Radiofree West Hartford - PREPARE NOW FOR 2008 by Tim Siggia

PREPARE NOW FOR 2008

By Tim Siggia

January 03, 2006

"It is entirely my fault." -- Robert E. Lee, July 3, 1863, upon the Confederate loss at Gettysburg.

It was the most stunning loss the Army of Northern Virginia had yet faced, and there were a number of commanders Lee could have blamed for it, with full justification. He could have blamed J. E. B. Stuart, whose failure to provide necessary reconnaissance information had forced the Confederate infantry to march blind into Pennsylvania, and who was saved a court-martial only by Lee himself. He could have blamed Richard Stoddert Ewell, the corps commander who balked at Lee's orders to take Cemetery Hill at a time when he could have done so with virtually no opposition. He could have blamed James "Pete" Longstreet, the surly, oft-disagreeable commander of the First Corps, whose actions tended to undermine Lee and at times bordered on outright treason. He could have blamed any of them, or all of them, and few, save the principals themselves, would have disagreed with that assessment.

But Lee knew that though the Army of Northern Virginia had many generals, it had only one commanding general, and that was himself. He therefore blamed himself for the failure at Gettysburg, and assumed ultimate responsibility for it. "It is entirely my fault," he said, in effect absolving those commanders who in fact had failed him. More than 80 years afterward, an American president named Harry Truman would put it another way: "The buck stops here."

A similar defeat was handed to the Republican Party this past November, when it lost majorities to the Democrats in both houses of Congress. Unfortunately, in this day and age, the Republicans have no one of the stature of a Lee or a Truman who would hold himself personally accountable for that loss. As it was at Gettysburg, there are those who could be named, but to do so at this point in time would be futile. Instead, the Republican Party as a whole needs to give itself a collective, sobering, splashing of cold water in the face, assess what went wrong, and put itself back on course for the upcoming presidential election now less than two years away.

It is generally agreed, in conservative circles at least, that the Republicans' great error was to allow itself to become collectively "Washingtonized," abandoning those conservative principals which had first earned them majority status in 1994 in favor of the old canard, "Go along to get along." The longer they stayed in power, the less they looked like themselves, and the more they came to resemble their colleagues across the aisle. The years of Republican leadership were marked by indecision, a policy of appeasement to the Democratic minority, government growth, record spending, and, in a word, the overall lack of leadership. Chance after chance to assert conservative values was squandered. The cutting of taxes, albeit temporary, and the appointment of two conservative justices to the Supreme Court were the only things done right. We might add to that the appointments of John Ashcroft and John Bolton to the positions of Attorney General and United Nations ambassador, respectively, but those proved only temporary. And the wanton scuttling of Donald Rumsfeld in an effort to appease Democrats and their allies in the news media was inexcusable.

Re-form and re-group.

In November of next year, we will face another decision, namely, to decide who will replace term-limited George W. Bush as President of the United States. According to recent polls, the leading contenders for the Republican nomination are former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, and Arizona senator John McCain. All are known for being fiscally conservative and liberal on social issues. Have we learned nothing from the debacle of just two months ago?

The phrase "litmus test" is currently out of favor with those who would consider themselves politically sophisticated. Too bad, for that is exactly what is needed in order to select the kind of candidate who can truly win, and not just be another name in the endless list of Republican also-rans. The following are some of the tough questions we should be asking of him who would be our next commander-in-chief:

1. Is he one who will take seriously the presidential oath to preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic? Or rather, will he assume our nation's highest office with no higher motive than that of personal gain, as did Bill Clinton? Or will he compromise that vow for the sake of political expediency in the manner of George W. Bush?

2. Is he one who will do everything possible to limit the breadth and scope of the federal government, and use the Constitution as his guideline for what is and is not the proper function of government?

3. Is he one who will return to the policy of limited taxation, and follow tax cuts up with proportional cuts in spending? Does he understand that allowing Americans to keep more of the money they have earned ultimately results and a stronger, more vibrant economy?

4. Is he one who, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, will make the welfare of our fighting men and women his personal concern, ensuring that they are properly trained and equipped to carry out the most important mission of our national defense?

5. Is he one who is cognizant of the danger of a Supreme Court gone above and beyond the authority granted to it by our Constitution, and will appoint federal judges who will properly recognize their duty to interpret existing law rather than legislate from the bench?

6. Is he one who understands that the United Nations is not and never has been our friend or ally, and will take any and all steps necessary to protect our sovereignty against the threats of globalization and world government?

7. Is he one who believes in and is committed to the sanctity of life and the preservation of marriage as the union of one man and one woman?

8. Finally, is he one who will recognize his true duty as being the steward of the American people, and will subordinate his personal interests to those of the United States of America? Will he understand and abide by the concept that the truly great presidents were men who never sought personal legacies for themselves?

Who fits all or even most of these criteria is for now largely a matter of opinion. But if Republicans are to even retain the White House, let alone regain majorities in Congress, such a figure will have to emerge sometime within the next 22 months.