By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Nicholas J. Voegeli: Republicans thust into role of opposition
Placeholder Image
If political scientists could invent a seismograph so sensitive that it could detect the shifting of a nation's heart, we would see the evidence of the rumbles and quaking of a jubilant bare majority, the disbelief of a bare minority, and the lurching of a country so far to the left that it has nearly departed the page.

In vast swaths of territory, Republicans have ceased to factor. Analysts point out that not one urban congressional seat remains in Republican hands after Tuesday. In all of New England remains not a single elected Republican at the federal level. The party of Lincoln, the party that drew so heavily on New England for the men the Union required to fight an unpopular Civil War, that committed itself in behalf of the black man to the complete eradication of slavery, has been thoroughly rejected. New England has effectively abolished Republican representation.

While this may be a cause for celebration for many throughout the country, I caution those who have labored for the ascendency of Democrat ideals that the supremacy of one party does not, in fact has never, boded well for the country as a whole.

Balance is required. But Republicans do not expect charity. That is for those who hope the change this election has wrought will unburden them of their own responsibilities. And though I do not speak for the party but only for myself, I believe the party would agree that compromise of values is not called for simply for the sake of victory.

What is required of an opposition, the status this party has been delivered? The nipping at heels of political foes is unseemly. Better must be expected of those Republicans who were strong enough to withstand the tide that overtook the nation. Scheming and wound licking must not be our occupation. A void has been created by the success of the nationwide Democrat campaign, the gap between expectation and reality. It remains for us to fill this void.

The elation of this election will subside as the multitude that balloted for change realize the rate of change is inconsistent with their expectations, that the hands of the change they hoped for will not extend to the paying of their mortgages, to the filling of their gas tanks, or of their bellies. And how disappointing to find that even Democrats must contend with security issues, that even Democrats must occasionally fight wars.

And when change comes, it may not be of the character hoped for. And what will be required of those who try to maintain the balance necessary for a stable democracy? Not merely that the shortcomings and consequences of each new handout be exposed and contested, but that proposals consistent with our historical character are offered as alternatives.

So much will be offered by those who know the strings to play, so tempting the choice to accept. Government-run health care, severe regulation of firearms, open borders for no-longer-illegal aliens, the denial of Israel, all the panaceas and bromides one could hope for, and all paid for by the so-called rich. Someone must stand up to strenuously express that such lurches as accompany the national obsession with Change must be moderated, that the desire for change for its own sake is evidence of intellectual childishness.

You who, while pleased, are short of ecstasy from the results of the evening past, you who see reason in the need for the stemming of an unrestrained free-for-all of government handouts and concomitant limitations on our freedoms and forcible confiscation of our daily bread, do not find joy in the apparent knell of conservatism as do those who longed, who actively labored for the day of its demise, for we are merely sleeping, and not all of us.

- Nicholas Voegeli is a former

candidate for lieutenant governor.