Election 2012: Degrees of Dissatisfaction

by | Jun 14, 2011

Normally, the search for a Republican candidate for President is a search for a candidate who actually agrees with the principles of limited government, individual rights, private property and capitalism. This year, the search is for someone who actually even agrees with Republicans. Here, in descending order from most to least tolerable, is my take […]

Normally, the search for a Republican candidate for President is a search for a candidate who actually agrees with the principles of limited government, individual rights, private property and capitalism.

This year, the search is for someone who actually even agrees with Republicans.

Here, in descending order from most to least tolerable, is my take on the Republican contest to date. The list is not exhaustive, and covers only the most prominent and declared (or quasi-declared) candidates to date.

 

Barack vs. Rick Perry (Governor of Texas)

Need to get to know him more, but very likely the best of the lot — by far. No doubt he comes with all the erroneous baggage of conservative Republicans. But he has come out strongly against Obama, often on principle, and hasn’t been afraid of Obama. Obama is a paper tiger — not even a paper tiger, but simply nothing, kind of like cotton candy.

But most Republicans are afraid to engage in criticism of liberals, lest they be called .. well, simply because most Republican politicians are simply frightened people. Perry seems not like that. His record is one of balanced budgets, lower taxes, reduced government spending — all of which we desperately need. That’s reason enough to give him the Presidency, absent a better choice. If anything proves his undoing, I’m sure it will be, as always for Republicans … religion.

 

Barack vs. Sarah Palin

There’s something about her — but then again, there isn’t. I remember the moment she stepped on the stage to accept the 2008 Republican Vice Presidential nomination. There was a confidence and spring in her step, for a moment in time, that struck me as very important. That confidence comes and goes. To be fair, the socialists and liberals who dominate academia and the media/intelligentsia are ruthless, hostile, unfair, savage and downright mean. She has been relentlessly exposed to more of that than most. The idea of a woman who isn’t a liberal becoming the first woman President would destroy the credibility of liberalism itself (to those whom it’s actually still credible.) It must never happen, according to them. I like that Palin led the effort to unseat me-too Republicans from their nominations. This is the only way for us to ultimately have a principled second party, not a third one. What bothers me most about Palin is that she gave up her Alaska governorship because she couldn’t take the attacks on her family (primarily her dysfunctional daughter Bristol, who brings those attacks on herself); how then are we supposed to believe she can handle being President?

 

Barack vs. Herman Cain

He’s against the right things and he has a proven record in business. He has no government experience — itself, not a bad thing, but he ought to explain why it’s not, and what he will do about that once elected. He’s fervent in his contempt for Barack and the irony of a very conservative black Republican running against the first (more or less) black President in American history is entertaining. But the present and future condition of the nation is not a matter of entertainment. This man is intriguing and deserves more study.

 

Barack vs. Tim Pawlenty (former Governor of Minnesota)

He was a fan of John McCain, the ultimate me-too Republican. He’s squishy in style, and also on the issues. If you want a me-too Republican, support Mitt Romney, who might actually win.

 

Barack vs. Ron Paul

Where he’s right, he’s right. But he will never win, because the vast majority of Americans are not even close to right on matters of liberty, capitalism and indivdual rights — not enough to handle Paul’s principled opposition to the very existence of the Federal Reserve, for example. Also, where Paul is wrong, he’s wrong — to the point where he undermines credibility for all his views, as well as his qualificaitons to be President. He’s against the use of American military force in almost all cases. Somebody should tell him it’s fine to limit the federal government’s authority to what’s in the Constitution — but not remove some of the Constitutional authority in the process. The whole reason for the formaton of the United States republic, as opposed to a confederacy, was a strong national defense. That’s still a good idea today. We don’t need a return to Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy; we’ve got that with Barack.

 

Barack vs. Rick Santorum

He a religious fundamentalist, and he was there during the betrayals of the George W. Bush Republican Big Government years that gave us the current mess, as well as Obama. What earthly reason is there to trust him now?

 

Barack vs. Newt Gingrich

He’s frankly insane. He claims that efforts to dismantle or privatize Big Government are “right wing social engineering” no different from the social engineering of the left. This would be like saying dismantling Hitler’s Nazi state, and restoring liberty to the people, or dismantling the Soviet Communist state are examples of social engineering no better than those they seek to dismantle. An error this grotesque, this self-refutingly illogical, can only be due to evil or insanity. I choose to give Gingrich the benefit of the doubt by opting for the latter.

 

Barack vs. Mitt Romney

He’s not an advocate of individual rights and capitalism (nor are any of the Republicans.) But he’s not even a conservative Republican. He’s running as one, but he isn’t one. He claims to be against ObamaCare, but he supported, passed (and still supports) the exact same law in Massachusetts. Are we to believe that unconstitutional acts of government are acceptable when imposed by a Governor, but not by a President?

He believes in global warming, the urban religion of liberals, not conservative Republicans. He’s as bad as any liberal, and on top of it he’s a Mormon. It’s unlikely he’s electable, but if he were elected, what would change? I rate Romney as even worse than Gingrich for one reason. In the unlikely event that he won, he’d be associated (as a former businessman) with capitalism and business. These things would get the blame for the continued slide of the American economy under his reign.

I’d rather Barack and all things socialist get the blame. The last thing we need is a Repbulican president governing like a Democrat and claiming he’s in favor of capitalism. That would be the end of capitalism and liberty, in our lifetimes.

Dr. Michael Hurd is a psychotherapist, columnist and author of "Bad Therapy, Good Therapy (And How to Tell the Difference)" and "Grow Up America!" Visit his website at: www.DrHurd.com.

The views expressed above represent those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors and publishers of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine sometimes publishes articles we disagree with because we think the article provides information, or a contrasting point of view, that may be of value to our readers.

Have a comment?

Post your response in our Capitalism Community on X.

Related articles

Are the Democrats betraying Israel?

Are the Democrats betraying Israel?

Both Biden and his predecessor, President Barack Obama, promised that they had Israel’s back, but it now appears that they are painting a target on its back at a time of its greatest vulnerability.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pin It on Pinterest