Posted on 08/31/2005 1:00:04 PM PDT by VU4G10
As the nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg was being whistled through the Senate, a morose friend called, "Can you believe it? The vote was 96-3!"
"Who were the other two?" I asked.
We laughed. For we did not need to be told where Jesse Helms stood on elevating to the Supreme Court an ACLU activist like Judge Ginsburg.
If one were to name the two elected leaders of the last third of the 20th century who best represented the conservative creed in national politics, they would be Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms. It is a defining difference between a traditional conservative and a neocon that the former would name Helms as the best senator of the era, while the latter would name "Scoop" Jackson or Pat Moynihan.
Which raises a question. While the Republican Party today controls the White House and Congress, how stands conservatism, using Reagan-Helms as the gold standard?
On tax cuts, a strong national defense and the nomination of federal judges who believe America is a republic where the people rule through elected representatives, not a judicial dictatorship, George W. Bush meets the gold standard.
But on spending, Bush and Congress do not even meet the Clinton standard. They qualify as Great Society Conservatives. The Republican Revolution of 1994 turned out like that vaunted Vanguard we launched after Sputnik that got four feet off the ground.
Anti-communism and resistance to the "evil empire" once united the Right. But that unifying cause died with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
On foreign policy, conservatives are no longer a house united. While all but six GOP House members voted to authorize President Bush to take us to war in Iraq, and 75 percent of Republicans still believe in the war, among conservative and libertarian writers, there was no such plurality, and some are having second thoughts. There is no conservative consensus on foreign policy today.
The neoconservative position, to make promoting democracy the altarpiece of our foreign policy, to increase U.S. forces in Iraq, and to extend the war to Iran and Syria to win it, appears no longer to be Bush policy. And despite the president's resolve to stay the course, his generals continue to talk of substantial withdrawals by spring.
On foreign aid - given the increases for Africa, the Middle East and the Millennium Challenge - the president and Congress seem squarely in the liberal internationalist tradition. They believe in it.
On social issues, the GOP remains a pro-life party, but less volubly than it once was, with House and Senate Republicans moving to back embryonic stem-cell research. Rather than battleground issues on which the GOP likes to fight, these are wedge issues on which the GOP likes to campaign in October to rally the Red Staters. And the base is beginning to get the message. They are the girls of summer who are dumped when the boys go back to school.
On sovereignty, the White House has maintained its opposition to the Kyoto Protocol and International Criminal Court but continues to accept the dictations of a World Trade Organization, to which the Gingrich-Dole internationalists subordinated U.S. sovereignty in '94.
But on two issues, besides the war, the Bush Republicans are starting to lose their conservative base as well as the country.
House Republicans voted 7-1 for CAFTA, but enthusiasm for that trade deal was nonexistent, and Bush had to twist arms in his own party to win. Weekly stories of factory closings, jobs being outsourced, and foreign workers coming in to take American jobs at Third-World wages are killing the old faith in free trade.
The Business Roundtable and its house organ, the Wall Street Journal, have lost the country, which is why Democrats voted 14-1 against CAFTA. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing on globalization.
But it is on America's bleeding border that the GOP faces a crisis. If President Bush is unwilling to protect this border where 1 million to 2 million attempt to break in yearly, and half a million succeed, this issue could sink the party in 2006. Mass immigration is eating up tax dollars - in health, education, welfare, and prison, police and court costs - bankrupting states and imperiling our security.
Where do conservatives stand? Almost all are demanding that Bush do more to stop the Mexican invasion.
Thus on free trade, immigration and the war, all major issues, conservatism is a house divided. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, the leading candidates to succeed Bush, stand with him on all three, but the country stands against all three, on all three issues. The last best hope of the GOP in 2008 is - as always - the Democrats.
HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
That was just too funny!
I'll vote for a Dem when hell freezes over!
Article 4, Section 4:
..and shall protect each of them against Invasion
Jesse Helms?
Mark Tapscott of the Heritage Foundation asks the question first asked by James Dobson four years ago: is the Republican Party addressing the issues of its conservative base in the policies it advances in Congress?" He notes:
Thanks to the incredible expansion of federal entitlements, regulations and pork spending sanctioned by the GOP leadership in Congress since 2001, there is virtually no chance that Big Government is going to be shrunk even a little any time soon.
