Before I launch into the subject of this post, let me clarify some things.
First, I started this blog out of passion and not profit. There is no advertising here and no money is requested from readers or from anyone else. In fact, the blog costs me a bit to maintain (though not much); it’s a small sacrifice for the purposes of patriotism.
Second, I assure you, my gentle readers, that I have no hidden agenda. My agenda is straightforward and honest and it’s indicated by the name of the blog. No nation can long survive if it forgets the principles that made it strong. As a college professor of religion and history, an experienced business owner, and a fervent student of the United States Constitution, my goal is to challenge fellow citizens to reclaim the economic and personal liberties with which our forebears established and built a strong, prosperous nation. I argue not for some but for all.
Finally, I have no idea how I’ll cast my vote in the 2012 presidential election. Well, that’s not entirely true. The principles that guide me are found in the previous paragraph. It should be clear, therefore, that certain political philosophies are beyond consideration for this voter.
Now to the subject of this post. I am not making any endorsements in the presidential race. Nor am I just speculating. I’m attempting a reasonable analysis of where we find ourselves (“we” being those of us who are conservative-minded and liberty-minded) and how we might best address our current challenges.
Intentionally or not, the policies of Barack Obama and his radical congressional allies are dismantling our economic strength and personal liberties at an alarming rate. The unconstitutional goal of equal outcomes so dearly espoused by Socialist-Democrats is increasingly giving us two results: misery and poverty are on the rise and the political elites (including crony corporatists) are increasing in power and in wealth. To better understand how this happens I refer you to Russia, circa 1917-1991.
Make no mistake, dear reader: Barack Obama remains popular among those who agree with his agenda of fundamentally remaking America and reworking her values. He cannot be beaten in 2012 if the Republican Party is fractured. If you look closely you will see the fault line along which that fracture may occur, and one of my previous posts mentions it specifically: it lies between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.
I continue to bet all my chips on the Romney nomination (as a prediction and not as a desire), though I’m not yet ready to say exactly what that will mean for those of a more conservative and libertarian bent (such as myself). A split in the GOP is not beyond possibility. This is the hope–and goal– of those who support Mr. Obama.
My next comment is simply going to annoy almost everybody, but I’m going to write it anyway. I’m an extrovert, and we extroverts like to think aloud. So, here’s an idea:
The Republican Party should consider a Mitt Romney-Ron Paul ticket in 2012.
It’s not so much that I think this idea will please everybody (it won’t). I also don’t think it’s the perfect solution (it’s not). Neither do I believe it is a correction for all the problems associated with Romney and Paul (nope, not by a long shot).
I’m sure that there is much that can be identified as wrong-headed here, but the strength of my proposal (which I’ve not yet seen anywhere else) is that it establishes the particular GOP “big tent” that is badly needed at this precise moment in American history. Romney, the political moderate, could work closely with Paul, the constitutional conservative. The “problems” associated with both men could be moderated by their cooperation and dialogue. Ron Paul could take the edges off of Romney’s tendency toward big-government Republicanism and Mitt Romney could soften the Paul tendency to speak too trustingly of Iran and other threats.
It’s an idea at least worthy of consideration. I welcome debate on the issue and I genuinely desire comments and even disagreement about this post. If you’ll hit the “email” button below, you can send this post to others and we can widen the debate. I believe the future of our country is at stake, so we need everyone to be involved–especially if they value the Constitution.