Posted on 04/01/2007 1:45:19 PM PDT by quidnunc
There is an argument floating around Republican circles that in order to win again, the GOP has to reconnect with the truths of its Goldwater-Reagan glory days. It has to once again be the minimal-government party, the maximal-freedom party, the party of rugged individualism, and states’ rights.
This is folly. It’s the wrong diagnosis of current realities and so the wrong prescription for the future.
Back in the 1970s, when Reaganism became popular, top tax rates were in the 70s, growth was stagnant and inflation was high. Federal regulation stifled competition. Government welfare policies enabled a culture of dependency. Socialism was still a coherent creed, and many believed the capitalist world was headed toward a Swedish welfare model.
In short, in the 1970s, normal, nonideological people were right to think that their future prospects might be dimmed by a stultifying state. People were right to believe that government was undermining personal responsibility. People were right to have what Tyler Cowen, in a brilliant essay in Cato Unbound, calls the “liberty vs. power” paradigm burned into their minds — the idea that big government means less personal liberty.
But today, many of those old problems have receded or been addressed. Today the big threats to people’s future prospects come from complex, decentralized phenomena: Islamic extremism, failed states, global competition, global warming, nuclear proliferation, a skills-based economy, economic and social segmentation.
Normal, nonideological people are less concerned about the threat to their freedom from an overweening state than from the threats posed by these amorphous yet pervasive phenomena. The “liberty vs. power” paradigm is less germane. …
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at nwanews.com ...
Yes, classic GOP Big Tent party-above-principle philosophy. After all, that "loyal American conservative" stuff is so "Decade of Greed" 80s...
He's an utter fool. The price of freedom is ETERNAL vigilance
LOL. We've got plenty of Durbins in the party
I've never seen a "conservative" so wrong for so many reasons as this Brooks hack.
"He's an utter fool. The price of freedom is ETERNAL vigilance"
Absolutely. The man is a poster boy for what is wrong with the GOP.
Good, then a conservative party will arise from its well desrved ashes.
Correct!
Big government is still a threat to personal liberty. However, there are additional threats that weren't around in the Goldwater-Reagan eras. Creeping globalism, for one. Whether a government or a transnational corporation threatens my way of life, the result is the same.
So you think Pew is non-partisan? And pray tell, what difference does it make if the Republican party no longer exists if we become Democrats in drag?
Right; let's get behind solutions to "global warming"; should we send Durbin and Brooks to Mars to solve the probem there?
And you want "single payer" health care?
No, it's not the policies; it's the failure to communicate.
Excuse me; REPUBLICAN women do not depend on BIG GOVERNMENT. We have our own resources, and we ABHOR people who want something for nothing, because what they are getting is stolen from people who work and produce.
why stop at 9 post?
Because my computer didnt register as far as actually posting so I duped dee duped dee duped.
LOL' don't blame your computer; it's your trigger finger!!
Generally, women are more willing than men to trade freedom away in return for the preceived security of government.
Do you disagree with that? It's pretty hard to, as that how men and women are wired.
It takes an unusual woman to realize that Government isn't the answer. I know a lot of women who are that smart, I married one. Obviously you are that smart too, along with most of the women Freepers.
There should be more like you.
OK; you're forgiven. And with your political skills, you should run for public office. :)
Thanks, I've not too dumb either.
After getting beat up pretty bad over just that viewpiont I've learned how to say it very precisely. Conservatives appreciate precison.
Who made David Brooks the arbiter of what is or are good models for the future?...What could HE or anyone who agrees with him possibly know about the future?
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.