Posted on 01/31/2004 9:21:22 PM PST by quidnunc
This may be the most nation-shaping election since 1932, not only — or even primarily — because of the parties' foreign policy differences. Those differences, about sovereignty, multilateralism, preemptive war and nation-building, concern vital fundamentals. But 2004 may secure the ascendancy of one of two radically different ideas of the proper role of government and the individual's proper relationship to it.
This will be the first election since candidate George W. Bush made explicit in 2000 what had become implicit in conservatives' behavior. As recently as the 1994 congressional elections, Republicans had triumphed by preaching small-government conservatism, vowing to abolish four Cabinet-level departments, including Education.
By 2000 conservatives knew that even Americans rhetorically opposed to "big government" are, when voting, defenders of the welfare state. Social Security and Medicare are the two most popular and biggest components of government (together, a third of federal outlays and rising as the population ages).
Candidate Bush promised to strengthen the New Deal's emblematic achievement (Social Security) and to add a prescription drug entitlement to the Great Society's (Medicare). Since 2001 he has increased federal spending 48 percent on K-12 education.
Today "strong government conservatism" — "strong" is not synonymous with "big" — is the only conservatism palatable to a public that expects government to assuage three of life's largest fears: illness, old age and educational deficits that prevent social mobility. Some conservatives believe government strength is inherently inimical to conservative aspirations. This belief mistakenly assumes that all government action is merely coercive, hence a subtraction from freedom. But government can act strongly to make itself less controlling and intrusive, enacting laws that offer opportunities and incentives for individuals to become more self-sufficient.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Just like you can't have open borders and a welfare state---the temptation is ultimately overwhelming for politicians to extend welfare benefits to immigrants---whether legal or illegal---, and for immigrants to avail themselves of the welfare benefits instead of jobs.
They may try to have tax increases to pay for increased spending, but that will fail because tax increases will simply result in less economic activity and less revenue. Then they will have to cut spending.
I agree with your comment about open borders and welfare. However, my preference is for getting rid of welfare and having open borders, while most everyone else is in favor of continued welfare and closed borders. I also suspect that 1/3 of those for closed borders do so for purely racist reasons and if the illegals were english, they would be all for welfare and open borders.
The exits polls showed hispanics spliting 65-35 for gore in 2000.
I did not say they were not. I offered true statements and facts to counter geronL's one sided, biased half truths and partially incorrect statements.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
So true... oh so true.
Exactly. Add pro-savings tax reform, and we would have a system in which a generous safety net would be present, but very few people would need it. The enemy is collectivism, not a social safety net. The left assumes that only a collectivist approach can provide security. That is not correct, but we need an intelligent and principled reengineering of some basic institutions.
Why do WE (conservatives) have to compromise all the time?
You don't see Democrats out there proposing tax cuts, pro-life measures, or cutting gov't.
Blame the Clintons and Tom Daschle -- especially Daschle, who is the one who stirred Clinton up to fight during the budget/shutdown controversy in 1995. (I don't know what role Hillary played, but I think she was helping Daschle persuade Clinton to shut down the government.)
That incident was where Clinton showed the People who was boss. That's when he hurt them and made believers out of them, that's when he cowed them and made them State thralls.
I know two women who live together who voted for Reagan twice who can't hold a logical discussion of the government shutdown, it really got to them and taught them to fear the Republicans -- even though it was Slick who hurt them and scared them. He scared them to death: years later, they still get pie-eyed and their voices rise as they damn the Republicans over that affair, they're still afraid of becoming beggars unless the Welfare State is there to help them.
I'll personally have a hard time forgiving Newt and Bob Dole for mishandling that crisis. Dole was too busy thinking about campaigning for the White House himself, and Newt in the crunch was a babe in arms, he let Clinton lie to him and manipulate him. The Republican Congressional leadership failed miserably in the crisis Clinton precipitated to decide whether we would be a nation of free men, or an empire. Statism, vanguardism, and empire won.
I think Will has decided that conservatism is dead, and he's shopping around for something a little trendier and more salable.
A guy's gotta eat, after all.
No, I think that that old constitutional deference is dead. The 'Rats have killed it, and the Congressional Republicans would respond to liberal appointees by driving stakes through their hearts one after another.
They will not cut spending. You're dreaming if you think an entitlement program like Social Security is ever going to pay for itself or have its spending cut.
I agree with your comment about open borders and welfare. However, my preference is for getting rid of welfare and having open borders, while most everyone else is in favor of continued welfare and closed borders.
Yeah, well, guess what? No one's going to get rid of welfare. And immigration both legal and illegal simply gives politicians new clientele for their handouts.
I also suspect that 1/3 of those for closed borders do so for purely racist reasons and if the illegals were english, they would be all for welfare and open borders.
Yeah? Based on what, other than your knee-jerk PC desire to slander as "racist" your fellow citizens who are concerned about the massive problems out-of-control immigration is causing our country? Are you saying that none of those problems would exist if millions of English were entering into our country? Then I'm afraid you're the "racist," aren't you?
I said "I suspect" not "I can prove". However, if my fellow citizens are not racist, why do I have racist comments said to my face about 4-6 times a year. Further, if my fellow citizens are not racist, why does this forum list as rules for posting "no racist comments"? Further, it is plain and obvious to me that the democrat black leadership is biased against whites. Are you so sure of the moral purity of the other races, that a small percentage like 10% is not also racist ? As recently as 1964, there were laws that banned interracial marriage in 24 states. That would be state sanctioned racism. Are you so sure that in the last 40 years, racism has been eradicated from the US ?
Tax-free savings plans...as example.
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.