Trent Lott is the Problem

In actuality, I had something else intended for my first substantive post on this page. But, in retrospect, I think it only appropriate that my first post be a critique of a member of my own professed political party; for it seems that the unvarnished hubris of the Republicans in the Senate does not appear to have diminished despite the fact that said Republicans no longer control that august chamber.

In response to the failure of the late immigration bill, and efforts to revive it, Hon. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, was quoted as having said, "talk radio is running the country. We have to deal with that problem." I beg to differ with the gentleman from the Magnolia State. Talk radio is not the problem. Members of Congress like Mr. Lott are the problem.

The volume of mail, electronic and paper, received by Senators, as well as the daily outcry on the airwaves-- by callers, not just commentators-- spoke to the vehement opposition to the immigration bill by the general public. Public opinion polling confirmed the sentiment among the citizenry. When it appeared that the public will might just prevail, the Senate Majority Leader, Mr. Reid, of Nevada, swiftly pulled the bill from consideration, with the intent of reintroducing it when he was certain the public had forgotten about it.

Mr. Lott was one of the Senators expected to back the bill, despite the opinions of the people he represents. His comments regarding talk radio express his apparent belief as to the source of opposition to the bill. He is sorely mistaken. Certainly the carrier waves were heavy with discussion of immigration over the past few weeks. But rather than being the source of discontent about this legislation, it seems more likely that talk radio was merely the rallying point.

Senator Lott apparently suffers from the delusion, more common on the Left, that people who listen to, and call in to, radio talk radio shows are incapable of independent thought and simply parrot whatever it is that the hosting commentator is spewing forth on a particular day. If that were true, radio would be boring in the extreme. I personally have heard much intelligent discussion of the bill on the radio, and have read much more in the newspapers and on the internet. Where there seems to be a lack of intelligent discussion is among supporters of the bill, whose repertoire seems to be limited to accusing opponents of the bill of that favorite bugaboo of the chattering class, racism.

Rather than being founded on racism, opposition to the immigration bill is primarily founded on the bill itself, which Hon. John Boehner, House Minority Leader, R-Ohio, rather vulgarly, though accurately, described as 'excrement.' As author David Limbaugh points out, accusations of racism are unfair and irresponsible (as they usually are these days):


Proponents [of the immigration bill] are firing epithets at opponents and accusing them of emotionalizing the issue, but again, the reverse is true. The proponents are the ones avoiding the facts and the very real concerns voiced by opponents. Many conservative proponents are blinded to real dangers in the bill by their monomaniacal attachment to economic growth at any cost. Others seem to have a romantic fixation with our heritage of immigration and wrongly interpret opposition to illegal and anarchically unregulated immigration as a betrayal of our national compact.

Opponents of this bill are not anti-immigrant, nativists, enemies of business or backwoods restrictionists. They are Americans who are fighting to preserve the unique American culture and will not be intimidated by the politically correct tactics and race-baiting of many of the proponents. At the very least they are fighting to preserve: 1) a cultural commitment to the principles embodied in the greatest constitution ever written and adopted by man and 2) a societal consensus in the absolute moral values undergirding that instrument, which are inspired by a belief in God and the dignity of human beings created in His image.

But the problem with Senator Lott and the other Republican proponents of the immigration bill runs deeper than their misguided support for a particular piece of legislation. The real problem is that which tends to arise with any individual or any group of individuals who has or have been in power for too long. Arrogance. The problem was very succinctly stated by Congressional candidate Adam Schiff, a Democrat, in his election campaign in 2006:

Q. Do you think the two-party system effectively checks itself, or do you think it would be more effective to introduce more parties to the game?

A. The problem isn't with the two-party system so much as that when you have one-party rule every branch of government for too long it tends to become arrogant and corrupt. The Democratic Party was in the majority for 40 years and in 1994 the country decided they'd grown arrogant and corrupt. The GOP seems to have done that in 10. There'll be a chance in November to change the majority, which is obviously what I'm hoping will take place.

Well said, and true at the time. The Democrats were arrogant and corrupt in 1994, and the Republicans were arrogant and corrupt in 2006. The problem with the 2006 election is that not enough incumbents of either party were swept out of office, and not the right ones at that. In 1994, there were 73 new Republicans in the House in the class of 1994, with a net gain of 54 seats. There was a net gain of eight Senate seats. The defeated incumbents included the Speaker of the House and many other long-serving members. In 2006, the Democrats gained 31 House seats and six in the Senate. Few long-serving incumbents went by the wayside, most of the Democrat victories were in marginal seats. Speaker Hastert gave up his leadership post, but retained his House seat, and much of his influence.

I am not suggesting that I would like to see a more sweeping consolidation of the Democrats' victories in the 2008 elections. On the contrary, I would like to see them run out of office in droves. Nevertheless, if, in the face of arrogant leadership that ignores the will of the people and the good of the country, the rank and file of the GOP stands by its leaders, we deserve to be defeated. When primary elections were instituted, it was because nominations for office had become too much like coronations. Now, the primary system is becoming so rigged that primaries are in danger of becoming coronations.

Citizens voting in primary elections (in either party) should consider whether their votes are rewarding a system of arrogant incumbency and hand-picked successors. Power will not return to the people unless we exercise our right to take it back.

A welcome, and a challenge....

I expect that most, if not all, of my initial readers will be those who followed my previous blog, and whom I have invited to look at this one. If that is the case, then most, if not all of the early visitors to this page will be a bit surprised by its format and content.

My intent with Vox Republicana is quite different from that which led me to establish Praeceptor Germaniae. My intent with this blog is to examine current and recent events in the governance of our Nation, and in the worship of our Creator, in the light of history, informed by the voices of Burke, Locke, Chesterton, and, of course, Jay. The quote in my header from Publius, a.k.a. John Jay, explains some of my rationale for this approach.

If you learned your history from the internet, or from an American public school within the last twenty years or so, chances are that you will not care for my writings. On the other hand, you might learn something, or, perish the thought, teach me something. I therefore challenge you to comment if your intent is to add to the discussion or to raise a related point, even if you are not confident in your knowledge of, or position with regard to the issue at hand, but especially if you are not confident in mine.

My posts will be fewer than readers of Praeceptor Germaniae were accustomed to, but my hope is that they will be better informed, and more informative. For those unwary who happen upon this page, I forewarn you that my political philosophy is difficult to categorize, but that I would self-describe it as Christian classical conservative with a somewhat populist libertarian streak. You have been warned.

Technorati Profile