Will NH Pick the Orwellocon?
Recently
by Scott Lazarowitz: Senators
Who Love the Government But Hate America
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM
IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
MITT ROMNEY IS A CONSERVATIVE
~ An updated
version of the Ministry of Truth’s slogan from George Orwell’s 1984
The media pundits
and the talk radio hosts and their callers have been bending over
backwards to label Willard Mitt Romney a “conservative.”
They have been desperately trying to fit their ideal of a conservative
into Romney like fitting a piece into a puzzle that will never fit
– not without a pair of scissors, that is. It is truly Orwellian,
this thing with calling a far-left socialist a “conservative.”
They might as well call Barack Obama a “conservative.”
In addition
to that, many people are trying to find a Republican who is “electable,”
someone who can beat Obama in the November, 2012 election. But if
Romney does become the Republican nominee and then wins the election,
then what? Given that he is bought and paid for by
Wall Street, do you really believe that Romney will do anything
to fix the underlying causes of our current economic depression
(central banking, the Fed, the collusions between Wall Street and
the U.S. government, the government’s expansionist empire abroad
and deficit spending and ever-increasing debt)? Given what a tax-raiser
he was as governor, do you really believe Romney will not be exactly
like George H.W. Bush and Bush Jr. in caving like a jellyfish to
the Capitol Hill big spenders?
As governor
of Taxachusetts, Romney raised
corporate taxes, and he also raised hundreds of millions of dollars
in higher fees, on guns, marriages, property transfers, you name
it. And “Massachusetts conservative” Willard Romney, who
went on record in 2002 opposing
getting rid of the state income tax, dramatically increased
the state budget, according
to Center for Small Government President Carla Howell. Any income
tax, whether it be federal, state or city, is so dreadfully invasive
of property rights, privacy and contracts, and so violating of freedom,
who in his right mind could possibly oppose getting rid of
it?
And many people
have been saying that they support Romney because of his business
experience. He had a lot of experience at his Bain Capital firm
driving some companies out
of business and getting
rich from the early investments and tax deductions in the process.
But how much of his work in the private sector was spent providing
something of actual value to others? To me, given his record with
Bain, it is as though they were trying to act like government bureaucrats,
many of whom currently in Washington having also gotten rich off
the backs of working class Americans.
Given the way
he treated various businesspeople during his time with Bain, one
wonders just how – in the political world – he will deal
with dissenting Americans, especially those of the Tea
Party movement and the Occupy movement who are extremely critical
of the federal government. How will Romney handle the further expanded
powers of the presidency if he is given the new powers of indefinite
detention of anyone he chooses, without due process?
Speaking of
security issues, Romney is also unwilling to oppose cutting “defense”
spending. In fact, he wants to increase spending on the already
bloated military-security-industrial-complex. Romney supports the
Big Government foreign interventionism of the military central planners
in Washington, and wants to expand the intrusions and aggressions
abroad.
While some
people in New Hampshire might disagree with me on this, true conservatives
oppose any governmental interventionism, foreign or domestic.
Unfortunately, so many people have been taken in by the government
propagandists who have been insisting that the wars and expanded
military bureaucracy of the past ten years had been necessary, and
some still believe it despite the wars’ utter failures, destruction,
counter-productiveness, waste of lives and bankrupting costs.
Many people
do not want to believe that terrorism of the 1990s and 2000s were
direct results of the aggressions committed overseas by the U.S.
government especially since 1990 and especially in Iraq. Some people
just don’t like to hear reality told to them, which is why Ron Paul
got booed at those debates. But generally, the events of terrorism
blowback were results of central planning.
This central
planning by the government interventionists is not conservative,
nor is it liberal. It is statist. (See Jacob Hornberger on libertarianism
versus statism.) The statists believe in using the monopolistic,
armed power of the centralized federal government not only to interfere
with the lives of their own people domestically, but with the lives
of foreigners. Willard Mitt Romney aligns himself with these Bush-Cheney-Feith-Wolfowitz
central planners of foreign interventionist statism and all its
destruction.
Some of Americans’
support for such foreign interventionism and central planning comes
from this idea of American exceptionalism, which Romney has
repeatedly stated should be renewed and projected across the globe.
Whether people want to acknowledge it or not, American exceptionalism
means that our government should have the power to intrude into
and interfere with the internal affairs of foreign peoples – and
militarily no less – but foreigners shouldn’t have the right
to place their government apparatus and military bases on
our lands. This philosophy contradicts the Christian principle
of “Do unto others what one would want others to do unto you,”
and “Don’t do unto others what one would not
want others to do unto you.” Such a Christian philosophy is
exactly that of Ron Paul, certainly not of Willard Romney.
My own personal
opinion is that, given Romney’s past insincerities and flip-flopping,
I don’t particularly believe his sincerity in the national security
debate. He seems to be pandering to the public’s post-9/11 fears,
and to the fear-mongering of the neoconservatives. And, just as
Romney will probably have a hard time saying “no” to his
Wall Street benefactors, so too will it be hard for him to say “no”
to the defense
contractors, the merchants of death.
In a nutshell,
Romney is no conservative, nor is he a “liberal.” Romney
is a politician. In fact, he is the epitome of “weathervane
politician.” He would fit right in as a character in Orwell’s
novel, 1984 (and a very scary one at that).
“But,
we need someone who can beat Obama in November. We can’t afford
to take the chance of Obama getting reelected,” people cry.
Yeah, and once your “electable” Willard Romney were to
take the oath of office in January, 2013, he will continue the socialism,
the environmentalist voodooism and the warmongering, as well as
the Fed’s inflationary money printing, and drive America completely
into the ground like he did those businesses from his Bain Capital
steering wheel.
There actually
is a conservative, however, who believes that the government should
only do what the Constitution says, and who actually will reduce
the size, power and intrusiveness of the federal government, and
restore the protection of our natural rights and civil liberties.
Most readers here know who that
is.
The people
of New Hampshire will make a choice this week. The choice is between
continuing the socialism, corporate-government cronyism and central
planning which are destroying America from within and will leave
us to ruin – or reason, common sense, and the restoration of the
rule of law and freedom. Let’s hope they choose the latter.
January 9, 2012
Scott
Lazarowitz [send him
mail] is a commentator and cartoonist, visit his
blog.
Copyright
© 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.