There Still Is a Difference

Syndicated radio host and movie reviewer Michael Medved blogged something yesterday that I thought was worth repeating here. It had to do with the difference between the Democrat and Republican parties.

Despite all the petitions, town hall meetings and tea party protests, the Democrats in Congress plan to ignore public opinion and to move forward with a sweeping expansion of government’s role in health care.

This alarming situation carries an important lesson for those citizens and media figures who persist in the inane contention that the two political parties are indistinguishable. The GOP leadership and rank and file have been united and determined in opposition to Obamacare, and the president relies solely on Democratic support.

Ultimately, there’s only one way to stop—or even to slow—the growth of government and rise in spending: electing more Republicans. The GOP is far from perfect, but those who attack Republicans as identical to Democrats only undermine the nation’s only hope to balance Obama’s policies with conservative principles.

I know it has become fashionable to say “a pox on both houses,” but I can’t agree. While I respect the research Glenn Beck has done on the individuals infesting the Obama administration, whenever he starts to declare that there is no difference between the parties, I must part ways with him.

The only way a third party will ever rise to the top is if one of the two main parties disappears. That will happen only if Republicans cave so completely that there is no longer a choice—and that has not yet occurred. Neither is it inevitable, not if those who are principle-driven stay in the race. In fact, if anyone drops out of the good fight, I doubt if that person is really operating on principles at all.

There is hope, and there is hope for change. It’s nice to be able to use those words again.