September 29, 2005
Ankle-Biting Pundits wryly cheers on the Democrats' attempt to capitalize on the DeLay, Frist, and Rove scandals so as to smear the Republican Party:
We also know this Democrat stratagem couldn't be more stupid. 'They're just as corrupt as we were when we were in power ... so put us back in power'" is a message destined to fail at the ballot box.
File this one under "the pot calling the kettle black." Nevertheless, "ABP" bemoans how the post-Gingrich Republican leadership has gotten off track, forgetting what got them into power in the first place, way back in 1994:
The GOP ran against lobbyists. Not specific lobbyists but rather the very idea that "K Street fat cats" (as we called them) were drafting legislation and deciding policy for a decrepit Democrat majority. We ran against corruption, such as Rostenkowski and all that. We were then an anti-Washington party, dismissing the "corridors or power" as a giant piggy bank for the highest bidding special interest groups. Hillarycare was just icing on the cake.
And yet somewhere along the line we became what we despised.
That's what happens when power-focused party elites lose touch with the principle-motivated grass roots. That ABP piece is a very, very good critique of what is wrong with both parties these days. Why has the GOP gotten off track? Because they have nothing to fear from Democrats, who have come under the sway of utter kooks who have no serious policy alternatives to offer. (via Instapundit, who notes, "The GOP is at serious risk of losing a decisive chunk of its voters to a Perot-style movement.") For the record, I do not favor "throwing DeLay overboard" as Rush Limbaugh puts it. It would be nice, however, if the House came under the leadership of men or women who were more committed to cutting Federal spending and reducing the deficit.
American University history professor Allan Lichtman announced he is running for Maryland's U.S. Senate seat that incumbent [Paul S. Sarbanes] will vacate after next year. In the Washington Post photo caption, he is quoted as saying:
There is too much government intruding in our private lives and not enough government meeting our needs.
What Lichtman fails to realize (or refuses to admit, perhaps), is that government intrusion into our private lives is a direct consequence of the fatuous idea that government should "meet our needs." (Reality 101: Needs are subjective; in a market economy such as ours, resources are allocated in response to demand, which is objective.) When "needy" citizens don't reform their behavior as the various social welfare programs expect them to do, there is overwhelming pressure for the government to step in and make sure that public money is being put to good use. Hence, the "nanny state." Unfortunately, President Bush's "compassionate conservatism" buys into that rhetoric.