Posted on 07/24/2003 4:00:40 AM PDT by RJCogburn
Edited on 07/24/2003 4:39:12 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
THIS IS THE is the summer of conservatives? discontent. Conservatism has been disoriented by events in the last several weeks. Cumulatively, foreign and domestic developments constitute an identity crisis of conservatism, which is being recast ? and perhaps rendered incoherent.
George W. Bush may be the most conservative person to serve as President since Calvin Coolidge. Yet his Presidency is coinciding with, and is in some instances initiating or ratifying, developments disconcerting to four factions within conservatism. The faction that focuses on foreign policy has four core principles: Preserve U.S. sovereignty and freedom of action by marginalizing the United Nations. Reserve military interventions for reasons of U.S. national security, not altruism. Avoid peacekeeping operations that compromise the military?s war-fighting proficiencies. Beware of the political hubris inherent in the intensely unconservative project of ?nation-building.?
Maybe you should research the site before you post here !
To my knowledge the FR has its own policy ... owner - mgmt --- and has been in existence for going on eight years now !
Now compare the above piece of wisdom, uttered by a (supposedly) average American (but we know better), to this one, written by a (supposedly) astute political pundit:
George W. Bush may be the most conservative person to serve as President since Calvin Coolidge .... George Will
Malarky.
Many (although by no means the majority) of Bush’s foreign policy decisions are those of a genuine conservative, but domestically he has cavalierly and completely abandoned his conservative base. He talks of shrinking the size of government, and yet regularly endorses increases in federal government power, and citizen reliance on Big Brother entitlement handouts.
And anyone who would point to his tax cut as an example of conservative leadership needs to think a little deeper. Such tax cuts are politically convenient, superficial façades – when they are accompanied by non-essential spending increases. Spending increases that are not accompanied by methods to pay for them are tax increases in disguise, since the new bills must be paid by borrowing (i.e., firing up the government printing presses and dispensing more fiat money). We should all be knee-jerk appreciative that our Fed chairman is always so accommodating, as Congress continues to loosen its well-worn purse strings.
The President and Congress do not seem to realize that we are broke. In debt up to our ears (and that debt is growing at a frightening half trillion dollars a year -- a faster rate than at any time in the past three decades). And Greenspan and his cadre are simply winking knowingly and handing us more blank checks .... and we continue to deposit nothing into an account to back them.
Not only are we mortgaging our (and our children's) economic future by spending ourselves into oblivion on entitlement programs (both bloated old ones, and ‘innovative’ new ones) that would have curled the focus-on-limited-government Founders’ hair, but we’re contemplating committing ourselves to all sorts of economically- and manpower-expensive interventions in international disputes and unrests. Picking and choosing which hills we intend to defend was never more essential. While the defense of some may be noble, when noble and practical don’t coincide, noble can prove to be fatal. And a dead person (or nation) of character is of no use to anyone.
The things that frighten me the most about the so-called conservatives who occupy the most powerful positions (both government and media) in this country is that they have abandoned their conservative base in three serious ways: (1) they are not seeking to eradicate the deadly welfare state mentality -- and, in many ways, are fostering and nurturing it; (2) their attempts to decrease the size and power of the federal government amount to lip service -- and, in many ways, they are covertly advocating, and accomplishing, government’s expansion; and (3) they are increasingly willing to sacrifice the concept of individual freedom on the altar of national security.
We true conservatives don’t have a home anymore. Libertarianism beckons louder each day, but it’s not where we belong. And the two most powerful factions in the country – the overt leftists, and the conservatives-in-name-only, have a stranglehold over policy and liberty. There’s little left to do but protest. We aren’t going to recruit enough into our ranks to successfully revolt. The average citizen could care less.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Going back to watch the Tour de _____ (can’t say that awful word). Obsessively watching that grueling contest once a year not only gets my own endorphins running, but takes my mind off of the above (cycling escapism? :)
And oh, yeah, I heard a great one the other day: Joke Number 16. HAHAHAHAHA!
