Posted on 03/12/2002 11:34:12 PM PST by ThePythonicCow
We have spent the better part of the last half century forgetting the reasons that Republicans are part of an American First tradition and the real meaning of the GOP. Just what are the principles and policies that separate the platform of Republicans from that of the Socialists that wear the Democratic label? Sorry to say, not much of a difference presently exists; let alone a dedication to enact legislation that counters the legacy of FDR. It wasn't like this - once upon a time . . . For Republicans knew what they were all about and had an example of a true champion of principle in one, Senator Robert A. Taft.
Taft is most famous for his opposition to Franklin Roosvelt's New Deal Legislation and policies. He has been called the last "Old Right" political. While some may conclude that this description points out that we have 'moved on', the essential question remains. Were the policies of Taft the real essence of Republicanism? Principles never die, changing circumstances only seek out appropriate applications. Liberty of the individual was the hallmark of Taft that earned him the name, Mr Republican. The New Deal's expansion of federal power at the expense of state and local government is incompatible with the core bedrock of Republican philosophy. Taft vigorously urged economy in government and restoration of balanced budgets, while supporting a very limited role in foreign affairs. He voted against NATO, supported strong tariffs, opposed the draft and sponsored legislation that bears his name, the Taft-Hartley Law.
If Republicanism isn't about opposing the Federal Income Tax and the Federal Reserve System, just what did the party ever stand for to begin with?
When it comes to foreign policy, the last century is one of "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace". Taft speaks directly to this point:
"Fundamentally, I believe the ultimate purpose of our foreign policy must be to protect the liberty of the people of the United States. The American Revolution was fought to establish a nation "conceived in liberty." That liberty has been defended in many wars since that day. That liberty has enabled our people to increase steadily their material welfare and their spiritual freedom. To achieve that liberty we have gone to war, and to protect it we would go to war again . . .
Only second to liberty is the maintenance of peace. . . . Our traditional policy of neutrality and non-interference with other nations was based on the principle that this policy was the best way to avoid disputes with other nations and to maintain the liberty of this country without war. From the days of George Washington that has been the policy of the United States. It has never been isolationism; but it has always avoided alliances and interference in foreign quarrels as a preventive against possible war, and it has always opposed any commitment by the United States, in advance, to take any military action outside of our territory. It would leave us free to interfere or not according to whether we consider the case of sufficiently vital interest to the liberty of this country. It was the policy of the free hand."
In his book, Principles Without Program: Senator Robert A. Taft and American Foreign Policy - he conveys his views as core Republican principles that are as valid today as they were when originally written. So why does the Republican Party work overtime to run in lock step with the Socialism of the New Frontier, Great Society and New World Order? The answer is obvious, the Republicanism has been removed from the party and has been replaced with a neo-conservatism sham that is a betrayal of America's tradition.
How many remember the names of these brave leaders that fought so hard to retain the promise of the American way of life? Just what was their cause and why do most Republicans ignore their heritage? Taft sums up nicely the purpose of their task:
"There are a good many Americans who talk about an American century in which America will dominate the world.... If we confine our activities to the field of moral leadership we shall be successful if our philosophy is sound and appeals to the people of the world. The trouble with those who advocate this policy is that they really do not confine themselves to moral leadership. They are inspired by the same kind of New Deal planned-control ideas abroad as recent Administrations have desired to enforce at home. In their hearts they want to force on these foreign people through the use of American money and even, perhaps, arms, the policies which moral leadership is able to advance only through the sound strength of its principles."
Robert Taft believed in the "Federalism" model of the American Republic. His faith was in basic American values and the abilities of the people to seek Liberty. Achieving this goal requires that such liberty is founded upon an economic system based on free enterprise, a political system based on citizen participation, and national independence and sovereignty for our country.
Internationalist Republicans have become mutants, with the abdication of purpose for their party. Just what is the point of having two shades of the same color when that hue is one and the same in Socialism. If you say the debate is over and the future belongs to the most popular collectivist, then America is already deceased.
