At Lasting Liberty we believe voters should consider candidates based on their political philosophy more so than their particular policy stances.  Politicians will inevitably take popular stands on certain issues.  To really understand how one will govern then we must first understand that person’s governing philosophy.  We support the late Richard Weaver’s belief that the most important thing about one who shapes a culture is his or her worldview.[i]

But how does one determine a politician’s worldview?  How do we cut through all the hype and marketing and understand someone for who he or she is?  The most common answer is to look at a person’s voting record.  There are several organizations that, supporting a certain political philosophy, will grade the voting records of politicians against that philosophy.  For instance, Citizens Against Government Waste grades politicians every year based on their fiscal discipline or lack thereof. (In 2008, for example, 34 Democrats tied for last place with a score of “zero”.)  The problem with solely grading a politician on his voting record is twofold:  First, many politicians cast their votes based on political calculations rather than true beliefs.  Second, some politicians do not have a voting record to examine because of either a lack of experience (there are too few votes to make a judgment) or a lack of backbone (there are too many “present” votes or abstentions).

Perhaps the most important indicator then of a politician’s worldview is his own words.  We must pay careful attention to the rhetoric a candidate uses and the assumptions behind his or her arguments. During the 2008 election, for example, when Obama made the famous “spread the wealth around” remark, McCain tried to use that statement to brand Obama as a socialist.  The brand didn’t stick, not because McCain had the wrong idea, but because McCain missed early opportunities to make the same connection.  Had McCain exposed Obama early and often, the socialist brand might have stuck.

The electorate should have understood Obama’s ultra liberal philosophy anyway. If one listened closely, behind the “hope” and “change” rhetoric stood an anti-capitalist, weak-willed, big-government liberal intent on remaking America in his own image. 

The true nature of the Obama Administration hasn’t changed; the messages the President and his men convey are even more revealing than they were in the campaign.  A few days ago, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs claimed the health care debate was a conflict between protecting big business profits and protecting the American people.  Put aside that Gibbs does not understand that big business profits employ the American people, that most big businesses are publicly traded and owned by American people, that big businesses compose retirement investments American people rely on for their future, that surplus profits encourage entrepreneurship, spin-off small companies, and greater employment.  Put aside all that.  What Gibbs is saying for Obama is that government intervention on behalf of so-called social justice is more important than economic freedom and prosperity. 

This is the mindset—the worldview—of our President.

But alas the American people are catching on.  Now that the flash of the campaign is gone and Obama’s policies have exposed his worldview, Americans aren’t on board any more.  Most Americans have a Conservative worldview—one that believes in individual responsibility and the freedom to act without government hindrance.  As long as Obama pushes his anti-freedom, big-government agenda, the American people will be at odds with his leadership.      

[i] Richard Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences (Chicago:  University of Chicago Press, 1984), 3)