Posted on 08/08/2003 8:36:39 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan
Here me now and believe me later, my friends: all these conservative orgasms over Arnold Schwarzenegger are - like the "Gorbasms" liberals experienced over Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev - fake. I know that (R) next to Schwarzenegger's name excites the White House, but his own words prove he's not a conservative. I call this "The Hollywood Syndrome," and it happens every time some actor-type says anything even remotely conservative. I'm not trying to cold shower anybody here, but don't look to anyone in Hollywood to validate your political ideas.
The American Prowler's George Neumayr detailed Arnold's politics in his article "Here's Arnold!" Quote: "[H]e spoke in generalities and banalities about his plans for the state. To the extent that he said anything, he sounded not like a fiscal conservative but a moderate Democrat. He said that he wanted businesses to come back to California so that the state government could collect enough tax revenues to provide social programs. This is the sort of obtuse comment middle-of-the-road Democrats always make, forgetting that businesses are leaving the state because they are tired of paying high taxes for those big government social programs."
More: "He has told the press he is 'very liberal' about social programs, supports abortion and homosexual adoption, and advocates 'sensible gun controls.' His entree into politics last year was a proposition Democrats endorsed because it raised state spending for what amounted to state babysitting - before-school and after-school programs that cost the state up to $455 million a year. He has complained openly about the party's conservatism.... Talk magazine described him as 'impatient' with the religious right.... [H]e expressed disgust with the Republicans who impeached Clinton. 'That was another thing I will never forgive the Republican Party for,' he said. 'We spent one year wasting time because there was a human failure. I was ashamed to call myself a Republican during that period.'"
Does this sound like "the Next Reagan," as some people are calling Arnold? Hardly. This guy may be the next actor elected governor of California, but that's where the similarity between him and Ronaldus Magnus end.
Wouldn't that be the same as having the Govt. care for you from "Erection to Resurrection"?
Yeah this is FreeRepublic. We only support big-government liberals here.
Your question was:
"I'm not trying to be a smartass here, but wasn't this country founded by ideologues and reactionary absolutists?"
My reply was simple and at the same time concise and precise.
I never said the The Founders weren't ideologues. I said the Founders weren't impractical ideologues. Once again, "the Founding Fathers were radical revolutionaries". I also mentioned, the Founders were the best politicians of there day and like their contemporary counterparts, all politicians compromise and negotiate. Nobody gets 100% of what they want. The facts are indisputable. During the First Constitutional Convention, the US Constitution went through several drafts before being accepted by a majority of the delegates.
What the Founders would have to say about modern American society, is total speculation on your part. Contemporary American's have a knowledge and awareness of historical events that the Founders didn't have. We have been exposed to a society that is different and far more complex then the one which existed in the late 17th century and early 18th century. Reacting to certain events is one thing, being a reactionary is the same as being a rightwing extremist. Such fringe extremsim serves no good purpose and solves nothing in the political arena.
As a traditional conservative, I don't advocate tax increases and more governmnet spending. Nor do I support gun control and removing references to God from our everyday activities in the public domain.
This is the 21st century, my friend. Stop living in the past.
Again, this isn't the late 17th century. It's impossible to say how the Founders would view contemporary American society from our perspective and for good reason. They haven't lived in our time and been exposed to 227 years of historical human advancement. And the issue of rebellion, is not an issue in todays world. FreeRepublic doesn't support the overthrow of the American government. Ask JimRob. While your rhetoric may be provocative, it's just more examples of fringe extremism and reactionary absolutism, running wild.
>>>Having a rightwing extremist (by this I assume you mean a "give me liberty or give me death" attitude)....
You assume wrong. It should be clear to you by now what I mean. Rightwing extremism is just more impractical idealism exhibited by political malcontents, social misfits and wild-eyed militants.
"The paradox with me is how any friend to the union of our country can, in conscience, contribute a cent to the maintenance of anyone who perverts the sanctity of his desk to the open inculcation of rebellion, civil war, dissolution of government, and the miseries of anarchy."
Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, 1815.
>>> ... futhermore, the entire concept of liberty is such that comprimising on ANYTHING means you have failed.
What utter hogwash. You sound like a libertarian.
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.