policy, Republicans have a belief that capitalism, freedom, and democracy – as well as human life – are precious and delicate ideals, and must be fostered and protected throughout the world.  Our own identity and sovereignty as a nation is likewise to be protected at all costs.  In domestic policy, freedom is the ultimate litmus test, along with helping the citizen to achieve the highest state he or she is capable of.  Protection of innocent life, and assistance to the destitute so that no one in our great nation starves to death, are in the bedrock of Republican ideals.

These have not changed.

What has changed is that the party entertained, and allowed to come into power, those who did not carry our banner forward.  There has been an element inside the party, pushing it ever Left-ward for several decades.  Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, John McCain, along with a host of others have been calling for the party ‘base’ – those who hold to the above Republican ideals, must be more ‘inclusive’ and ‘tolerant’ of ‘moderate’ Republicans – those who do not hold some, or all, of the Republican ideals.

‘Moderate’ Republicans try to play the field.  They enjoy the attention paid to them by the press (when it suits the press), and miss the clobbering given to ‘Hard-line’ Republicans by the same.  Peer pressure can be a dangerous thing, and it has caused moderates to believe that leaving behind certain ideals is the ‘right thing to do’.  All politics is compromise, however, there must remain a core-set of principles.  If those principles drift far enough apart, deadlock occurs, which is why elections should be important.  Either a party is capable of winning support for their particular set of ideals (hopefully through proper articulation and strength of facts…as opposed to coercion and trickery) or they lose power.

The Democrats have been unwavering in their ideology.  They refuse to compromise on any of their core beliefs, be it more government, less freedom, higher taxes, less choice, or their abandonment of the innocent.  On each of these, their ideals are in direct contradiction to ours.  There is no middle ground.  For example, what could a compromise be in interpreting the Constitution where it speaks plainly?  Either the words are on the page or they are not.  Either the Constitution has meaning or it does not.  Either “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” means exactly that or the whole thing is worthless.

Each of us is required to make that decision, and distinction.  To do otherwise would make us poor citizens.  Each of the ideals must be weighed and measured.  Anything less produces chaos.  Do you believe, for example, that a man has a right, and the freedom, to work for and obtain private property?  Do you believe that an unborn child deserves equal protection to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” that other citizens enjoy?  These are yes/no questions.  There is no maybe.  No gray area is available in which one can hide.

‘Inclusiveness’ is a code word.  The suggestion is that the Republican Party can be stronger if we abandon our ideals.  Larger, perhaps, but stronger no.  “But what about Gay Rights?” the Republican line should be that that issue is not spelled out in the Constitution.  Therefore, under the 10th Amendment, the decision to allow homosexuals to marry is left to the states to decide for themselves.  If the states allow the citizens to vote and the measure passes, so be it.  If the voters reject a redefinition of marriage, change your argument and try again.  It really is very cut-and-dried.  Again, anything else introduces a measure of chaos.  Allowing the Constitution to be magically interpreted by nine Supreme Court Justices, simply provides tyranny by five of them.  Tyranny, because the rule of law becomes whatever they decide it to be.  Rights turn into “something you’re allowed to do” until a new group of Justices interferes again.

A new wave is sweeping through the Republican Party.  It began before the first Tea Party was ever organized by Keli Carender.  Millions of Americans are screaming out at the top of their lungs for a return of the Republican Party to its ideals.  For too long, they have watched as the Republicans morphed into a lighter version of the Democrats.  “One-third less taxes, and all the pork” will no longer be enough.  Meghan McCain can whine about it all she likes.  She must make the same choices those on the ‘hard-left’ or ‘hard-right’ have made.  Republicans will include anyone who make these choices and decides they want to be a Republican.  Democrats will do the same.  Those in the middle must realize that a choice must be made.

Written exclusively for The Greenroom by:

Ken Pritchett
Red Dot in a Red State

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Even in a Big Tent, you have to have someone on the dais. And that’s the question now: who will be on the dais: someone who represents something different from the Democratic Party, or someone who is just Democrat Lite. Once we have the right people on the dais, we can invite others to join us in the test.

njcommuter on May 4, 2009 at 9:20 PM