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
As far as CFR, I am very disappointed in the President's statement that he will sign it. You can do a search to see just how disappointed I am, but you may be surprised at why I'm disappointed. (btw, has he signed it yet? Why not?)
However, CFR is not the end of the world. It is not the media's responsibility to feed us information regarding candidates and/or issues. It is our responsibility to learn about candidates and issues. How we go about taking on this responsibility and getting others to do the same is something much bigger than CFR itself.
I appreciate your candor.
I'd like to see your plan realized of ridding Congress of liberals, and then going after the liberal-Republicans, but I'm afraid my life expectancy isn't as long as a Biblical patriarch's.
I'm all for the Patriot Act. I've actually read it. I wonder how the terrorists communicate from one country to another if not by phone or computer?
If the gov't can monitor "terrorist" communications within the confines of the US, then they can monitor ours. The definition of terrorist will slip and slide to suit their needs.
Why not just repeal the 4th amendment? After all, you have nothing to hide. Why have a constitution in the first place?
The surveillance state is here. Too bad you agree with it. This is why the modern GOP sucks - it is all about gaining power, not about personal liberty.
Am I reading this right? You would prefer some Norweigan immigrants to Mexicans? Why is that? Something about a European culture?
Well, my race baiting GOP friend....
My point is that GWB is trying to court the "hispanic" vote to shore up his chances in the '04 election. He speaks some spanish, so that is supposed to make him appealing to Mexicans, and in turn, they will cast off the billions of dollars of federal goodies and become good GOP voters? Right.....
In Texas, we had the pathetic sight of two Dems trying to "out hispanic" each other to get the nomination for governor. It was something worse than the worst pandering the UNIBANGER ever attempted. Dukakis did part of his acceptance address in '88 in spanish to pander to the Latin vote. Now "we" are doing it. Do you see a pattern?
The whole point with Norweigan, is that it is a language which is almost unknown to anyone in the US. I could have put down a language used by darker skinned people, if that would not have offended your sensibilities, but I prefer to smoke out race baiters, when able. It is so easy to smoke out a good little, PC, GOP race baiter by offering anything "white" over "Mexican."
The Mexican immigration experience is an unqualified disaster. Almost no effort is made toward assimilation, and loyalties are almost exclusivly Demoncrat. It is a peasant labor force, that votes accordingly. Scandinavian decendants in America (or Scandi-Americans if your PC sensibilities will allow), do not cluser in communities which bear no resemblance to the host country, like Central American immigrants do. You can walk through Scandi-American neighborhoods (if you can find them) without fear that your next stop is the emergency room or morgue. You don't see massive voter fraud, street demonstrations in support of that fraud, with the Norweigan flag flying over the Stars and Stripes.
Scandinavian immigrants would be expected to join the workforce and raise their children to be responsible US citizens. There would be no pressure group championing thier "rights" as immigrants.
One PC point of order...Latins are white, at least they were until they realized they could get an entire array of social goodies by claiming to be their own race, and that race is not white (caucasian).
No, there is nothing inherently superior about European cultures. There is something wrong with unchecked immigration and empty-headded politicos who pander to that vote at our expense. There is something to be gained by having immigrants who don't think that because of their year-round suntan, they are entitled to be a pain in the ass, and not assimilate.
If GWB spoke Norsk, rather than Spanglish, I doubt you would see him pander to Scandi-Americans - that was my point.
He would say that they are a hell of a lot better than the Democrats, and that it would be much easier to get control of the Republican party than to build up a third party from scratch.
True, a third party is not going to happen, unless a total collapse of the economy or substantial military defeat takes place. RINOs are only useful for organizing the chamber, and that is significant. Other than that, RINOs are unpredictable and take the party to the left (to keep their loyalites). Sometimes, it is good to buck the RINOs, take your lumps, and then regroup without them. Your message stays conservative, and the RINO option is less appealing. I would guess that the majority of GOP reps are conservative, but they waiver to keep the RINOs in the big tent. Screw the RINOs and tap into the disenfranchised conservatives by using "wedge" issues. The GOP would have a 2/3 majority if we quit pandering to the "ethnic" vote, and proposed shutting down the border, scrapping the income tax, and cutting the welfare rolls to the bone.
Too bad we all think the NYT reflects America.
You have a screw loose.
I, for one am not holding my breath. I don't think there are enough truly conservative Republicans left. The so called center of the political spectrum has moved so far to the left that policies that are considered far Right wing today would have been considered the loony left 50 years ago.
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.