When, in the course of political events, one chooses to refrain from embracing any candidate, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the rejection. (paraphrased, with intent).
Orrin Hatch, United States Senator from Utah, finally decided it was time to hang up his Republican Jersey and head home to the Pennsylvania pastures which had been transplanted to Utah. Of course being in the US senate has always been his choice since following his first election to the office. The hounds of hopefulness always howled at his longer tenure, but neither Republican nor Democrats ever actually had the chance of a dying duck in a hailstorm of winning the seat from him.
Now, in 2018 Orrin has decided to put his political cleats in his locker for the last time. And, what a running game he had. Senator Hatch dominated the political field as few others in history ever had. The super bowl of Utah politics will be named after him. Every newcomer to the ballot may win the Lombardi Trophy (aka Hatch Trophy) at the game’s end, but the name will forever be associated with Orrin Hatch.
So far in 2018 two candidates are arising as Republican gladiators. Well, one financial gladiator and one humbled Christian for the small early crowds to scream for…until the lions finish lunch.
The gladiator of big finance and inevitability for billboard notices is none other than “also ran” Mitt Romney. Though seen as a wealthy dragon slayer, surrounded by “also would-be” cheerleaders, dressed like a cheap pontiff, Romney does not offer much in the way of statesmanship nor consistent reputation. His claim to fame in Utah is that he holds the cloak of other Christians while they get stoned and devoured by lions.
In the other corner stands Larry Meyers, a good intentioned Walter Mitty sweating profusely into his towel before the introductions have even been made. Whereas as the gladiator is well-known, this lightweight has spent far too much time shadow boxing.
Now, I return to my opening stolen paraphrase. I wish to explain why I reject both Rambling Romney, heir apparent for the adulating Gods of proper politics, and Walter Mitty.
As Jefferson , the great anti-federalist suggested, long strings of abuses and miscreant governments deserve to have their chains severed from the necks of the people who place them in power. Both of these candidates fail to offer hammer, chisel and anvil needed to make that break.
The citizenry of this nation, and more importantly her states, have become so accustomed to being chained to the oars of the central government ship of state most cannot even recognize that nearly every discussion begins and ends with how to manage nationalized power. The founders wrote the great compromise into the Constitution which inevitably led to international prominence. Initially this nation, until the time that the devil (Woodrow Wilson) was elected to the presidency, was a fleet of powerful ships. Today, because of a lack of consciousness about what we were intended to be, each state is nothing more than a rowboat with a lack.
As suggested, all things are spoken of in terms of how the states and people must comply with the federal government. Yes, people like Mitt Romney are blatantly advocates of the old federalist view that people are inferior to the wise, wealthy, and usually wicked. The answer for his ilk is all things ought to be centralized.
Yet, his opponent, shouting from the rooftops in a hopeless harangue is no less guilty. He may scream about over burdensome federal regulation but he also offers no specific alternatives to the rambling Romney.
Both men simply scamper around the skirt tails of platitudes with nothing of substance to offer the electorate. Why, because we have been trained as candidates that people won’t vote for a candidate that actually stands for something definable (until President Donald Trump). All that we see is a posse of deputies riding hard into the sunset of another mindless monologue of “we need new ideas,” or “we need fresh leadership.” Yet, neither offers anything beyond cryptic casual caustics which can never be held against them on the stage of true leadership.
What is needed, and hoped for by this author, is an imperfect man willing to state clearly what he will champion…besides grand theories which hold little if any substance.
Where is the man who will say, AND MEANS, “I will devote myself to eliminating the entire Internal Revenue Service and push back such schemes to the states?” Where is he or she? Where is the man or woman who will say “If the ninth circuit court perpetually fails to bring its rulings in sync with the US Supreme Court, I will advocate for a closure of that court. There is no need for the expense of a court which cannot or will not comply with the Supreme Court.” Where is the man that will say, “The worst operated digital performance of this age exists within our government. I will dedicate myself to insisting of reforming all remaining agencies to provide 98% flawless digital communication twenty-four (24) hours every day.
I could not give one whit for a perfect candidates that is willing to boldly declare how he will stand up for the little guy and principles, when in United States of America there are NO little guys and principles without content and follow-up are simply empty sales pitches.
I would sooner have a badger babysit a field mouse than have a candidate that places party before lively action toward actually minimizing the size and influence of government over the lives of individuals.
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary … men should rise up in opposition to the suppression of that government which holds them bound. That necessity exists now, as never before since the Declaration of Independence.
That Is The Way I See It.