Posted on 02/17/2008 12:37:20 PM PST by goorala
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.
(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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
There are five high level steps for planning and executing anything:
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
You’re probably right. I was in a sour-puss mood myself when I wrote that. I let the same 30 or so posters who will never be happy with anything less than free marijuana for everyone get me down sometimes.
I’m not going anywhere.
Understandable. Those types always seem to bring out the worst in people because they so often exhibit the worst behavior in themselves.
I believe this author better wake up fast.
Spare me your tears. The CIA, not our military waterboarded a total of four islamic dirtbags. It wouldn't bother me if they did it to hundreds. IMHO, US citizens gave up their citizenship rights when they fought as irregulars, ie non-uniformed combatants for a foreign power.
Anyone who does not understand that we are at war against Islamic fundamentalism and that our actions are not responsible for their hatred of us is not qualified to be President. When it comes to the Islamicist threat, there is no practical difference between “non-interventionism” and isolationism. Call it whatever you want: to refuse to fight against an enemy whose adherents preach hatred of, death to, and revenge against our country is beyond foolish - it is suicidal.
As far as the "War On Drugs" is concerned, during the 1960s the generation who had won WWII thought of "War" as something that ended in decisive victory and utterly destroyed the evil it was waged against.
- Got an insurgency in Indo China? Let's have a War In VietNam! (8 years, 56 kilobodies, trillions down the tubes and America lost.)
- Got poverty? Let's have a War On Poverty! (The society as a whole saw great increases in personal wealth but the poor lost.)
- Got Cancer? Let's have a War On Cancer! (Some cures but we are still taking a lot of casualties.)
- Got a problem with people using drugs? Let's have a War On Drugs! (We have more illegal drugs and more kins of illegal drugs than ever before. We've spent billions and criticisms of Libertarians aside our civil liberties HAVE suffered.)
The problem is, if you look at wars throughout history very few have ended the way WWII did - with Mussolini on a meat hook, the Red Army taking Berlin and killing Hitler and the A-Bomb convincing Hirohito that he may be next.
Wars usually DO NOT end decisively. They often sputter on for years after "Major Combat Operations" cease. Worse than that, they usually don't solve the issues that the parties going to war wanted to solve when they started the war in the first place. Take the War of 1812. When the war was settled there was nothing in the treaty about the rights of the Indians (Britain's issue) or the rights of immigrant seaman to be safe from impressment (the main US issue).
War is generally a bad idea if it can be avoided and it's time to end the use of the "War" paradigm for trying to solve social issues as well.
You won’t get any flames from me on that ... what you copied and pasted is accurate. Sad, but accurate nonetheless.
Yep... I’ve never been a pot smoker, but to me the only reason it’s illegal is because they couldn’t easily tax it and no conglomeration could monopolize it. Wars against ideas/tactics have never worked, neither have prohibitions.
But there is a difference in the Constitutional position that if you want to bomb countries declare war on them. It's the way to unite the nation behind the war. Last time it worked was WWII.
It will look better on their resumes as "Congressman - voluntarily resigned".
:o)
Your premise is false: there is no “right way” to fight terrorism. There are only actionable options. The choice of option in Iraq was a result of military considerations, not simply political ones. The option preferred by Libertarians, to fight the terrorists only on our own soil was, and is, unacceptable to most Americans.
The U.S. population has in general an attitude towards national defense that is literally just that - a half-dozen U.S. cities have to become smoking craters with millions of casualties before they become enraged enough to realize the nation is under attack.
Since 1993 there have been a number of terrorist attacks within the homeland but Presidents Clinton and Bush have played them down in importance. The attacks of 9/11 were too devastating to ignore, but people are forgetting even that horrorible day.
pingferlater.
We are fighting a war against a concept.
In relative terms of loss of life in war 911 was insignificant.
In terms of loss of American civil liberties the loss was significant indeed.
The GOP has become the party of all fear all the time.
You guys need to man up a little.
Democrats are selling dependence on government, covetousness and they're selling us down the river to radical Islam and socialism. They're selling us down the river to the environmentalist wackos who refuse to allow us to become energy independent and possile lower energy prices.
They're also selling our sovereignty for more votes from illegal immigrants. The Democrats are selling us on the idea that it is in our best interest to raise taxes and give all our money to them and let them take care of us. That's what Democrats are selling.
I am a life-long conservative (YAF member in high school) but also a Ron Paul supporter so take what I say for what you think it is worth.
I won’t support Obama or Clinton (obviously) but I cannot and will not vote for McCain. Those who champion McCain because he will pick better Supreme Court nominees, better support the war on terror, etc. make a good point and deserve a serious rebuttal.
My take on the matter is this:
If we support McCain he almost certainly won’t be elected president. The MSM is just waiting until McCain has been irrevocably selected as the Republican candidate to unload on him (and us) about his temper, the Keating 5, his tacky “bomb, bomb Iran” comments, etc. They may be able to goad McCain into melting down on national TV. This will no doubt be their goal. If we dutifully campaign for him and vote for him anyway, he will lose by a respectable margin. Then the MSM can declare that he could have been President if only he had been a little more “mainstream” by supporting (insert here whatever liberal positions we are supposed to be willing to sell out for power (gun control, abortion, etc.)). The Republican Party, whose main goal is to win elections, will probably concur. Why shouldn’t they? If you were willing to sell out on immigration etc. why shouldn’t you be willing to sell out on abortion or 2nd amendment rights? The party will lean more to the left to win future elections.
On the other hand, if we refuse to go along with this McCain will lose big time and the Republican Party (whose goal, remember, is to win elections) will crawl out of the wreckage and realize selling out conservatives is a losing proposition.
In either case we get Clinton or Obama as our next president, but with the second scenario we still have a party.
Comments?
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.