Duncan proves he is a consistent conservative
In today's Knoxville News Sentinel is to be found a story about Congressman Jimmy Duncan and his consistent record of opposition to the Iraq War. The prolific former judge (whose father was Knoxville mayor) has lately been accused by a few people of not having a conservative voting record, and these folks usually base their criticisms of Duncan on his opposition to the war.John J. Duncan Jr. is not a pacifist, however. He voted in favor of authorizing the President to use force in Afghanistan, and has supported force when it has been necessary throughout his Congressional career. What he has never been prone to do is support the use of force when it is not necessary, and no one can accuse Jimmy Duncan of being liberal because of that. To wage war is an extremely expensive proposition, both in the financial cost as well as in the more important expense of human life and suffering. It is never a matter to be entered into lightly or without proper planning. Further, our Founding Fathers believed that war was such a heinous activity that we should not willfully enter into combat on foreign soil. Congressman Duncan holds firm to that very conservative belief.
When we look at the raw data about Jimmy Duncan's voting record, we see a man who has a more conservative voting record than either Lamar Alexander or Bill Frist. I don't always see eye-to-eye with Duncan, nor did I have any particular appreciation for how he has handled the Presidential campaign so far. Saying "I endorse Romney," and then bolting to help lead a Draft Fred Thompson movement did not speak well for Duncan's normal steadfastness-he should have waited until the field was more definite. Somehow you could just tell that he was uncomfortable with Romney, and rightly so. In spite of this, however, all one needs to do to appreciate Duncan's fidelity to conservative principles is examine his voting record.
There are many so-called conservatives who change their position with the political wind. Blanket free trade (as in agreements such as NAFTA or GATT) aren't really based in conservative principles, because those agreements are a plethora of regulation. They break down protections while imposing new and restrictive rules on sovereign control. Conservatives have historically opposed those kinds of agreements, yet many so-called conservatives today say that it is conservative to support them-this is not ideologically consistent. Similarly, conservatives have historically opposed interventionist foreign wars, as the Founding Fathers did-it is the conservative thing to do. Yet many so-called conservatives want to play world policeman in a way that threatens our economy, our sovereignty, and the lives of our service personnel. This is not a conservative way to think.
Jimmy Duncan has told East Tennesseans and the world that he is a conservative. When he votes against the war, he is trying to show his constituents that unlike many others, his conservatism is an ideologically consistent one.
Labels: Federal politics, War in Iraq
posted by Deacon David Oatney @ 4:00 PM
3 Comments:
Duncan was never Mayor of Knoxville. That was his dad. Jimmy was a judge before going to "Warshington", as he would say it.
Indeed, anon is correct...I double-checked and confirmed that. I corrected the entry appropriately.
I'm glad there is another Anti-war candidate in the field besides Ron Paul. But, why would somebody decide to support/fund Hunter when he says, "Duncan hopes former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson runs for president"?
To me it seems obvious that the "Iraq War" is the #1 issue in this election cycle. If you listen to the major news outlets they frequently claim that there is NO anti-war Republican candidates. Which is untrue and brings me to this statement:
"Looking over the presidential candidates, Duncan said, only Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, opposes the Iraq war. But Paul hasn't got a chance to win the presidency, Duncan said. "
Yes, Ron Paul's chances are minute; BUT everyday that the Iraq War continues, the chances of his Presidency increase. People are upset about the war.
My prediction? At least two of the "front-runners" will have a change of heart and become anti-war, between now and the primaries. Although I doubt they would actually follow through, if elected.
Personally I find it shameful that the "christian", "conservative", "family values" Republican party has ecome the "WAR-MONGER" party and if you are anti-war, then you are anti-American and can't really be a Republican. That is just sad.
Tim
Post a Comment
<< Home