By Jake Vissing
newsroom@newsandtribune.com
>>SOUTHERN INDIANA —
Guest columnist Ray Beaufait closed his recent opinion piece by stating that, “many readers will try to ignore this article.”
I did not, and cannot ignore his column. As I read his take on the current political stalemate, I became both amused and angered at the distortion of reality.
The notion that Republicans are merely obstructionists is false; Republicans do have policy proposals of their own. They have said “no” to the current proposals of the Democrats in Congress and President Obama, not for the sole purpose of disruption, but because of deep disagreements over the detail of their policy proposals. This is not exclusive to Republicans; this is just the nature of our political system.
When an elected official is faced with a piece of legislation that they disagree with on the basis of details and principle, what should they do?
In such a circumstance, I would say they should vote against that legislation, whether they are a Democrat or Republican. What was ignored in Beaufait’s column was the fact that the Democratic Party had a super-majority in Congress — control of the House and 60 seats in the Senate — until Scott Brown, of Massachusetts, was sworn in as the replacement for the late Ted Kennedy.
Obama’s policies could have all passed, even without one Republican vote, yet they did not. It seems to me that Democrats obstructed Obama’s grand vision for America.
As for the Republican Party as the “Party of ‘no,’” I welcome the opposition to policies that would expand our federal government even further. The Obama administration’s proposals for health care reform are marketed as a well-intentioned program to help the helpless.
What the details of this health care bill reveal is a large expansion of the federal government, as roughly one-sixth of the U.S. economy would be moved from the private market to the public sector.
A lesson of history that we must take into account is that concentrated power is never rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it. Saying “no” to Obama, and to his policies, cannot be equated to a desire for America to fail.
What can be seen during these policy battles is a clear conflict of visions for what will make America succeed. Beaufait’s claim that Republicans want America to fail because they oppose Obama is a rather audacious claim.
On that line of logic, that opposition to Obama’s policies is anti-American, I guess we should just make Barack Obama our king; it would keep those obstructionists out of the way.
Of course, that is ridiculous. Checks and balances are needed in order to prevent a tyrannical majority from arising; peaceful opposition is a rare phenomenon in the political history of the world.
The fatal flaw of Beaufait’s argument against fiscal conservatism is that he assumes that all Republicans are fiscal conservatives. Most Republicans “talk the talk,” but in office most fail to “walk the walk,” as it relates to conservative fiscal policy; the sad truth is that there are a lot of hypocrites in the world of politics.
Republican is not synonymous with conservative; there is a difference between practice and principle. For example, the Catholic church teaches a system of morals and values, yet some priests within the Catholic church sexually abused children. Does that mean that the principles of Catholicism condone the sexual abuse of children?
Of course, not! There is a difference between principles and the actions of those who claim to follow those principles. The massive spending that took place under Republican leadership during the presidency of George W. Bush is not a reflection of true fiscal conservatism.
There are points of Beaufait’s column that I wholeheartedly agree with. Valuing facts and common sense over emotions, as well as putting Americans first and political associations last, are two points that I totally agree with. Of course, I am sure we even see these points very differently.
Facts and common sense have made me value individual liberty and voluntary interaction over massive government programs and well-meaning policies that have stifled the entrepreneurial spirit and rugged individualism that built this great nation.
The great American experiment that harnessed the productive capabilities and self-interest of men and women has sparked the greatest rise in the quality of human life that the world has ever seen.
A large bureaucratic government did not spark this march of progress; it was individual liberty. Beaufait stated in his column that “our system must put Americans first and our political associations last.”
My question for Ray is: Do you know what is best for each individual American? Does Obama know what is best? Do the Democrats know what is best?
I do not know what is best for each individual, but I do know that each individual American knows what is best for them, more so than you and I, or any politician knows what is best for them.
That is the roadmap back to prosperity for America — promoting the freedom of the individual to pursue their own interests and objectives, free to reap all of the rewards and accept all of the failures that they encounter in their pursuit of happiness.
— Jake Vissing is an Indiana University student and Jeffersonville resident.
