Ryan James Girdusky

Imagine for a moment that the Twenty Second Amendment to the constitution was abolished and George W. Bush in a brokered convention is given the Republican nomination against Barack Obama. Should Republicans vote for him again?

This is the question I peg to self-defined conservatives who make up the majority of Republican primary voters when they state they are voting for Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, or Rick Santorum.

Hasn’t big government conservatism, whatever that means, done enough damage to not only our cause and our party, but to our country too? Why would anyone choose liberalism that vows to love the Tea Party, the troops, and Ronald Reagan, but in the end will be more Wilsonian than Wilson, expand government more than Johnson, and creates more debt than Barack Obama?

Republicans vote for the aforementioned men because they have been told they have to, because the media which hates conservatives ideals as much as they hate Western civilization, Christianity, and Sarah Palin, has told us it is the only acceptable choices.

Understandably someone may love Perry, Santorum, Gingrich, or Romney. Some may see the expansion of government, destruction of our currency, loss of our sovereignty, the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, and end of voluntary communal association to fix local issues as not a real problem. And if the notion that an ever expanding government has not in fact decapitated the traits of American community and rugged individualism (“American Exceptionalism” is just too cliché a phrase) then by all means, break out a soap box and stand for more big government republicanism.

Whether it be Santorum’s support for Medicare Part D, an unfunded war in Iraq, or career as what Eric Erickson refers to of being a pro-life statist; Gingrich’s lifelong habit of speaking loudly and carrying a small stick: on healthcare mandates, global warming, amnesty for illegals, or stopping work requirements for welfare; Perry’s support for instate tuition for illegal aliens, nearly doubling the budget and tripling the debt as governor of Texas; or Mitt Romney (add your own flip-flop/Romney care/abortion joke here).

Understandably, there is no perfect candidate, like there is no perfect person.

I am not looking for perfection, if I was I’d be a liberal.

I’m looking for a candidate that has dedication, prudence, prescription, and is not afraid to call a spade a spade. It would be wonderful if America was in a period of transition as we were in the early twentieth century, as if we were the shining city on a hill.

The truth is we are a nation in decline, a people lost to the false god of our own decadence. We can deny it, we can call those who believe it “unpatriotic“, to that this writer believes the greatest difference between pessimists and optimists is that pessimists are usually more well informed.

Sobering times such as these require a serious, thoughtful conservative. That is why the only candidate who can help America to reduce the size and scope of government and bring back basic conservative principles that man is Congressman Ron Paul.

The congressman has his faults, such as hand gestures during his debate for example. There are the newsletters, which for every political observer should love for only the fact that it has made the mainstream media play to republicans racial sensitivities, these being the same republicans the media has accused of racism at every opportunity since President Obama was candidate Obama. There’s Ron Paul’s foreign policy, some view as a flaw and a weakness. It is not so much that Ron Paul is pursuing a weak foreign policy as much as he is not like the rest of the Republican field which plays to the insane and insecure voting blocs of the party.

The largest issue that seems to hang over the Congressman Paul’s head is that of electability. This an understandable concern, yet it is one that has been created by the media. Mitt Romney only one term as governor of Massachusetts and in the 2008 Republican primary he won 11 out of 30 competitions, most of them being caucuses. Despite his lack of real victories the media has created this hype that he can appeal to moderates and democrats. Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that appeals to such demographic. It’s Ron Paul’s anti-war, anti-wall street, populist message that has the widest appeal for a general electorate.

In a recent Des Moines Register poll, Ron Paul is viewed as the most concerned about reducing government debt (42%), most consistent (35%), most likely to reduce spending on war and foreign aid (61%), the least ego driven (28%), the best at relating to ordinary Iowans (20%), and the most dedicated to limiting the influence of government (44%). If this is an election about heart and character, Ron Paul already won it hands down. Republican primary voters need to vote with their heart instead of what the media-industrial complex has put in their head on Paul‘s supposed unelectablity.

To reiterate the question, if the election was George W. Bush running again, should Republicans vote for him? I say no, they should not.

For all the horrible things you can say about Barack Obama as a president, he has given the Republicans a chance to find some principles again, principles they lost when one of their own was expanding government recklessly. And if the Republican Party is given another chance at the oval office, it should at least be someone who will uphold conservative principles while they are there. Big government Republicanism creates apathy amongst the general public and cynicism amongst the base.

I don’t have to make the decision of big government vs. bigger government. Dr. Ron Paul cured my apathy.


Ryan James Girdusky

Ryan James Girdusky writes from New York City. He has been published in the Christian Science Monitor, The Daily Caller, The American Thinker, and World Net Daily. He is a contributor on the radio show "Living Truth with Gina Loudon."