Posted on 06/02/2002 6:56:14 AM PDT by jern
There are very few conservative politicians. Our system of government was designed to be run by amateurs not by professionals. The root word of amateur is amo, Latin for love. Amateurs are people who engage in a certain activity out of love for the activity or as an act of love for people they care about. I swear, if every professional politician in the US died in their sleep tonight, we could replace them all before the weekend and probably get a government many times better than what we have.
Honestly if Liddy Dole is the best the NCGOP can find, then the organizations is on its deathbed and good riddance to it. That's what I said during the governor's race here last year about the VAGOP too. It isn't that there are no conservatives who could be found to run, it's that the party organizations won't back anyone who isn't already a career politician, which translates these days as "liberal".
Tsk, Tsk..
Some states allowed blacks to vote when they met the qualifications. Not in the Slaveocracy of course but even in New York which allowed slavery blacks voted until they were disallowed around 1800.
When states restricted the voting rights to only men they were trying to prevent married men from having double voting power.
I suppose the reigns of Elizabeth I or Catherine the Great are something you know nothing of or else your dumb comment would not have been made so general.
It is only recently that women voters have become so socialistic and irrational. Not as irrational as your comment but less rational than I would like to see.
It is a complete falsehood that Americans lived in total freedom in earlier times. There were laws galore restricting freedoms mostly through the States and Local assemblies (not federal) covering everything from religious services to vagrancy. Of course, in the Slaveocracy white men could be drafted and forced to serve on slave patrols to control the two-legged livestock of the Slaveocrats who controlled those states totally.
In fact, I defy you to tell me the name of a single prominent founder who did not serve in political positions for YEARS.
This myth that the Founders were not professional politicians is laughable to anyone who knows anything about American history.
While Liddy Dole is not an ideal candidate she will be vastly superior to any democRAT. What is not understood by the Holier Than Thou crowd is that this country (including N.C.) is not in any way conservative. Most of the realists understand this and that it is a long row to hoe before we can have politicians elected who are conservative. What is so difficult to understand about that?
In the past conservatives could be elected but were generally racist. This gave "conservatives" a bad name which they are still trying to live down. Thank you Southern Democrats!!
Libertarianism--i.e. the philosphy which puts Liberty above security, and recognizes that men have free will--is not the same thing as license or anarchy. Indeed, in the context of our Constitutional Republic, which involves the sacredness of oaths, honor and service, is almost the exact antithesis. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc., were indeed Libertarians, however you deny it. They also believed that people were accountable--an obvious conclusion from the belief that man has free will--and favored punishment for various socially destructive activities, for which many anti-Libertarians in America today urge toleration.
Again Liberty is not license. And those of us who prize Liberty are often the most Conservative of all in the preservation of traditional values. Just what is your problem with basing political movements on defense of the traditional Liberty of a free people? That after all, is what "Libertarian" in the present context means.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Truthfully, I'd momentarily have to pause to reflect on the record, but on the whole I see quite a few actions on Bush's part which Gore would never have done(e.g. cutting taxes, reforming the military, supporting Taiwan and Israel,refusing to sign off the ICC and Kyoto.) I see a lot of Bush's actions as political ingenuity in disarming the Dems from their issues, others see them as Bush being a socialist. I'll be honest and say I am willing to forgoe certain conservative values in my candidate of choice as a trade off for what I hope will prove to a GOP landslide in November. I may be proven wrong, but I truly hope that I'm not. Thank you. We may have to agree to disagree on this matter, but I respect your opinions and thank you for sharing them. It's always good to compare views, and examine those different from one's own.
None of the founders were Libertarian in the sense the term is used today. They were to a man republicans even the Federalists.
Their concern about personal liberty seemed to disappear when it came to the States which were controlling of personal life on a far greater scale than today. It was to control the excessive freedoms of the States that the constitution was written.
It is the easiest thing in the world to declaim about "freedom" and tyrants have done it from time immemorial. What is hard is to establish a government of laws and responsible government while its enemies are screeching about "freedom."
Using Jefferson as an example of personal responsibility is a joke. That "libertarian" owned other human beings and advocated the unilateral abrogation of state debts when inconvenient. He was not averse to using the press to destroy his enemies with a campaign of lies and falsehoods. When his hired flacks attacked Washington he forfeited the friendship and esteem of everyone with an ounce of integrity.
