Posted on 07/23/2003 10:03:09 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit
In Back to Basics for the Republican Party author Michael Zak (FR's distinguished patriot, Grand Old Partisian) undertakes the heroic and herculean task of clearing the name of the Republican Party from the thicket of lies, distortions and misrepresentations which has been cultivated by the Democrat/media alliance. Since any partisian argument in today's America must begin with the refutation of chronic and consistent lies told about the GOP, Zak's book provides the necessary ammunition to do just that.
This well-written, interesting and enjoyable tour of GOP history can be of use to any patriot who wants to know the truth about the histories of the two major parties. It traces the origins of the GOP to the proto-Republican, Alexander Hamilton, and the Federalists and that of the Democrat Party to its ancestors Jefferson, Clinton and Burr. A brief survery of Federalist and Whig antecedents and policies is sketched to give historic context to events. Since the GOP was created and grew in opposition to the policies and failures of the Democrat Party to extend the benefits of the Constitution to all Americans, that party's history is also examined.
And a sorry history it is. A story of treachery, short-sightedness, racism and economic ignorance unfolds as we see the Democrats consistently for 170+ years fight against allowing the Blacks a chance to achieve full freedom and economic success. Opposition to that fight has defined the best of the GOP's actions. Every advance in Civil Rights for Blacks has come from GOP initiatives and against Democrat opposition. Every setback for Blacks achieving constitutional protection has come from Democrat intitiatives and against GOP opposition. Racists have led the Democrats during most of their history, in sharp contrast to Republicans. All the evils visited against Black are of Democrat design. Democrats created and maintained the KKK, the Jim Crow laws, the Black Codes, it was Democrats lynching Blacks, beating Blacks, exploiting Blacks and perpetrating murderous riots which killed Blacks in
Zak rescues the reputation of the party from the slanders thrown against it during the Civil War and Reconstruction, many of which are popular around FR. He also clearly shows the mistaken disavowal of GOP principles which brought the modern party to its lowest state and allowed the demagogues of Democrats to paint the party as "racist." This was because of the disastrous turn to States' Rights which grew from the Goldwater campaign. It was the final straw in the process which transformed the share of the Black vote from 90-95% GOP to 90% democrat. A modern tragedy of immense proportions.
This is a book which should be studied carefully by Republicans in order to counter the barrage of Lies trumpeted daily by the RAT/media. While it is a work of a partisian, Back to Basics does not hesitate to point to GOP mistakes, failures and incompetence in carrying out its mission nor does it neglect to give Democrats credit when credit is due for actions which are productive of good for our nation as a whole. Unfortunately, those are far too few.
In order to effectively plan for the future we must be fully aware of the past, Zak helps us achieve that awareness.
Knowing his way with words, he probably both is and is not at the same time. Don't ask how he does it though.
"Trouble is, though our Republican Party definitely is dynamic and compassionate and progressive, conservative it is not."
Back to the Basics for the Republican Party, 3 Ed., Michael Zak, 2003, p. 228.
Such evidence. Do I have to send you over to the Concord Coalition site for a primer? Total U.S. government obligations are $43 trillion, while total net worth of U.S. households is just over $40.6 trillion. The total of Federal pension liabilities, underfunded insurance policies, and entitlements, alone is enough to put this nation into eventual insolvency. All your unsupported assertions to the contrary.
That is just silly ideological blather.
Silly ideological blather that has been carefully documented across the West. From Clinton's giveaways to James Riyadi to the sleazy deals with Southern Pacific Company at the expense of inholders among unconstitutional Federal lands, access to the mineral estate (that Nixon put up as security for Federal debt) has been systematically denied to or outright confiscated from Americans, while foreign corporations mine at will. You really don't know what you are talking about here.
Increased regulatory reach is a legitimate concern but linked with such a load of crap no serious person will get the point.
Oh really? Is that why I have been invited to speak to three university economics departments in the next few weeks (no, they are not Marxists)?
I need no research to tell me that we neither have "corporate fascism" (Marxist-Leninists would agree with you, though) nor that the 14th amendment could bring it on.
Little you do know, so perhaps such research is beyond you. The 14th Amendment made it possible for corporations to own land and gave them a number of critical advantages over individuals. It was and is equal protection in name only.
Of course it has survived, what was a small nation along the Atlantic coast now occupies most of the continent and dominates the world's views, economies and actions. Only by changing the meaning of the word "survives" could you claim otherwise.
