The Republican Party - Selling Fear and Failure

steve-olson.com ^ | Steve

[goorala]

The Republican Party - Selling Fear and Failure

by Steve ----Bookmark on del.icio.us----

The Republican Party is crumbling. They lost congress in 2006 and will lose more ground in 2008 because they offer nothing new, nothing original, and nothing positive. We have seen the party of entrepreneurship, small government, and personal freedom become the party of fear, war, and police power. After the party leaders mocked, sneered, and cackled at those of us who believe in a limited constitutional republic, they now ask us to hold our nose and support John McCain.

A Message to Republican Leaders

(FYI - I was involved in the Republican Party for almost 20 years):

John McCain recently said the U.S. Government should step up the drug war. This is indicative of why the Republican Party is crumbling, they don’t think things through and smart people are catching on.
I don’t care if you are on the right or the left, rich or poor, Christian or Atheist, black or white, if you value your personal freedom, it is time to stand together and question these people.

Anatomy of Failure

I have readers asking me why I won’t tow the Republican party line, and support John McCain. I’ll tell you why. I don’t agree with John McCain on much of anything. One of those disagreements is the about the drug war.

We’ve had almost 40 years of failed drug policy. In the past, when it was clear our efforts were failing, the politician’s solution was to escalate the war, increase police powers, and further restrict individual liberty. We’ve seen this pattern repeated for decades… escalate the war, the problems grows, react with more escalation, the problem continues to grow, react again, more escalation…

And now the Republican front-runner tells us, once again, that we need more of what hasn’t worked. Isn’t that insanity defined?

The modern war on drugs officially started in the late 60s. The results are in: Abject failure.

Freedom The First Casulaty of War

Whenever an elected official uses the word war, pay attention, because freedom is the first casualty of war. During the US Civil War, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus for the ‘common good.’ After the war ended, it was restored. During the First and Second World Wars, the government suspended almost every personal and economic liberty. After the wars ended, most of our rights were restored.
Those wars had clear beginnings and ends, but today we have wars which never end. How do we win the war on drugs? How do we win the war on terror?

Meanwhile our leaders tell us we must accept every new encroachment on our personal freedom, because it serves a greater public good. Where will this end? How much freedom are we willing to sacrifice for safety? Why isn’t anyone in power asking these questions?

How Many People Will We Imprision?

Right now we have over 2 million people incarcerated in the US, more than any other nation in the world including Russia and China. How many people are we willing to incarcerate to win the war on drugs? 4 million? 10 million? 20 million? We are fast approaching a point when we will imprison more people than Stalin or Pol Pot.

And how much money are we willing to spend? 100 billion? a trillion? 10 trillion? Are we willing to go bankrupt because we are too stubborn to accept that there might be a better solution?

An Anecdote

In Stillwater Minnesota, in the late 1980s, the US Federal Government seized a family home because a fifteen year old boy sold a hit of acid to a friend in his basement bedroom. This was a kid, not a kingpin. His parents worked their entire lives to pay for that home, and while suffering the anguish of their teenage son’s drug abuse, the government showed its compassion by stealing their home. Back in the day, it was big news, because this gross abuse of power was new. Most people knew it was insane, but they did nothing, and today property seizures have become so common the news doesn’t even report them.

The drug war and the war on terror are stripping us of our civil liberties, and when we protest, politicians like McCain sneer and call us dangerous and crazy. You know what’s dangerous and crazy? Quietly accepting a government which steals from it citizens.

Creative Problem Solving 101

There are five high level steps for planning and executing anything:

1. Define your purpose and your moral limitations
2. Visualize and communicate the outcome
3. Brainstorm
4. Organize
5. Act
6. If you don’t get the deisred results, return to #3 and repeat until you do.

With the war on drugs, the US government skipped step #2, #3, and #4 and went straight to #5.

Like this:
1. Drugs appear to be hurting some people. We have a moral responsibility to do something.
5. Police action

And when these actions didn’t create the desired result, did they regroup and brainstorm? No, they pushed for more of the same. If you listen to John McCain you’d think we are failing because we haven’t imprisoned or killed enough people.

Lack of Vision

What is McCain’s vision for the war on drugs? Does anyone know what desired outcome would look like? Is it a world without drugs? Is that realistic? If so, is it a world without every drug or just some drugs? Who will decide which drugs to eliminate from our lives, us as individuals or a committee in Washington? Maybe his desired outcome is a world without drug users? Or a world where every drug user is locked in a cage? Mao would be proud.

