Party Principals

Yesterday, a Member of the Republican "leadership" officially switched parties and announced his intention to seek a Senate seat as a Democrat.

Of old, certain "moderate Republicans", castigated by conservatives with the derisive label RINO – Republicans in Name Only – protested that the dedication of such "moderates" to the Party ran as deep as did that of their more conservative brethren, despite apostasy on some issues.

Now, as recent circumstances demonstrate, we find that assertion revealed as pure, utter bunk.

All too often, the so-called "moderates" dedication to the Republican Party penetrates no deeper than their own ambition or pique. Can you imagine the likes of a Doherty, a Merkt, a Carroll, a Lonegan, or the like, betraying the Party simply because they lost an election? If Guy Gregg were to lose his pending primary, can anyone imagine him seeking office as a Democrat?

Contrariwise, can anyone imagine Loretta Weinberg, should she lose, joining the GOP? Nothing personal, she’s a nice lady, albeit profoundly misguided and wrong on just about everything. While I would not mind belonging to a book club with her, there is simply no room in the GOP for socialist, anti-freedom views like hers.

The aforementioned "Republican leader" repeatedly supported patently idiotic Democratic initiatives, undercutting the GOP’s message of fiscal responsibility, small government, low taxes, and personal freedom. He supported the spectacularly foolish and fraudulently named "millionaires’ tax". He supported the Highlands Act, perhaps the most massive theft of land values in American history.

For his repeated betrayal of Republican principles, the Party rewarded him a seat in leadership.

With "leaders" like this, small wonder that the Republican Party in New Jersey labors in well-deserved irrelevance.

Certainly, the feeling of personal betrayal one experiences when one is ousted from a seat, denied a line, etc., is easy to comprehend. This gentlemen felt the sting of rejection from Party stalwarts recently. In light of his decidedly un-Republican votes, this rejection should come as no surprise. But instead of taking this well-deserved rebuff as he should, he switched parties, betraying both the Party he purported to love enough to lead, and demonstrating a complete want of principle.

Now, let’s be clear; there is no particular dishonor in switching Parties when one’s personal values diverge from the Party’s positions. Indeed, simple honesty compels that result. Any Democrat who favors fiscal restraint, low taxes, political ethics, and personal freedom/responsibility should reassess his/her Party affiliation. A RINO who, for some reason, still has an "R" after his name, despite supporting higher taxes, bigger government, massive governmental regulation, and attacks on property rights, SHOULD leave. And he should not let the door hit him in the arse on the way out.

The point, then, is not to condemn a particular RINO for leaving the Party, but to lament that it took him so long to do so, and that he did it only after being rebuffed by the Party he assertedly very much wanted to serve.

This is not to aver that principled disagreement among Republicans on some issues is impossible. But if, on core issues – taxes, spending, personal freedom, property rights, etc. – one rejects the fundamental principles of the Party, one should leave it, not purport to lead it.

Democrats make no pretense of supporting lower taxes, except when they lie about it to get elected. They make no pretense of caring about private property rights, if that would interfere with cozy urban "redevelopment" projects. They have absolutely no difficulty imposing the costs of environmental protection upon property owners rather than upon the society which allegedly benefits. They LIKE big government and massive spending; it gets someone else to pay their bills. They like mandates and compulsion. That's what makes them different from Republicans who, generally, are highly suspicious of governmental power.

It’s not as if the GOP suddenly lurched out from under the feet of this "leader"; the inevitable conclusion at which one arrives is that his actions bespeak nothing more than personal ambition and pique, annoyance that the Party finally took notice of his deviation from its principles. Had he left before that rejection, on principle, such would have been honorable. And desirable. While the Republican Party does not insist on marching in ideological lockstep on every issue, Party affiliation means something, and those who reject the fundamental principles upon which the Party is based should find a more congenial home.

But about one thing the Party should be clear: it’s purported "leaders" should not vote to undercut its message. The leadership of the GOP should not include people who believe and act like Democrats.