The dust has settled and the victors in the 2010 elections are the Republican Party and its candidates. Now that their celebrator fervor has died down, the time has come for serious examination of this party’s positions, ideas, and goals.
When somebody runs a campaign on a message based on liberty and limited-government, can they really be taken seriously about being serious about their campaign message? Will they be just as willing, for example, to attack the small, mundane, everyday government interferences and forced indignities as they are the highly-visible, big-ticket items? Sure, dismantling “Obamacare” or repealing it is a worthwhile goal, but will Republicans also repeal and abolish the laws and system that created and enabled the supposedly “free market” health care system whose problems “Obamacare” was supposed to remedy? Remember, there are very few differences between the two.
Will Republicans stop by cutting only the wasteful spending their opponents like or will they truly stand up for liberty and limited-government and also cut the wasteful spending they and their allies like? Remember, the War on Terror, the Department of Homeland Security, and our multitude of overseas military bases intended for post-World War Two occupation duties are all extremely expensive.
These inconsistencies of doctrine are the reason many in the American electorate, thought they voted for Republican candidates, don’t trust that party. The American electorate is very unforgiving toward political figures who sell the People a bill of goods only to turn their backs on these promises once they attain the levers of power.
So as American—and Minnesotan—politics continue to grind along, Republican Party officials and supporters should remember what it means to be truly consistent, the implications of their ideas, and how to defend everything they say and do from the naysayers who will surely arise. However, if history is any indicator, nobody should hold their breath.