Ralph K. Ginorio 176-INS A MAN IN THE MIDDLE

The new “North Idaho Republicans” group laments the loss of moderate control over our local Republican Party. They proclaim their aim to be the eclipse of the more conservative “Kootenai County Republican Central Committee”.
Moderation in all things is axiomatically wise. The alternatives to a healthy moderation range from abstemiousness to addiction. In most things, the balance that is moderation permits a prudent indulgence in things that enrich life without compulsive overindulgence.
United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts epitomizes the kind of political and ideological moderation extolled by the “North Idaho Republicans” group. Roberts has made it public that his primary objective is to restore what he calls the legitimacy of the US Supreme Court.
Roberts’ intent is to rebuild from the damage that he asserts was caused by the prior Rehnquist Court when they decided Bush v Gore (2000). In determining the victor in that case, the Supreme Court determined the winner in the 2000 Presidential election.
Ironically, John Roberts was nominated to become Chief Justice by the very same George W. Bush who benefitted from this Rehnquist Court decision. Roberts sees this decision as a stain on the high court’s reputation. He intends to depoliticize the court by deferring to the status quo and the decisions of elected officials.
On the surface, this seems like the definition of moderation and even conservatism. Roberts seeks to refrain from having the Supreme Court engage decisively in politics. Isn’t this what genuine conservatives want; a rejection of Judicial Activism?!
Unfortunately, both John Roberts and the “North Idaho Republican” group fail to distinguish between conservative means and conservative ends. Like those moderate Senate Republicans who signed on to “Minority Report”-style “Red Flag Laws”, which presume to be able to stop crime before it happens, the moderate Chief Justice and local political group seek compromise with the Left as an end unto itself.
Compromise is necessary in any free society. It can be the best answer to incandescently-controversial disputes. Compromise deflates the hyperbolic rancor of the partisan divide. All of this is true, in theory.
What these moderate Republicans will not acknowledge is that our Constitutional Republic faces a peril unlike anything in our history since 1865. Today’s Left, an alliance of post-modernist deconstructivists, environmentalist doomsayers, identity politicians, would-be Socialists, and welfare-program distributers, have a shared set of declared intentions that are fundamentally at odds with out Federal and State Constitutions. Their success requires the death of our Republic’s Constitution.
Thanks to a poisonously politicized University culture, “woke” principles now increasingly guide standards for “appropriate” public discourse, corporate policy, and government intervention into what had previously been our own private lives.
Because of this increasing tendency to turn towards Western European Social Democracy and away from traditional notions of American exceptionalism, the new status quo has itself become fractious, revolutionary, and hostile to the US Constitution. It is such a status quo that compromise-hungry moderate Republicans would see perpetuated in the name of civility.
John Roberts, remember, was the key vote in keeping Obamacare alive. Moderate Senator John McCain was the deciding vote against overturning it after Republicans regained a House Majority, Senate Majority, and the Presidency in 2016. Thanks to these compromisers, Obamacare has burrowed deeper into our society, degrading our medical care and further collectivizing the American way of life.
In the recent decisions on guns and on upholding a Mississippi abortion law, Roberts voted with the conservative Justices. But he voted with the progressive Justices on whether or not to overturn Roe v Wade (1973).
While moderation as a means to a greater end can be virtuous, moderation as an end unto itself is impotent. Conservative voters must understand that political moderates do not see our Republic as being imperiled. They do not see the new status quo as needing to be reversed. They are not in any fashion personally committed to conservative and Constitutionalist principles. In this critical moment, no conservative should entrust a moderate with their vote.