With Huckabee out of the race, and Donald Trump announcing his decision not to run on May 16, it seemed that Mitt Romney had a good chance of becoming the Republican nominee in 2012. But his Massachusetts healthcare program is turning out to be a real albatross around his neck. He has vowed to repeal Obamacare, but he also wants to replace it with a Romneycare of his own. That’s not what the Tea Party wants.
The real problem with Romney is that he is simply not a Tea Party conservative, he’s a traditional Republican conservative, the kind who will never repeal a liberal program. He will only try to make it better. For example, could you imagine Romney calling for the dismantling of the Department of Education? Like George Bush, he’ll try to make it more effective by giving it more money. That’s what Republicans have always done in the past.
But that’s not the kind of Republican we will need in 2012 if we are to reverse the socialist direction this country has been going in since the days of Lyndon Johnson and his Great Society expansion of the federal government. None of those programs enacted by Johnson’s administration have been repealed by any Republican president who came after him. Reagan tried to get rid of the Department of Education created by Jimmy Carter but was sabotaged by Republicans in his own administration.
Republican is not synonymous with conservative. The Republican Party has stood for the Status Quo. In the Hegelian dialectic, it is the antithesis of the Democrats’ thesis. And it’s been that way since the days of Woodrow Wilson, who started us on the road to socialism. And so what we have had since then is a Hegelian dialectic process in which our two major parties play the roles of thesis and antithesis leading to a new synthesis which will ultimately lead toward socialism. That’s what Marx’s dialectical materialism is all about.
In other words, Romney, like his father, is a Status Quo Republican, willing to play the antithesis role in conformity with the dialectical process. For example, Romney is now telling audiences that he can create a better and more effective health plan than Obama’s. But the Tea Party movement does not intend to play the dialectical game with the Democrats. Tea Partiers want to repeal and dismantle the liberal programs that have led us to the brink of socialism. That is why they are not interested in nominating your usual Status Quo Republican for the presidency, a politician who believes he can improve a liberal program.
That is what is revolutionary about the Tea Party movement: it intends to derail the dialectical process that has led us to the present crisis. And that is why Status-Quo Republicans hate such Tea Partiers as Sarah Palin.
Also, the dialectical method is in direct opposition to Biblical principles, which are the underlining principles of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. According to the Declaration the purpose of government is to secure the unalienable rights of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, rights derived from God, not the state. You cannot compromise on those principles without destroying what America is all about.
According to the Bible, certain moral principles are absolute and cannot be compromised. But the dialectical method holds that everything is subject to compromise.
Wikipedia describes the Dialectic as “a method of argument for resolving disagreement.” In other words, it was a process, not a debate. The German philosopher Hegel considered the whole of human history to be one tremendous dialectic in which human progress evolved. The thesis confronted the antithesis which through compromise became the synthesis, or the new thesis. The process was supposed to end when mankind reached some sort of utopia.
The word dialectic originated in Ancient Greece and was made popular by Plato in the Socratic dialogues. The dialectic is dialogue between two or more people holding different views about a subject, who wish to establish the truth of the matter by dialogue, with arguments based on reason. The Dialectic is not a debate in which the debaters are committed to their points of view, and argue to win the debate. In order to be a good dialectician you have to be able to argue both sides of a debate convincingly.
In the mid-nineteenth century, Hegelian dialectics became popular among American academics and was used by them to transform the American government from a protector of God-given rights into some mystical super entity akin to God himself. Indeed, it was Hegel who called the state God on earth since it was the collective power of mankind, the highest manifestation of the world-soul on earth.
Thus, most Americans are quite confused when it comes to our philosophy of government. Is our federal government like Hegel’s Prussian state, a godlike entity that rules over us, or is it what the Declaration of Independence says it is? The Tea Party movement has made it its job to educate Americans about the true nature of the American system of government. It is not rule by a Congress with two parties engaged in a dialectical process of moving us inch-by-inch toward utopian socialism. The federal government is simply the protector of our God-given rights. Until the majority of Americans understand that, we shall have endless confusion in Washington.
