We don’t have a problem. We have a mess, and it’s a nicer one than any Ollie ever accused Stanley of getting him into. The federal government grows apace. Executive agencies, often self-funded, unaccountable to either Congress or the people and restrained only occasionally by the judiciary, constrain us ever more tightly in nets of regulation. Our adversaries, having pushed and encountered no resistance, push harder. And, at least right now, the 45th President of the United States looks likely to be a statist crone, a socialist geezer, or—another two-word sobriquet escapes me—Donald Trump. I could go on. And on. Good gravy.
I encountered “mess” used in the sense I intend perhaps ten years ago, in an article on methodical problem-solving. The author used the word to denote a set of interrelated problems, none of which can be solved unless all the others are solved as well. Cleaning up a mess requires properly defining each constituent problem, and identifying its root cause; tracing and understanding the relationships of each problem to all the others; and discovering a sequence for acting that allows progress toward solving one or more problems without hindering or preventing solution of the others. Meeting any of those requirements is obviously well beyond the scope of my intelligence, but, with a nod to Nate’s first post, I’ll attempt to begin.
One of the problems in the mess is that the Republican Party is dysfunctional. The cause? It has—at least so far as I can see—no standards, no guiding principles, no True North. Consequently, the party steers no discernable course. There may be a document filed away somewhere at RNC Headquarters detailing what it means to be a Republican, but there’s no evidence that its content is known or accepted even by the “establishment,” whoever they are. Vociferous criticism of the president and his fellow-travelers isn’t sufficient. We need a coherent alternative to the Democrats’ approach to government, something that Republican candidates for office can run on. I’d go further. If you’re seeking election as a Republican, refusal to embrace the principles and positions that define the party earns you the political equivalent of excommunication. So—yeah—no wine or “little crackers” for the Donald.
As I said, criticism isn’t enough. I have some suggestions. First: stand on the Constitution—the original one, not the “living” version beloved of the left. Second (in keeping with the first): begin to return government to its Constitutional limits. Where to start is optional. Starting isn’t. Third: introduce some sanity into fiscal policy. We all know where the current path leads. Figure out how to get to a balanced budget. There is no acceptable alternative. Fourth: accept that fiat money isn’t really money. Sound monetary policy requires sound money. Fifth: accept the responsibility to provide for national defense. And that doesn’t mean “use defense spending as a way to buy votes, create political obligations, and appease special interests.”
I’ve never taken part in party politics, never thought of myself as a Republican (or a Democrat). I’ve seen regular voting as discharging enough of my civic duty in the political sphere. That’s beginning to seem like a serious mistake. I’ve always believed that if you don’t vote, you have no standing to complain about the results of an election. That principle has an upstream application: as an independent, I have no real right to complain about the current slate of Republican candidates. If I want the process to produce a better output, perhaps I should be looking at affecting the inputs. The process owners are not likely to offer the opportunity to an outsider.
