June 16, 2011

Supporting Sophism Supplants Constitution


One of the most difficult things to do in the modern political environment is to be ideologically pure. Political correctness has so thoroughly permeated the discourse that nothing deemed intolerant will be tolerated. Let us look closely for a moment though. If you are not pure in your ideas, do you have any basis for those ideas? I remember an exchange between a conservative woman and a libertarian conservative over the issue of prostitution. At some point he asked her if she would do it for a million dollars. She struggled to answer saying that a million dollars was a lot of money, but ultimately admitted that she probably would. He then asked if she would do it for $1. She got very flustered and asked him, "What do you think I am?" to which he replied, "What you are Madam, has been established, it's now just a matter of price." The point is that if you allow an exception to a belief then you have no belief. The only hope remaining for this nation is to apply principle to every vote for every politician. One strike and you're out.

So called conservatives these days are constantly guilty of this perversion of their 'principles'. Take the balanced budget amendment that so many tout as a way to reign in government spending. On the face of it you may think this is a good idea but it is a horrible idea for two reasons. One, it is an excuse to raise taxes. Two, it is an admission that spending at this level is necessary and must continue. Neither of these things is good for America and in the case of the spending, most of it is unconstitutional. The principled stand is that the federal government must discontinue unconstitutional programs, lower taxes and return prosperity and power to the people and the several States as intended by the Founders of this nation. The balanced budget amendment is capitulation by an inadequate and vacuous bunch of cowardly legislators.

Another example is oil subsidies. Congressmen right and left will argue this is necessary for development of our resources while the government does a plethora of other things to diminish same. The truth is that it is simply a bone thrown to a private sector that offsets another bone thrown to another sector, i.e. ethanol subsidies. Every time a so called conservative argues for oil subsidies to continue he/she by default argues for other subsidies to continue. The federal government has no standing constitutionally or morally subsidizing any business. The very bedrock of free enterprise capitalism is that industry should stand on it's own, driven by a free market to determine what is best for the citizenry. If a product is necessary, efficient and priced properly it will excel in the market. If not, it will and should fail and make room for something more adequate.

Thirdly, and I will get in big trouble here, abortion is one of the most egregious of the cases of unprincipled exception. Being such an emotional issue it is rife with instances of otherwise good conservative folks willing to vote for bad laws simply to reduce the slaughter. You will find no more pro life person than I. I believe that Roe v. Wade is completely erroneous and has zero basis in the U.S. Constitution. I believe that the fetus should have a doctor and that no government entity should be able to come between the fetus and his/her doctor. I believe that a doctor that knowingly exterminates the life of a child is guilty of murder with the mother being at the least accessory to the crime. That being said; recently Texas passed a law that would force women to see an ultra-sound of their fetus before an abortion could be done. Again, on the face of it, you may think that's a great idea. In fact, it may save a few babies short term. Indeed the bill was watered down with amendments to the point that no woman actually has to view it, but that is not the point. The point is this; if you vote for a law to allow the government to come between you and your doctor, even for a noble purpose, then you open the door legally for another law to be made for nefarious purposes. This is how law works. Once you set a precedent, then future advocates for other intrusions into your health care can point to it and say, "See, the government can and does intervene in medical care. Now we want to intervene also." This is the basis for socialized medicine which will cause untold pain and suffering if ever fully implemented. In fact more abortions would be approved, less care for elderly and even euthanasia for terminal patients or special needs children. In other words, far down the road, the precedent you set with a bad law, can result in exponentially more damage than you prevented. Again, the principled stance is that all abortions are wrong and should be illegal with only one exception, the life of the mother. Even then it should only be done with the explicit approval of the mother. There are some mothers who will choose to die to let their child live and that choice should be respected. But in the case where one must die, it is unfortunate but logical that the more viable developed life should survive to possibly reproduce again. This is the cruelty of nature. A hard, but necessary choice. We must be willing to take this stand and remain vigilant. The minute we allow any other exception we immediately lose the argument and will never prevail, causing even more babies to be murdered. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

The facts are clear to those willing to see. Compromise is for the weak and unprincipled. One should stand morally and ethically ensconced in ones beliefs and let them prevail or fail based on the merits alone. If we fail, we come back to fight again with more fervor and clearer communication. In the end right will win. However, once you compromise even once, you cannot again take a stance on principle for your enemies clearly see that you have none. This means that your presence in the debate is in fact detrimental to your stated cause. Even Ronald Reagan, my favorite president of the last century, famously stated that 85% was better than nothing. Well, he went on to compromise with liberals and the increase in revenues from his tax policy was eventually dwarfed by the continued out of control spending on unconstitutional programs. Later liberals would use his compromises as ammunition to argue for further compromise. It just goes on. Now we are on the brink of bankruptcy, not from Obama's spending, bad as that is, but from unconstitutional entitlement programs that have been voted for in various forms by both parties for over 100 years. The entire entitlement structure owes its life to unprincipled conservatives who caved, compromised and compounded the problem leaving future generations bankrupt and stripped of their right to inherit constitutional government and Liberty. Once again the devastation that will be wrought on children and grandchildren, worldwide, dwarfs the perceived gain in the short term of our lives. How despicable must be the view of our generation by future historians when the true cost of our selfishness and lack of honor or principle will be known.

America, I implore you to take a stand for principled constitutional government and nothing else from this day to your death. To do otherwise is to put yourself into the long, sad, and pernicious line of evil that is destroying the greatest nation in the history of mankind.

by: Keith D. Rodebush


  1. You have eloquently and concisely expressed the "unprincipled exception" and its consequences. I'm sure it is the result of our countless hours discussing it. Sorry it took me so long to get you to understand! LOL


  2. Oh, NOW you want credit! LOL
    Hat tip to JT for his undying stance against unprincipled exceptions...