Conservatives and the Settling Question

by Bill Barnwell
by Bill Barnwell

As a young bachelor, I frequently asked older married people I respected: "How do you know when you’ve met ‘the one’ you’re supposed to marry?" The universal response? "You’ll just know. Until that time, don’t ever settle." Those last words of advice about not settling sometimes seemed difficult. I’m sure others know what I am talking about. A nice man or woman would come your way that would have some, but not all of the qualities you were looking for in a mate. Your temptation was to just "settle" – even though you knew in your heart of hearts that she or he wasn’t "the one." Maybe you did settle and later you realized you made a mistake.

While not encouraging people to settle is good relationship advice, it is good political advice also. Just as hearts are eventually broken and relationships ruined when one or both parties realize they’ve been "settling," there is damage in the political realm as well when voters realized they’ve settled for less than the best.

In every election cycle, both parties trot out one to three "mainstream" candidates that their establishments and the media tell voters is "electable." Sure, there may be one or several other candidates who are closer to the beliefs of the base and the party’s traditional core principles. But the bigwig party officials and the media tell us from the get-go that such well-intentioned candidates simply aren’t electable. Both sides say to themselves, "Yeah, I really love Candidate A and I would love for this person to be my President, unfortunately he just can’t win. I guess I’ll just have to vote for Candidate B, even though they are not what I’m really looking for."

What’s happened here is that the voter has settled. And in almost every election cycle the majority of voters in both political parties settle because they think that’s the only way to win elections. The naysayer says, "Look, elections are won in the middle, you have to compromise to win." Tell that to poor Bill Richardson – a reasonably successful governor, former cabinet member, diplomat, ethnic minority, and moderate. Yet Richardson stands in the low single digits in the polls. Many people who agree with his positions and would otherwise vote him are writing him off because they’ve been told that he can’t win. The only people who can supposedly win are the media celebrities like Clinton, Obama, and maybe, just maybe John Edwards.

On the Republican side, if most conservatives were really honest with themselves, they’d admit that there are several other experienced candidates in the race who have much better conservative credentials than the establishment choices. Let’s just use Rep. Ron Paul as a case study in these next paragraphs, though we could certainly use others who are running as well. When measured up against the "Big Three," Ron Paul much better fits the philosophy of rank and file conservatives.

Even the hawkish conservatives, who disagree with Paul about the war, still find a natural ally in Paul on any number of other issues. While other candidates talk about dinky tax cuts, which are really just clever tax shifts, Paul talks about real tax cutting. While other Republicans talk about cutting taxes, but raising spending on ever more military adventures and domestic entitlements, Dr. Paul explains that in the real world spending has to be cut for there to be a true tax decrease.

While many conservatives talk about smaller and less intrusive government, they continue to vote for candidates who only offer weasel words on these issues. Instead of shrinking government and making it less intrusive, the rank and file supports politicians who grow government and make it even more intrusive than it already was. One guy running for President actually has a Congressional voting record that stands firm on these issues. Who is it? Hint: It’s not John McCain.

No matter what the issue, Ron Paul has consistently voted in a way that honors traditional conservative principles. Even on the war, it’s Ron Paul who has correctly honored the spirit of George Washington and the constitution. It’s not Ron Paul who has abandoned the conservative spirit; it’s today’s so-called "conservatives" who have abandoned constitutionalism with their support for endless interventionism and congressionally undeclared wars. In fact, Ron Paul is using the same rhetoric about America’s role in the world this election cycle that George Bush used in 2000. Yes, I know, "everything changed" after 9/11. But in their heart of hearts, I know most conservatives are not happy playing Globocop. Also, if Democrats were presiding over the Iraq War, I know conservatives would be singing a different tune, just as they did when most of them rightfully opposed the excesses and disasters of Clinton’s foreign policy.

Unfortunately, Republicans want to win so bad they’d rather sacrifice their values for a McCain, Giuliani, or Romney rather than Paul or another candidate who they actually agree with. Even for my fellow Christian conservatives, it’s Ron Paul who best supports their causes, as Laurence Vance so effectively demonstrates.

The conservative could retort, "Well, these other candidates don’t have the money those other guys do." No, he doesn’t, because you and your establishment buddies keep sending it to those other guys. The same type of politicians will leave you hanging after the election and continue to let you down. Remember, those who settle wind up with broken hearts.

They could further retort, "OK, well, they don’t have the visibility that those other guys do!" But since when did conservatives start taking their cues from the "mainstream media"? Why do conservatives have to vote for the candidates CBS and NBC find most electable? Look, conservative, nobody is forcing you to do anything. You can vote whichever way you choose. If you want to let big money donors and network reporting decide your vote for you then go ahead. But you are choosing to settle in doing so.

The mainstream media does indeed hate when you vote for people who aren’t on their approved list. This isn’t just true with the mainstream media, but the establishment conservative publications as well. Hence all the snickering from National Review and the networks regarding Ron Paul winning the MSNBC online poll after last week’s debate. Was the poll scientific? No. Did Paul’s voters flock to the website to vote? Of course. But you better believe it would have been bigger news had the liberal Giuliani won the poll instead of Paul. In that case, we would have some newsworthy entries about the "voter dedication for frontrunner Giuliani." But if it’s Ron Paul’s supporters or another "minor candidate’s" then it can just be ignored. That’s because the same media and establishment has already written him off as another third-tiered candidate who just steals time from the "mainstream" candidates reciting their scripts and platitudes.

When a man or woman settles for a marriage partner, either someone winds up with a broken heart, or the marriage is tense and unhappy. If Republicans nominate a McCain, Giuliani or Romney, they know will ultimately be unhappy. They know it’s "not really what I want in a (political) relationship." But if history is any lesson, they will go along with it, because they think the only way to reach their goals is through such pragmatism.

But think about this, conservatives: after years of wishing for the same things, all your "pragmatism" has gotten you nowhere. Think about it. Go back to elections 20 or even 30 years ago. Conservative Republicans have been talking about and wishing for the same things. And it will always be like this if the "settling" continues.

Is that really what you want? No, of course it isn’t. You can do better than what you’ve been settling for. The establishment conservative magazines and news media outlets might tell you otherwise, but change can happen. You’ll just have to demand it and finally start voting your conscience after all these years. Then and only then will the political classes stop taking advantage of you.

Of course, they aren’t really taking advantage of you if you walk like a sheep to your own slaughter. Don’t think 2008 will be any different. Conservatives, you have no one but yourselves to blame if the 2008 elections result in four more years of liberalism, be it Clinton/Obama liberalism or the McCain/Giuliani type brand of liberalism.

Thankfully, there is a true choice this year. Keep in mind that there are seven other candidates besides the "Big Three," several of whom have much better conservative credentials than the establishment choices. So for once stop settling and vote with the courage of your convictions.

May 9, 2007

Bill Barnwell [send him mail] is a pastor and writer from Michigan. He holds both a Master of Ministry degree and a Master of Arts in Theological Studies degree from Bethel College in Mishawaka, Indiana. Visit his blog. Bill is also a Mortgage Consultant and Loan Originator who can serve clients throughout the country.

Bill Barnwell Archives

Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page