Posted on 06/10/2003 4:17:50 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
You don't seem to have a lot of respect for those who Jim calls "good friends".
Our good friends, theLibertarians, Constitutionalists, Reformers, Buchananites, paleocons, and other right-wingers, etc., may have some pretty good ideas about constitutionality, freedom, Liberty, etc.,
Maybe you might like to re-think your agenda.
Best regards,
***************************************************
While the logical fallacies and errors of omission and commission committed by the conservative faction of the Pygopagus Conjoined Twins (with apologies to Pygopagus Conjoined Twins everywhere) known as the DemocRATrepublican Party can hardly be enumerated they are so many and so various, I will briefly attempt to address the most obvious:
Newsflash for the so-called party of self reliance, free market capitalism, smaller government and personal accountability:
The Libertarian Party had NOTHING TO DO with your defeat at the polls.
In the open, fair and competitive free market of ideas you had an opportunity to persuade certain voters you deserved their vote and YOU BLEW IT!
Unlike the "vast overwhelming majority" of eligible voters who choose NOT TO EVEN APPEAR in the voting booth for ANY reason, Libertarian Voters arrived to fulfill their obligation at the ballot box as required of all sober Sovereign Citizens in a Representative Constitutional Republic.
For some reason they were unmoved by the product offered by the erstwhile Republican Party.
They don't seem to believe that life is limited to a selection between two flavors of dark, carbonated sugar water known as Pepsi or Coke. They seem think they should be able to choose Root Beer (another flavor of dark carbonated sugar water) or maybe even Ginger Ale or Seven Up (two clear forms of carbonated sugar water) Or, gosh darn it, in a free market, maybe they could even express a desire for milk or orange juice or (gasp!) beer or wine or (double gasp!) WATER! Yes, plain ordinary water! Imagine that!
Stroll with me a moment down memory lane:
In 1993, the official scapegoat for the defeat of the Republican Presidential Candidate was Ross Perot and his hastily organized Reform Party.
Along comes 1996 and the ill conceived, poorly prosecuted Coronation of Bob Dole, a man who couldn't stand on stage long enough to deliver a stump speech.
Currently we are blessed with Bush43, a man who, with all his virtues, still cannot pronounce NUCLEAR as well as non-native speakers for whom English is a second language. What is up with that? I thought the Republican Party was the party where words had meaning and actions had consequences.
What are you Republicans going to do when you run out of excuses? When are YOU going to look in the mirror and say " I solemnly swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God" ?
Because that is what Libertarians do when they go to the ballot box and vote their conscience. They firmly believe the Government governs best that governs least and anything else is simply unacceptable. They do not hold their nose and vote the lesser of two evils. They do not pout and stay at home until the perfect candidate arrives. They vote their party and they vote their principles in the capacity of the "wee, still voice of conscience".
If Republicans want to win elected office, they might do well to find out why some 60% of their voters stay at home. They might finally learn to craft a message that has broad appeal across diverse party lines. Libertarians have been known to switch their vote. After all, former Libertarian Presidential Candidate Ron Paul is now Republican Congressman from Texas.
But this pathetic whining from the party of pre-emptive surrender, aka the party of unending lost opportunities must stop. It is unbecoming, stupid and frankly, just plain annoying.
You want to win? Just do it. No excuses. And don't hand me any more of this nonsense about scandalous Libertarian Candidates. Does the name (former) Senator Bob Packwood ring a bell? I thought so.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure.
From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years.
These nations have progressed through the following sequence:
from bondage to spiritual faith,
from spiritual faith to great courage,
from courage to liberty,
from liberty to abundance,
from abundance to selfishness,
from selfishness to complacency,
from complacency to apathy,
from apathy to dependency,
from dependency back to bondage."
From Alexander Tyler's 'The Cycle of Democracy'
Tyler was a 18th century historian/economist who wrote 'The Cycle of Democracy' in 1778. This quote is the central thesis from his work.
Mere voters get lost in the shuffle somewhere after congress is called to session. I do not believe the founding fathers' had this in mind when they created what was to be a simple system for honest representation.
Two weeks before I turned 50, I started getting mailers from AARP asking for money with the simple premise that my vote didn't count -- only their lobbying had the juice to change things. Quite an insult to the American people, but only because it is true.
Every election we are told to vote for republicans, not some unelectable third party because, if we don't, the democrats will win. Well, if the Constitution is trashed by both, and both pursue the key policies to socialism, so what?
This scare tactic has gotten us bigger and more expensive government, just with more decorum. Screw decorum. Genteel socialism is socialism.
