If the Republican Party does intend to incorporate the ideologies promoted last week by former Secretary of State Colin Powell, it should first change its mascot from an elephant to a horse, specifically of the Trojan variety. Despite the seemingly impressive credentials that Powell proudly touted in defense of his "Republican" authenticity, his singular purpose has been to find the most advantageous strategic position from which to undermine the conservative agenda. And that place is within the Republican Party.
Powell, after all, was a four-star general, and as such is an expert in effective strategizing. But military prowess does not automatically equate to universally sound judgment or worthiness of character, as history's long string of good generals who became horrible rulers clearly proves. Colin Powell did well in the military, where the ultimate right/wrong decisions were made above his level, and his purpose was simply to competently implement such orders. Since that time however, association with him has consistently proven to be a liability to those on the right who were foolish enough to seek any benefit from him.
Lately, he has been on a tirade, excoriating any members of the Republican Party who have the audacity to hope that the party might actually stand for something. From Powell's perspective, "victory" for the party means abandoning anything that might cause discomfort to "moderates" (read: closet liberals) like himself. Or, in what he no doubt believes is a cunning effort to advance his own cause, he suggests that the party should include both high and low standards, knowing full well that if it attempts to do so, only the low standards (which are his) will prevail.
The particular targets of Powell's political attacks have been former Vice-President Dick Cheney and radio colossus Rush Limbaugh. Powell castigates them for their adherence to a "narrow" conservative party philosophy that, by definition, excludes Democrats. And he is not alone among prominent public figures that claim loyalty to the Republicans while sharing such sentiments. He has lately been joined by former Pennsylvania Governor and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Obviously, Powell has a strategy or more accurately, is a key element of somebody's strategy. And with Ridge's participation, the pieces are beginning to fit.
Barack Obama's immersion in America's leftist subculture included a major influence from Saul Alinsky, an avowed leftist who was famous for his book "Rules for Radicals." In it Alinksy explained how to subvert and eventually overthrow a culture through coercion, intimidation, and subterfuge. A cornerstone of this methodology was to "isolate" opposition leaders from their base of support. Once this was accomplished, a new order could be more easily implemented; espousing any manner of ideology at first, but ultimately leading down the desired course of the subversives.
For this ploy to work, Alinsky understood that such marginalization of an individual or individuals would require the cooperation of "useful idiots" among the targeted organization, who would be motivated either by treachery or cowardice. The liberal Democrats have found and abundance of both qualities in Powell and Ridge respectively.
While Colin Powell has increasingly shown an ultimate loyalty to the Democrats, culminating in his precisely timed endorsement of Barack Obama just prior to last fall's presidential election, Ridge reflects the flawed thinking of Beltway insiders who have been so thoroughly shell-shocked ever since the 2006 elections that they are willing to accept the advice of their political adversaries on the nightly news. Of course the GOP lost ground in the last two elections because it has been "too conservative." Everyone says so.
Thus, as Barack Obama continues to dismantle real America, Powell, Ridge, and their kind have little to say in opposition to the outrage. Apparently, the fate of the country does not warrant any "divisive" or "inflammatory" language. In contrast, the disapproving words of Cheney and Limbaugh, or their willingness to publicly declare who is and who is not on which side of the line, indeed represents a transgression that needs to be confronted in the harshest of terms.
The end game, in accordance with Alinsky's stratagem, will be to eventually convince GOP insiders to blame the conservative voices of Cheney and Limbaugh for any discord within the Republican Party, followed by an assumption of the "moral high ground" that insists everyone put aside their differences and work towards party "unity." This means of course that the voices of conservatism must be silenced. Amazingly, the supposed neutral ground and commonality of ideas will henceforth completely accommodate the agenda of the current administration.
This particular liberal assault on the very heart of the GOP has been underway for months, and it would therefore be excessive to presume that the liberals accurately calculated that these events would unfold just as Obama announced his radical choice of Sonia Sotomayor to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, the timing could not be more optimal for Obama and the liberal Democrats. With the very fate of the Constitution hanging in the balance, of course the only proper response of the Republican Party is to yield to the cheesy politics of race and gender tokenism (Sotomayor is a woman of Hispanic descent) and pursue a policy of "bipartisanship" and "inclusion."
As has frequently been the case ever since 2006, the Republican Party has yet another grand opportunity to stand firm in its convictions, and by so doing reveal in stark clarity how dangerous and un-American is the agenda of Obama and the Democrats. If Republicans remain true to their party's professed principles, this outlandish nomination should be assessed strictly in terms of a battle for the integrity of the Constitution and the critical need to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
By resolutely warning of the potential for damage to constitutional law, and to America as we know it, at the hands of such an activist jurist, Democrats could find themselves on the defensive and even some among their ranks would be reluctant to support her confirmation. Though her ultimate defeat is highly unlikely, a controversy of this magnitude could prove to be politically costly for Obama.
Conversely, if the moral and philosophical clarity of Cheney and Limbaugh can be successfully relegated to the backwoods of "extremism," in deference to some ostensibly neutral "middle ground," Republican Senators might believe they can evade criticism by voicing a few insipid platitudes of "concern" over Sotomayor's radicalism, while ultimately voting to confirm her. In so doing, they would once again be falling into the liberal/Democrat trap of allowing liberalism to advance with their help and participation, thus empowering their enemies while alienating the conservative base, which would amount to a "win/win" for Democrats. It is this very outcome on which Obama is betting everything.
Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming. He has been active in local and state politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets products exclusively made in America. His contact information and archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com
Copyright ©2009 Christopher G. Adamo