Voters showed surprising logic in yesterday’s primary elections. They recognized that the logical choice in American politics is between Libertarianism and Socialism. Anything in between is a push-you-pull-you compromise – or, worse, a scam designed to enrich a few at the expense of the many.
What am I talking about?
I’m talking about Kentucky Republicans ignoring their “establishment” and overwhelmingly selecting Rand Paul as their flag bearer in November’s U.S. Senate race. I’m talking about Arkansas Democrats forcing Blanche Lincoln into a run-off with the challenger from her left, and Pennsylvania Democrats rejecting turncoat Arlen Specter.
So much for President Obama’s “bipartisan” dream.
Sorry, Mr. President. There is a blue America and a red America and never the twain shall meet.
It would defy nature if they did. If you pour water on a fire, they do not combine to produce something in between. One wins; the other loses.
I have to concede that last night’s results included a contradiction to my theory. A “centrist” Democrat, some guy named Mark Critz, defeated Republican Tim Burns in a special election for the late John Murtha’s Pennsylvania district. He will occupy a seat in the House until November, when he will have to run again. But I wouldn’t be surprised if “progressives” find a real Democrat to run against him by then.
Increasingly, Americans are sick of the insult to their intelligence by politicians who call themselves Democrats or Republicans but act like members of the other party. Mark Critz is not a real Democrat. He is an opponent of abortion and gun control. And he opposes the climate change bill the House approved last June – as well as the recently passed health care law.
Strangely, President Obama – with the complicated reasoning he probably picked up in law school – supported Specter and Lincoln, neither of whom wholeheartedly supports his agenda. The Bible says “love” your enemies, Mr. President, not aid and abet them.
But despite the president’s dedication to “bipartisanship,” the majority of American voters are lining up on one side or the other. Polls show the public split right down the middle on nearly every important issue.
And that makes sense to me.
Logically, you can have a central government that interferes as little as possible in people’s lives, enabling where possible but not actually running things; or you can have a central government that acts as an umbrella insurance policy, providing a safety net in exchange for your taxes.
To suggest that you can provide a safety net and follow “hands-off” fiscal policies is absurd.
In my view, that’s the message the voters sent last night.