Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Vote party, not the man: Only Rs to DC, more Ds to ATL

Dems v GOP
Dems v GOP

In this and next month's primaries, this conservative will naturally help his party choose candidates in Georgia to face Democrats in this fall's general election. But often, before and after my Summer of 2001 conservative epiphany and subsequent switch to the GOP, following a 20+year Democratic Party career in S.C., I've been confronted by voters claiming superior "objectivity" because they always and only vote for the "best" candidate rather than "blindly" for party.

Of course, their criterion for “best” begs that question as they assume votes based upon party-affiliation are inherently subjective. We respectfully disagree since surely, given the job description of elected representatives, "best" should mean which candidates will make laws that voters desire. And what are political parties, but groups of like-minded people in terms of the sort of laws they prefer?

Parties, not groups of the "best" people, nebulously-defined, make laws.

And if one is dissatisfied with the results of laws passed by one party, only voting for majorities of the other party into power offers any hope of changing them.

Raised by Democrats, I’m a Christian that wants government servants to be honest and reliable, i.e. "good" people. But just as I want my barber to competently cut my hair and my mechanic to competently repair my car, so do I first want my president and congressmen to enact and execute policies that maintain a good-jobs-at-good-wages economy and otherwise foster individual Liberty-enabled happiness pursuits. Having honest Democrat federal government officials that believe every word of the Bible is true but who regulate energy prices through the roof, cancel health insurance policies we like, and chase record numbers of Americans out of the work force, doesn't translate as “best” in my book.

Politics should not be treated like a religion, any deviation from which somehow betrays one's family legacy; nor as a reward for good people, without reference to the job they are being elected to do. Accordingly when I mustered the courage I previously lacked to acknowledge that the only way to fix what ails America is to prohibit Democrats from wielding power in Washington, I switched to the GOP.

Since the 1930s, Republicans have never simultaneously held the White House and both houses of Congress including a filibuster-proof Senate majority, as have the Democrats four times under FDR, LBJ, Carter and Obama. The accumulation of entitlements; anti-business and high energy price-inducing regulations; and Obamacare that Democrats have imposed during those periods are the main causes of our anemic economy, lower standard of living and increased poverty. And even if one desires a safety net for the truly needy (as do I), have no fear because no Republican president or congress has ever proposed nor voted for any significant decrease in it, Social Security or Medicare.

So voters still living in a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington-fantasy must engage the real world of party politics and vote Republican if they wish to see a return to an approximation of the exceptional America they grew up in or that they hear rumors of from their non-liberal Democrat elders.

But in the Peach State, there exist different circumstances which cry out for divided government that would lock in some of the best pro-business laws in the nation but also reduce increasing-one-party-cronyism at taxpayers' expense. This especially includes a Republican-initiated "new city" movement run amok that threatens to reduce unincorporated DeKalb and other counties to Food Stamp recipients so that more city police can issue traffic tickets to the middle class to fund sweetheart deals for new mayors and their business cronies.

States, unlike the federal government, can’t print money and are close to the voters to whom they are accountable; an inherently more conservative situation than exists between voters and an increasingly unresponsive and unrepresentative D.C. that can print money.

In practical terms this means that Michelle Nunn's last name is irrelevant but that the “D” after her name is dis-positive. Even if one respects the job her father did and deems his daughter to be like-minded, honest and affirming of the Ten Commandments and John 3:16, they must vote for her Republican opponent if they wish to fix what ails America after eight years of Obamanomics that can only be corrected in Washington.

It means that even a conservative who thinks that Governor Nathan Deal has done a great job (as do I), could still vote, in good conscious, for Jason Carter (not due to his last name but because of the "D" after it) and most assuredly for Democrat state legislators in order to check the power of the majority of Republicans that control the state house and both houses of the General Assembly.

This conservative will do just that.

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Report this ad