The Relationships Between Republicans And Conservatives (Cathryn Crawford)

Washington Dispatch ^ | October 31, 2003 | Cathryn Crawford

[Scenic Sounds]

Holding two opposed ideas in mind, -- Security & Freedom, -- will gain us neither..

It will gain us the warm & friendly attitude of Big Brother as he guides us thru our daily grind.

I'm interested in your views, tpaine, so maybe you can clarify them for me. Your post number 200 (combined with your other posts that I've seen) suggests that you are concerned about the loss of freedom that the growth in government at any level involves. On the other hand, your post 141 suggests that you may only be concerned about what you view as the unconstitutional growth of the federal government.

Do you have a general antipathy toward all government or are you primarily concerned with what you see as unconstitutional growth in the scope of the federal government?

[Cathryn Crawford]

The only alternative would be the dems, and there's no chance there. The only option availible that is winnable is to use 3rd parties as a protest vote against a McCainiac, and to keep control of the local GOP if it's conservative, and toss the bums which are big government statists.

Well, I agree with you. At this point there is only one alternative. But if the Republicans no longer satisfy the needs of a certian group of conservatives, will they be able to create an alternative?

[Cathryn Crawford]

Great post. Very insightful.

[patton]

Slam dunk. But you didn't run fast enough.

[tpaine]

`Scenic Sounds wrote: What you say is true, tpaine, but, as they say, every man has a price.
Aren't there some regulatory laws that you favor? Aren't there some laws that you are willing to trade some personal sovereignty for? ;-)

---

Weird question.. I favor our constitutional system and all the regulatory laws that conform to that system.

-- States/localities can 'reasonably regulate' most anything to conform to community standards, as long as they don't violate our individual rights in the process.

-- Our's is a simple system of checks & balances on power, much abused.
-- To bad that so few of us understand its basics..
And whats worse is how many disagree with those basic principles.
141 tpaine

______________________________________

Holding two opposed ideas in mind, -- Security & Freedom, -- will gain us neither..
It will gain us the warm & friendly attitude of Big Brother as he guides us thru our daily grind.
200 -tpaine-

---

I'm interested in your views, tpaine,
so maybe you can clarify them for me. Your post number 200 (combined with your other posts that I've seen) suggests that you are concerned about the loss of freedom that the growth in government at any level involves.

On the other hand, your post 141 suggests that you may only be concerned about what you view as the unconstitutional growth of the federal government.

Do you have a general antipathy toward all government or are you primarily concerned with what you see as unconstitutional growth in the scope of the federal government?

---

You have a bizarre view of our constitution, and how I see it.

Our constitution [supposedly] protects us all from ALL levels of government, federal as well as state/local.

There is no dichotomy in my posts at 141/200, save in your own mind, and certainly "no general antipathy toward all government"... Where did you get that idea?

[Scenic Sounds]

Where did you get that idea?

Well, I don't know, but I'm sure that any misunderstanding is entirely my fault. I just need to read more carefully, I guess.

Anyway, I do have a general antipathy toward government, but I have a lot of friends who, like you, don't share my view on that. ;-)

[Dan from Michigan]

will they be able to create an alternative?

Chances are slim to none.

1. History. George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, Teddy Roosevelt, Eugene Debbs, Pat Buchanan, and Ross Perot couldn't do it. Never has Nader or Harry Browne.

2. In order for an alternative to be more than a protest vote, there needs to be:
1. Enough Money to get the word out.
2. A strong ground game.
3. Massive influx of new voters to counter the partisans in the GOP and dems.
4. A strong farm club to replace a Jesse Ventura so it isn't a fluke.
5. Candidates spread out all over the state and country, and the ground game to make it happen. George Wallace won several states, but didn't have a chance to win because of others. Until a party can get 30% of the vote consistancy, and win a large number of Congressional, State Legislature, Senatorial, and Gubenatorial seats, it simply isn't going to work since they will consistantly have a loser reputation.

[Godebert]

Looks like the Constitution Party platform. What are you....some kind of right-wing nut?

[optimistically_conservative]

Holding two opposed ideas in mind, -- Security & Freedom, -- will gain us neither..

So ... you'll see my Aristotle and Fitzgerald with a Franklin?

Fascinating you should raise the question of these two issues, since they are so topical and have the potential to bring together personalities of such diverse views as a Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney.

Modern conservatives have little problem with a "strong national defense" when the enemy is fought on foreign shores, but the enemy within poses a more difficult challenge to law enforcement, civil defense and domestic intelligence. How much easier without the Posse Commitatus Act and seperation of responsibilities between the FBI and CIA. Better to combine the efforts of law enforcement with the capabilties of both foreign and domestic intelligence gathering under the auspices of, I don't know, say the Defense Department, don't you think?

[tpaine]

REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/721810/posts?page=83

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Again, I disagree completely. Partisanship did none of the things you claimed it did: the simple defeat of unsound ideas did. Senseless cheerleading, instead, has done everything to hinder the political process in this country.

[Maelstrom]

Too many unsound ideas have passed with a lack of partisanship for that claim to have any merit whatsoever.

Hindering the political process in this country is the absolute best thing we can do, short of an unconditional repeal of more than half the laws already on the books.

[Sonnyw]

Thanks, CyberCowboy777, but I can only glean one specific example from your post. You think Bush has moved to the center because he’s enlarging the federal Department of Education rather than sticking to the “core” conservative position of eliminating the DOE.