I'd really like to believe this is the case, but experience tells me it won't be. What makes you think it's any more "politically palatable" to the GOP to cut programs? Surely, based on his tenure so far, you don't believe the President will be campaigning on the reduction of social programs? To this point the man hasn't met the social program he couldn't implement or expand!
I hate to break the news to you, but we will be more socialistic in 2004 than we were in 2000. Who gets the blame for that?
2. I hate to break the news to you, but we will be more socialistic in 2004 than we were in 2000. Who gets the blame for that?
You didn't break news to me; you supported my statement. You agreed with me. The socialistic policy of 2004 is happeninng, in part, because a Socialistic Democrat was elected in '92 and reelected in '96. That sent a message to politicians that socialistsic policy can win elections. Who gets the blame, you ask? As I stated above, the blame, goes to the people who voted for Clinton, and Conservatives who abandoned Bush, among others. It was the Loose Coalition of Fools that I mentioned.
We've become more socialist because a Republican House, Senate and White House have passed and signed socialistic bills. Nothing more.
By your logic the 92 and 96 elections led politicians to believe socialist policy wins elections, but apparently 2000 did not endorse conservative policy in the exact same way. That makes little sense.
2. That makes little sense.
Statement # 2 is correct about Statement #1. Please explain what statement #1 means.
In your earlier post you explained that the current socialist policies are due to the fact that:
a Socialistic Democrat was elected in '92 and reelected in '96. That sent a message to politicians that socialistsic policy can win elections.
Yet if '92 and '96 sent a message that socialist policy can win elections, why wouldn't 2000 send an equally strong rebuke of that very same message? By your logic 2000 should've sent the message that conservative policy wins elections.
The reality is, we cannot blame the actions of a Republican Congress and White House on the presence of Bill Clinton 3 years ago. While Bill Clinton is sitting in Harlem, Republicans are proposing and passing massive spending increases. They get all the blame.
A landslide win or even a Popular Vote win might have sent that message. But the Republican squeaked by with a few hundred highly disputed votes and the Democrat won the Popular Vote. The Socialist got more votes than the Republican.
The reality is, we cannot blame the actions of a Republican Congress and White House on the presence of Bill Clinton 3 years ago. While Bill Clinton is sitting in Harlem, Republicans are proposing and passing massive spending increases. They get all the blame.
The Clintons are not done with us yet. They are in the news as much as the President and more than the rest of the Republicans. My statement may explain why there are less Conservatives elected to Congress than we would like. People are voting for moderate/liberal Republicans in many instances and we get less Conservative legislation than we would prefer.
Clinton lacked majority in '92 and '96. Neither of his victories were landslides. And no one on this forum in 2000 said that Bush needed to compromise because of the popular vote - to blame liberal policy on it now is silly.
The reality is, we cannot blame the actions of a Republican Congress and White House on the presence of Bill Clinton 3 years ago. While Bill Clinton is sitting in Harlem, Republicans are proposing and passing massive spending increases. They get all the blame.
The Clintons are not done with us yet. They are in the news as much as the President and more than the rest of the Republicans. My statement may explain why there are less Conservatives elected to Congress than we would like. People are voting for moderate/liberal Republicans in many instances and we get less Conservative legislation than we would prefer.
The Republican Party fields candidates, and the winning candidate votes yea/nay based upon their views or political concerns. The Clintons have absolutely nothing to do with this, and believing they do is misplacing the blame.
We can blame the Bush and the all the Republicans for everything we don't like, but we have to stop enabling and empowering the socialists and shooting our selves in the foot by doing what was done in '92 and '96.
Well, I stick to placing blame on those things for which they're responsible. That includes things I like and those I don't.
we have to stop enabling and empowering the socialists and shooting our selves in the foot by doing what was done in '92 and '96.
The only enabling and empowerment of socialists I see is by the Republicans who pass and sign socialistic legislation. Which is, after all, the point of my original post.
Just so I understand this, your plan is to stop enabling socialists by passing socialist legislation, right? Hmm...
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.