A Cruel Dose Of Reality

by Christopher G. Adamo

Perhaps the most infuriating aspect of the Republican tendency to play "me too" politics, aside from being a philosophical surrender to the liberal agenda, is that it often proves to be a losing political strategy as well. Few people are inspired by the words of political "leaders" who display such a willingness to follow.

What's worse, the only message that can be taken from a "moderate" Republican amounts to "The Democrats and their social programs are a good thing, and we'll do half as much, so vote for us." Thus, Republican efforts at offering a watered down version of the Democrat agenda have only resulted in the GOP being consigned to minority status, regardless of its actual numerical strength.

Such was even the case in 2000, whenever George W. Bush attempted to woo America by his advocacy of "compassionate conservatism." Winning a razor thin victory, his popularity during the first eight months of his presidency was not spectacular. Thus, political debate fell into a rut in which the Democrats led a public relations charge on one issue after another, with Republicans responding by signing on, albeit usually to a lesser degree. And it didn't take Democrats long to figure out that since their adversaries would always come through with half of what was demanded, all they had to do was clamor for twice what they wanted.

Of course everything changed on September 11, 2001. Shortly after, polling data revealed that Americans were, for the first time in years, willing to entrust their government with greater power. Though big government advocates misinterpreted (or, more likely misrepresented...) the significance of this shift in public opinion to mean that Americans were suddenly enamored with the "nanny state", the reality was simply that government was finally perceived to be doing the things for which it was originally established.

Admittedly, Bush administration responses haven't always been sterling, with two dismal examples being the sham of airport "security" and an apparent unwillingness to deal with inexcusable breaches on the nation's borders. However, it is undeniable that this President, unlike his predecessor, who viewed any tragic crisis merely as a political opportunity, is remaining highly focused on real threats to the safety and well being of his countrymen. And it has been to the total frustration of the Democrats that, despite their most fervent efforts, they have been unable to change the subject ever since September of last year.

Though on occasion it has seemed that public sentiment regarding terrorism is on the wane, and that people might once again revert to the tunnel vision that in some ways precipitated the attacks, the enemy has not been sufficiently vanquished to allow Americans to simply ignore the danger.  Worse yet, public recognition of the threat posed by al Qaeda has heightened awareness of other hostile entities, among them this past week's revelation that North Korea may have developed nuclear weapons.

Democrats have wrongly claimed that the release of this information was timed to make it an election issue. However, in truth, it is only the latest in a chain of events that unequivocally prove the necessity for government resources to be focused on the task of protecting the country. Furthermore, each ensuing situation has highlighted the ineffectiveness of inept “diplomatic” solutions implemented by the Clinton Administration.

Finally, at what has to be the most inopportune time of all (from the Democratic perspective), the murderous activities of the "Beltway Sniper", have once again cast the concerns of citizens into a stark clarity which eclipses Democrat generated hysteria over potential funding cuts to some social program. The ability of citizens to safely navigate to the local drug store far outweighs any concern over who will foot the bill at the pharmacy counter. And while it cannot be said that either political party holds any advantage regarding their response to this situation, clearly the previous focus of each side has indicated which party tends to consider such things to be of utmost importance.

Until the elections actually take place, it is impossible to know if the apparent shift in the public mood is sufficient to result in House and Senate gains for Republicans... a scenario that goes against the tide of historical precedent. However, considering the shrillness of recent commentary from Democrat leaders Tom Daschle, Richard Gephardt and Terry McAuliffe, among others, it is readily apparent that they consider such a result to be a distinct possibility.

Growing up during the turbulent decades of the ‘60's and ‘70's, Christopher  Adamo saw, to his dismay, the nation's moral foundations being destroyed  before his very eyes. But even then he was a staunch Conservative at heart,  and rejected outright the tenets of America's counterculture revolution.

 After a hitch in the Air Force, where he specialized in airborne  electro- optical systems, he pursued a career in the field of aerospace,  working for major defense contractors in California, Florida, and Colorado. But his career plans abruptly changed during the industry-wide downsizing that followed the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.

Presently he is working in the field of industrial instrumentation in the state of Wyoming. Concurrently, he has become involved in that state's political process, attending state GOP conventions as a delegate, and serving as a member of the Wyoming Republican Central Committee. He has also aided in the candidacies of local legislators and state senators, as well as a U.S. Senator and Congresswoman.

From 1993 to 1996, he edited and wrote for “The Wyoming Christian”, the state newsletter for Christian Coalition of Wyoming. During that period, he developed an acute awareness of the harm being done to Conservatism by liberal activists within the Republican Party as well as the Democrats. This remains a favorite theme of his articles, which now appear as a regular feature on GOPUSA.