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 ...
It suffered a pretty big body blow in 1996, and further in 1998, when after the 1994 elections, they actually tried to do conservative things in earnest - and got little popular support.
1. Kweisi Mfume began his bloody-shirt campaign at the NAACP to get black voters out in bigger numbers. He succeeded, and the black vote went up by as much as (if I got the arithmetic right) as much as 60% over what it had been in previous elections. That vote alone almost entirely accounted for the 1998 surprise.
2. In 1998, the Lewinsky scandal just about blotted out the sun and nearly paralyzed the Congress. It energized the 'Rats who, embittered as well as stunned, fell into lockstep behind Tom Daschle and gave us the memorable spectacle of their rah-rah rally for the Felon on the White House lawn on the day he was impeached.
Wouldn't be necessary if the government didn't take so much of your money to begin with. It's at best paradoxical that the government wants to be thanked for solving a problem it creates.
I didn't ask you to expatiate about whether "racism has been eradicated from the US," I asked you what the basis was for your charge that over 30% of people who want to stop illegal immigration are motivated by racism. That's a gross, unfounded insult, and you should not be allowed to get away with it any more than someone writing a racist post should. If you can't or won't answer my challenge, believe me, I won't be a bit surprised.
Unfortunately, there is some truth to what you say, but that only makes it all the more distressing when we forfeit the high ground with respect to promoting a fiscally-conservative, constitutionally-limited vision for America's future. Conservatism is hard, as it implies personal responsibility and accountability...sure, anybody can get behind the simplistic argument of "To everyone in accordance to their need, from everyone in accordance to their means"; however, this socialistic impulse has proven to be wrong in every society it has been tried. The Right must retain the high ground with respect to limiting the growth of the Federal Leviathan, and continue to make converts to our cause.
When we allow Federal expenditures to grow at a rate that exceeds that of Clinton and the DemonRATS of '93-'94, it blurs the differences between the parties and undermines our ability to make the case that Republicans can be trusted to be sober conservators of our hard-earned tax dollar.
FReegards...MUD
It is a guess. And the 30% number was always presented as a guess by me. I am allowed to guess. I never accused any particular person. I never accused you. It is not an insult. You are hyperventilating about nothing. If you have another guess, then say it. If you have proof the 30% number is too high or too low then show it. I will say that the number is definitely larger than zero and if you insist the number is zero, you are crazy.
Because the Republicans nodding like bobbleheads at everything George Bush does are the same Republicans that were howling like castrated wolves when Bill Clinton tried the very same things.
California is currently, a microcosm of what might happen on a national scale if the debt/spending/tax/welfare state system is not rearranged. The balance between economic health/growth and taxation and all that implies is on the line in Cal. The next year or two are going to tell the tale - and demonstrate whether Marxist social/political philosophy is workable. We already know the answer to that - it cannot work over the long run because of a fatal flaw - it ultimately leads to a total economic breakdown precisely because it does NOT encourage individual success because it destroys the INCENTIVE to excel.
Big government and everybody on the take from entitlements ultimately will lead to 95% tax rates - and just who the hell is going to work harder to give it to the lunatics in Congress? Such tax rates also require wage and price controls - and then we are right where the Soviet Union was a decade ago - right on the brink of collapse.
The RATs vision of America is NOT sustainable over the long run - and we are very, very close (one DemoRAT from Disaster) to a total meltdown. You think we can sustain a 50% tax rate over the long term? I say it will NEVER be enough for either the RATs or the Repubos to stay n the road that both major parties seem to be on.
We are caught between a rock and a hard place - those dependent on government entitlement constitute a large and growing segment of society - so large, in fact, that in a way, we are ALL part of the problem since we have been forced into participating in the Social Security/Medicare boondoggle. There is no comfortable way to pare down government at this point without some sort of major civil unpleasantness.
In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. . .The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.
This may be the most nation-shaping election since 1932
Nonsense.
By series of compromises, do you mean first we compromise on CFR, then on the budget, then on the farm bill, then on the NEA, then on the assualt weapons ban, etc.?
Is someone who is opposed to all of those a "single-issue" idealogue?
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.