True enough; Republicans benefit from not being the party in power these past two years. There is also wisdom in Rasumussen’s statement that recent history shows there is “a fundamental rejection of both political parties.”
Sounds right. But it does not follow that there is a fundamental rejection of our preference as Americans: to be left alone by government. To keep our money; to spend it as we see fit.
Yes, I know. Not all of us share that preference. Some of us must be cared for by government, are unable, mentally or physically, to make it on their own. Others think they can’t succeed without government, and the self-anointed ruling class do their best to never disabuse them of that notion.
There is one side of the political spectrum that favors leaving us alone: the right. Call it libertarian, call it what you will, the choice is stark: liberals want more government, conservatives less. Liberals think the people need to have everything done for them, conservatives know that we are far better off if we learn to do for ourselves.
Hence I dispute Rasmussen’s conclusion, which is:
Elected politicians also should leave their ideological baggage behind because voters don’t want to be governed from the left, the right, or even the center. They want someone in Washington who understands that the American people want to govern themselves.
Yes, we do want to “govern” ourselves. But how do we do this best? By electing true conservatives as President and to Congress. Men and women who will “govern” with the lightest possible hand in our business.
To govern is to choose. To choose consistently is to have an ideology. Having an ideology is not at all a bad thing. Having the wrong ideology, as Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and their enablers do, is quite a bad thing. And I very much want conservatives to bring their “ideological baggage” of personal responsibility, smaller government, and lower taxes, with them.