The only possible chance we have to change things at the ballot box is to elect renegades. Not only will that shake loose the calcified joints of our political system, it will make clear to the newly elected renegades that we can and will punish corrupt behavior, encouraging them to avoid the path of settled certainty of reelection.
The time to do this rapidly passing, and indeed, may already be past. Regardless, it is the only choice we have; none others exist. And we had better realize it or the chance will for sure be gone completely, and the only way back is, like all other examples in history, reduction by force.
So, by advocating status quo remedies, you, for all intents and purposes, advocate the eventual armed conflict or socialist tyranny.
Sorry to be confrontational, but I can't see, from recent domestic history, how what I describe is not a hardcore certainty. That is to say, certainty, not a possiblilty, not a probablilty. A certainty.
The way I see it, we either amputate the arm or we die; we either break the glass bubble, and get cut by flying glass, or we suffocate and our civilization with us.
Each time I read about some Dem touting Gore's apparent edge in the popular vote I wonder about the lack of thoughtfulness in the whiner bringing it up. The contest was for the Electoral College majority. How would football be played if a team were given 3 points for gettin out of bounds inside the ten yard line? Do you think Bush would have spent more time campaigning in California and New York if the contest were for popular vote rather than the winner take all Electoral College?
BTW, I'm not trying to change the direction of the discussion, but using this in place of a simple bump as I'd like to return to the thread for more comment later.
I know this may sound revolting, but the Republican Party is apparently playing the role of a two-party system all on its own right now. There were some good ideas on both sides of the aisle in JFK's time. Truman was a decent president. Things went down hill fast after Kennedy was assasinated. Moderation in the Republican party will bring many opportunities for change in the future. This is good.
In The Radical Presidency of GW: Reagan's Son Bill Keller (also cited in an article by Philip Gaily) argues that Reagan was not a zero-government Republican, although he did cut taxes. He also did not take steps to totally outlaw abortion. President Bush's crossover success will probably be the environment. He will uphold values of conservation while cutting red tape and saving our firetrap forests, which have been defended to the point they could go up in smoke in a matter of days.
There is much President Bush will accomplish drawing on support from both Democrats and Republicans. And he will be positioning us for a continued sweep toward "conservatism."
The terrible events of 9/11 have brought the Democratic party to a precipice and they have gone over. There are some values held by traditional Democrats that can coexist with Republicans and Libertarians, but the national defense issue stands out above all.
Again, it is the Constitution we need to defend. The positives that will emerge after eliminating gun control are boundless. Preservation of the Republic is the first benefit.
Ron Paul was a Republican Congressman from Texas long before he was the Libertarian Candidate for President. He was redistricted out of his seat for a while. After the election where he ran for President on the Libertarian ticket, he came back and won his old congressional seat back again.
Politics is the art of the possible; to achieve our goals of constitutional government requires that we elect not so much politicians who will hew exactly to our line, but that we elect politicians who will not actively lead us away form those goals. Principled small parties cannot win elections, only coalition parties with a broad enough appeal to secure a majority in a majority of signficant jurisdictions can win elections and change policy.
The next thing for young conservatives would be to take a leaf from the left and begin their own Gramascian burrowing into government and academia, a 'long march through the institutions' so that in a generation or two, men and women of principle will staff our government and educational institutions rather than the liberal nihilists who began burrowing in the '60s and '70s.
Kudos, Jim!
Vanity: Free Republic Priority One: Defending the Constitution
Excerpt:
As we move forward into the next election cycle, the FR battle cry will be: Restore the Republic! Vote out the RATs!
See you at the Free Republic George Bush Second Inaugural Ball in January '05!
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.
Yes, I too am not happy with "RINOS"...but, better a RINO than a liberal....and yet, somehow, I'm always chastized by some when I say that.
I am a staunch Republican, called ultra conservative by my CEO who was a Republican State Senator for 16 years and seatmates with Speaker Hastert in the state of IL....I told him it was a compliment! ;o)
Yet, I can bring it together to ensure the Republicans maintain control.
We need to STOP all the divisions on the RIGHT if we are going to maintain control...bicker with our elected officials AFTER we have the majority. Don't bicker trying to get them there, and in doing so, fail and be stuck with something even worse than a RINO, a "whacked out far lefty extreme give it all away liberal!"
It is a true disgrace how large the federal government has become. It was supposed to be a part time job for its elected members.
Great essay, Jim! I like it.
As a sidenote, I'd like to suggest that we can help demolish the stranglehold the liberals have on these institutions from within - those of us who work in the bureaucracy, in the schools, in the media, in the judiciary --- and those of us who could choose to.
In some ways, we've given it away by choosing not to be a part of these institutions.
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.