Power vs. Principle

This election is the Battle Royale  of Power verses Principal.

When someone campaigns within a political party for the nomination, one presumes that that person supports the principles of their party. Not only that, they pledge to support the nominee.

So when Charlie Crist and Lisa Murkowski abandon their party’s nominee, they prove the following about themselves:

• they are more interested in their own power than their loyalty to their party
• they are willing to break their pledge to support the nominee
• they are willing to turn their past words into lies
• they are willing to take money from their party under false pretenses

As is well pointed out in many of the current political exposes, the modus operandi of Obama and the left is to “say anything”, “make any promise”, “talk the talk”, only as a means to gain power. After gaining power, the mode is to then do whatever they please. And show their true disdain for the electorate. An especially compelling indictment is Crimes Against Liberty: An Indictment of President Barack Obamaby David Limbaugh.

As I have pointed out before, it is a liberal characteristic to have power as the ultimate motive, as every social and economic problem is seen as an excuse to expand the size and power of government. To never let any crisis “go to waste” (Rahm Emanuel). It appears that the principle applies to these rogues as well, as they show their true colors: power over principle.

It is absolutely intrinsic to the liberal viewpoint: big government, big control, amalgamation of power, interest groups, labor unions, and eventually taken to the extreme – totalitarianism. So it is completely consistent with the liberal movement and methods. Statements of principal are only words with no meaning, except as tools used to deceive and gain power.

On the other hand, the Tea Party rebellion against all of these power grabs has intrinsically the opposite characteristics: individual freedom and individual responsibility, limited government, and low taxes.