Memo to GOP: Give us a choice.

[Gus Van Horn blog]

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I agree with Paul Hsieh, who writes more generally and in more depth at Noodlefood about an issue I ran across here just yesterday as I went through some comments to my recent post on a shady "single payer" socialized medicine meeting held recently here in Houston. That issue is why the Republican Party does not deserve the support of individuals who understand the proper role of government.

John Faulk (or someone claiming to be him) -- a Republican who plans to run against Sheila Jackson-Lee -- stopped by to offer a comment in support of my view that this latest attempt to have the government run our medical clinics and hospitals must be stopped. Indeed, he even offered that "Sheila Jackson Lee has to be defeated...."

What I wouldn't give for a real ally, for someone who would stand up for my rights as an individual! Sadly, on checking out his campaign's web site, I almost instantly learned that he is not such an ally. Upon learning this, I thanked him for stopping by and explained why I cannot support him.

Thank you for stopping by, Mr. Faulk.

Not only does Sheila Jackson-Lee need to be defeated, but [so must] the whole idea that the state exists to do anything EXCEPT protect individual rights. Sadly, I see that you wish to misuse the apparatus of the state to enforce Christian morality. From your web site:

"

As your Representative from the Texas 18th Congressional District, I would support an amendment to the United States Constitution to provide protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception by prohibiting any state or federal law that ignores the personhood of an unborn child. However, since amending the Constitution is an extremely lengthy process, I would introduce and co-sponsor the Federal Right to Life Act. This act would define 'personhood' as the moment of conception. Therefore, all unborn children would be protected without the need of amending the U. S. Constitution.

"

There is no earthly basis for considering an embryo a human life, and imposing this belief on others through the power of the state violates individual rights just as much as socialized medicine does.

I will not choose between a socialist and a theocrat. Both place other considerations above protecting individual rights.

I doubt this will change Faulk's mind, but if more people who want neither socialism nor theocracy would stand up and be counted whenever the opportunity presents itself, others like us will know that they are not alone (and feel more inclined to speak up themselves), and politicians will eventually begin to notice, as history has shown. (This is not to say that we don't also need work to change the culture in ways that will result in the concept of individual rights being properly understood by more people.)

-- CAV

http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/003840.html

[fletch]

"As your Representative from the Texas 18th Congressional District, I would support an amendment to the United States Constitution to provide protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception by prohibiting any state or federal law that ignores the personhood of an unborn child. However, since amending the Constitution is an extremely lengthy process, I would introduce and co-sponsor the Federal Right to Life Act. This act would define 'personhood' as the moment of conception. Therefore, all unborn children would be protected without the need of amending the U. S. Constitution."

I suppose if such an amendment had a chance of garnering the support of 2/3 of both houses of congress and could get through 3/4 of all the states then there might be good reason to actually vote for Sheila Jackson Lee. And that might be only only instance where voting for her was a rational step. But there is no such support for such an amendment, so its not going to happen. It is little more than election year gimmick to motivate the Republican religious base. I am more concerned about what can actually happen as a result of the November elections.

Obama gave us a taste in his speech today in Berlin:

"This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many."

"This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands. Let us resolve that all nations - including my own - will act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere. This is the moment to give our children back their future. This is the moment to stand as one."

"Now the world will watch and remember what we do here - what we do with this moment. Will we extend our hand to the people in the forgotten corners of this world who yearn for lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and justice? Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the refugee in Chad, and banish the scourge of AIDS in our time? Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words "never again" in Darfur?"

Now that is scary. And all of it will likely become reality long before Faulk's amendment ever sees the light of day. Its sad, but republicans like Faulk (and McCain for that matter) are the only thing standing between what is left of individual liberty in the US and global collectivism. I admit, that is not very promising.