Will NH Pick the Orwellocon?

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Recently by Scott Lazarowitz: Senators Who Love the Government But Hate America

     

WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH MITT ROMNEY IS A CONSERVATIVE

~ An updated version of the Ministry of Truth's slogan from George Orwell's 1984

The media pundits and the talk radio hosts and their callers have been bending over backwards to label Willard Mitt Romney a "conservative." They have been desperately trying to fit their ideal of a conservative into Romney like fitting a piece into a puzzle that will never fit — not without a pair of scissors, that is. It is truly Orwellian, this thing with calling a far-left socialist a "conservative." They might as well call Barack Obama a "conservative."

In addition to that, many people are trying to find a Republican who is "electable," someone who can beat Obama in the November, 2012 election. But if Romney does become the Republican nominee and then wins the election, then what? Given that he is bought and paid for by Wall Street, do you really believe that Romney will do anything to fix the underlying causes of our current economic depression (central banking, the Fed, the collusions between Wall Street and the U.S. government, the government's expansionist empire abroad and deficit spending and ever-increasing debt)? Given what a tax-raiser he was as governor, do you really believe Romney will not be exactly like George H.W. Bush and Bush Jr. in caving like a jellyfish to the Capitol Hill big spenders?

As governor of Taxachusetts, Romney raised corporate taxes, and he also raised hundreds of millions of dollars in higher fees, on guns, marriages, property transfers, you name it. And "Massachusetts conservative" Willard Romney, who went on record in 2002 opposing getting rid of the state income tax, dramatically increased the state budget, according to Center for Small Government President Carla Howell. Any income tax, whether it be federal, state or city, is so dreadfully invasive of property rights, privacy and contracts, and so violating of freedom, who in his right mind could possibly oppose getting rid of it?

And many people have been saying that they support Romney because of his business experience. He had a lot of experience at his Bain Capital firm driving some companies out of business and getting rich from the early investments and tax deductions in the process. But how much of his work in the private sector was spent providing something of actual value to others? To me, given his record with Bain, it is as though they were trying to act like government bureaucrats, many of whom currently in Washington having also gotten rich off the backs of working class Americans.

Given the way he treated various businesspeople during his time with Bain, one wonders just how — in the political world — he will deal with dissenting Americans, especially those of the Tea Party movement and the Occupy movement who are extremely critical of the federal government. How will Romney handle the further expanded powers of the presidency if he is given the new powers of indefinite detention of anyone he chooses, without due process?

Speaking of security issues, Romney is also unwilling to oppose cutting "defense" spending. In fact, he wants to increase spending on the already bloated military-security-industrial-complex. Romney supports the Big Government foreign interventionism of the military central planners in Washington, and wants to expand the intrusions and aggressions abroad.

While some people in New Hampshire might disagree with me on this, true conservatives oppose any governmental interventionism, foreign or domestic. Unfortunately, so many people have been taken in by the government propagandists who have been insisting that the wars and expanded military bureaucracy of the past ten years had been necessary, and some still believe it despite the wars' utter failures, destruction, counter-productiveness, waste of lives and bankrupting costs.

Many people do not want to believe that terrorism of the 1990s and 2000s were direct results of the aggressions committed overseas by the U.S. government especially since 1990 and especially in Iraq. Some people just don't like to hear reality told to them, which is why Ron Paul got booed at those debates. But generally, the events of terrorism blowback were results of central planning.

This central planning by the government interventionists is not conservative, nor is it liberal. It is statist. (See Jacob Hornberger on libertarianism versus statism.) The statists believe in using the monopolistic, armed power of the centralized federal government not only to interfere with the lives of their own people domestically, but with the lives of foreigners. Willard Mitt Romney aligns himself with these Bush-Cheney-Feith-Wolfowitz central planners of foreign interventionist statism and all its destruction.

Some of Americans' support for such foreign interventionism and central planning comes from this idea of American exceptionalism, which Romney has repeatedly stated should be renewed and projected across the globe. Whether people want to acknowledge it or not, American exceptionalism means that our government should have the power to intrude into and interfere with the internal affairs of foreign peoples — and militarily no less — but foreigners shouldn't have the right to place their government apparatus and military bases on our lands. This philosophy contradicts the Christian principle of "Do unto others what one would want others to do unto you," and "Don't do unto others what one would not want others to do unto you." Such a Christian philosophy is exactly that of Ron Paul, certainly not of Willard Romney.

My own personal opinion is that, given Romney's past insincerities and flip-flopping, I don't particularly believe his sincerity in the national security debate. He seems to be pandering to the public's post-9/11 fears, and to the fear-mongering of the neoconservatives. And, just as Romney will probably have a hard time saying "no" to his Wall Street benefactors, so too will it be hard for him to say "no" to the defense contractors, the merchants of death.

In a nutshell, Romney is no conservative, nor is he a "liberal." Romney is a politician. In fact, he is the epitome of "weathervane politician." He would fit right in as a character in Orwell's novel, 1984 (and a very scary one at that).

"But, we need someone who can beat Obama in November. We can't afford to take the chance of Obama getting reelected," people cry. Yeah, and once your "electable" Willard Romney were to take the oath of office in January, 2013, he will continue the socialism, the environmentalist voodooism and the warmongering, as well as the Fed's inflationary money printing, and drive America completely into the ground like he did those businesses from his Bain Capital steering wheel.

There actually is a conservative, however, who believes that the government should only do what the Constitution says, and who actually will reduce the size, power and intrusiveness of the federal government, and restore the protection of our natural rights and civil liberties. Most readers here know who that is.

The people of New Hampshire will make a choice this week. The choice is between continuing the socialism, corporate-government cronyism and central planning which are destroying America from within and will leave us to ruin — or reason, common sense, and the restoration of the rule of law and freedom. Let's hope they choose the latter.

Scott Lazarowitz [send him mail] is a commentator and cartoonist, visit his blog.

The Best of Scott Lazarowitz

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare