Dr. Lawrence Gelman

EDINBURG, July 19 - The rise of the tea party is a symptom of the disenfranchisement of many and probably most Americans feel today towards their government.

Overt evidence is noted by abysmal voter turnout even in Presidential elections. There are 230 million potential voters in this country but in the 2008 Presidential election only about 130 million cast votes and I imagine even many of those who did cast their ballot were not happy with either candidate.

The 100 million non-voters approaches the combined tally garnered by Obama and McCain. Those not casting votes are usually looked upon as being disinterested, lazy or manifesting poor citizenship. Thus far, polls of those that do vote testing for knowledge of civics indicate a dismal wisdom. Most Americans are oblivious to the basics of the law of the land, the Constitution, or its founding's as delineated in the Declaration of Independence. A malady infecting most government officials as well, it is sad to say. Possibly those not voting have a better understanding and are disaffected. It would seem that potential voters truly believing we have a representative government would be more likely to vote than not. It would seem those distrustful of government would have less reason to vote especially if they are unable to discern any difference between opposing candidates.

Distressingly, it is the latter option which is probably correct for despite the emphatic denials of the Republican Party all evidence suggests its members hold a philosophical view very similar to "the big government is good" view that the Democrat Party holds so dear. No better illustration exists than the circumstances surrounding the recent passage of the so called “Finance Reform Bill." This Democrat sponsored bill giving the government sweeping control over the banking system required the addition of three non-Democrat member votes for passage and this was accomplished through the defection of, guess who, three Republicans. 

Putting the merits of the bill aside, easily done since there are none, as political strategy, for the Republicans, it lacks coherence. If the three Republicans considered the bill worthy then what does that say of the 38 Republican senators that voted against it? Are they just playing politics? On the other hand if the bill is unworthy of passage why had the 38 opposing Republicans been unable to persuade the three defectors?

If however, the intent of the Republicans was to increase government power while simultaneously appearing to be the party of limited government, then the outcome makes sense. Unfortunately, this habit of Republicans is nothing new. For instance, in 2002, when the Republicans submitted a bill to allow exploration for oil in a tiny portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an Alaskan wasteland, the Democrats were seven votes shy in their desire to keep the country hostage to Middle Eastern oil exporting nations. Seven Republicans "inexplicably” switched sides thus preventing the bill's passage, handing the victory to the Democrats and their environmentalist, throwback to the dark ages, allies. 

Then, in 2005, the Democrats were seven votes shy of defeating the attempt by then Senate leader Senator Bill Frist and the Republicans in overcoming the obstructionist behavior of Democrats in blocking judicial appointments of conservative judges, especially minorities, such as Miguel Estrada. Once again the exact number of Republican defectors required was achieved.

What is one to think? Now, it is true that Democrat bills attempting to achieve ever increasing power of the government have Democrat defectors, however, oddly enough; the number defecting is never enough to block passage.

Speculating over the Republicans rationale yields, regardless of motive, as political strategy and tactics it is a loser. The secret to success is to target the 100 million non-voters and the way to reach them, I believe, is for the Republicans to distinguish themselves clearly from big government Democrats by truly adhering to a principle of smaller government and increased individual liberty. The lines must be clearly drawn. Learn from history.

Franklin Roosevelt entered the Presidency in 1932 with the nation in a poor economic state. After four years of big government programs the country was worse off than ever. After ten years of failed big government policies it took a world war to finally extricate the country from the Depression. Ronald Reagan entered the Presidency with an economic situation so catastrophic that it was considered by economists, up to then, to be impossible for the nation was in the throes of a simultaneous double digit inflation rate and a double digit rate of interest.

Ronald Reagan's policies succeeded in taking a nation entering his presidency as second rate both economically and militarily but emerging  as one, by the end of his two terms, as the strongest economy and mightiest military ever witnessed in all of the history of the world; with the creation of 20 million new jobs. The basis of President Reagan's policies was that government regulations and programs were the problem and that by lessening government's onerous burdens the people would be allowed to manifest their genius and lead the nation to greatness. As a consequence we became the "shining city on a hill."

Barack Obama entered the Presidency with a negative economy, but one nowhere near as severe as that which presidents Roosevelt or Reagan faced. The consequence of Obama's policies of big government “solutions” have had catastrophic results with a continuing downward economic spiral and no end in sight. Will he lead us to a big war to salvage his presidency as did FDR?

Franklin Roosevelt and Barack Obama put their faith in big government solutions with disastrous results. Ronald Reagan put his faith in the people and we emerged the most successful nation in history.

Thank you, Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately we cannot offer the same thanks to the Republican Party for Ronald Reagan was a true revolutionary, an outsider derided and disdained equally by establishment Democrats and Republicans. Ronald Reagan was that rarest of individuals, without being required to do so he ceded power and authority away from himself, the political establishment and government and gave it to the people. Attacked and besmirched by the entrenched interests of big government, big business, big labor and big media he never-the-less captained the United States to become feared by our enemies, respected by our friends and beloved by a grateful nation.  

Dr. Lawrence Gelman is a Board Certified Anesthesiologist and critical care specialist practicing in McAllen for 25 years. He is one of the founders of Doctors Hospital at Renaissance in Edinburg and its Chief of Anesthesiology. He writes a weekly column for the Guardian.

Write Dr. Lawrence Gelman

Printable version