Some St. Louis area conservatives cheered Roy Blunt’s (R-MO) elevation to the Number 5 leadership position in the Senate Republican caucus.
I didn’t. At least not politically. I like Senator Blunt personally, so I’m happy in that respect. But I’m not happy for the reasons some others are.
First, as I told Jo Mannies of the St. Louis Beacon, internal party stuff isn’t really a Tea Party matter. Leadership in the Senate’s GOP caucus is for Republican Senators to worry about.
More importantly, I’m a little disturbed about the expressed reason for the local happiness.
It seems some conservatives are eager for Senator Blunt to use his new power to channel more pork to the area.
I don’t really understand how that’s conservative. I thought we were trying to reduce the size and scope of government. I thought our goal was to get Washington out of the business of picking winners and losers.
When a Senator transfers money from one state to benefit another state, it’s socialism.
When a Senator writes regulations to help one business over another business, it’s corporatism, another word for fascism.
When a Senator bring home the bacon by borrowing from my future grandchildren, it’s generational theft.
Conservatives who protest wealth transfer though welfare payments to poor people can’t cheer wealth transfer to corporations. Well, they can, but there’s a word for what that would make them.
The most difficult aspect of conservatism is eschewing short-term personal gain when it conflicts with the lawful role of government and good morals. On this point, I am far from perfect. But I’m getting better at recognizing and correcting my own hypocrisy.