We need to be saved from John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.
According to LogicallyFallacious.com, a “false dilemma,” or “bifurcation” is a logical fallacy that occurs “when only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists between two extremes. False dilemmas are usually characterized by ‘either this or that’ language, but can also be characterized by omissions of choices.” We’ll get back to this later.
The Republican Party has reached a tipping point; the schism within the Party has been drawn so starkly over the last four years that it has essentially rendered it two parts under the same name. On one side, you have the constitutional conservatives, who began to emerge with real force in 2010, when the Republicans swept the House of Representatives in the mid-terms. This was a reaction to the Obama White House, which acted in collusion with the Democrats in Congress to advance a distinct agenda which could not have been accomplished were there conservatives in the majority. On the other side, you have what has come to be called “the establishment.” These are members of the Republican Party who are content to cultivate the status quo. What this means is that these members don’t care so much about the founding principles upon which our representative republic was built, rather they are content to go-along-to-get-along–essentially acquiescing to the demands of the Democrats without ever getting anything in return. This has been called “compromise,” and “middle ground,” but it is nothing of the sort.
These establishment members are comfortable in their jobs for which there are no term limits. It is clear that they do not have the interests of the people at heart, rather, they simply want to keep things moving along, whether or not that means an increasingly oppressive, and ever encroaching federal government.
Over the last four years, in reaction to this “compromise” agenda on the right, conservatives have emerged like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Louie Gohmert. These men, and women–who were elected based on their pledges to act in accordance with the constitution—have done their best to keep their promises to their constituents. This has necessarily included disruptive behavior designed to upend the status quo, and bring attention to important matters, such as the negative effects of Obamacare, and the lies that were told in order to get it passed (see: Ted Cruz’s filibuster).
As George Orwell said, in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. These Republicans—otherwise known as actual conservatives—are taking what seem like revolutionary steps to restore what has been stripped away by the likes of the Democrats, and the establishment Republicans. One of the most odious members of the elite political class is newly appointed Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. He has a nasty track record of saying one thing, then doing another, all under the guise of “compromise.” In his latest interview, he made a rather dubious claim. According to Breitbart, on Sunday’s State of The Union on CNN, McConnell said the following to Dana Bash:
“The first two years he had huge majorities in the House and Senate. The last four years they controlled the Senate. They guaranteed he never got anything he didn’t like. Now he needs to talk to us and that’s good. When American people elect a divided government they’re not saying they don’t want anything done. They are saying they want things done in the political center, things that both sides can agree on. I’m not opposed to negotiating with the administration…So I don’t object to negotiating with him. I’ve done it in the past.”
Doesn’t that sound kind of nice? So agreeable. But what’s happened here is that McConnell has made a fallacious statement. He claims that the November 4th election wasn’t a moratorium on Democratic policy, but a plea for compromise. He further implies that there are only two interpretations behind the election of a divided government: the American people either want nothing accomplished, or they want “compromise,” they want things done “in the political center.” What McConnell rather conveniently leaves out is a third option: voters are sick of what’s been going on, and want a change. What is the change being demanded? That depends. One must first look at who was elected, and upon what promises.
This election cycle, conservative Republicans were overwhelmingly elected to the House, and Senate. These conservatives campaigned on–gasp–constitutionally conservative principles. Dave Brat slayed establishment Republican Eric Cantor in the primary because he campaigned relentlessly on amnesty. Amnesty, and ObamaCare were features of this election, much like how the Iraq war was the nearly singular feature of the 2006 mid-terms in which Democrats made their sweep. Amnesty helped nearly every conservative candidate vault in the polls, even in solidly blue states. Voters vote on issues, not happy thoughts. They saw in the Democrats, and establishment Republicans a push toward amnesty for illegal immigrants, and they pushed back.
So no, voters are not looking for things to be done “in the political center”—that’s a misinterpretation of the data. There’s a reason our system of government has evolved into two main parties: the parties represent two very distinct ideological streams, ones which are starkly different in almost every way. The parties coalesced around ideologies, which is why they remain consistent within themselves. If one is conservative on one issue, one is generally conservative on all, or most issues. Likewise with liberalism. That is because the stream of ideological thought brings one to a consistent point, a nucleus which holds all other principles together. There are other parties, but they are minute. This is because ideology is a consistent, and encompassing thing, and the ideologies of the smaller parties are arranged around smaller schools of thought which represent many fewer people.
When voters overwhelmingly rejected Obama’s policy–as even he himself said in a brief moment of non-lying–they did not ask for the middle of the road, they asked for conservatism. By its nature, it was not an encompassing election. The President was not up for election, and as such, one cannot argue that Americans wanted a divided government, they simply got one. Americans voted on the issues about which they felt passionate, and those votes elected House, and Senate members. The members elected were overwhelmingly ardently conservative. That is enough to show that conservatism won, not “compromise.” Whether or not the elected conservatives can deliver is another question entirely.
On Tuesday, Speaker John Boehner is up for re-appointment to his position. As of today, there have been four house members who have emerged to say that they will not vote for Boehner. Boehner, the House equivalent to McConnell, is a go-along-to-get-along Republican, a part of the good old boys club who doesn’t much care for constitutionality. Like McConnell, he has argued for “compromise” in the face of overwhelming evidence that what the American people want is change. He helped pass the CRomnibus bill, which will fund Obama’s executive amnesty. He needs to go. I urge you to call your Congressional representative, and demand they vote against Boehner for speaker. Melt the phone lines.
If we continue to live with the likes of Boehner and McConnell, we might as well not have even voted. You have two days to make a difference.