My vision is a day when drug and alcohol use is treated as a potential health issue and not a moral failing.

On a closely related note… Some of my Republican readers can’t understand why I’ve said that Barack Obama may be preferable to McCain.

I’ll tell you why…

No New Ideas

The Republican leadership hasn’t adopted a new idea in almost 30 years, and John McCain is the problem personified. He himself said he doesn’t know much about economics and economic policy is the only reason I’d vote for a Republican. I lean libertarian, and McCain fails every test of personal liberty. I can’t think of a single reason to vote for him.

Why Obama seems preferable right now:

• He is open to libertarian ideas
• He is open to decriminalizing marijuana
• He believes the 2nd amendment guarantees the individual the right to own firearms
• He is open to ending the war in Iraq
• His election would do wonders for race relations
• He admits his failures
• He has vision
• He seems to understand the problems in our working classes
• He’s likable

Why John McCain scares the hell out of me:

• He said we will stay in Iraq a 100 years if necessary
• He is planning more wars
• He wants to step up police powers
• His economic positions seem to favor large corporations, not free markets
• He has a bad temper
• He doesn’t offer anything new

This Isn’t an Endorsement of Obama.

I’m simply warning the mainstream Republicans that they are losing the libertarian wing of the party and it may lead to an Obama victory in November. I have not ruled out voting for Obama. I have ruled out voting for McCain and so has almost every other libertarian leaning voter I’ve met.

The Republican Convention

I am a delegate to the local Republican convention, and I will support Ron Paul, but don’t kid yourself, he isn’t going to win the nomination. Mark my words… when the national convention comes to Saint Paul, the Republican elites won’t even let Ron Paul speak and I predict that Ron Paul signs won’t be allowed inside the event. Ron Paul supporters will be fenced in outdoors blocks away with all the other protesters in the ‘free speech cage.’

I can’t believe I’m saying this, I abhor socialism, but right now, Obama seems to be our best hope for a positive outcome in the ‘08 presidential race. Let’s hope it leads to open minds and better ideas in 2012.

Thanks for reading,

Every time I try to wash my hands of politics, it just gets more interesting.

Don’t forget to subscribe to this feed. I’ve got some fun surprises in store.

[alicewonders]

The republican and democrat parties have no fresh ideas. They are both bloated corrupt sows.

[KDD]

One more time...

It’s not isolationism he proposes, it is non interventionism.

Something that this site used to agree with him on.

Doesn't matter much now anyway...The hatchet job done on Ron and his supporters has been complete, but at a great loss to our country...and the G.O.P.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

I think Ron Paul would be supported, even by me, if his foreign policy beliefs weren’t so isolationist.

There you go again, with the "isolationist" strawman. You know he's a non-interventionist, which is a big difference than becoming a hole in the wall nation like North Korea. It's time we minded our own business and protect OUR interests, not the Saudi's or Israel's interests.

Ron Paul was the only Republican candidate who can defeat Hillary or Obama but yet he gets smeared and denigrated simply because of the war. Well, the troops have donated to him more than any of the other candidates, so what does that tell you? The GOP is completely out of step with the electorate and will get their butts handed to them because there's no way in Hell I'm volunteering or doing grassroots stuff for McCain. Paul was the only candidate openly talking about killing the Dept of Education, Housing, Energy, and killing the income tax. Funny, but I thought FReepers believed in limited government instead of cowering under their blankets hoping the government protects them from terrorists living halfway around the world in caves.

[bill1952]

This is nothing but self promotion from the fool that wrote this.

Its hardly even that.
To run on a platform of stopping the war on drugs is not going to get you more than three votes anyway.

Talk about stupid...

[Bishop_Malachi]

Why Obama seems preferable right now:
He is open to libertarian ideas
He is open to decriminalizing marijuana
He believes the 2nd amendment guarantees the individual the right to own firearms
_____________________________________________________

Yeah, which libertarian ideas? I could opt to give states much more authority in setting drug policy IF we can dismantle the federal welfare state. BUT as long as people are pushing “universal healthcare” and tax-payer funded medicare, medicaid, and a host of other entitlements that tend to subsidize the least productive members of society, then then I’m not subsidizing a bunch of losers who want to “light up” every single day. We’ve already got enough alcoholics to rehabilitate. Why do we wanna drastically increase the number of marijuana users to rehab too (at the tax-payers expense, of course)?

