The Unmaking of Conservatism

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/030424.shtml ^

[billbears]

And what's the use of being in control if the way you got there was to substitute beliefs for votes? Sorry, being in control is job #2. Following the Constitution is job #1

[Consort]

...why is it better to have a LIBERAL RINO be-atch like Olympia Snowe in the Senate than a Democrat?

To give the GOP a majority and allow the GOP Conservatives to control all the committees/subcommittees and control the agenda and get most of Bush's judicial nominees approved, etc, etc, etc. Is this over your head?

[Consort]

See response #62.

[billbears]

Well let's see. Considering Bush is for the AWB, considering he pushed for and got the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, CFR (which wasn't declared fully unconstitutional the other day), and is pushing for a nationalized healthcare plan in some form, no it's not over my head, but it's not something I relish either

[Consort]

And what's the use of being in control if the way you got there was to substitute beliefs for votes? Sorry, being in control is job #2. Following the Constitution is job #1

Are you a Neo-Defeatist? It doesn't matter how you get in control — because if you don't get in control, then someone else will, and you will get more pissed off than you are now. Yes? No?

[Consort]

Cutting taxes and combining a bunch of separate government agincies into one Homeland Security Department is a way of shrinking government over the long run. The Democrats are very much opposed to both.

[Consort]

agincies = agencies

[billbears]

See #64. I don't see that it's much different than under a Democractic administration. Calling for gun laws and nationalized healthcare is not something I, nor any other conservative, would want out of a Republican administration. But you just don't care do you? We're supposed to continue to elect these RINOs under the promise that when they get all they need, that all our troubles will go away, that our taxes will be lower, and we'll somehow have the freedoms intended when this nation of states was established. Sorry, no can do. I don't vote for CINOs at any level, no matter their party affiliation

[billbears]

LOLOL!!! So that's it is it? Grow the power of the government but shrink the size? Can I have some of the koolaid too? Because I could care less about the size, it's the power level I'm concerned about

[Consort]

I don't see that it's much different than under a Democractic administration.

Maybe you're part of the problem. I vote for the most Conservative candidate in all elections and sometimes a RINO is the most Conservative. That's the way it is.

[Consort]

Because I could care less about the size, it's the power level I'm concerned about

Size matters.

[hchutch]

You got that right.

[hchutch]

So , in other words, you are saying hte people of a place like Iraq, Iran, or China are INCAPABLE of handling freedom? I find that sort of attitude to be at best, stupid.

[hchutch]

Actually, the welfare state CAN be ended, but it has to be done the way you would get someone off of a drug habit. Cold-turkey is often the worst way to do such a thing. In this case, we're going to have to slowly wean them off of the welfare state.

Reagan had it right when he said welfare should be a government program that works to end the situation thta makes it necessary in the first place.

[B. A. Conservative]

"I think it's neither -- I think it's a recognition that social egineering in one form or another is with us now, always, and this is an attemnpt to force it into a benign a form as possible, given existing circumstances...The debate for the last 60 years has not been "How can we make government smaller?" -- it's been over what we want Big Government to be doing."

I don't necessarily disagree with what you say. But unless we can reframe the debate to FREEDOM, then the United States is not worth saving and the sooner we can bring about secession the better. What made the United States different and maybe even sacred was FREEDOM. Without FREEDOM there is nothing sacred about the United States and nothing worth saving. Instead of dividing conservatives by bickering over Israel, drugs, religion, abortion or any other pet issue of the right, I want to focus on getting FREEDOM back. FreeRepublic was formed for two primary reasons. We succeeded in Impeaching Bill Clinton, but have gotten way off the track of restoring the Constitution.

