Responsibility

I find it puzzling that I consistently see the same wrongheaded argument being presented to me by my Democrat friends in their desperate efforts to excuse the excesses of the Obama administration. I'll bring up something like massive troop deployments in Afghanistan and Pakistan or inprecedented deficit spending and corporate bailouts, and their rote reply seems to be that I can't criticize Obama because of all the terrible things that Bush did. Further, because I'm a Republican then I must be complicit in whatever crimes Bush committed and therefore am disqualified from questioning or criticizing Obama.

What they seem to miss here is that if the things Bush did were wrong, then aren't the same things still equally wrong when they are done by Obama? Aren't they even more wrong when they are done by Obama on a larger scale? Bush overspent and created deficits. Obama has already doubled his spending in a few months. Bush deployed hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, where our interests are at best debatable. Obama has done the same and is talking about a deployment more than double the size of Bush's biggest commitment to the region. I defy any Obama supporter to identify a qualitative difference between the excess spending and troop deployment of the Obama administration and that of his predecessor. There is certainly a quantitative difference. Obama has dramatically spent more money and put more lives at risk for less reason. If I'm disqualified from criticizing Obama because of Bush, then why aren't Democrats disqualified from criticizing Bush because Obama has done the exact same things and worse?

Their second error is the repeated assumption that because I bear the "Republican" brand I must have supported every Republican and every act of a Republican going back to my infancy. Apparently I have to shoulder the blame for everything both Bushes did wrong and presumably for the sins of Reagan, Ford and Nixon as well. Never mind that I actively protested Nixon's administration, wrote scores of articles critical of Bush and his policies during the last 8 years, and voted Libertarian in every presidential election since 1980. Does this mean that conversely they are going to accept responsibility for the Carter's loss of the Panama Canal, the Drug War, Vietnam and Jim Crow laws? Somehow I doubt it.

Their belief that all Republicans are the same ought to be embarassing, if they had any sense of shame. Their victory in the last election gives Democrats a certain level of arrogance and a tendency to gloat which is truly unappealing and apparently makes them immune to any obligation to think with any subtlety about political issues. They just can't grasp that Republicans are a diverse group. They assume that we're all warmongering, Bible-thumping reactionaries who are apparently on the verge of becoming domestic terrorists -- at least so Obama's Department of Homeland Security seems to believe. My actual beliefs seem to matter nothing to them -- as a Republican I can't possibly be pro-choice, areligious and generally opposed to unnecessary wars. They would certainly never believe that I know thousands of other Republicans who are politically active, share those views and were critical of Bush over these and many other issues.

You would think that some simple self-examination would enlighten them. Lyndon LaRouche, the Unabomber and Louis Farrakhan are or have been active members of the Democratic party and remain largely on the poilitical left. Does that mean that all Democrats share their views? There are even large factions within the political left and the Democratic party which don't agree with each other. Most of the Democrats I know aren't outright socialists or communists, but those philosophies thrive within the progressive wing of the party. Nativism and strong anti-immigrant beliefs are common among union Democrats, but many other Democrats remain liberal on the immigration issue. If their party isn't homogenous, why do they assume that all Republicans are the same?

This idea that the sins of one administration or political faction do not excuse the abuses of another also extends to foreign policy and seems to confuse the left there as well. When dealing with the issue of Iran, they always seem to fall back on blaming the United States because we put the Shah in power. Apparently we have to excuse the sins of the current regime because of the wrongs done by the Shah. Never mind that they killed more political dissidents in their first two years in power than the Shah killed in 17 years and have done more to limit freedoms for the general population and especially for women than the Shah ever did. It's the same with Israel. Because Israel is militarily aggressive and inhumane, it excuses every action of violent excess from the terrorist groups and equally aggressive and inhumane neighbors like Syria and Iran. Somehow Arab violence doesn't count because Israelis deserve it.

