“Ed Gillespie said in no uncertain terms that the days of Reaganesque Republican railings against the expansion of federal government are over. Today’s Republican party stands for giving the American people whatever the latest polls say they want…The people want expanded entitlement programs and a federal government that attends to their every desire, no matter how frivolous? Then that’s what the Republican Party wants too.”
Every once in a while, somebody does something or says something that forever defines your vision of that person.
Such is the case with the above statement, reported by the Manchester Union-Leader in 2003, repeated by National Review in an article entitled “Has Big Government Won?”, (subtitled “Bush-level spending has conservatives increasingly restless”) and by Craig Shirley in his book Rendezvous with Destiny about the 1980 presidential election and how the Republican party has abandoned the very philosophy that resulted in consecutive GOP landslides in 1980 and 1984.
As per National Review, “fiscal responsibility” was defined by Gillespie (and presumably President Bush) as meaning only that federal spending would increase at “a slower rate of growth” than if the Democrats were in power.
So how’s that working out? Has this philosophy won elections for Republicans and strengthened their brand? And far more importantly, has it contributed to the health and wealth of the nation?
Fact is, the only real GOP successes since 1988 have been when they temporarily returned to constitutional principles in winning overwhelming congressional victories in 1994 and 2010 (and that year, only when they were left with no choice by the stunning ascent of the Tea Party). John McCain and Mitt Romney, prototypes of the “non-Reaganesque” philosophy of government, were mowed down by a pure leftist.
There comes a time when we must draw a line in the sand and return to offering a choice instead of an echo. And it has to start somewhere. While I will stipulate that it may well already be too late, that the 2012 election may have forever affirmed our transition from a constitutional republic to a social democracy, and that the best we can do is to limit the irreparable damage the left has done, that hardly means we should continue to be enablers or co-conspirators in the ever-increasing thirst for power of a central government encroaching into every single element of our lives, big and small, from healthcare to school lunches.
Does this mean Ed Gillespie is a bad guy? No. His is a classic and admirable American success story. But his wealth of political experience, once devoted to the principles that animated the Contract with America and GOP congressional takeover of 1994, has since trended heavily in the direction of corporatism and political capitulation. He is at the heart of a party that has lost its way.
The fight for the right to take on Mark Warner is perhaps the most stark in the ongoing battle across the land between the establishment and grassroots for the soul of the GOP. And we see in Shak Hill the polar opposite of Gillespie: an upstart political newcomer fighting against all odds. Shak comes with his own very different American success story, has lived out his principles, and demonstrated an impressive ability to communicate a simple, unambiguous and energetic constitutional message.
As the Commonwealth’s GOP faithful gather in Roanoke for Saturday’s convention, there is as always an inclination to place electability at the head of the list of a candidate’s balance sheet of assets and liabilities. And on paper, Gillespie’s well-established connections within the GOP and fundraising ability would appear to make him more electable. But it is hard to argue that money will make the difference against an opponent with pockets as deep as Warner.
It is even harder to argue against this simple statement in the most recent e-blast from Hill: when it comes down to it, you need to vote for the candidate who will best represent you and your views in the U.S. Senate.