And since there is no sign the folks running Congress are willing to change course, why shouldn’t conservatives dump the GOP?
Incredibly, after a decade of GOP control, the federal government is bigger, more powerful, costs more and is less accountable than it was when the Democrats were thrown out by voters in 1994 after four decades of mostly uncontested rule. . . .
Perhaps such a turn of events would be the needed jolt, but it seems just as likely, given recent history, that only the names and party affiliations of those doing damage in Congress would change.
Got any suggestions?
I bet the nut jobs who thought the Republicans were going to take over the country because of its monolithic might are entirely being taken by surprised.
Republicans, however, have known from the start that the conservative movement is a coalition of groups with as much in common as not.
But the basic goals are the same. That is to preserve individual freedoms and liberties. The other issues are side issues that define each of the different factions.
The Left is bound together by its opposition to the Right, and carries no common purpose besides that. Their ultimate goal is to regain power, which is why the Left appears so fragmented from the outset. Their exercise of power is detrimental to individual freedom and liberty, and because of that - conservatives can usually agree on one thing... and that is keeping the Left out of the driver's seat.
A lot of wavering goes on during the year before an election, but when it comes down to it, the Right mobilizes for action and the Left mobilizes for opposition. And that may just continue to make all the difference to the voters.
What are the differences you see between the actions of today's Republican party and today's Democrat party?
Both seem to favor bigger government.
Both seem to favor huge foreign aid giveaways.
Both seem happy to advance the entitlement mentality.
Both are willing to ignore the invasion by Mexico.
Both are moving forward with their globalist agendas, one by the UN, one by CAFTA.
Both are huge spenders, the current GOP being the biggest of all, ever.
Sure, the GOP would rather cut taxes forcing them to borrow and spend as opposed to the RAT model of tax and spend, but in the end, our debts are skyrocketing out of control with no end in sight...
"But the basic goals are the same. That is to preserve individual freedoms and liberties."
You're joking right?
We probably will see a loss of Senate seats in 2006 and loss of the Presidency in 2008. There is a lack of Republican leadership in the Senate and Bush's ratings are not good and going south. The Iraq war is not going well and costing taxpayers billions upon billions. Meanwhile a Republican Congress can't seem to find to find any nerve to cut domestic spending. Illegals cross the boarder in waves and and the administration's only answer is amnesty. What do we expect?
Bush’s supply side strategy on tax cuts has shrunk a large deficit created by recession and war to less than 3% of GDP. A federal deficit under 3% is sustainable indefinitely and is hardly skyrocketing out of control.
No, I'm not kidding. At the basis of every major conservative platform is the preservation of individual liberties and freedom.
Mike Pence in 2008!!!!!!
We need a way larger Majority and to stop electing these half-arse RINOs.
Then we'd get things done.
Right now we are just trying not to look like ogres to LIEbs/Dems and we are PAYING for it, to no avail and to no RESPECT!
So is the Self proclaimed Conservative savior Buchanan going to run for President again to save the day in 2008?
Scoop Jackson was the last truly great Democrat. His party abandoned him and he died of natural causes on the same day that the Soviets shot down KAL007.
What are the differences you see between the actions of today's Republican party and today's Democrat party?
So Howard Dean, Fat Teddy, et al are the same as George Allen, Kyl, DeLay????
Get a clue!
The current Dem party is too insane to run a country!
The large deficit is not caused by recession. It is caused by Congressmen who buy votes year after year while kicking the can down the road.
If you think a federal deficit of 3% is sustainable indefinitely, do you also think a household which overspends by 3% annually is also sustainable indefinitely?
Why should we allow the federal government to get away with such accounting smoke and mirrors tricks that violate basic economic law?
I think Patrick Buchanan burned all the goodwill he has just about everywhere...including within the ranks of conservatives. I know I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher.
I can't take this morons articles anymore. He's got to be the most miserable person to be around. Name the last time Pat had anything positive to say about anything ?
Because the federal government can print as much money as they want?
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.