[End Times Crusader]

That’s a little harsh. Most Freepers are supportive of McCain, and I predict that come November, the vast majority will come to their senses. Most will not allow a Dim to waltz in and take the presidency despite their disagreements with McCain.

[eclecticEel]

You could send 10 addicts to rehab for the price of sending one of them to jail.

[Grunthor]

We have seen the party of entrepreneurship, small government, and personal freedom become the party of fear, war, and police power. After the party leaders mocked, sneered, and cackled at those of us who believe in a limited constitutional republic, they now ask us to hold our nose and support John McCain.

---

You will likely get flambe’ed over this but I dare anyone to refute the part that I copied & pasted above.

[alicewonders]

This is taken from the Libertarian platform - it absolutely does not promote welfare and other social programs like it. The Republican Party should take note:

It is time to recognize that welfare cannot be reformed: it should be ended.

We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating AFDC, food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap.

[impimp1]

This Steve Olson guy seems like a left-winger to me. I have no problem with going from “step 1 to step 5” with the drug problem - i.e. 1. it is a problem, 5. send the police after them.

[TigersEye]

The author lost me with the Obama BS. Obama is an empty suit.

But he is right about the WoSDs. Legal psychiatric drugs are more dangerous and doing more damage than street drugs. I can't see pouring more billions of dollars into a failed policy.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Doesn't matter much now anyway...The hatchet job done on Ron and his supporters has been complete, but at a great loss to our country...and the G.O.P.

Yep. The party elites and their sycophants can now go back to bloviating about big government & the loss of their Constitutional rights under Hillary/Obama. Today's conservatives don't want victory, which is what Paul would have given them, they just want to keep engaging in a never-ending battle fighting the Left, the globalists, and the Democrats/RINOs. I've always said that Booker T. Washington quote about how so-called black leaders treat blacks, apply it to conservatives like Rush, Hannity, and the conservative blogs because there's fame & fortune to be made in continuously fighting the Left.

[bill1952]

a bunch of drug-addled sour-pusses bitching and moaning that we’re all doomed because we don’t accept Ron Paul as our Lord and Savior.

LOL! Thats too funny. ; D
Although I sometimes have a view of Libertarians that borders on contempt, - witness the recount in Ohio that even Kerry didn't get involved with - I do find some common ground with what they could have become. - If they walked away from the kooky free drug and naive foreign policy stances.

How they ever let themselves get hijacked into their present tiatanic/hindenburg state of affairs, I'll never understand. Thanks - bill.

[org.whodat]

I predict that the Republican Party will fare better than Free Republic. I predict that this site will end up as a backwater sanctuary for a bunch of drug-addled sour-pusses bitching and moaning that we’re all doomed

Don't know sh88 about ron raul, but I'm sure no one will miss you!

[Ingtar]

Let’s dump the war on poverty first. It has been going on even longer and to less effect.

[org.whodat]

Obama thinks that individuals do have a right to own firearms; but that governments can also impose basically any restrictions on the right that they decide is fitting, up to and including outright bans on gun ownership.

Don't know about the obama part, but that statement is what jorge and the department of justice just file with the supreme court.

[TigersEye]

I think Ron Paul would be supported, even by me, if his foreign policy beliefs weren’t so isolationist.

That is my problem with him. I wish he would just elucidate them better. He's a Constitutionalist on everything else. I know the Founding Fathers wouldn't expect us to lay down and submit to the jihadis so it isn't a matter of running against the grain of Constitutionalism to create a policy to deal with them.

[ex-snook]

Why John McCain scares the hell out of me: * He said we will stay in Iraq a 100 years if necessary * He is planning more wars * He wants to step up police powers * His economic positions seem to favor large corporations, not free markets * He has a bad temper * He doesn’t offer anything new

Hey that is just to get the GOP nod. Now he tacks left for the general.

[TigersEye]

LOL Too true.

[KDD]

Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have.

In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today
Ronald Reagan

William F. Buckley once remarked that the defining element of conservatism is realism—realism about the limits of state power, the nature of human beings and societies, the complexity of international life. Yet many conservatives who believe that the state can do nothing right at home think that it can do nothing wrong abroad. (If things go badly, why, more money, bigger bombs and ground troops will straighten it out.) Many who are scornful of social engineering at home seem sure it will work beyond our borders. They seem convinced that good intentions and a burst of state power can transform the world. How conservative is that?

A Conservatives view of the Republican Party.