Even under the great Ronald Reagan, the Departments of Education and Energy continued. Just look at the record! When was the last time a 'so called' conservative remained ardent in the fight against social democracy? Taft's principles are timeless because they represent the best chance for the freedom of a free people. Or does that idea scare so many, that Liberty is no longer our mutual objective? With the dawn of this new century, it is time to remember the common sense of past generations and devote ourselves to the reinvention of practical policies that apply those principles to our current condition. Anything short of this reformation, will confirm that the GOP has lost it's way. Rediscover what a Republican really means . . .
© 2002 SARTRE
I do know this, you cannot continue to nominated good, honorable men and women and have them put through this buzz saw knowing full well that at the very least they will never get out of the committee and at the worse have their reputations ruined and careers ended.. The democrats have announced loud and proud their intentions so, if it was me, I would not give them the satisfaction. The "bully pulpit" will not work when it comes to judicial nominations, most people could care less and public pressure is just not there.
I do know this, you cannot continue to nominated good, honorable men and women and have them put through this buzz saw knowing full well that at the very least they will never get out of the committee and at the worse have their reputations ruined and careers ended.. The democrats have announced loud and proud their intentions so, if it was me, I would not give them the satisfaction. The "bully pulpit" will not work when it comes to judicial nominations, most people could care less and public pressure is just not there.
you're gonna have to make government a whole lot more Republican before you can make it conservative.
I may have missed something, but it seems that the Republicans have been dancing in the blood of 9/11 for a police state every bit as much as we feared the libs would have. The Patriot act, federalizing airport screeners, floating national ID card trial balloons, opposing the armed defense of the cockpit, facial recognition cameras, etc. Then we have all of the appeals to the left and middle ground with "education reform" and an absolute immigration bonanza with our Latin American brethren.
Sometimes I wonder if the libs would have gotten away with it, but with "our guys" running a bigger and more intrusive gov't, we all say it's OK, as long as we get the SCOTUS stacked in our favor.
I say that you need more conservatives rather than RINO Republicans. Would the 104th Congress have been the way it was without The UNIBANGER in the WH? I think not.
It would take some convincing for me to see RINO Republicans as being any better than the dim-wit Left. Ashcroft is supposed to be a conservative.
But to answer the original question of "what makes a Republican a REPUBLICAN?"
It would seem from recent emperical data that a conspicuous lack of any vertibrate matter is the most common trait.
I have never seen so many, with so many winning issues, and so much support and so much money get shouted into submission by so few with so little and no winning issues. If you are going to be a Republican, you need a thick skin and some testicular matter - not some ex cheerleader, bag of hot yuppie air, who thinks that a slick hair cut and a "just pumped the cat look" is all it takes to lead.
Lizzie Dole for Senator??? Is there no one else in North Carolina? Honestly? That is it? What is her issue? Kittens and warm milk, flowered meadows and children laughing? If we are pinning our hopes of regaining the Senate on that empty suit, we have bigger problems than we can possibly fathom.
Your site is dedicated to the restoration of a constitutional republic. I applaud that. Tell me, what has the modern GOP done to further your goal? Your fellow FReepers have detailed just how they have done the opposite.
Orion's Maxim If you have a boot stamping on your face, forever, the political pursuasion of the person wearing the boot is irrelevant.
The only thing that scares me about the GOP police state, over the Dem police state, is that we are smart enough to know what we are doing.
Good luck.
I have a question for you:
Would you rather vote for David Schippers or Trent Lott for an elected office?
Sorry, I hate to shoot a hole in your maxim.
So sad.
You trying to stir the pot again?;^)
You know that I can't resist a quick stir though, huh? :)
How ya been baldy?
Dales, have you seen this thread? Bookmark it please. I still haven't touched my book, but I'm getting caught up so I'll be able to read it soon.
This is overemotional dishonest rhetoric worthy of a leftist.
It's easy to type fast when you leave words out. lol.
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.