Principles Are the Future: a Question of People or Government

What is a political party without principles? Without a foundation of principles, a political party is either a social gathering at which people enjoy camaraderie and friendship or it is a bloodthirsty pursuit of power for the sake of power. Neither has meaning for me. In fact, the successes of the Republican Party in the past 20 years can be attributed to an emphasis on policies that have been based on principle.

The overriding principle is freedom . . . freedom from government intervention in the life of the individual, freedom from government intervention in the decisions of our families and freedom from government intervention in the managing of our free-enterprise businesses.

Look at the issues that have moved Americans over the past 20 years: ending the bigotry of affirmative action, cutting taxes, winning the cold war, ending the racism of bilingual education, Internal Revenue Service reform, welfare reform, choice in education, family values, job creation, freedom for the individual, privacy from government and many others. These are conservative solutions championed by the Republican (conservative) Wing of the Republican Party, won against the Democrat Party and the Power Wing of the Republican Party.

A significant issue is respect for life. The first responsibility of government is to protect life; everything else is secondary. Is there anyone who would deny that human life has value? Then, we must agree that the circumstance of conception does not devalue the life conceived.

Failure to respect human life allows for overtaxation, schools that teach self-esteem but not reading, bombing aspirin factories in foreign nations, and laws governing every aspect of our lives. It leads to “the nanny state.”

Ideas as a centerpiece for an election are proven by the successful results of the 1994 elections with Contract for America, and 1998 results, when the Republican Party ran on the “Seinfeld” platform--nothing.

Democrats naturally want more taxes and more intrusive government, but why does the Power Wing of the Republican Party? Because it is no different than the Power Wing of the Democrat Party. The history of the moderate and liberal wings of the party is to act like “Democrats Lite.” When Rep. Bob Michel was the House Republican leader, he took Democrat tax increases, cut them in half and declared victory. He explained that the Republican Party did not want to look mean to the public. The Power Wings of both parties believe that the passage of legislation proves that the system works, regardless of whether it is good or bad. Passage is good enough for them.

The ultimate of meanness was to create the largest tax increase in history in 1993 and then refuse to return the excess tax collected. President Clinton stated, “If we give the money back, it will just be lost.” That is outrageous, yet I hear nothing from the Democrats or the Power Wing of the Republican Party. Clinton believes Americans are smart enough to vote for him but too stupid to spend the money they earn.

Some talk about policies that are good for women, minorities and special interests. Good public policy is not divisive, pitting one set of citizens against another. The Republican Wing supports policies that are good for all, not for some. We talk about inclusion; others only want to talk about divisions. Either we are one people or we balkanize America.

The future of the Republican Party is to stand for principle. Power Wing Republicans have told me that they want less government, are “personally” pro-life, support education choice and yet support candidates opposed to these ideas. They reason that “we have to win before we can govern.”

These people miss the lesson of President Reagan. He won the Cold War, cut taxes and began to limit government, all with a Democrat majority in the House and Senate. He had core values that matched those of the American people.

The Republican Wing of the Republican Party is principled and knows that it is mean of the Democrats and Power Wing of the Republican Party to take hard-earned money from workers and families and give it to government. It is mean to say that American soldiers who take an oath of office to the United States Constitution should be court-martialed for refusing to be under the control of the United Nations.

The Republican Party is big enough for differing views, philosophies and strategies. We can disagree on strategies, but we must agree on freedom, in all issues. We must work together on public policy that increases individual freedom, family freedom and business freedom. At some point, we need to answer the ultimate question: Do we believe in people or in government? That is what the Republican Party is about.

It is a matter of standing for principle or for mere power.