Tuesday night, March, 23rd was caucus night for the Salt Lake Valley. On the Republican side of the aisle there is a tremendous amount of frustration, at the growth of deficit spending and other growth in the federal government, leading to record turnout across the valley. This is no surprise, while thousands of Utahns have participated in Tea Parties and other rallies around the State. No one can blame people for their anger. It is exiting to see more and more people getting involved in the democratic process.
One of the focal points of the anger is Senator Bennett. The Senator has broken his promise to only serve two terms and he has had his name attached to some bills that make Conservatives uncomfortable. Subsequently, he has faced a large group of opponents who would like to defeat him. The problem is that the incumbent will most likely not be defeated in the State Convention.
He would more likely face a primary run off against his closest competitor. I would remind my Republican brothers and sisters to take a breath and look deeply at the candidates who would be our new potential Senator.
On our side we have a few front-runners who are protectionists, isolationists and who make purely emotional arguments. Cherilyn Eagar is an outspoken Buchananite. She has said that free trade is unconstitutional. She is far too comfortable rubbing elbows with Tea Partiers and appealing to their vote by being seen with protesters. This is not to say that those who attend Tea Parties are wrong to do so; quite the opposite, it is encouraging to see people standing for their rights. I would only ask if it is enough to stand with the Tea Partiers to earn their vote, to do so is like association by way of photo op. Eagar also tugs at emotion by waving a pocket Constitution while on the stump.
Like Ms. Eagar, Mike Lee also hold up a copy of the Constitution as a prop while on the stump. Does waiving a founding document mean that those who do so are a better stewards of that document? Both Eagar and Lee make very generalized conservative appeals to their audience, but when one looks beyond the rhetoric, one finds isolationism and utopianism. How? Mr. Lee has said that our country doesn’t send a message “by killing people.” I would ask if we, as a country sent a message by killing British, Hessian and other troops during our War for Independence? Both Eagar and Lee seem content to direct our policies to those of post World War I ideals, that were unfortunately too prevalent in the late ‘30s. These isolationist and protectionist theories made our country vulnerable and economically weak.
Tim Bridgewater is really the only choice, who would be a viable opponent to Senator Bennett. Giving in to the emotional rhetoric to the other two front-runners would put the cause of market Conservatism in a worse position. I am all for making Senator Bennett face a primary, but if we are going to have the best candidate, we need to have a functional alternate to the incumbent. Mr. Bridgewater is a student of both Classical and the Chicago School of economics. This is important because this is a belief that competition strengthens an economy.
To be honest, while Bennett has not been perfect he happens to be the only other candidate (except Bridgewater) who stands on the platform of free trade. If the primary came down to Bennett against Eagar or Lee, the choice should be pretty clear. Bennett stood against the ridiculous “stimulus” package and the “Health insurance Reform” that was forced through the House of Representatives. He does not propose new trade protections policies or talk about the evils of “Nation Building,” or U.S. “Empire Building.” Candidates Like Eagar or Lee who buy that rhetoric and would not advance the Conservative cause.
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
