Republican candidate for Florida's senate seat, Marco Rubio, has signed Contract From America.Click here to view David A. Patten's full article.
Three cheers! One cheer for the principles of the Contract, one for Rubio's signature, and one never-ending and persistently annoying cheer to remind him and other politicians to stick to it this time around.
As the Tea Party movement has doggedly illustrated for over a year, many Americans are looking for candidates that honor freedom, look to restrict the growth of government, respect the Constitution, and will stop the spending. These Americans instinctively will look to the Republicans. Aren't Republicans for small government and freedom?
On paper, yes. In recent history, no.
Remember the Republican Party-generated Contract With America of 1994. It sounded great. Now remember the Republican Congress and Republican president that vastly increased the size of the federal government and deficit spending. (Click here for a look at big government, Republican style.) Defense spending cannot be blamed for the spike in spending; in addition to not vetoing a single bill in his first term, Bush pushed through Plan D Prescription drugs and No Child Left Behind, increasing the rate of spending at a dizzying rate.
Unforced errors, all.
So now we are approaching a crucial midterm election. For a voting public justifiably skeptical about Republicans' commitment to less spending and constitutional government, what is different about the Contract From America? What might convince the public there is a significant enough difference between the parties, and that that difference will not again be brushed aside by some new New Tone?
One word: From.
A significant reason to find hope in this contract is the fact that it is a Contract From America, starting at the grassroots level and presented to politicians seeking votes. Contract From America was written by We the People. It germinated from an increased knowledge and unrest among the people, born of an increasing awareness of the unconstitutional waywardness that threatens freedom and fiscal stability. Americans have woken up to the ways of Washington, and they wrote a contract.
What Rubio signed is significantly not a Contract with America. It is not a document conjured by politicians in a party and offered to the public as a promise for future returns in exchange for votes. This is not a solution thought up by the same people who neglected their contractual obligations of 1994's Contract with America, becoming part of the current fiscal and constitutional problem. This problem has been wildly accelerated by the current administration and party in power but was momentum was started by the last administration and party in power.
This one word difference is a significant one, and let's hope it is not lost on both party establishments. As Ludwig von Mises pointed out, a regime that does not hold sway over the minds of people will not last. As more Americans come to embrace liberty and respect for the Constitution, and reject all policy to the contrary, more politicians will be feel obliged to sign on the dotted line. Maybe then we can, as Substitute Teacher Loren Romick longs for, once again love more of our politicians.
