Bryan Hyde is a news commentator and co-host of the Perspectives morning show on Fox News 1450 AM 93.1 FM. The opinions stated in this article are his and not those of St. George News.
OPINION – Ever notice how the number of people waiting in line to hear comfortable lies is always much greater than the number of folks lining up to hear uncomfortable truths?
Perhaps it’s just a defense mechanism that kicks in when our views are challenged, but too often our attachment to our beliefs trumps our commitment to truth. This phenomenon is especially common during an election cycle.
If, for example, someone were to suggest that a Mitt Romney presidency could conceivably produce a greater threat to our remaining freedoms than would be found during four more years of President Obama, how would you react?
Would you immediately switch into kill-the-messenger mode? Would you experience a flash of anger and step forward to defend your point of view? Would you think, “I’ve never considered that before” and ask clarifying questions? Would you simply roll over and go back to sleep?
Those who tend to default to kill-the-messenger mode may wish to stop reading at this point. Truth-seekers who aren’t as threatened by a differing point of view are invited to read on.
There’s no shortage of American conservatives who rightly view Barack Obama’s socialist policies and power grabs as incompatible with liberty and prosperity. They are galvanized and more than willing to stand up for smaller government and greater personal freedom when a Democratic president is in office. But too many of those same individuals have a peculiar blind spot that excuses and even cheers the abuse of federal power when it’s being done by a Republican, in the name of national security.
Conservatives tend to bristle at this suggestion, but when they abandon their principles in order to wield the force of the state to achieve their goals, they’re morally no different than their socialist counterparts who also abuse the state’s power as the means to their ends.
The uncomfortable truth that few are willing to acknowledge is that the actual differences between the presumptive presidential candidates are negligible. Obama and Romney are both enthusiastic proponents of unlimited federal power. They only differ, in minor degrees, on how they wish to use that power.
They both support the U.S. government’s claim to the power to detain indefinitely or assassinate at its whim, anyone, anytime, anywhere, without due process. Both support domestic spying and an aggressive foreign policy based upon military interventionism and preemptive war in order to project American influence around the globe. Both support centrally planned solutions to health care and a continuation of deficit spending. Each of these policies requires a corresponding abandonment of key principles of good government such as fiscal responsibility, moral foreign policy and the protection of inalienable rights.
Neither of these candidates poses any type of credible threat to the status quo, and that is why we are being told that they are our only legitimate choices come November.
The greatest danger of a Romney presidency is that the same conservatives who are currently decrying Obama’s abuses of power will almost certainly change their tune—just like they did under George W. Bush, when a Republican president is abusing those same powers.
Both parties have clearly shown by their actions that they are equally committed to consolidating governmental power, spending without limit, and extending the state’s control over the citizenry at the expense of individual liberty. Right now the American voter is being presented with a classic false dilemma regarding their choice for president. This is a fallacy of reasoning that presents us with an artificially limited number of options when, in reality, other reasonable options exist.
The political-media establishment has once again carefully screened and sidelined those candidates whose principles are based in limited government, individual liberty, and free market capitalism. And once again, the partisan craving for power is blinding voters to the dangerous lack of principle in those candidates promoted by those who set the boundaries of acceptable opinion.
Many individuals recognize, to some degree, just how hostile both major parties have been to liberty. But it’s sad how many will nonetheless justify holding their noses to vote for someone who they hope will make the ongoing evisceration of liberty a bit more gentle.
They fail to recognize that by supporting false choices, they lend legitimacy to a rigged system that, while giving them a sense of participation, still carefully denies them any possibility of affecting actual change.
email: [email protected]
twitter: @youcancallmebry
Copyright 2012 St. George News.
Well said Bryan. We need viable alternatives…where are they???
I agree with most of what you said…..except at the very beginning. These days it seems more people are lining up to hear the uncomfortable truths rather than the lies. Ron Paul has been speaking to crowds of thousands everywhere he goes. Romney, however, can’t seem to get more than a few listeners together at any one time. Seems like a lot of people are voting for Romney with either no real understanding, no enthusiasm, or both. Either way, whoever votes for Romney is voting for the status quo.
Well said. I agree with all that you’ve said, and with Kim….Ron Paul is the only candidate that deserves our votes.
Ron Paul has been the only viable alternative since 2006.
Well put Bryan. Conservatives tend to fall asleep when “their guy” is in. The former administration laid the path open for Obama. There is too much of an allegiance to the party and too little allegiance to the Republic and our Constitution. Picking and choosing what laws of our land can be ignored leaves no high ground when the next election rolls around. I don’t know much that Romney can win in an intellectually honest debate.
You make a valid point about the abuses of power by both parties; but you do voters a great disservice in focusing on a few similarities between Obama and Romney. The differences between these two ar stark and numerous. Romney is no Marxist, to begin with, and Romney loves and respects the constitution–Obama does not, and even says so. You would do voters far more good by pointing out the many differences between these two, than attempting to paint them the same color because of a few similarities.
There is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. The only difference is now the radical leftists have taken over the Democrats. I am a Republican and refuse to vote for any candicate who will not address Barry Obama or whatever his name is the Birth Certificate Fraud, suspicious SSA #, suspicious draft registration and so much more not to mention his first Executie Order to seal his records.
It is apparent that our media has been taken over so they are quite on these important issues. Romney will be just like McCain and “take the fall” this November.