Paul Ryan the GOP Future

Daren Jonescu took the Republican establishment to task on July 9, 2012 in an article at the American Thinker entitled The Gathering Storm Within the GOP. After debunking the Cosa Notra like claim of "Republican Establishment? What Republican Establishment? There's no such thing," Jonescu then explains why the Republicans constantly ignore Constitutional Conservatives and Libertarians. I have called our Republican friends in Congress "gutless," but Jonescu uses the more temperate description of "milquetoast" They want to maintain the perks of office, and enjoy the invitations to parties, the access to media, and so forth that being one of the in-crowd brings, and so they mostly go along to get along.

Constitutional Conservatives and Libertarians unfortunately don't really have anywhere else to go. We can either vote for the Republican, and hope they won't betray us too badly, or not vote at all. Either way, we often seem to have no one representing our point of view. As for voting for the other party, try receiving a letter from your Congressman that, after proper translating reads "When I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you! Until then, sit down and shut up!" Further, it is Jonescu's opinion that our current situation is so dire that we simply do not have the time to slowly build a third party alternative and let the GOP simply rot away. We must to something now:

Somehow, the current establishment must either accept its failure and seek to make amends through radical change, or be pulled off that hill atop which it has too long presided. What is needed, and immediately, is a new Republican establishment, one comprising people who value George Washington over Washington, D.C., individual liberty over party privilege, and the Framers' conception of America over their own all-too-clever stratagems for an incremental surrender masked as "conservatism." In short, America needs a Republican Party establishment that values the Constitution over cocktail parties.

It took me a little longer warm up to Paul Ryan and to hop onto the Ryan bandwagon, but after hearing an interview with Paul Ryan by Glenn Beck yesterday, I am a believer. Ryan hit all the notes of a true Constitutional Conservative, a believer in the rule of laws over men, a believer in Natural Rights theory, and importantly, is someone who understands the nature of Progressivism, and takes the fight to them. Moreover, it says something about Mitt Romney that he picked a Paul Ryan to be his running mate.

As before, on July 9, I find myself in agreement with Daren Jonescu's piece in the American Thinker yesterday entitled Paul Ryan Naysayers: Whom Were They Hoping For?

The GOP has so damaged its reputation with conservatives that even a rare reasonable decision is met with a measure of cynicism from some quarters. Beneath the inevitable immediate wave of enthusiasm for the choice of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's running mate, one also notices a faction of naysayers, one likely to grow as the initial excitement dies down: constitutionalists who see the Ryan selection as just the same old, same old from the Republican Party establishment. The very fact that the establishment approves of someone is now regarded by many as prima facie grounds for suspicion. Thus it is that the choice of Ryan is garnering extremely cautious kudos from some conservatives, and a resounding "So what?" from others.

Jonescu then goes on to articulate reasons for cautious optimism that this presidency will at least start the undoing of 100 years of progressivism. That Progressivism is on the verge of overwhelming our Constitutional Republic. He then asks:

But my question to those who, as I am, are instinctively inclined to distrust the GOP establishment's decisions is this: whom were you hoping for? Ryan has a good congressional record, and not merely as a principled conservative, but also as a man capable of dragging important and difficult ideas through the legislative process. He has exposed himself in the name of conservative principle with the kind of substantive entitlement reform proposals that constitutionalists always hope someone will make in earnest. He is a devotee of Hayek and Friedman and therefore understands that economic freedom is inseparable from individual liberty in general, and cannot be curtailed without the loss of constitutionally-protected rights. Could anyone have expected more of Romney's VP choice?

I have long suspected that there are powerful people behind the scenes manipulating our choices. I first suspected that when Dole ran as the Republican standard bearer. Dole was a decent enough person, but he wasn't a conservative. McCain cemented my view, since he is someone who has made a career out of publically slapping Conservatives across the face. Someone other than the people I knew was selecting our candidate. When Romney became the last man or woman standing, it only fed my fears that Republican Party was paving the way for four more years of disasterous Progressivism. Paul Ryan looks to be a stroke of genius. I hope to be proven correct.