Liberty or Tyranny in 2010: Support the Rightward, Most Viable Candidate

Between February 27, 2009, and today we learned something.

We learned that this administration is bent on subverting republican government. Article IV of the Constitution — and its guarantee of a republican form of government — means nothing to Obama, the Congressional majority, and Obama’s Supreme Court appointees. Obama rules by decree. Elena Kagan’s okay with banning books.

November 2 is our last chance to stop the free fall into tyranny.

In many states, including my home state of Missouri, passions rage in advance of the August 3 primary. I understand. To a degree, I helped enflame those passions by launching a tea party in February of last year. But that was before we fully understood what’s going on in Washington–before we realized that Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats (not to mention Woody Allen and Ed Schultz) believe in tyranny.

On August 3 and November 2, I will follow the advice of the wisest man I every met, William F. Buckley Jr. Buckley’s rule for picking a candidate was simple: “Always support the rightward-most, viable candidate.” I would ask the same of everyone whose advanced the cause of liberty in the past seventeen months or longer.

Some good, sincere people want to tear down candidates they believe are less than ideal. In some election years, I’m inclined to do the same. But not this year. Not with what we know.

In 2010, we have a choice between liberty and tyranny. The candidates of one party will vote with the President on every issue on which he demands their loyalty. We saw this in healthcare. We saw it in finance “reform.” We saw it on stimulus. We saw it on budget reconciliation. The President’s party would vote for human extinction if Obama asked them to.

In such a perverted environment, I believe we have a duty to stop the descent into tyranny, even if that means supporting a candidate who falls short of our ideal. To tear down the rightward-most, viable candidate is to tear down the last the defense against tyranny. If that’s why we started the Tea Party movement, then I wish it had been still-born.

Put another way, between Hamilton and Jefferson, I’d choose Jefferson. But I wouldn’t destroy one to elect the other.