Posted on 02/26/2009 7:19:45 AM PST by aic4ever
The Grand Old Party has lost its way. It is in the wilderness with no leader and no true goal, and it is there because its authoritarian nature on social issues has led it there.
(Excerpt) Read more at organizedexploitation.blogspot.com ...
Stopped right there.
What a load of horse s**t.
Thanks for stopping. I stopped there also.
Saved me the time of NOT clicking the link.
Actually, this is rapidly ceasing to be the case. The fact that appeal to social nanny-statism ties the party to an elderly (and thus ephemeral) support base is one of its ongoing problems.
Take a hike, Troll
I used to think that the Republican Party was the party of principal and the Democrats had none. I now realize that it is the opposite The Dems have priciples albeit evil and all the Republicans have to offer is “were not quite as bad(yet)”.
The Republican Party spends most of its effort promoting the Democrats and their agenda. Yes, it sounds crazy and it is true. Republicans in Congress (and others) effectively, if unwittingly, advance the Democrat’s leftist agenda. No matter who is in power, the federal government, its power and expenditures, continue to grow with little chance of reversal.
The Democrats propose a “generous” increase in the minimum wage. The Republicans either oppose an increase and opt for staying at the current level or counter with a more modest increase. The Democrats say that we need to increase the school lunch program by x million dollars. The Republicans answer by offering an increase of one third x. Democrats say that the government needs to spend a lot more subsidizing housing and Republicans say that the current level is adequate. Democrats say that more people should be made eligible and Republicans defend the status quo.
So the predictable dynamic is that the Democrats fight for an increase in spending for some government program and the Republicans either oppose any increase or counter with a proposal for more modest growth. What impression of the Republican Party does this give? What is the one principle that people are able to discern from Republicans’ policies as stated above? That the Republicans are cheap and uncaring. Some may manage to construe it as fiscal responsibility but what it comes down to is withholding funds from worthwhile programs. Thus ultimately withholding help from those who need it.
If the Republicans agree to spend two billion dollars on a program they are inherently saying that it is good and just and worthwhile. Why else would they agree to spend such a massive amount of money on it? If people who position themselves as fiscally responsible spend that kind of money, it has to be for something good. Something right. Something necessary. And here they cede the moral high ground to Democrats, liberals, leftists by validating their policies, programs and agenda. It’s Democrats who are fighting for all of these good and righteous schemes and the Republicans who are dragging their feet.
Every time Republicans say yes but not so much. They are saying that the Democrats are right and they, the Republicans, are cheap. The Democrats are looking out for the needy and the Republicans are looking out for the cheap and stingy. We are cheap! Hardly an inspiring philosophy. Hardly a winning strategy.
We all know that the best defense is a good offense. The GOP has turned that truism on its head. Their only offense is a pathetic defense. And no matter how good your defense if you have no offense you will eventually lose. It’s inevitable. After the 1994 elections swept the Republicans t control of Congress, many anticipated the extinction of a few federal agencies. Many even a department or two. Dare to dream. Then we were told that Rome was not built in a day so don’t expect it to be dismantled in a day. Well we are still waiting for those first few bricks to be knocked loose.
Sure the left has moved us to a gargantuan and ever-growing welfare state on step at a time, or make that one billion a time. That is the only way it could have happened. Anyone who one hundred years ago tried to propose what we have now would have been run out of town. Any American town. As per the above it may be impossible to move in the opposite direction by increments. When you propose to spend less than the left wants the only principle that you are standing on and promoting is cheapness. Not a very compelling platform. Rather a recipe for long term defeat.
Being second-rate Democrats has been a disaster. Even when Republicans win elections. Agreeing to spend a fortune on Democrat social programs and wealth transfer schemes only validates those schemes. And makes conservatives-or what passes for conservatives these days-look bad. So virtually everything the Republicans do validates Democrats and make themselves look bad. A guaranteed formula for disaster.
So what’s the alternative? How about taking a stand. How about acting on principle? A principle other than cheapness. Will it be easy? The question is what are your principles and what do you want to achieve. If you want to be liked by the establishment intelligentsia then you definitely need to keep up with leftists. Just keep in mind that you will have to go further and further year after year. They keep raising the bar, moving the goal line. What “moderates’ are advocating and supporting now would have been radical a few decades ago. Trying to keep up will always mean that you will always be second-rate and always fall short.
The only was to go, which makes it the easy way, is to stand on principle. Without compromise.
If you pick up individual issues, the moral majority exists. The Dems have achieved since decades to lure people into voting against their own interest.
The only authoritarian I see sits in the WH along with his fellow fascist democrats.
Go away
"I use freedom of choice over abortion simply as one of the most visible issues as to why people in general dislike the Republican Party. Similarly, the right for two people of the same gender to go before God in their own Church and their own community and be married is under attack. I can't possibly think of anything more ridiculous than stopping two people who love each other from marrying. There is no force so powerful as love and for the authoritarian Religious Right to shout from the rafters that a union of love between two people who are of age to consent to each other is somehow wrong is simply another example of how they would further limit individual freedom and liberty."
Is States Rights "social nanny-statism" ? What BS. Getting rid of Roe v Wade would send it back to the States, for example. What has 8 yrs of Bush actually done that fits the criteria of this article?? If you proport pro-life position , you are an authoritorian?
This is all BS misdirection. Bush pissed money away on a poorly executed war and tolerated deficits, but the waste is NOTHING compared to this stealth Communist. The only statist things the GOP did were with reference to the Left's agenda. And thats the sad thing.
It is in the wilderness, but for exactly not the reason given. The moderates ignored the social issues entirely in the last election, and they had their heads handed to them. People apparently only understand poverty as a bad thing. So liberals will need to bring them poverty to understand the downside to liberal ideas. So....poverty coming up!
OUTSTANDING! Thanks for posting.
Right; dream on. We heard the same pap back in 2002 about the dems.
Hogwash! When we run conservative candidates, we win EVERY time. When we reach out to the middle and run moderate candidates, we lose EVERY time. Get the facts straight.
In what way is the Republican Party authoritarian?
There, fixed it.
First — the GOP didn’t lose because of social issues. In fact, we might’ve lost by more if it weren’t for social issues. Abortion, gay marriage, etc. are winning issues for the GOP ... see Prop 8 in California (of all places) for instance.
Second — having a codified moral standard by which behavior is judged is not authoritarian. As far as I can tell, the GOP isn’t advocating imprisonment or internment of homosexuals, unmarried parents, atheists, feminists or whomever. Abortion is one of the very few issues where we seek prohibition — and making illegal the extermination of a living fetus is hardly authoritarian.
On most of the other issues, we simply seek preservation of the status quo — preservation of marriage as a strictly heterosexual institution, preservation of Christianity in the public square, preservation of general stigma against immoral behavior, etc.
It is not authoritarian to preserve our right to disapprove of immoral behavior ... particularly since we would still preserve the freedom of others to participate in most of those behaviors (abortion excluded).
SnakeDoc
Well written. Using this method reminds me of the Active Defense strategy in Europe during the dark days of the cold war. Then, after countless wargaming and getting our asses kicked on a playing board against massed Warsaw Pact forces, we finally figured out Airland Battle and applying four dimensional joint offensive operations in depth. This was first applied with great effect in Gulf War I.
Pubbies are too comfortable in their fighting and dying in place defensive positions- and that's where their corpses will be when the smoke clears. It does make for easy burial though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.