Posted on 04/02/2002 5:25:37 AM PST by areafiftyone
A Long History Opposing the Same Enemy
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 . . .
You mean like Bush's stance on immigration?
Seriously, I think the problem is, both major parties are firmly entrenched in the middle, which is why it's sometimes hard to differentiate between them. There are differences, but at the same time, both parties want to appeal to moderates from the other party.
Solution? I have no idea. I became a libertarian precisely because of this.
I have always considered Taft somewhat out of the mainstream of the Republican Party and somewhat inconsistent with its core values.
Starving children, lynching blacks, raping rain forests, throwing the old into the street, burning churches, depleting the ozone, oppressing women, etc...
At least that's what the Republicans I helped elect comfortably, and silently, allowed to be said about me. Then they discussed, on the floor of the senate, how conservatives were a handicap & were to be sacrificed(for the good of the party).
But; that was then. Now I find more in commen with Libertarians.
You forgot get all the money.
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.