I have no problem with basing a government on freedom merely with incorrect ideas of an ideal past existent only in mythology.
The term, today, is not defined by what you think of the platform of a party that uses that name. The term, today, means what it has always meant, a belief that liberty is more important than security--or the demagogue's appeal for egalitarianism--and that man has free will, and therefore must be accountable.
Their concern about personal liberty seemed to disappear when it came to the States which were controlling of personal life on a far greater scale than today. It was to control the excessive freedoms of the States that the constitution was written.
There is no way that the States were controlling of personal life, on anything like the scale today. That is absurd! The Founding Fathers were not concerned about the level of personal freedom in the States, but about irresponsible fiscal policies--leading to unstable currency, etc. (The Constitution reflects their concerns in the delegations of power. They mostly relate to providing sound money, uniform weights and measures, communications--the means for developing a stable commerce--and defending the lot of us from any foreign threat. There is absolutely nothing about limiting or extending personal freedom within the States, in the Constitution.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
One of the significant events which finally tipped the balance toward drafting the constitution was the Shays Rebellion which was essentially a demand by farmers in W. Mass to the state to pass laws abrogating their debt. States repeatedly passed laws undermining contracts and giving debtor relief during the preconstitution era. This was one of the greatest national problems and led to the constitutional demand to stop such practices.
While it was possible in the past to escape to the west laws in the civilized states were horridly oppressive: people were taxed to pay for churchs, vagrancy laws restricted freedom of movement, personal morals watched and punished when out of the norm, blacks could not own guns or vote, women could not vote and had no standing in court, whites could be drafted to the Slave Patrols, mails were searched and offensive material removed, people were tarred and feathered for their opinions, newspapers were destroyed in the south for being abolitionist and taken from the mails, literature was censored and removed from the mails, voting was highly restricted. The myth of greater freedom (other than for slaveowners and the rich) was just a myth swallowed hook, line and sinker by those preferring to ignore the facts of history.
As for the taxing to support State Churches, that was far less onerous than the present tax burden to support a Welfare State. One of the most revealing passages in Jefferson's Notes On The State of Virginia, written shortly before he persuaded the State Legislature to adopt religious freedom, shows how Welfare was administered through the Church in Virginia. It is worth reading. (You can find the passage quoted almost in its entirety in A Constitutional Overview.)
I find your comments about the slaveowners and the rich, far too redolent of the class antagonism promoted by the Socialist world over the past 200 years, for me to dignify it as a serious point. Perhaps you also reject the whole of Western Theology, because at its root is the Law written down by Moses after he came down from Mt. Sinai, which deals at some length with rules governing the practice of bondage, and rules protecting the acquisition and enjoyment of wealth? Your complaint is really a much broader attack on the human past than just on those Americans whose willingness to sacrifice everything, made your good life today possible.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Now, argue with what I said, not with what you wish I had said. When I say that none of the founders were professional politicians, then you can correct me. I claimed no such thing .
Careful when you body slam those straw men. You could trip over one and skin your soft little pink hands.
Much of the States' earlier history included many petty onerous controls of human behavior theoretically obnoxious to libertarians including jail for debtors as well as the long list I enumerated earlier which you preferred not to "dignify" by an attempt to deny their truth.
Of course, the freedom and liberty were to be safeguarded by the sufferage which is why there is a natural relation between liberty and sufferage no matter your sophistry in attempting to deny it. In fact, the Revolution was fought precisely because we had no sufferage which gave us a voice in Parliament.
We did not have a conservative society after the Federalists were driven out of office by the Jeffersonians. You might have a valid contention prior to 1800 but not after.
Recognition of facts with regard to the class structure does not make one a Marxist anymore than it did Hamilton. Blythe pretense that they did not exist and had no impact on social life in manifold ways is merely dishonest. In fact, today's class structural problems are atavistic holdovers of the creation and destruction of the Slaveocracy. My recognition of the fact that political power was held in a small minority of hands is indisputable and one would think abhorrent to a libertarian. As far as egalitarianism goes you can thank Jefferson for pushing that philosophy with all his ability as a propagandist. It was one of his greatest and most reprehensible lies in destroying Hamilton and the Federalists.
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.