Where The Action Is

People keep asking me whom I favor for the 2016 Republican nomination. I politely demur — and not just because it's almost three years till Election Day, and at this stage in the 2008 cycle I'm not sure I'd ever heard of Barack Obama. As a resident of a New Hampshire township with more than 37 people, I don't have to seek out presidential candidates; they're there at the inn and the general store and the diner and the Grange. I've seen enough next-presidents-of-the-United-States for several lifetimes: Phil Gramm, Pete Wilson, Bob Dornan, Elizabeth Dole, Orrin Hatch, Gary Bauer, Lamar Alexander, Tom Tancredo, Tommy Thompson, Alan Keyes...

Would it have made any difference to the country had any of these fine upstanding fellows prevailed? Or would we be pretty much where we are anyway? Aside from a trade agreement here, a federal regulation there, I'd plump for the latter. You can't have conservative government in a liberal culture, and that's the position the Republican party is in.

I agree. It was a true indictment of “Both” Political Parties.

Ponder the vested control issues in the following example:

“Both” Political Parties of our current Communal Federal Government understand that the purpose of naming a Master/Slave Federal Government Program an “Entitlement” is to deceive the enslaved population into believing that becoming slaves to a Master is something to be desired, and thus reduce the probability of a slave rebellion.

The Master/Slave Entitlement of Obamacare is the most Communal of all of the Federal Government Master/Slave Entitlement Programs, because it can legally collect monies and/or property after death of the Entitled Slave, or from their surviving family members.

FORWARD, the RINOcare RINOS!

FORWARD, the Obamacare Democrats!!

FORWARD !

Heck if I know....I'm not defending them.

But it appears to me that they are playing a tag team game. By that I mean their supporters who are in all of the government sponsored entities like our colleges, as well as medical and science endeavors continuously produce papers that the liberal media distributes and then the liberal politicians pick them up for talking points and beat the drums in unison like a high school marching band. They have the ability to do this on every single sociopolitical issue and they politicize everything imaginable.

Over the years, they have led on these issues and have made them part of the social-political landscape.

Nobody ever looks under the sheets to examine the sources of these movements but they are created by the libs, for the libs to capture the attention of the ignorant masses and subsequently they appear to be in total control of them leaving the republican-conservatives with the only choice available to them which is to join the party or try to deny the libs a political victory.

So the reality is that they are in charge of the political narrative, day in, day out, 24/7/365.

New ideas? Yes.....I suppose they are, but these ideas are not ideas to make government better, more efficient, or leaner. They are ideas that lead to continuous expansion, control, with the promises of fairness, free stuff, and particularly with women, a easier life style with fewer decisions.

So all the ideas I see, are based on social needs, not pragmatism or thrift. They come right out of what I call the “Star Trek Bible”. The goal being a society free of encumbrances like decisions about food, shelter, money.

Are these new ideas? No.....

But they are most certainly based upon fiction, and fit perfectly into the pie in the sky narrative that has been surreptitiously pumped into the brains of even the conservatives as many threads and comments on this very forum have long indicated.

Free range chickens, anti- GMO beliefs, health foods, anti- military draft, global warming, isolationism based geopolitical thinking, evil bankers, evil big corporations, detrimental commentary against republican leadership based on single issues like Romney and health care, Cruise and amnesty...the list is huge...and all of it can be sourced to the left and their supportive public agencies like the press, higher learning, Hollywood, The CDC, NASA..........

So yeah.....they are winning the war and we are just twiddling with a single issue here and there while our base is corrupted with constant leftist baloney that is repeated endlessly in a giant communications loop.

IMO, you can't fix this. It has to be allowed to destroy it's self under it's own weight, and that is happening but it takes time.

In the interim, all we can do is carry on and try to be there to pick up the pieces. To do that we have to survive it..intact and with our prodigy poised to take the helm of conservatism.

That is what I am about, and I think others in the leadership of the movement are doing likewise. I point you to Rush Limbaugh's efforts with children as a good example.

Politically all we can do is slow this down a bit, but I debate myself often if that is wise to do. However I always conclude that we have to try regardless..

I am not sure why that question is important to you.

Since it is both a question as you have put it and a accusation as well, I would ask you a question.

What new ideas have been presented by conservatives that are less than 30 years old?

The answer is not relevant as the battles between conservatives and liberals go back to the dark ages, the inquisition days and even before that.

Liberals by their nature have fresher ideas. They are either wrong or damaging to society but they are indeed fresher than conservative ideas which are linked directly to what worked well in the past, even the long distant past.

So you question is not phrased properly. You should be asking who is right? Because the political group with the oldest ideas is hard to define as both have been battling for hearts and minds for 100s, or even thousands of years. The criteria for the battle is still the same.

So IMO, it's a flawed statement to say that the liberals ideas are old because so are ours...It's all been said before. Different people today, different technologies, different amount of data now but the fight is still the same..and for the same reasons.

I clipped this for Wikipedia from their definition of liberalism which I find to be essentially true but they don't go deep enough into the past. The point is that there are different perspectives and that social liberalism is fairly new and the result of longer term experiences and social changes in the Democracies of the West.

The original liberalism goes much farther back and deals more with issues of science, religion, modes of government, private property ownership and wealth.

The liberalism you are referring to is less than 100 years old and is only in the US and Britain. This is why you can watch Britain to see what will be coming here. It evolved from post WWII and continues today.

In Europe and North America, there was also the rise of social liberalism,[9][10] which is related with social democracy in Europe. As such, the meaning of the word "liberalism" began to diverge in different parts of the world. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies."[11] Consequently in the U.S., the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with classical liberalism, became the basis for the emerging school of right wing libertarian thought.[12] Today, liberal political parties remain a political force with varying degrees of power and influence on many countries (see Liberalism by country).

So when you ask me to tell you which ideas are newer or fresher, the answer has to be liberalism as it applies to the US. In Europe, classical liberalism might entail smaller government, free elections, lower taxes, which were taken up by conservatives in the US, so none of these ideas are new!

As I said, the proper question to pose is “who is right”.

Not sure who started the debate about liberals having old stale ideas, but this staleness only goes back to Roosevelt and the conservative counter arguments to Roosevelt’s liberalism are the same as they are today..

In short....”He was wrong.” “he grew Government” We want to make it smaller and more efficient, So these arguments too are just as old.

Last response is this....

To show how the political parties in the US have flipped since WWII when social liberalism (not classical liberalism) began to get a foothold in the US democrat party, I give you the example of Ronald Reagan who switched parties when the change began to become obvious. He was not the only one.

I give you the Dixiecrats in the south and any number of small but noticeable changes to which Bill Clinton was the last of a dying breed of classical liberals. That era is finished now.

What we have now is the use of social liberalism to use the countries wealth to essentially promise shares of it's treasury the people in order to buy votes to keep the party in power.

This is all fairly new and fresh in the political history of the US, but it occurred as far back as the days of congressman Daniel Boone. Conservatives were battling this then and now with the same tactics. And we lost then and now...

Modern Democracy's like ours were only expected to last 200 years. We have exceeded that. But you can see the handwriting on the wall. I am too old and have seen too much change to believe that we can, as conservatives, change the tide that will eventually destroy the financial health of this country and probably the entire West along with it. We already saw the prequel in 2007.

It's like waiting for paint to dry for me and I might live long enough to see it, but the die is cast. It will happen..

So someone has to be here to pick up the pieces and lead the country back to functional society. That's what is important now...IMO.

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.