I’ve often argued that there is not a huge difference between the Democrat and Republican establishment in Washington D.C. Sure, the Democrats are driving the country toward a cliff faster, but the establishment Republicans have the vehicle pointed in the same direction (see Lisa Murkowski; see Romneycare), they’re just not pushing down on the accelerator quite as vigorously. We need to not only stop the advance toward the cliff, but reverse the direction. To accomplish this, the next president can’t come from the establishment of <span style=”font-style: italic;”>either party</span>.
It will take a true outsider who is not a product of Washington or the culture that has produced the folks who now inhabit Washington and have mismanaged the country into the mess we’re in. This will not be easy, as the current leaders in Washington feel they’re entitled to their positions of power despite the fact most of them aren’t capable of managing a snow-cone stand (no offense to those who are). <a href=”http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/holding_sarah_palin_to_her_pro.html”>Robert Eugene Simmons Jr.</a> has a piece in today’s American Thinker in which he characterizes the wretched individuals who consider themselves entitled to hold the levers of power as an aristocracy. Simmons also discusses the reality that such a mess as exists today can’t possibly be cleaned up by people of the same ilk as those who created it, and that there’s one leader on today’s scene uniquely endowed with the ability, experience, temperament, and charisma to reverse course and return America to its constitutional roots:
The brutal reality of America is that an aristocracy has developed in Washington against the wishes of the founders of this country. The Republican Party “insiders” are just as deep in the corruption and aristocratic thinking as the liberal elites. If anyone ever needed convincing of the deep disregard in which the aristocracy holds the serfs, the “insiders'” reaction to the Tea Party movement answered that question. In such an atmosphere of aristocratic minds, who else would be able to cut them down to size and remind them that they work for the people of America? Would Romney, with his own aristocratic flair and his own version of Obamacare, be willing to curtail the reach of the aristocrats into our lives? Would politician-turned-talk show host Huckabee be willing to rein in the very people who supported him in his political life? Sarah Palin is one of few politicians who have fearlessly taken on the establishment, both Democrat and Republican, with a consistent message about the enforcement of the constitution and the returning of government to the people.
However, the need to curtail the aristocracy isn’t the only issue that drives the need for President Palin. There are other lesser-known politicians who have taken on the establishment, such as Chris Christie. However, only Palin has shown the charisma and powerful speaking skills that can pack an auditorium to a sold-out crowd ten minutes after announcement. Unlike Obama, Palin is an old-style speaker, referring to her notes and adding in her own personal touches. She doesn’t usually need a teleprompter because she believes what she says. Most politicians, on the other hand, say what they feel is popular at the time; their speeches are carefully prepared by experts and preened to play to the latest polling data. Palin is a rare person in politics who speaks from the heart.
Mrs. Palin also has a unique trait that comes with few politicians of our time. That is the ability to see that the law is done regardless of her personal beliefs. Personally, I am an agnostic and libertarian, and when I see that she vetoed a law that denied benefits to same-sex couples in Alaska — not because of her religious beliefs, but because it was unconstitutional according to the Alaskan constitution — I stand up and cheer. A governor putting her beliefs first would approve the law and take their chances with the court, but Palin chose the novel path of obeying her oath of office. A president is a servant of the people charged with enforcing the constitution and protecting the people from all enemies of the USA. It is not for the president or a governor to “interpret” or otherwise circumvent the law. When asked about the veto, Palin responded that if people wish to change the constitution, then there is a process for that.
While Mrs. Palin is a deeply religious woman, she doesn’t try to press that on the rest of us. I can go to see her speak and leave comfortably feeling that my agnostic conservative friends are not being marginalized. This is something I can’t say about other major conservative public figures such as Glenn Beck. Although I have many beliefs in common with Beck, when he goes on the religious tangent, I am left feeling very uncomfortable in my agnosticism, as if those of us who are conservative agnostic or perhaps atheists are lacking in morality. On the other hand, Mrs. Palin manages to inject her religious beliefs into her speech without inspiring offense or implying moral superiority over those of other views.
Simmons has written an excellent piece. Read the whole thing.