The ever-widening gorge that is opening within the GOP has reached zenith proportions over the last several days. Whereas at one point we may have had a gap that was visible by those who were politically involved at a day-to-day level, now this Grand-Canyon-sized chasm is visible even to those who say they “never really pay attention” to politics. What has been the cause? I would submit to you that, before the left leapt further leftward, they hooked up a tow cable to the GOP, bringing many of the career politicians with them.

Now, not ALL of the GOP moved with this progressive strain of GOP members. In fact, many started slipping out the back of the truck several years ago in the form of the Tea Party. Many of those Tea Party members, by the way, are now ardent members of the Libertarian Party (although that’s another article altogether). While the more liberty-driven, Constitution-loving members of the GOP have remained as members of the Republican Party (at least for now), many have begun to shake off the restraints of the establishment while vocally protesting against the progressives in both major political parties. Therein lies the divide. Those who are progressive GOP members, and those who are liberty-driven Republicans. Today I will discuss two politicians, each representing the two separate factions in the Republican Party: Jackie Walorski and Thomas Massie. We will compare and contrast their voting records and what they have outlined as their political aspirations in the years ahead.

Voting Records

This is a clear and damning contrast – for Jackie Walorski, anyway. Let’s look at three key votes that would separate a true Conservative from a Progressive GOP member.

Abortion

screen-shot-2016-11-15-at-3-13-53-pmYou may be saying “but Jackie was endorsed by Right to Life”. Yes, she was, as was Eric Cantor, who authored the rape exception. Look, I cannot imagine what a woman who has been raped has gone through. I will in no way try to diminish her pain in going through this awful experience. I do know, though, that adding one violent act, like abortion, to another violent act, like rape, doesn’t heal anyone. I do know that the child growing inside of the mother did not choose how it would be conceived, and was conceived through rape at no fault of his or her own. Lastly, I know several individuals who were conceived through rape and guess what: their lives matter. If I were to line up ten people, three of which were conceived through rape and seven who were not, and I asked you to identify those who had been conceived through rape, you wouldn’t be able to distinguish one from another. Each child is a precious gift. Each person deserves the right to live. So the rape exception was in no way a “pro-life” measure. It was in every way pro-death, and yet, Right to Life saw fit to make the endorsement. The reason for this is a “difference” in the pro-life world between many of the organizations known as incrementalism. Right to Life employees want to stay employed, and because of this they are concerned with the “perpetuity of their organization”. This has made them content with small steps toward limiting abortion, rather than huge leaps toward ending it.

2016 Omnibus Spending Bill

Yes, this is a spending “budget bill”, but it goes so much deeper. The fungibility of funds means that this bill, in which Massie screen-shot-2016-11-15-at-3-14-41-pmvoted “no” and Walorski voted “yes”, provided full funding, at current levels, of Planned Parenthood. Now, Right to Life would have you believe that it did not fund Planned Parenthood, but it did. So, no raise for them in the budget – meaning they can just continue to kill the same amount of pre-born babies. Not only did it fund
them at current levels, but because of this passing, Planned Parenthood felt pretty good about their finances, and turned around just a week later and donated through their PAC to Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign. That’s right folks, your tax dollars went toward getting Hillary elected, and the government hoped you wouldn’t notice.

Spending

Here’s a more recent vote. In July 2016, there was an amendment to a bill that came up that would eliminate funding for Diesel Emission Reduction Grants and then send those savings to the spending reduction account.  Basically, this would eliminate spending of money we shouldn’t spend, and put those dollars toward reducing our increasing debt. As you can probably guess, a REAL Conservative would vote to reduce spending when possible. They would always say that spending money that we do not have on things we do not need is a bad idea. Thomas Massie voted for this amendment. Jackie Walorski voted against it. If you’re asking yourself “why”, just remember to follow the money! You can check out her main contributors here (I think you will quickly discover why she voted this way). She once again clearly showed us that she is a progressive, while Massie showed us that he is a liberty-driven Conservative.

Limiting Government

This would seem to be a no-brainer, right? If you call yourself a Conservative, or are wanting to be considered as such, you typically support
shrinking the size and scope of government, not growing it. Yet, once again, Jackie Walorski has proven to all that she is for her own political expediency, rather than her own constituents. On another recent vote, H.R.5606: Anti-Terrorism Information Sharing is Strength Act, Jackie voted “yes”, and Massie voted a resounding “no”. This bill effectively bypasses our 4th amendment rights under the guise of “more security”. What makes this bill even worse is that they attempted to do a “fast track” procedure called “suspension of rules”to get this passed in the dark of night. This “fast track” procedure requires more votes to pass, but can be done in a way that will shove this through before anyone paying attention can do anything about it. The bad part here is that when a bill is voted on in this way, it can be brought back for another vote later. I think you know how Jackie and her progressive cohorts will vote should this bill come around again.

Aspirations

Jackie Walorski looked into running for an open Senate seat in Indiana before announcing she would seek a third term as Indiana’s 2nd district Congresswoman, but was shut down pretty quick. As she is heading into her third term, she will hit her 5 years of service and will be eligible for her Congressional pension. Walorski will more than likely run for U.S. Congress again in 2018, or she may take a go at the Senate and challenge sitting Senator Joe Donnelly.

Thomas Massie has been quieter about possible future political plans. He is a liberty icon among many in the movement, and may just continue as he has been as a Kentucky Congressman. Massie is currently doing his job in maintaining accountability and transparency not only with his own constituents but with the rest of the United States, as well.

Conclusion

What more can be said? There is a clear rift in the Republican Party between the Conservatives that believe in the U.S. Constitution and the politically expedient progressives that believe in furthering their careers. There are many out there that are in the “next class” of rising stars in the United States who are liberty-driven and ready to send these incumbents home, but it will take an informed and unselfish electorate. Liberty is on the line in 2016, and it will be again in 2018 and 2020. The question isn’t “when will they come for our freedom?”, because they already are. The question is: will you stand, get informed, and tell the progressives of the Republican Party that they are no longer welcome?