Jim Rob has not been wrong in making the goal of defeating Democrats the number one way to restore the Constitution. But he and others who would see FREEDOM restored have failed to see enemies of FREEDOM and the Constitution in the Republican camp. Settleing for the lesser of two evils is still losing. Many who seek FREEDOM have reached the point where recovering our lost FREEDOM is approaching a lost cause as long as the United States exists in its present form. Many have reached the conclusion that the status quo is no longer acceptable. And many have reached the conclusion that the status sought by many Republicans or other members of the right are not acceptable because their vision does not include cutting the government down to a size where recovering FREEDOM is possible. If FREEDOM is not the goal, why fight to preserve the United States? If our government has become the source of the abuse of FREEDOM, why not fight to change the powers that be or divide the United States itself. The lessor of two evils is not an acceptable choice to me. I am fighting to recover FREEDOM and nothing else will be acceptable.

I think the debate should be framed by experiments. I still believe we can recover FREEDOM and save the United States as its home. But I don't believe in the sanctity of the Republican Party nor am I afraid to let the Democrats back into power. Indeed, I think a strong argument can be made to Republicans that those of us who seek FREEDOM have enough votes to deprive the Republicans of power unless they join our fight. And if the Republicans remain unconvinced, then I think we need to let the Democrats back in to prove the point. Once we have made our point, we will have the full attention of the Republicans. I think the frequenters of this site who are genuinely interested in FREEDOM made a serious mistake in the 2002 off-year election by bowing to Jim Rob and others who felt like electing Republicans regardless of the consequences was the route of lesser evils. We squandered the opportunity to prove the point I am making and delayed having this debate in a meaningful way. And if there are not enough of us who seek FREEDOM, then changing the Republican Party to suit us is not in the cards. And if that is true, then I think the secession camp should become the major focus of discussion. Defeating Democrats without recovering FREEDOM is like drinking non-alcoholic beer, sex with a condum, or eating lean steak and trimming away any fat that remains. Life without liberty is better than no life at all, but only because the possibility for a struggle for FREEDOM still exists. Surrendering to the serfdom of government as it exists now in the United States is severing your last link to sanity.

I am stating in no uncertain terms, we take our FREEDOM back or form a new country within the United States through secession. This is the discussion that I want to see on these boards. Are there any who will join me?

[JohnGalt]

Thank you for illustrating my point.

Freedom is not an exportable commodity; Iranians can no more handle American freedom than Americans would care to handle Chinese 'freedom.'

In China, for example, families are 'free' to murder their newborn babies should they not like the sex of the child; in America, we do not consider that a freedom (yet, anyway) we would like to have.

[Cincinatus]

Freedom is not an exportable commodity; Iranians can no more handle American freedom than Americans would care to handle Chinese 'freedom.'

How did the Japanese handle "American" freedom after 1945?

[JohnGalt]

"If FREEDOM is not the goal, why fight to preserve the United States?"

Don't let them off the hook so easily...the question is 'why fight to preserve/"conserve" the DC-based government?'

To be a 'patriot,' is to love for the land of our fathers. The word makes no implication that we should love the government.

I've already cast my vote with secessionists, but to Unionists, I am still listening for ideas. Troop movements in the Middle East Cosnervatism, I find lacking.

[billbears]

Maybe you're part of the problem. I vote for the most Conservative candidate in all elections and sometimes a RINO is the most Conservative

When a RINO is the most conservative I don't vote for either candidate. This exact instance happened here in our Senatorial election in NC. I didn't vote for either

[JohnGalt]

Japan embraced American consumerism, maintained their old order of hierarchy and close connection between extra-governmental institutions, (the Japanese equivalent of the Mafia) and now they have a corrupt, bloated state, an aging population, a declining birth rate, and lots of porn, drugs and abortion.

They are like any Western state these days: declining.

I am submitting that this not automatically, de facto, a 'great thing,' a triumph, nor am I saying its a bad thing. It's clearly a matter of perspective.

(I passed over reviewing Japanese late 19th early 20th Century history for the sake of making a broader point, but I think their history proves that Japan as a culture, was really inclined to Western ideas where as the nomadic, tribal existence of multiple wives, fatherless children and blood ties more so defines the experience of the Middle East.)