Posted on 03/25/2002 3:37:10 PM PST by hchutch
No flaming anyone, please. I want to hear some honest comments/discussion about this.
The "District of Columbia" dosen't do anything .... nor does it have motives.
The people in power always have a reason for what they do.
I think this statement shows the naivety of the author.
Things are never as simple as they seem.
I'm not sure I believe that this fully "explains a lot of the debates we are having here," but it may shed light. It's important to keep in mind Tip O'Neill's saying, "politics is local."
I think much of the contention, at least that in my observation, is regional. Not all national problems affect the entire nation equally. This isn't addressed in an "opposing the Left" vs. "opposing the State" scenario.
Good read, though. Thanks for the ping.
What are we receiving in exchange for that loss of freedom? We are receiving a PROMISE of security from the same government who could not protect us on September 11th. We are receiving more promises from government in exchange for losing REAL freedoms. What are we to do with the government if it fails to keep its promises but has taken our freedom and will not give it back?
This is a deal with the devil we must not make. The devil does not keep his bargains.
Personally, I've always been of the opinion that we first ought to kick the Left to the curb, THEN dismantle things, but that's just me.
Goldberg is correct, though, to show that this is not a one way street on a slippery slope. Technology is often liberating, and a wealthy society tends to demand more freedom. Wealth and freedom tend to go together with responsibility. It doesn't have to be much wealth. If you have accumulated enough so that you could live 6 months without anyone else's support, you have a lot more options than if you haven't.
I am cynical enough that I think this can be translated into: "A majority of my respondents disagreed with me." Otherwise he would have said :"A sizable minority of respondents disagreed with me.
I say we take them both at the same time. Go for the easy wins first and build momentum and political capital. One example is bilingual education, because there's a broad consensus against it.
An issue like abortion is a different matter. I'd love to see all 50 states go pro-life, but there's no consensus as yet... it needs building. So we can hold the line on abortion at the margins, and push back for smaller victories here and there. There's a consensus supporting parental notification, for example.
What galls me though, is the GOP tendency to compromise first and ask questions later. Almost as bad is Republican willingness to trust Democrats on a handshake.
The United States is a republic, with well defined limits and duties of the Federal government clearly spelled out in the Constitution.
The issues Mr. Goldberg raises would make more sense if they were discussed with reference to the Constitution.
There are lots of conservatives — good, smart, serious folks — who think Big Brother is a very real threat (and therefore they believe I am a "dangerous fool" — in the words of many — for having written otherwise). These are, for the most part, the same conservatives who look on the war on terrorism with a great deal of distrust.
Repressive measures by governments are almost always incremental in execution. We have seen the erosion of liberty happening here for nearly 100 years. Bit by bit. Thus, -- it is rational to 'distrust'.
Early on, they denounced the military commissions intended for terrorists. They ridicule the new secrecy of this already secretive White House. These conservative civil libertarians distrust an expansion of federal power by liberals or conservatives. "We've witnessed a fire sale of American liberties at bargain basement prices in return for the false promise of more security," declared Wayne LaPierre of the NRA recently. For these anti-state conservatives Big Brother is very real and around the corner.
Exactly right. -- What difference whether these socialist fools call themselves liberal or conservative? The end result matters.
I don't see it that way. Intent matters.
Sure Jonah. Paraphrased; --- "It's for the children". -- What an utterly foolish statement.
That's what I don't see a lot of people asking.
Knocking out the Left will help us dismantle things a lot more. If we'd kept Slade Gorton in, and had we been able to knock off Harry Reid in 1998, and add another GOP Senator in 2000, we might not be in the spot we are in, where we have to play politics.
And we need to broaden our base, or at least try to destabilize the other side's base. If I didn't know better, I'd say they were at serious risk of a crack-up. We just have to hold on a little longer, make our move, and we can get the type of majorities that will allow us to dismantle the Great Society.
Of course, I do not believe that government — conservative or otherwise — is immune from abuse. I am very sympathetic to many anti-state arguments. But let's remember: Democracies self-correct. And despite the syllogistic faith that the Road to Serfdom doesn't allow U-turns, Big Brother is often simply a convenient bogeyman. The Freedom of Information Act, welfare reform, the repeal of rent control in some cities, President Bush's attempts to privatize Social Security: These are things that would not be possible if the slippery slope were an iron law of history. I would prefer as small a government as most anti-state conservatives, but it seems to me the first order of business in a demolition job is to clear out the occupants, and that means kicking the Left to the curb. Once they're gone, we can turn the lights off.Good article. Anyone that says "it seems to me the first order of business in a demolition job is to clear out the occupants, and that means kicking the Left to the curb" is alright in my book!!
I loved his discussion about William Wallace in Braveheart, too:
.............the Scottish freedom-fighter William Wallace, barely utters a single sentence without demanding "freedom" for his countrymen. But this isn't the Left's "freedom" to do whatever floats your boat. For instance, when Wallace tells the English, "Go back to England and tell them there that Scotland's daughters and sons are yours no more. Tell them Scotland is free," he's not saying that the Scots are now adopting a new no-fault divorce law or a judgment-free attitude toward buggery.
What galls me though, is the GOP tendency to compromise first and ask questions later. Almost as bad is Republican willingness to trust Democrats on a handshake.In some places, your handshake is your honor and your word. In some places, such as mostly DIMocRAT D.C., those are hollow concepts.........
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.