Can We Get The President We Need?

Can We Get The President We Need?

In 1770, Sir William Pitt, speaking before Britain’s House of Lords, declared, “There is something behind the throne greater than the King himself.“ That raised the scepter the real rulers are invisible, exercising power from behind the scenes. Austrian born Felix Frankfurter, Supreme Court Justice, restated the notion in an American context when he said, “The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes.” Are we to believe conditions have changed in the political realm in Washington D.C? Is this democratic process a mirage? Is that unseen hand human or Divine?

Since the Goldwater defeat in 1964, Republicans have won seven presidential contests, yet little has changed in D.C. GOP candidates touting Reagan, speaking of fierce resistance to the growth of government spending and intrusion into our lives and liberty. Yet the focus remains on occupying lofty places. Politics trumps principle. Pragmatism reigns after elections.

In 1960, Barry Goldwater, who the Establishment couldn’t muscle, looked at the political landscape, stated in Conscience of a Conservative, “I blame Conservatives-ourselves-myself. Our failure…is the failure of the Conservative demonstration. Though we Conservatives are deeply persuaded that our society is ailing, and know that Conservatism holds the key to national salvation-and feel secure the country agrees with us-we seem unable to demonstrate the relevance of Conservative principles to the needs of the day.” Is there an “exit ramp” off this “freeway to constitutional suicide?”

     A review of presidential elections since Harry Truman, is sobering. The powerful elite appear to control the election outcome in the midst of our “democratic process.” In most cases it was inimical to our national interest. Rarely does one find that the “campaign rhetoric” of an administration matched their policies. A knee-jerk response of “that’s politics” fails to account for the inexplicable shift in presidential post election behavior.

On January 25, 1949, a young outraged congressman declared before the House, “ Mr. Speaker, over this week-end we have learned the extent of the disaster that’s befallen China and the U.S. The responsibility for the failure of our foreign policy in the Far East rests squarely with the White House and the Department of State. The continued insistence that aid would be forthcoming, unless a coalition government with the Communists were formed, was a crippling blow to the National Government.” Five days later the young congressman concluded, “This tragic story of China, whose freedom we once fought to preserve with our young men had saved, our diplomats and our President frittered away.” It was John F. Kennedy. He was railing against President Truman’s duplicitous act of delaying $125 million in aid to Chiang Kai-Shek for nine months. President Kennedy, according to James Perloff, a decade later, sabotaged the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in a fashion not dissimilar to President Truman.

Examining the “handlers” a president surrounds himself with lends insight into how they’re morphed into actions that shock us once revealed. How did the Eisenhower White House shamefully allow Fidel Castro to transform Cuba into what one writer described as “the Soviet’s first Western Hemisphere outpost?” U.S. Ambassador to Cuba, Earl Smith, stated in a September, 1979, New York Times article, that Castro couldn’t have seized power without the U.S Government agencies and the State Department playing a major role in bringing down Batista, with President Eisenhower’s knowledge and support in 1957. The State Department long denied that Castro was a Communist when he gained power. In a 1977, interview with Barbara Walters, Castro admitted he’d been a Communist since his early university days’.

Recently President Obama embraced Cuba, lifting the State Sponsor of Terrorism embargo, in a move to normalize relations. Mainstream media salivates to watch Cubans drive those “nostalgic vintage cars” and visit their “quaint storefront shoppes.” Tourist and mainstream media won’t get past “store front Havana” to see the real Cuba. Sadly, there’s little stigma attached to Communism. It’s haute couture.

Former Florida Governor, Jeb Bush continues to distance himself from everyone but his mother. “I’m my own man,” he brags. Should he prevail, and defeat the “inevitable” Clintons, it’s predictable he’ll surround himself with left-over moderate “handlers.” A cast of money bundling lawyers, strategist, foundations and bankers, whose interest are rarely ours, with a message of contrived unity translating into backing a candidate who’ll trample the constitution and ignore our liberty. We’ve witnessed the same vacuous narrative advanced in Wyoming’s 2014 gubernatorial race.

We’ll need someone, were told, with a “fresh new car smell.” The GOP’s “presidential lot” is crowded. Most will start. How long they’ll run is uncertain. The mainstream media and the moderates kicked Scott Walker’s “tires so hard,” they’re nearly flat. Marginalizing his performance as a governor, reminding us he’s a “college drop-out,” the elitist will vigorously oppose him. A “rags to riches” ascent from poverty to a world renowned neuro-surgeon, Dr. Ben Carson, should expect a Herman Cain reception from the Left, including Irreverent Sharpton and Jackson.

A staunch, no exceptions, pro-life candidate will incur the wrath of the moderates. Dodging such barbs will keep a candidate busy. The New York Times reported evangelicals and other socially conservative groups don’t believe that Bush would fight for the issues they care most about: opposing same-sex marriage, holding the line on immigration overhaul, and rolling back abortion rights.

We know Democrats offer an inverse pyramid of what vexes most Americans. Is there a principled, constitutional, liberty minded, GOP candidate with the pyramid up-right who can get elected? Rand Paul? Ted Cruz? Marco Rubio? Biblically grounded evangelicals find solace in that the One they serve is omnipotent-still in control-when it seems otherwise. There’s no paucity of those who think we get the leadership we deserve. That’s not a pass to non-engagement. Too early for a dirge for constitutional conservatism? We have unique and specific gifts to exercise. It’s not for the faint-at-heart. What do you think?

Mike Pyatt is a Natrona County resident. His email is

Copyright © 2008-2022 All rights reserved   Terms of Use    Privacy Statement