What happens to a household that is insolvent? They start pawning assets. That is what we did with the mineral estate. Now it's water, and that little charade will destroy what's left of American agriculture, much to the delight of the like of Lloyd Bensten and George Soros. Just keep spending and they'll own you.
Ah, hubris, you blow about our might whilst our manufacturing base is gone, while Ford and GM teeter on the brink, while our software industry is being exported, and meanwhile we are slowly being invaded via our open borders. Not much longer and we won't be able to afford to borrow the money to protect ourselves much less everybody else.
Amid all your puffery, you fail to recognize that our debt is no longer so marketable, especially with the low rates it currently carries against exchange rate inflation. Consider that those who hold that debt abroad just got shafted by the depreciation of the dollar by 20%. How many times do you think we can play that game and they'll line up to buy the notes?
Perhaps you should change your most apt screen name to Nately.
While it may have been used for unintended purposes and illegitimately in some cases, all it was designed to do was to put a stop to the Reign of Terror by the defeated Slavers and the political disenfranchisement of the newly freed slaves.
Quaint of you to mention the Reign of Terror, it's the same Malthusian crowd that is sponsoring world federalism. There were a number of options available to the national government to end slavery besides war, some were cheaper too.
Protection of those unalienable rights was exactly why the 14th was passed but apparently the "rights" of the Blacks are unimportant to you.
Nonsense. That was the public story. It was to get us out of dire financial straits by encouraging investment from European banking houses that had funded both sides in the Civil War.
The latter part of the paragraph above is direct (and quite shrill) ad hominem. Any more and I'll file a complaint.
No one who passed the constitution believed it could protect the citizenry from people like Clinton. Hamilton repeatedly warned of the dangers of demagogues and those who pandered to the least common denominator like Jefferson and William Jefferson.
So say the craven Federalists, those who believe, 'it will work as long as we are in charge.' Well you weren't in charge when we got the New Deal. You weren't in charge when we got the Great Society. You weren't in charge when we got Bubba. That's why we were supposed to have limited government. Your pronouncements suggest that it wasn't limited enough.
There were a number of little openings in the Constitution that should have never been there that your hero, Mr. Hamilton, would never have allowed had he not been either complicit or incompetent. A particular example is the current wording of Article VI, Clause 2, for which there's no excuse.
Remember also how it was Hamilton et al. who resisted the adoption of the Bill of Rights, arguing that they were unnecessary. I ask you, do you really think that the national government would be less intrusive without those ten amendments? Every statement you have offered alienates government from the people, as if they were two separate entities and not a government OF and BY the people. So it's no wonder you flippantly discount concern about the destruction of the Fourth Amendment.
I am quite comfortable with a government actually taking steps to remove our enemies, disrupt their networks and destroy them. It must be done. Those who fight against the United States have never received protection from our government to do so. You'd better do a little more research as to our wartime history before making such ridiculous leaps of "logic."
I have no doubt that you are comfortable with more Federal intrusion, and will so remain until long after it turns on you. It will, count on it. I suggest therapy, now.
No, in total denial, you remain comfortable, while we build an ever more monumental and unaccountable Department of Homeland Security, one in charge of regulating personal transportation! In contrast to the Federal model and its structural incapacity to deal with a war within our borders, this war is particularly suited to the national militia model, as anticipated by the founders. Were we not relying upon a professional Border Patrol and INS, I assure you that control of illegal entrants could be much more efficiently handled, if only because the bureaucrats would not be getting in the way.
You seem to have swallowed quite a load of leftist distortion if you claim that our armies are protecting oil for private companies.
Do you always argue by putting words in people's mouths? I'm not speaking to this war but the thirty years of policy that led to it. We would not consider the Middle East to be of strategic importance without oil. Without regulatory power, we would not be importing enough energy to have funded our enemies. To rely upon critical foreign resources socializes the risk associated with acquisition, a concept that I am certain escapes you.
Maybe you could tell me of even one country were we have troops protecting American oil companies property?
Pathetic. Did you learn that strawman trick from Hamilton?
I was discussing this a bit yesterday with a coworker who had recently completed an article which proposed that Christians in the Repub party stop pushing a social agenda and focus instead only on economic issues. His suggestion was that the Christains abandon the party en masse so that people could see the remainder was a bunch of mercantilists crying, "Make me rich."
He based this on the evolution of the two major parties into a dichotomy in which one seeks to take private money for those who feed at the public trough (D) and the other, which has in reaction dedicated itself to protection of private money (in his opinion, to too great an extent wrt steel and lumber tarrifs, foreign energy interests, and tech interests).
