Watching the Grammy’s last night, I was reminded of a pragmatic reality as a singer. Every musician has their strengths and weaknesses. If Coldplay’s Chris Martin wore a vintage-inspired dress with luscious curls, belting ‘Rolling in the Deep’, our collective sensibilities would be insulted by his judgement, and no one would download a Coldplay single for 10 years. As humans, we can’t be everything to everybody all of the time. Looking for an individual who embodies our every fancy; or trying to be that individual, will surely lead to disappointment.
In a strange way, this is precisely why I am a conservative: best chance of success is accepting pragmatic reality. Adam Smith acknowledged that the nature of an opportunist is selfishness, making the free-market system the most effective in guiding human behavior for utilitarian purpose. This principle translates into government, as well. This is why our founders wrote the most inspired document in all of civilization, short of scripture, to ensure a pragmatic and freedom-loving approach is protected for future generations. This is why the founders wrote the 10th amendment, limited government authority and acknowledged our unalienable rights, endowed by a creator. They saw the most effective system to guide human behavior for utilitarian purpose was smaller government. They believed pragmatic systems that didn’t take for granted human flaws must ‘rule’ the day.
In 2008, the electorate gave us the gift of Utopian ideology. It sounded so pure and innocent. In an economic catastrophe and after almost a decade of war, the American people wanted to find childlike protection from reality’s storms. We have witnessed how foolish ideological dogmas can destroy the freedom of our people and suffocate the uniquely American frontier spirit. On the morning of an economic catastrophe, Obama was focused on his health care law. Instead of the dignity of a job, our president decided we needed to be protected and cared for. This was an affront to the American tradition that kindled a flame and led to a moratorium on Obama’s ‘audacity’ in 2010. And with every policy this administration foists upon the backs of ingenuity, and our collective moral conscience, the fire grows bigger.
Now I need to tie this into the primary season and the conflicting dialogue within our conservative ranks. How do we put this fire out? Do we want a dutiful boy scout who stands ready and prepared; or do we want more blowhard politicians stoking the flames?
Watching CPAC speeches and following many a tweet, it became clear to me: we have too many in our party expecting every conservative voice to blow us away with their ideology like Adele blew away the Grammy’s with her distinctive voice. Figures like Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin, Andrew Breitbart and Glenn Beck have meaningful voices but cannot fill every role our challenges demand. They can’t do book tours, radio shows, research of the left-stream media and run for office effectively. Which leads me to question the anti-Mitt rhetoric:
Why do we want the boy scout to prove he can put out a fire by indulging us with theatrical performances about who started the fire, and how the villain got away!?
Readiness for the real challenges we face takes something other than a well-crafted speech, and flawless performances on the stump. What we should be looking for is pragmatic preparedness. Who is ready? We shouldn’t be asking ourselves who can sing the right tune in the microphone. We should be looking for a pattern of effective leadership and results because the unemployed Americans struggling to see light at the end of the tunnel cannot afford to lose this election; cannot afford to be picky and dogmatic; and more importantly, don’t have access to cameras and syndicated bully pulpits to shout out the obvious choice:
It’s Mitt Romney, stupid.