By Staff
Traditionally, the Republican Party has been the party of business.
Progress in business means progress in gross national product.
Progress in business means progress in jobs, finances and multiplication of everything that goes with an abundant and flourishing American life.
Traditionally, the Republican Party was the chief proponent of civil rights until Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
With a backbone of Southern states, the Democratic Party tended to deny an expansion of what are now called "human" rights.
On the other hand, the Republican Party was not a libertarian party.
Regulation was a reality with the Sherman Anti-trust Act.
The unleashing of business potential did not mean laissez faire.
The Republican Party frowned on the trampling of others' rights and substituted regulation for absolute license.
The party was a big tent with the only requirement for admission belief in America and the Constitution.
Were the Republicans a "conservative party?"
Only to the extent of maintaining what were rightfully the properties of individuals and businesses. It was not conservative in civil rights or the ability to do business.
The present "conservative" agenda advanced by a faction heralded by Ronald Reagan, and earlier, Barry Goldwater, includes advancing the rights of the unborn over those of the born.
Like Libertarians, it condemns all taxation without recognizing that taxation for necessary communal projects is not only necessary but also desirable.
These persons believe that sectarian education, prayer and other religious practices should not only be unrestricted but should be supported by the government in some way.
They worry more about the definition of marriage than the success of families.
Those principles are not part of the traditional role of government. They conflict with the views of others. They are in many respects negativism and not conservatism.
I asked Karl Rove at a recent Southwestern Michigan Economic Club meeting whether ignoring the views of others in this context was not exclusionary and wrong.
His answer, in essence was, "It wins elections, doesn't it?"
The answer is no, as shown by the last election.
Traditional methods of balancing the Republican ticket should have been used.
If a moderate had been selected instead of Sarah Palin, who, like John McCain is right-to-life, westerner and conservative, the managers of the Republican cause would have made the election much closer.
Susan Molinary, ex-congresswoman from New York, Christine Todd Whitman, twice a popular governor of New Jersey, or another so-called "liberal" Republican could have been selected and a balance would have been achieved and broader views represented.
Instead, Republicans who believe in traditional Republican principles are down the drain with Rove.