The schism within the party should seem a remarkable thing if one was to examine what ‘extremism’ truly is. Is there a defined line in the sand, or a point in which an accumulation of thoughts and philosophy render one susceptible to branding with a scarlet “E”? And like much of the politics playing out across the US, Michigan has developed what appears to be a Left-Right paradigm within a party presented as being on the right side of the political spectrum as long as can be remembered.
That, OR the window of tolerance for views once held as standards has been closed.
Extremism is subjective. It is a moving target. And it is a relative condition that exists ONLY from the perspective of those who would label one with such hyperbole. This is unarguable. If someone were to examine another person’s political views and agree with them, they would not likely make the claim that they too, are ‘extreme.’ Their philosophical centering at-rest is the foundation on which their opinions are formed, decisions are made, and with politics, support and votes are rendered.
The theme of this election cycle, and one that eagerly meets the ravenous delight of the mass media and left side punditry, is that there is a breakdown within the Republican party. That even with the wholesale failure of Democrat policies repudiating THEIR current philosophies, Republicans could lose ground. And it might be true.
And not because the Republican platform and its central tenets are wrong, but rather because there are a number of ‘extremists’ within the party who don’t play along with the ‘operating class’ so well. Because extreme conservatives within the party insist on holding to the published standards of an institution that benefited greatly from their input for substantial gains only 4 years earlier.
As examples, the window of tolerance for such issues and rights such as Life, Liberty, and Happiness (Precepts to our US constitution) seemingly smaller in each passing year.
When elected Republicans waver on issues protecting the unborn, they cede the argument to those who call murder a choice; then distance themselves from those who are steadfast defenders. When conservatives in the past election cycle (2012) were being browbeaten by the media and the left over this issue, there was no defense or clarification made by any significant number of Republicans. They feared that they too would be castigated by soy ink.
When Republican apparatus sits idle during one of the greatest philosophical battles of our time, refusing to vigorously defend the plank of Marriage as a covenant of God, and to be between a man and a woman, we should be concerned. Not only does the outcome foretell great losses in the freedom to associate, but it advances adult lifestyle choices previously classified as a mental disorder as ‘normal.’ Servitude is a word most fitting when one is forced to actively engage in any activity they disagree with.
When Republicans endorse confiscatory tax policies and willingly engage in social or corporate welfare growth, are they protecting private ownership rights? Is one’s happiness more important than that of another?
And is it extreme to comment on such basic underpinnings of our nation with a critical eye toward maintaining the rights that were identified as self evident, and codified in our constitution?
Perspective is truly the key to whether one views unapologetic conservatives as extreme. When a Republican pretends support for certain standards, but then refuses to defend them; or even worse, in some cases undercuts the real defenders as extremists, where does that place them? Many might say that to gain a foot, you have to give an inch. They fear the scorn of the very people who will take that inch gleefully, and come back for more to infinity.
As constitutional conservatives, we have a different name for those.
We call them cowards.