I haven't had much time to consider this since we talked, and I'm sure we'll discuss it further today. Just thought I'd throw it up here and see what other's recations were. Need we begin concerning ourselves with the makeup of the R party before it's too late?
Are you suggesting that “lifetime appointments” are more conducive of small government?
Veto of state laws may actually reduce the layers of government but has nothing to do with the size of the fedgov.
“Nothing?” Feel free to back up that claim as well.
So his "plan" of government hardly "speaks for itself."
On the contrary, Mr. Hamilton’s plan does indeed “speak for itself.” Have you missed the discussions here at FreeRepublic regarding the supposedly imminent retirement of just one of our Federal “lifetime” appointees? Hmm? Many Americans are waiting in ‘breathless anticipation’ for a rare event indeed: a change of personnel on the Supreme Court. Now apply that to the presidency and the entire senate. Heck, Mr. Truman would have been President of the United States until December 1972! Who do you think would have won the first presidential election in 40 years, if the ‘New Deal’ Democrats had had four decades to consolidate their political power? Or do you believe they would have had a change of heart, and spent most of the time downsizing government? By all means, please enlighten us!
;>)
Other errors in your post include attributing to me a preference for life-time appointments to a "central government bureaucracy" whatever THAT is.
LOL! You really should work on your reading skills: you obviously missed the word “apparent.” The “error” is on your part...
And THIS admirer of Hamilton does not try and avoid any statement he ever made however, I do insist on accuracy and context, something that rarely accompanies his critics comments.
Which is why, of course, you dismiss “[d]iscussions reported second hand, and out of context at the Constitutional Convention” – including, apparently, his ‘plan of government’ (which was described “second hand” by James Madison while “at the Constitutional Convention ;>). Speaking of which, I have yet to see a ‘Hamilton groupie’ post the gentleman’s ‘plan of government,’ the details of which are invariably provided by “his critics.”
Hamilton referenced Madison's observation that man is "a compromising animal" as the determinate of his strategy at the convention and that his goal was to pitch the government as "high" as possible meaning as strong or "energetic" as possible.
So, Mr. Hamilton may reference ‘Madison’s observations,’ but when his critics reference ‘Madison’s observations,’ you claim they “don’t count,” because they are “[d]iscussions reported second hand, and out of context at the Constitutional Convention.” Your hypocrisy is showing...
;>)
This is no secret and virtually all students of Hamilton (including his enemies) recognize it as true.
Please prove your claims. We’ll use your standard: “[d]iscussions reported second hand, and out of context at the Constitutional Convention don't count”...
... I was referring more to the land given the settlers of the trans-Mississippi West in the 19th century.
Obviously. Many of your friends also seem to ignore the nation’s early history...
To return to Hamilton's "plan", the constitution of the United States can be said to be as much Hamilton's "plan" for government as much as it was any man's.
Utter nonsense. Mr. Hamilton proposed a national government modeled on that of Britain. You may be unaware of the fact, but the idea of a “national” government was explicitly rejected by the constitutional convention, and a "federal" model approved in its place. The Constitution established what Madison called a compound republic, a confederacy of individual states.
Some nebulous and /or hypothetical "plan" of Hamilton means little when compared to the REAL Hamilton plan which begins " We the People of the United States...."
“Nebulous and /or hypothetical?” What happened to your claim that “THIS admirer of Hamilton does not try and avoid any statement he ever made however, I do insist on accuracy and context”? Are you suggesting that Mr. Hamilton’s plan did not include a chief executive, senators, and judges serving lifetime terms? Hmm? There’s nothing “nebulous” or “hypothetical” about it: it’s described at length in the records of the Constitutional Convention that you seem so eager to dismiss...
;>)
m_t: News flash! 2002 Georgia elects Republican governor for first time since Reconstruction. Top issue in campaign for crossover voters: CBF emblem on state flag!
Thank you for proving my point: the parties have changed in the last century and a half.
WIJG: By all means tell us - who would be in the White House right now, if not for "Southerners" loyally voting "Republican?"
m_t: Any number of groups could take credit for pushing Bush over the top, including Tennesee Republicans, the Cubans in Miami, Ralph Nader, overseas miilitary, or even Bush's own legal team. But don't let me stop you from assigning credit.
And don’t let me stop you from actually looking at a map showing election results by State. On the other hand, if simple facts will upset your condition of blissful ignorance, feel free to reread one of your ‘Blue Avenger’ comic books instead...
;>)
LOL! Your claim would be applicable only if you admit to being a "vampire."
(What were you saying about "sick?" ;>)
that's an interesting claim from a book out to "set the record straight."
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.