March 4, 2004
My Concession Speech
It turns out that I did lose an election on Tuesday. I was a write-in candidate for a seat on the Republintern or whatever the GOP Politburo is called. As a result, I guess I owe you a concession speech:
Dear Republicans,
I thank you for not electing me to a seat on your Grand Council. It really would have been a terrible fit. I might vote for your candidates, but I am voting AGAINST the pro-abortion Democrats, not FOR the pro-free-market Republicans. And, frankly, your support of the pro-life cause has been spotty at best. You always seem to forget Reagan's real role in the issue, which was liberalizing the California abortion laws years before Roe v. Wade. Nevermind the warm fuzzies that the pro-life side was supposed to feel at the Reagan victory, the man was a placebo at best, and more probably should be viewed as a Trojan horse.
Furthermore, we have this Schwarzenegger issue. We are facing an assault on the basic building block of society, with an attempt to legitimize phony marriages between two people of the same sex. The Boy Wonder Mayor of San Francisco is violating state law and is inspiring the pro-sodomy toads in other states to follow along merrily. So, why does our Republican governor make such silly statements about marriage? At least he smokes cigars, which is a step in the right direction.
I know, I know, realpolitik and all that, but if your party compromises on all issues to the point that it is indistinguishable from the Democrats (except on cherished market issues), then how exactly am I to be enthralled with it.
Like I said earlier, I will still vote for your candidates when the Democrats and their abominable cousins the Greens put up crypto-Satanists for consideration, but I would not accept the position that you did not offer me anyway, unless I had a chance to transform your party.
The first stop would be the wardrobe department. The GOP is supposed to be the party of Brooks Brothers, but, frankly standards are slipping. Spiff up. Regular members should look decent. The paramillitary wing would be in crisp blue shirts and khaki trousers. The rest should be in blazers with button-downs and neck ties.
The second stop is the bar. Whatever happened to sipping martinis? You allowed too many of those evangelicals in the club. Ice tea is not fit for human consumption. At least when you were dominated by Anglitics, they had the basic decency to drink gin.
The third stop is the humidor. GOP politicians are supposed to smoke big cigars. Again, who let these evangelicals and Mormons in the club?
The fourth stop is to church. I will not be on a party's committee unless said party is Catlick to the core. You will be required to sign on to a vigorous pro-life agenda, a vigorous pro-family agenda that is totally opposed to any notion of rights based on disordered inclinations, and a statement of understanding that property and business must be built on the terms of the Social Encyclicals.
Anyone who does not follow the new agenda will be purged.
Again, I thank you for your vote, and look forward to the next election!
Posted by erik at March 4, 2004 12:07 PM | TrackBackits selfish to think that you're own views should predominate.
Isn't that the point of voting? One certainly is not supposed to go to the polls to vote for someone else's views should predominate.
It certainly is the basis of free marketeering: selfish motivations will by some miracle yield the best results for everyone.
By the way, I am no GKC distributivist, rather a Syndicalist. I favor Hudge, with ample regulations. In that way I am closer to the democrats, but without their liberal views of public morality.
You are correct that the GOP is a broad coalition, and that is what is wrong with it. When it comes down to what it stands for, Catholic values are pretty low on the list. The only reason to vote for them now is the Democrats' absolutely awful views on the sanctity of human life. However, our current governor is the picture of the GOP to come, so you can count on the Republicans dropping this advantage in the near future.
Posted by: Erik Keilholtz at March 8, 2004 11:00 PMThe Republican Party and the conservative movement in the U.S. stand for more than just Catholic Social Conservatism. If you want your GKC redristibutionist whatever party, fine, you've just conceded every election to the Dems.
I hold very traditional views, but the Republican Party is no less of a coalition party than the Dems, and its selfish to think that you're own views should predominate.
I think the quality of Cuban cigars has gone downhill, even in the last five years!
I had one about three weeks ago (granted, who knows where it came from, thirdhand?) and it unravelled and tasted bland.
Not like the snap, crackle and pop Cohiba I tasted in 1996!
Posted by: KTC at March 5, 2004 11:55 AMCastro is a first class jerk, although I do like his sense of style. The civilized world should do everything within its power to bring about regime change there. While I am not sure that the embargo hasn't hardened Castro's position, if it has done anything to bring about change, then why not China?
Free marketeers insist in their la-la vision of trade that all one has to do is encourage trade and Poof! all evil goes away. I actually see a little merit in this, but I think the amount of good that happens this way is limited and carries a whole host of other evils with it (and the way global free trade is done is by way of coersion, which free marketeers tend to really froth at the mouth at, so the good really does, once again, get chalked up to coercive government).
Personally, I would not cry tremendously if the embargo were lifted. I think a lot of it has to do with our pride. But it seems that if we can have normal relations with Viet Nam and China, then insisting on a hard line with Cuba is absurd.
Posted by: Erik Keilholtz at March 5, 2004 9:30 AMHow do you feel about the Cuban embargo, mon capitan?
Posted by: KTC at March 4, 2004 5:24 PM