I’ll buy that one and agree that a conservative is one who prefers to have local educational institutions run by local government institutions. A liberal (to use the other extreme in expounding on the definition at hand) would want the federal government’s role and influence expanded, even, perhaps, to the point of mandating curriculum (like requiring all elementary students to read favorable books about gay issues). Most of these “thinkers” hope that by consolidating power in a central government, a minority of activists can exert tremendous power (which happens now).

I don’t think any American kid would suffer if we started the process of eliminating the DOE tomorrow, so I guess on this point I’m a conservative and Bush is definitely moving to the left on this issue.

I’m not sure about your other examples, namely “property rights and mandates.” These are broad terms when applied (I know the narrow definitions of each) and a conservative might remain one in principle when agreeing with some issues regarding property rights and mandates. Do you suggest that a conservative is one who “refuses to have states saddled with unfunded mandates PERIOD”? That’s what I mean when I say that discussions of political persuasions are meaningless in the absence of specificity. There’s danger in using broad brushes. And I presume you intended to discuss “unfunded mandates.” Unfortunately, I can think of several examples of unfunded mandates that don’t really example an abandonment of core conservative positions, they simply force the states to abide by Constitutional protections afforded all Americans by the Bill of Rights (and which states from time to time feel free to abuse, like minimum standards for prisoner housing).

Good start, though, CyberCowboy777.

[CyberCowboy777]

States have been limited in local governance on issues ranging from legal drinking age to environmental policy. These can be funded or un-funded mandates that limit the experience and purpose of States.

Mandating policy via law or purse strings only harms the concept of several experimenting States. Even good ideas mandated by the feds are dangerous as they limit the ability of the people to apply flexibility.

Some governance must be applied equally across states and the feds must take leadership on issues not imagined by the founding fathers, but over reaching federal powers are never the first answer and rarely the best.

Any politician that looks to increase the power of the federal government must be viewed suspect.

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can. - by Barry Goldwater, "The Conscience of a Conservative"

[Sonnyw]

Now we’re getting down to some “nuts and bolts.” I agree that the legal drinking age is a state issue, just as much as I agree that the blood alcohol level required for DUI is a state issue. So, we have a couple more specific agreements, which begin to provide a better definition of a conservative (as opposed to a liberal; political categorizations are only beneficial in relative terms). We might be in disagreement over some environmental issues, though (you weren't specific enough), which means that one of us might not be a conservative despite our personal avowals that we are. (E.g. "Smoke stack" standards must be a Federal issue because all states breath another state's air.)

Incidentally, I also agree that restricting the sale of guns within X feet of a school or defining the crime of rape as a hate crime is a state issue… and the Supreme Court agreed! It’s only a matter of time before the Supreme Court gets the right case and denies the Fed’s the right to withhold the payback of gasoline taxes just because a state refuses to go along with blood alcohol levels or helmet laws, etc.

Barry Goldwater’s quote gives me goose bumps. I’m in tune with everything he says. But the “devil’s in the details,” or the application of his “motherhood and apple pie” statements. “I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom.” Huh? No social safety net at all? If I think that minimal safety nets (e.g. unemployment insurance, Social Security… reformed drastically but still there… or Head Start programs), administered for all states through the federal government, are good does that mean I’m not a conservative? I want limited government too, but… well… within limits!

His statements remind me of what Senator Allard (one of my two here in Colorado) is trying to do in S. 1558, “The Religious Liberties Restoration Act.” He says he wants to restore religious liberties to Americans. Like hell he does! He wants to make America a Christian nation, but he’s afraid to get specific, instead surrounding himself with “motherhood and apple pie” crap!

I’m defined by my responses to specific decisions, not some politically mouthy definition of who’s a conservative and who’s a liberal.

[CyberCowboy777]

Conservatism is not the lack of Federal power or the lack of progression; it is the cautions movement toward the best way, not the easiest or most gratifying.

Federal powers have their place – more so now than 200 years ago – but the idea now is that Federal powers are the easiest way to solve a problem instead of finding the best way.

Federal regulations are necessary, but the need for some power has been used to take all power.

Environmental policy is a good example.

Private Property rights and economics are being violated for the “greater good”, but what good is having thousands of spotted owls if we all live in subjugation to an overbearing state? Liberty is the first concern and all powers should be first tested to that standard.

Smokestack emissions are a concern for all of us – but do you know the best possible answer to the problem? Do we have an answer that gives the best possible outcome for health, environment, and economies? Likely this answer would be found when several states embark on individual paths to a solution. The federal Government is not a good conduit for solutions only enforcement; so let the states work out the solution and then the Federal government can enforce a best-case solution instead of a first case solution.

Individual specifications of conservatism cannot be avoided, but the basic tenets of conservatism are solid and unchanged. Striving for Liberty and Morality always leads to Prosperity.

[Sonnyw]

I've been under the weather for a few days and just now got to this post.

I couldn't have said it better, CyberCowboy777, and find nothing with which to disagree.

Are there 776 before you that are just as rational in their approaches to social/political problems? If so, you can add me to the "CyberCowboy list" and maybe together we can break down the barriers that are erected by idealogues, or those whose fundamental positions are so narrow in construct as to leave no room for reasonable and widely popular solutions (i.e. achievable).

[Tares]

- by Barry Goldwater, "The Conscience of a Conservative"

This book is out of print and commands a premium price, but after reading this quote and a couple of reviews, I am going to plunk down the money to get a copy. Thanks for posting the quote.