Arnold's corruption of Republican Party

It sounds as if we agree on far more than we disagree, South, in terms of what we want the Republican Party to be, and I'm glad to have found, after 800-some posts, a reasonable and thoughtful discussion.

Where my objections surface is when we substitute the desire to get along with those who fight against the principles in which we believe for submission to their wishes in the name of "inclusion." They are like those who cry "racism" if one doesn't support affirmative action.

"You are a party of exclusion!" they say, when we tell them what we stand for and what we believe. All the while, they tell us we are the ones who need to change our beliefs, and we are "intolerant" for not doing so. Is this the company you would like to keep? I would sooner throw them out!

In spite of this, I think a certain amount of honest, forthright introspection is healthy in a party. We should be questioning what we believe, and in doing so, hopefully we will convince ourselves of the rightness of our beliefs, or change our beliefs when it is proper to do so. In that sense, I welcome the input of those who want to change the party from within, but I refuse to be put in their little box of "intolerance" because the party happens to stand for something!

Some things are, by definition, evil. That doesn't mean the individual is any more evil than I am, but if he is supporting something evil, well--he is going to be aware the reasons I do not support his view, and I will be more than happy to explain why I feel his position is wrong.

Your point about persuasion and rhetoric is well-taken. People are a sensitive lot anymore, and don't like to be told that what the end they support is an evil one. I try to make a point of mentioning that I wholeheartedly believe--as I do--that people more than often think they are supporting good. Lincoln likewise always had a heart of reconciliation towards the rebelling provinces. "They are as we would be, were we in their position." Lincoln, in fact, is a good model statesman from which we could all learn something important.

There were some things on which Lincoln would never compromise. He always maintained that 1. Slavery was wrong and shouldn't be expanded, and 2. A state had no authority to unilaterally withdraw from the union. On everything else he expressed his personal feelings of goodwill towards the South, and consistently articulated the Constitutional limits on his power to abolish slavery--just as long as, he said, America did not accept the proposition that slavery was a positive good. The VP of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, even so much as said that the two sides could never reconcile as long as the North clung to the belief that slavery was, in principle, a moral wrong.

Similarly, abortion is one of those issues that should define the Republican Party. If rights come from Nature or Nature's God as the Declaration says, then they cannot come from a mothers choice. Putting the responsibility of doling out natural rights in the purview of human will puts every right at risk to those who are inclined to violate them, and we will have, if we sacrifice that principle in the name of power and tolerance, given them permission to do it. So we must ask ourselves, when we are defining our purpose, "What will we stand for?"

There are some, like Schwarzenegger, who claim that a Republican is one who is a "fiscal conservative." Have you ever thought, though, about what that means? One FReeper refused to answer my question about it because he claimed I was too ignorant to be worth his time. This is someone, BTW, who agrees with your position about people like Keyes and me.

Arnold's view of fiscal conservatism is that the state shouldn't spend more money than it has. That is a Classical Economist view, to an extent. However, he still supports the Keynesian philosophy that the government should actively intervene, through its fiscal policy, with the economy (undoubtedly to support his "socially liberal" programs). Keynes, however, advocated deficit spending, so we're back to square one. What does it mean to be fiscally conservative? No one seems to really know.

Nor will anyone tell me what we will stand for and how we will stand for it. Instead, they tell me what shouldn't be done, which usually means I need to shut my fat trap and watch silently as our country and our Constitution are destroyed. Whatever my faults in presentation or reason, I know I shouldn't do that.

Again, the GOP has NEVER prospered in NY. Sure there are enclaves here, Nassau county used to be one, but a conservative GOP candidate can never make it in this state. Set aside Reagan and his appeal to Blue Dogs on a much different world stage, this state will never elect a McClintock-type. CA is no different as shown by his pulling 13% yesterday.

It seems you are stuck on the abortion issue and are willing to rule out anyone who is not pro-life. I completely agree with you on this topic and feel just as strongly being a Catholic myself. But no way in states like NY and CA will anyone get elected to statewide office on based on this plank until the conscience of the entire country flips on this issue.

Based on his tax cuts and his fical responsibility in his first two terms - no way you can compare him to Cuomo at at all.

If Arnold can right the state fiscally, then Boxer and Waxman and Filner and Feinstein will have a much tougher time getting re-elected if Arnold throws his weight behind a great candidate like Tom.

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.