Posted on 06/12/2002 5:19:42 AM PDT by Elkiejg
A few of us are watching and making side bets on the game. We think the game is being played with a cold deck, we know that Socialism is the house and that its rake is onerous, also we know even the best of players will go broke if they stay at the table too long and the rake is too high. This nation has been playing at the Socialist table for seventy years and the toll has been heavy. Many on this forum are optimistic on the future but some of us are putting our money on being prepared for the worst. One thing is for sure; could turn out to be the biggest gamble of all.
Hold on thar, podnuh!
I'm as Edmund Burke conservative as you can get, Mr.!!!
Conservatism is the respect for institutions that have worked well in the past, while liberalism is the adolescent arrogance to think that you know better than the hundreds of generations before you and are going to change the whole system around to make it right in one swell foop.
Well, then, according to Burke, a wholesale revolution of any status quo is de facto LIBERALISM. Likewise, a man of conviction walking into the White House and abolishing the IRS by decree would not be conservative at all! A man of conviction would halt all activities by the government not spelled out in the constitution, but a true conservative would set a course to get you back over a generation or so....much longer than "the whiners" on this board would tolerate. A conservative will try to gently redirect things in the manner of the wisdom of their elders and past institutions (the things proven to work), where as liberals radically alter things (typically for the worse....if it works don't fix it.)
That being said, I hope you will understand the position I come from. I am not a moderate, but a true conservative that eschews revolution as chaotic and dangerous. Those on this board that decry Bush for not being a man of conviction would probably be able to get us into much trouble if they held the reins of power for even 30 seconds!!!
Am I trying to start an argument? No. Am I exhausted with the foolish armchair QB'ing on here that doesn't give any credence to the inertia of the massive government? You betcha.
Put a foolish kid in a Miata and he may zip in and out of traffic at 70 mph. Put that kid on a clunky tractor and he may roll it over on top of himself at 5 mph.
The federal gubbmint is big and clunky (due in part to liberal demmys and pubbies both) and trying to turn it on a dime like so called "conservative die-hards" would like is far worse than having W offend their strongly held, but perhaps poorly thought out beliefs.
So by your definition I guess you're on board with social security as it is with no changes. It has worked well in the past. It has saved us from needing to take tax money to pay for those that didn't know how to save all their lives. And a majority of the population supports it.
What about abortion? The abortion rights group has a slight edge over the pro-life group, so does that mean it's working?
What about the IRS? Why on earth would a conservative (as you define it) want to change anything at all? After all, the US is the economic powerhouse, so our tax structure must be working.
Come to think about it? I guess the revolution was a liberal thing. Why did we need to get rid of the king? Taxation without representation was working fine, in fact, Great Britain was the most powerful nation in the world under that system.
Also how does campaign finance reform advance his conservative agenda? Or the bloated farm bill and the Kennedy Education bill?
For campaign finance reform, I guess you can say the existing laws weren't working because we didn't enforce them; therefore, we need more laws restricting the parties.
For the Education bill, I guess you can say education has been failing; therefore, increasing the education departments funding and mandate will help?
For the Farm Bill, I guess you can say our farmers need more money to not grow crops and capitalism doesn't work with farmers markets.
Now that just sounds absurd, so unless GW is one great planner I think he does a lot of things for political expediancy. He could have a master plan that by increasing these departments he knows they are doomed to fail; thus, allowing us to finally get rid of them once and for all. I find that hard to believe because he hasn't setup himself in such a way to pull that off.
If he said, we will try to let the education department fix our problems. We will increase their funding beyond what they request, but if we don't see improvements in Math by X%, Reading by X%, and Science by X% all funds will be withdrawn and the taxes that raised those funds sent back to the tax payers.
Or--unlike the chrome-and-rhinestone Kennedys and the trashy Clintons--being of royal blood.
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.