Unprincipled
0 
progressiveerupts.blogspot.com
In the birth announcement of what we now know as the American Republic, the political leaders of the day asserted two principles that previously had been absent from human experience. The first was the equality of all humans. The second was government based on the consent of the governed. The one follows from the other, and both were truly radical in this initial proclamation.
Two hundred and thirty-seven years after this bold declaration the political descendants of these path finding leaders face a choice between presidential candidates and major political parties that differ markedly on these two principles. The Democratic Party is a true heir of the ideals of equality and government by consent of the governed. The Republican Party has foresworn equality in numerous ways and it actively engaged in depriving many Americans of the opportunity to express their consent. President Obama is a champion of equality for all citizens and a defender of the franchise. Mr. Romney is the living embodiment of inequality and a huge proponent of it. Mr. Romney ardently seeks 50% plus 1 of all votes cast even if the votes of many are suppressed.
The heart of the problem with Romney and the Republicans is not simply that they are dishonest, but that they are unprincipled. They are expending millions and exerting tons of effort to secure positions of authority in an institution they despise and routinely sabotage. They wish to rule rather than govern. Where they have achieved untrammeled power, they have sought to ensure they retain it by enacting laws harmful to their chief rival – the Democratic Party. They have disparaged and dismissed up to half the country and frequently express the opinion that some people deserve to vote and many others do not. They have arbitrarily divided the populace into makers and takers and found ever more devious ways to evoke a feeling of bitterness among their supporters and to incite hostility toward their opponents.
Once Romney secured the Republican Party’s nomination, a leading member of his campaign asserted that he would shake the Etch-A-Sketch and transform himself into a different candidate. Then, it was authoritatively stated that fact checkers would not dictate the Romney campaign. Both of these remarks were interpreted at the time to convey a level of dishonesty embedded in the campaign. What was not noticed to any great extent was the unprincipled nature implied by these sentiments. In the one case, the campaign was boasting that they had secured the party’s nomination based on positions they were jettisoning. In the second case, they asserted that they would say what they wanted even if their declarations were vulnerable to refutation.
Romney had campaigned in the Republican primaries as a “severe conservative.” When, he secured the nomination, however, it was announced that that guise would vanish like an Etch-A-Sketch drawing. What is the strength of principle in a candidate whose positions can be completely revised by a few shakes? If facts and those who check them do not dictate one’s campaign, what does? Could it be fabrications? There is a saying, “False in one; false in all.” It goes to credibility. If a person, has spoken falsely in one instance, it could be reasonable to doubt the credibility of the person’s statements in other instances. This is a settled principle of law, and if jurors are entitled to dismiss all testimony from a witness who was untruthful in one material statement. Why should voters not have the same right?
Page 1 of 3 | Next page
Tags: 2012 election, character, citizenship, Larry Conley, Presidency, principle, Truth, voting