An argument for Romney

Randy writes:

A couple of thoughts on the Republican race.

1. Is it possible that, at least in the case of Romney, that there has been some real change of mind? Since 2008, we have seen the complete repudiation of Keynesian economics and the collapse of the welfare state. We have incurred trillions in debt with nothing to show for it. The long vaunted European welfare state is collapsing as well. The Democrats no longer even attempt to hide their corruption and degeneracy. Romney does not have the track record of McCain on immigration and is saying all the right things. He supports Israel. At this point, if he is real about immigration and Israel (Gen 12:3) maybe we can survive a while longer. I guess this is about the best we can hope for given the confused state of the American people.

2. Note the huge gut on Gingrich. The news media will certainly make use of that. Imagine him in a sideways picture next to the slim and trim Obama.

- end of initial entry -

December 12

Brandon F. writes:

I have been making this argument for a while now. I wrote you earlier and said at the least Romney may be able to keep our economy going which we all depend on for our health and safety. Maybe I am missing the point. I think some traditionalist conservatives ( I do not pretend to read your mind) would prefer a collapse.

It won’t take the media to focus on Gingrich’s bloated gut. Every debate with O. will begin and end with a slim, tall, handsome Obama shaking hands with the withered, distended, trollish image of Gingrich.

Robert B. writes:

Is there really an argument for “conservatives” to elect a RINO? I think not. In the end, it makes no difference if we hit the proverbial wall at 100 M.P.H. or merely 85 M.P.H., we will all be dead regardless. At some point we must stop accepting those who have obviously been chosen by the elite and chose our own candidates. Voting for the lessor of two evils is precisely why we are where we are today. Time to move on—just as those who founded the Republican Party had moved on from the increasingly ineffectual Whig Party.

LA replies:

A historical point I’ve made before: the Whig party did not come to end because it had become increasingly ineffectual. It came to an end because it had, in the blink of an eye, been rendered irrelevant. The Whigs were for national union at all costs. Thus the Compromise of 1850 was largely the work of Whigs such as Clay and Webster. But when the Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854 was passed, blasting the Compromise of 1850 to smithereens and making the expansion of slavery into the new territories and states the all-consuming national issue, and with everyone lining up pro or con, the Whig Party, which was neither for nor against the expansion of slavery but was for maintaining national unity, was simply not oriented to dealing with this issue. The Republican Party was formed to oppose the expansion of slavery, and anti-slavery Whigs quickly gravitated to the new party, while many pro-slavery Whigs became Democrats.

I make this point because the the Whig Party’s demise is always unfairly attributed to its supposed ineffectuality, whereas in reality the Whig Party was destroyed by the Kansas Nebraska Act—the same Kansas Nebraska Act which ultimately led to the destruction of the Union itself six years later.

Paul M. writes:

Robert B. writes:

Is there really an argument for “conservatives” to elect a RINO? I think not.

The argument consists of just two names: “Elena Kagan” and “Sonya Sotomayor. ”

Bush, for all his many failings, did give us Roberts and Alito.

LA replies:

Let us please remember for the record that Bush WANTED, deeply deeply WANTED, to give us Harriet Miers, and was forced against his will to give us Alito instead.

For those who have forgotten, here are VFR entries on the Harriet Miers nomination.

Robert B. writes:

I think that people see the Whigs as having become ineffectual because they failed to stop the Kansas-Nebraska Act. It would be analogous to the Republicans failing to stop an amnesty and allowing tens of millions of illegals and their families into the nation as a result.

LA replies:

Good point.

Robert B. continues:

You have to add to that the dissatisfaction that Northern Whigs had with the 1850 Compromise—in that they were against popular sovereignty to determine the free-slave status of New Mexico and Utah Territories. Then there was the hated Fugitive Slave Act. The status of Utah and New Mexico was considered a great loss to Northern Whigs as it had been free territory under Mexico who had already banned slavery. It was considered a “slop” to Texas to keep them from revolting and/or laying claim to most of New Mexico. The view was, was that if they and some other territory voted to become slave holding states, the slave holding states would forever outnumber the free states. Given that scenario, they would never have enough votes to amend the Constitution and ban slavery. Thus, in the North, the Compromise was seen as a sell out to the slave holding states and the Democratic Party.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 11, 2011 10:28 AM | Send