What they seem not to grasp is that wrong is wrong and right is right, regardless of the political persuasion of the perpetrator and regardless of the actions of others. You can't pick and choose between murderers and madmen and say that the crimes of one are excused because of the crimes of another. You can't excuse the policies of someone you voted for and criticize someone you opposed for policies which are exactly the same. While there may be different standards of what is right and wrong, whatever standards you choose to accept have to be applied uniformly. If you don't follow that rule and instead live by a subjective double standard which applies one set of rules to those you like and another to those you dislike, then you should expect rational people to dismiss your political opinions as worthless and brand you a hypocrite.

So please, the next time I criticize Obama or your favorite terrorists or Hugo Chavez, please keep in mind that the things they do should be judged on their own flaws and merits. Everyone is responsible for their own actions and nothing done by someone else excuses or justifies them.

               Eleanor Roosevelt was correct when she stated that with freedom comes responsibility.  The inverse is also true—with responsibility comes freedom.  As the individuals of a population become more responsible for themselves and their society, there is less need for government intervention.  In the extreme, a government becomes almost superfluous in an ideal society because the individuals comprising the ideal society would equitably satisfy societal needs without a government.  We do not live in an ideal world, yet, we must strive towards the ideal if we are to progress.

Striving to this ideal requires promotion of personal responsibility, which will justify our calls for increased liberty.  Too often, the Republican Party has focused myopically on personal economic liberty without promoting the notion of responsibility, responsibility for self and responsibility for others.  Calls for lower taxes and less government made without calls for voluntary individual sacrifice to help others ring shallow, and the government may be right to intervene if the talented or wealthy do not meet the needs of, and provide opportunity to, the untalented or poor.

The Republican Party can regain the faith of the American population if it becomes the voice of personal responsibility.  Government leaders can promote responsibility by passing good laws, balancing budgets and exhibiting strong leadership. 

The most obvious, although not always the most effective, means for elected leaders to promote personal responsibility is to pass laws that do so.  An example of a law that promotes responsibility is the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.  This Act requires insolvent but high-income earning debtors to repay their debts in a structured reorganized plan rather than simply permitting them to eliminate their debts, and it requires all debtors to attend financial education classes.  This Act promotes responsibility because it imposes discipline and education on high-income earners who seek to benefit from government modification of the debtor/creditor relationship.  I have not seen empirical data, but I suspect that the discipline and education gleaned by debtors as a result of the Act produces debtors who are less likely than pre-Act debtors to irresponsibly incur debt after completing the bankruptcy.  This is a step towards realizing personal financial responsibility in our society, and a society closer to personal financial responsibility is a society less in need of government intervention.  The path to liberty is paved with personal responsibility. 

The most significant failure of the Republican Party at the federal level in the last decade is the running up of record budget deficits.  The GOP was unable to credibly preach personal responsibility and liberty as we exhibited fiscal irresponsibility and threatened our national freedom to creditors (e.g. our Nation’s need to borrow several hundred billions this year probably impairs our ability to freely criticize China’s poor record on human rights).  Furthermore, it is no coincidence that a government unable to exhibit financial responsibly produced the populace that was unable to demonstrate financial responsibility, leading us to the current financial crisis.  As America now lurches towards collectivism, it is apparent the path to servitude is paved with irresponsibility.

            Passing laws and balancing budgets are not the only means by which Republican Party leaders must promote responsibility.  Too often, elected officials focus exclusively on their affairs in Washington D.C., and forget that they are also societal leaders.  A leader in a free society should encourage his or her constituents, without compulsion of the law, to take personal responsibility for themselves and for their society, so that government need not.  For example, I envision GOP leaders using their power and prestige to recruit volunteers and donors to charity and education programs.  Further, I think the politics of liberty require Republican Party leaders to recruit volunteers to enter and assist those sub-communities that languish in the erroneous belief that submission to government is the path to freedom and prosperity.  Republicans will be the “Party of Yes” when we enter these communities and invite and guide our brethren into the broader society and comfort of personal responsibility.  Republicans will benefit politically when we articulate and demonstrate that individuals are more capable than government of equitably meeting the needs of our society.  The Republican Party will languish, however, if we simply preach liberty and less government without exhibiting leadership on the issue of personal responsibility.