A Stitch in Haste

What a silly op-ed piece in OpinionJournal by former Delaware governor Pete DuPont, titled “Pursue Happiness, Vote GOP”:

But what was determinative in this election was not that one party is a religious party and the other is not; nor that one party is in favor of same-sex marriage and the other is not; nor that liberals are for raising the minimum wage and gun control and conservatives are not.

What was determinative is that the two political parties view the American people very differently. The Republican Party has become the party of individualism, believing that free enterprise, market economies, and individual choices give people the best chance of a good life; that if ordinary Americans are left alone to make their own decisions, they will generally be good decisions, so they — not the government — should have the power to make them.

Conversely, the Democratic Party is the party of centralization, believing that a wise and benevolent, best-and-brightest, urban blue-county government can make better choices than those of rural, red-county Americans. This is not a new belief; it is the legacy of the 1930s (the New Deal) and the ’60s (the Great Society). It was fully reflected in John Kerry’s campaign: Taxes must rise and government must grow; trade must be regulated and limited; the 1935 Social Security system is perfect and nothing about it may be changed.
…
Rather than applauding Hillary Clinton’s telling them last summer that their taxes must be raised because “we’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good,” they prefer Newt Gingrich’s observation that the Declaration of Independence’s Pursuit of Happiness includes an active verb: “Not happiness stamps; not a department of happiness; not therapy for happiness. Pursuit.”

Gee, that Republican Party sounds great! Where can I find it?

I ask because I’ve been looking for it, and I can assure you it isn’t in Washington (or Albany or Gracie Mansion, for that matter).

As I chronicled in my Presidential Non-Endorsement, the Bush Administration has for the most part completely abandoned the principles DuPont describes. Fiscal restraint is non-existent; protectionist restrictions on steel, shrimp and other imports were enacted in a brazen attempt to buy votes in swing states; a huge new prescription drug entitlement was tacked on to Medicare; primary and secondary education are close to being completely federalized, immigration policy is as dysfunctional as ever, separation of powers is a “complication” to be “circumvented” (e.g., by jurisdiction-stripping and the incessant use of the meaningless, brattish term “activist judges”); the Constitution is treated not as a check on unbridled democracy, but rather as technicality to be brought in lockstep with the fleeting passions of the masses.

There’s Pete DuPont’s Republican Party, and then there’s reality. Let’s not confuse the two.

POST SCRIPT: I guess DuPont believes Iraq and the War on Terror had nothing to do with the outcome of the election.

Related Posts:
A Stitch in Haste Withholds Presidential Endorsement
Two-Party System, But Which Two Parties?
Two-Party System, Revisited
On Gays and the Two-Party System
A Million Gays for Bush?

Similar Posts:

• Two-Party System, Revisited
• Two-Party System, Revisited
• Two-Party System, But Which Two Parties?
• On Gays and the Two-Party System
• Two-Party System: Millionaires versus Billionaires

Filed under: Uncategorized