Why Moderate Republicans Are More Dangerous To Our Liberty Than Liberal Democrats

The Bushies like to use fear to promote their candidate. Because there are not many good reason's to vote for Dubya, they argue that we should do so anyway, as opposed to say vote for a genuine conservative of conviction like Pat Buchanan, because voting for Dubya they claim is the most effective way to vote against and defeat the liberal Democrats, Gore or Bradley.

Implicit in their argument is the assumption that it is inherantly worse for the nation and more dangerous to the survival of our liberties to be governed by a liberal Democrat president than a modererate Republican president. But I would argue that exactly the opposite is the case.

Why? Because moderate Republicans believe in fundamentally the same philosophy of governance as liberal Democrats and will pursue the same policies but with this key difference: whereas a liberal Democrat president will polarize and unite the opposition to such policies, making it more likely that they can be frustrated and defeated, a moderate Republican president will coopt that same opposition, give bipartisan cover to the Democrats, relieve them of accountability, marginalize conservatives, and frustrate all efforts by the American people to slow or hault the federal government's relentless march toward centralism at home and globalism abroad.

As an illustration, let us consider the two most recent federal tax hikes, one signed by moderate Republican George Bush, Sr. and the other by liberal Democrat Bill Clinton. Which one was harder for the Congress to pass? Which one resulted in almost no political consequences for the Democrats in Congress and which one produced the ultimate political consequence for the Democrats in Congress? And, finally, which one tore the Reagan coalition to tatters and which one reunified that coalition like never before to stop the liberal Democrats cold?

You all know the answer to all three questions: the repercussions of the Bush tax hike were far more pernicious for the country and our freedom than the Clinton tax hike. They are identically bad policies, but with a moderate Republican at the helm, the federal government pulls them off without a hitch because of the bipartisan cover only a moderate Republican can provide. With a liberal Democrat at the helm and a united opposition, there is instead political hell to pay as a result.

So, my answer to the Bushies' fearmongering tactics is this: Experience has taught me that I am far more secure in what little liberty I yet possess with a liberal Democrat president than I am with a compromising, me-too, sell-out moderate Republican president like Bush, Sr. or his simpleton son. Therefore, in the fall, when I face the choice of Buchanan vs. Bush or McCain vs. Gore or Bradley, I will stand and proudly vote for the only true conservative in the race, Patrick J. Buchanan, and I will do so without fear, because I will know that whatever happens, the worst possible thing that could happen -- the election of a moderate Republican president -- won't.

Even better, if all of you do the same, we just might elect the first truly conservative president since Ronald Reagan. And isn't that hopeful prospect well worth the risk of not electing yet another worthless moderate Republican who probably wouldn't be elected anyway (like Dole)?