The Corruption of Conservatism (July 10, 2003)

Colorado Freedom Report ^ | July 10, 2003 | Ron Paul

[KDD]

I wonder how much irony this thread could generate.

[FSPress]

This should have generated considerable opposition by the new republican moderates party

[jimkress]

One thing is certain: conservatives who worked and voted for less government in the Reagan years and welcomed the takeover of the U.S. Congress and the presidency in the 1990s and early 2000s were deceived. Soon they will realize that the goal of limited government has been dashed and that their views no longer matter.

I was among them. I voted for Bush. I prayed for his victory. I defended him in this forum, before and after he was elected.

I was betrayed.

No matter whether you vote for a 'Republican' or 'Democrat' presidential candidate you will still get a Liberal in the White House. Bush has proven that with his complicity in CFR 1st Amendment destruction and associated IRS abuse, horrific entitlement spending increases (e.g Medicare), amnesty for illegals, grotesque expansion of the Federal Government, continuing assault on our right to keep and bear arms, his refusal to deal with the oligarchical behavior of the Federal Judiciary, etc.

The only difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the Democrats want the US ruled by a combination of national and international despots while the Republicans prefer tyranny by just national despots.

Bush is a Republican Liberal. Bush believe Government is the solution, not the problem. His only difference with Liberals in the Democrat wing of the Liberal establishment is that his priorities for Big Government are slightly different from theirs - but with the same goal, complete subservience of/dependence on Americans to their government and its associated political class.

Given the objectives of both parties are the same, how can anyone justify supporting either party?

Oh yeah, with respect to the "giving your vote to Democrats" comments - the lesser of two evils is still evil. As long as people refuse to follow (and vote) their principles, evil prospers.

Vote for FREEDOM, not Republican/Democrat hegemony. Support the Constitution Party.

[Abcdefg]

Bump for later reading

[Dane]

I wonder how much irony this thread could generate.

JMO, but by the long windedness, Ron Paul could generate enough wind power to keep the lights on in California for years.

[Dane]

I was betrayed

You were not. Everything Bush has done was in his 2000 campaign platform.

IMO, you were probably to busy with your drama class to read it.

[KDD]

JMO, but by the long windedness, Ron Paul could generate enough wind power to keep the lights on in California for years.

This coming from you?

LOL...talk about irony. Good first example.

[Mike4Freedom]

Everything Bush has done was in his 2000 campaign platform.

You mean that:
attacking Iraq constitutes a "humble foreign policy".
Raiding medical marijuana patients in free states constituties "letting the states decide?
Half trillion dollar deficits constitutes fiscal responsibility
Medicare drug benefit is what conservatives do

[arete]

LOL...talk about irony. Good first example.

Mindless party loyalists must attack the principles of others. The New Republican party neocons motto should be, "We stand for nothing" or "The New and Improved Socialist Party".

Richard W.

[Terpfen]

He started off good, but then started talking about Neocons, and I just lost interest.

What happens if a conservative is for pre-emptive engagement of threats, but wants to abolish the welfare state, and thinks Trotsky is an idiot?

[steve50]

Let's not forget that signing CFR was something he swore he wouldn't do in his 2000 campaign. Proves his word is worth nothing.

[Consort]

You're spewing that third party loser thrash on all the threads today.... Give it a rest.

[G.Mason]

Ron Paul is a fine upstanding member of Congress, but he needs a math lesson.

A near majority, if not more, of Americans want socialism.

Case closed.

Now all you Bush bashers stay home in November, or vote for the Dims, via the Constitution Party, or whatever. None here, I doubt, will lose any sleep

[mr.pink]

He started off good, but then started talking about Neocons, and I just lost interest.

Not discussing the arrogant neocons in a article titled "The Corruption of Conservatism" would be like not talking about the elephant in the living room...even as it starts passing gas and chewing on the drapes.

[steve50]

not discussing the arrogant neocons

Only neocons are allowed to use the phrase, like Kristol. And only in glowing terms. I've had enough of these FDR republicans.

[Columbine]

The problem with Ron Paul is the same as the problem with all idealogues.

He paints his picture of the people he sees as his enemy but he doesn't understand them.

Heck yes, I'm for preemtive strikes on terrorism. What fool wants to sit here and let 3,000 more Americans die first?

Does that make me a neo-conservative who supports welfare? Of course not.

Arguments like this is why there is only one Ron Paul in Congress and why the Libertarian Party is irrelevant.

[Columbine]

The problem with Ron Paul is the same as the problem with all idealogues.

He paints his picture of the people he sees as his enemy but he doesn't understand them.

Heck yes, I'm for preemtive strikes on terrorism. What fool wants to sit here and let 3,000 more Americans die first?

Does that make me a neo-conservative who supports welfare? Of course not.

Arguments like this is why there is only one Ron Paul in Congress and why the Libertarian Party is irrelevant.

[David]

It is difficult for true conservatives to attack Bush because personally, he is a reasonable choice. Fundamental Christian; personally commited to an agenda of Constitutional Rights, lower taxes, and the free enterprise system.

However his government is run, as was much of Ronald Reagan's government, by the Jim Baker's of the world who do not share Bush or Reagan's personal commitment to these fundamental principals.

I want to respectfully point out that Dane is wrong about Bush's campaign message in several respects--government deficits and spending; and preemptive war to pursue expansion of American hegemony (as opposed to war to defend American).

On the other hand, it is very very difficult to draw the line between the two objectives of war--in my own view, I can see the Iraq invasion as perfectly justified by the goal of defending America before invaders reach the gates. Most of the political attacks on this action are based on the same kind of logic Chamberlin argued in the 1930's. Striking Saddam was a legitimate attack on the underpinnings of the Mohammadan war on America.

On the other hand, I would go nowhere to stop the Mahammadans from pursuing their beliefs if they did not threaten us and our way of life in America.

I suppose a political difference could be constructed out of the ultimate remedy in Iraq at this point--I don't care whether Iraq has a nation or not; there is no Iraq people; they too are an amalgamation. Divide the country up among the Kurds, Kuwait, and other interested parties and drive on.

[Columbine]

Sorry for the double post. I have trouble with this laptop. Maybe the moderator will delete one of them.

[IronJack]

It sounds like Ron Paul is one of a handful of paleo-conservatives remaining today. I'm beginning to believe that the election of George Bush Jr. was the worst thing that has happened to conservatism in this country since Antonio Gramsci.

It also occurs to me that it's time for a split between the paleos and the neos, and that, having been betrayed so frequently and consistently by the left-drifting Republican Party, paleos no longer have a home there.

It would seem that a new home for conservatism could be built around a core of people like Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, Pat Buchanan, Robert Bork, etc.. That would seem to be an effort worth pursuing.

Without a new set of champions and a place to call its own, paleoconservatism may be doomed.