I do not agree with the Republican Party’s stance on every issue, and I would venture that no Republican does. My observations together with reason and logic informs me, however, that the GOP holds the value of individual liberty, which brings with it prosperity and real security, much more than the other major party does today, and at anytime in the recent past.
Thus, I cannot find myself supporting any Democratic Party candidate that I have heard of, especially the current President.
One soul-mate recites what I mean better than I can, so I call your attention to this essay.
The quite successful entrepreneur and philanthropist Sheldon Adelson writes today in the Wall Street Journal explaining why he has forsaken his parents’ and his former embrace of the Democratic Party and now supports the GOP and its nominee Mitt Romney. See this article
“It … went without saying that we were Democrats. Like most Jews around the country, being Democrat was part of our identity, as much a feature of our collective personality as our religion,” Mr. Adelson writes.
He continues: “So why did I leave the party?
“My critics nowadays like to claim it’s because I got wealthy or because I didn’t want to pay taxes or because of some other conservative caricature. No, the truth is the Democratic Party has changed in ways that no longer fit with someone of my upbringing.
“One obvious example is the party’s new attitude toward Israel. A sobering Gallup poll from last March asked: “Are your sympathies more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians?” Barely 53% of Democrats chose Israel, the sole liberal democracy in the region. By contrast, an overwhelming 78% of Republicans sympathized with Israel.” (My emphasis.)
Israel is one of the few true friends the United States has in the world. The story of Israel is really an American story, which might be why the left wing has soured on that state.
Mr. Adelson goes on: “Another troubling change is that Democrats seem to have moved away from the immigrant values of my old neighborhood—in particular, individual charity and neighborliness. After studying tax data from the IRS, the nonpartisan Chronicle of Philanthropy recently reported that states that vote Republican are now far more generous to charities than those voting Democratic. In 2008, the seven least-generous states all voted for President Obama. My father, who kept a charity box for the poor in our house, would have frowned on this fact about modern Democrats.
“Democrats would reply that taxation and government services are better vehicles for helping the underprivileged. And, yes, government certainly has its role. But when you look at states where Democrats have enjoyed years of one-party dominance—California, Illinois, New York—you find that their liberal policies simply don’t deliver on their promises of social justice.”
Of course, I maintain that social justice is to justice as root beer is to beer, or fast food is to food. It’s one of those cliches that pecksniffs like to bandy about. Nevertheless, like Mr. Adelson, I believe that charity is a virtue, even a duty – an individual one. Forced charity, that is, being charitable with other people’s money is not virtue, but a species of theft. And I do not believe that poverty per se imbues virtue in anyone. The poor will always be with us, and for many its their own doing. Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty was a classic example of striving for perfection ruining the good.
The left in this country is really more Brave New World than Nineteen Eighty-Four. They want happy equality, which is impossible, so they’ll settle for the unhappy sort.
A Mitt Romney administration will not be a panacea for all of the ills of our nation, and it has been difficult to create enthusiasm for him. He does not have the charismatic presence of John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, or even Barack Obama of four years ago. Of course, elsewhere, charismatic personalities have led heir countries to destruction in many well-known cases. That is not all, though. The Presidents over the past 50 years have been a disappointing lot, except for Reagan, and even Bill Clinton, once he forsook the left. Kennedy was assassinated pretty much at the top of his game, so he lives on mostly favorably remembered. The disappointing performances of the past two Presidents may thus be part of the lack of passion for Romney.
Passion surely motivates. That is why religious fervor can incite such violence and mayhem in the name of one’s God or gods. Identity politics, also instills passion. But I, for one, would like a break. There are doubtless many more who share that wish. If Romney wins tomorrow, maybe it will be plain old fatigue with stridency. I am more optimistic, however. I will be an opportunity to put a successful businessman in a position to guide – not run – the nation, rather than peddlers of nostrums.
Sheldon Adelson has been generous in supporting charitable causes, as well as Mitt Romney’s candidacy. Here’s hoping that his money will be well spent in both instances.
