Posted on 11/08/2002 10:59:18 AM PST by winner45
This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
Thursday, June 6, 2002
Where have all the conservatives gone? Posted: June 6, 2002 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Harry Browne
There used to be two highly vocal political movements in America the conservatives and the liberals.
Although there were subtle variations, the basic difference between them was this:
Today, however, it's almost impossible to tell the two groups apart.
Liberals
The modus operandi of liberals has always been:
In this way they've turned education into a federal responsibility leading to unsafe schools and far too many illiterate students.
They've ruined what was once the best health-care system in history making it terribly expensive, cruelly insensitive, and totally out of the reach of many people.
They've created a permanent underclass of welfare clients, made America's farmers dependent on the federal government, and polluted the environment by putting too much land in the care of irresponsible bureaucrats.
No matter how much and how often and how harmfully government fails at what it does, no matter how many problems it causes, liberals still ask government to bring about whatever they want.
Conservatives
Conservatives used to oppose these government programs fighting them with economic arguments, pointing to unintended consequences, and citing the unconstitutionality of the proposals.
But no longer.
Conservatives have used the federal government to wage a horrendous Drug War. The result has been drug-dealing gangs in the streets, children killed in drive-by shootings, crack babies, increased drug use, and a trashing of the Bill of Rights.
And how do they propose to deal with this enormous failure?
Throw more money at it, make the prison terms more oppressive, take away more of our civil liberties, trash the Constitution even further. In other words, do more of the things that created the problems.
If someone objects, accuse him of ignoring the crack babies and the families hurt by drugs.
If government schools are a mess, cite uneducated children as a reason for a government program to subsidize private schools which will surely turn those schools into clones of the government schools (as happened with private colleges).
If federal welfare is a tragedy, propose putting religious charities on the federal dole so that they, too, can become beggars at the government trough, doing the bureaucrats' bidding in order to keep the subsidies coming.
If it's revealed that our military, the FBI, or the CIA hasn't perform its mission properly, throw more money at it, expand whatever program has failed, give more power to the bureaucrats. And if anyone objects, if anyone cites the Constitution, just accuse him of ignoring the victims of 9-11.
No matter how much, and how often, and how harmfully government fails at what it does no matter how many problems it causes conservatives still ask government to bring about whatever they want.
No difference
In other words, conservatives now sound exactly like liberals.
What did you get for your vote?
Conservative writers and commentators oppose big-government programs only if they're proposed by Bill Clinton or some other Democratic president. Then they're constitutionalists sounding the alarm against big government.
At least with Clinton, there was an opposition party. But with a Republican in the White House, there's no opposition. Thus government grew more rapidly under Nixon, Reagan, Ford or Bush than it did under Clinton.
In 2000, many people said they were voting for George Bush because he was the lesser of two evils.
But it turns out that Bush is doing all the things Gore would have done only now, there's no opposition.
So it appears that those people who chose Bush actually voted for the greater of two evils big government and no opposition.
SPECIAL OFFER!
If your retirement funds are vulnerable to market crashes, corporate scandals, wartime intrusions, or any other unexpected events, you need to make your investment portfolio bullet-proof. Harry Browne can help you do that. Just click here for information.
Harry Browne is the director of public policy at the American Liberty Foundation. You can read more of his articles and find out about his network radio show at HarryBrowne.org.
|
Instead, attempts will be made to smear the author, and change the subject - liberal tactics to be sure - and by doing so just reinforce Browne's point.
I was right there with Harry up until he started in with the Clinton part. X42 may not have grown the government as much as others, but what he did do was even more irrepairable. Brady. Lewinsky. China.
Republicans no longer have an excuse. If they go back on their promises to reduce the size and scope of government, then they will have been shown to be the liars we suspect they are.
They have two years to make at least SOME meaningful changes, and the clock is ticking.
Yup, the ball is in their court. Now it's time for them to put up or shut up about being for limited government.
Have you any predictions of what excuses will be offered when government not only doesn't shrink but gets even bigger, or do you think they'll just ignore the issue, and attack their critics?
What bothers me is not that Republicans and Democrats are "too alike". What I mourn is that too many of the Republicans we now have don't have the stones to stand up for conservatism. Hastert and Lott are shining examples of "Rodney King Republicans" (can't we all just get along?) - unwilling to draw a line in the sand when it needs to be drawn.
I miss Phil Gramm and Jesse Helms already.
Maybe as a full majority they will grow a backbone but I'm not holding my breath. If Harry Browne really cared about conservatism, he'd jettison the pot-smoking stoners that dominate his party and join with real conservatives like the Constitution Party. But I'm not holding my breath on that haapening either.
Very true. But the real test is whether or not the die-hard GOP supporters still support the GOP after the government continues to expand, or whether they will make excuses ("they only have a simple majority, not a super-majority", "the democrats filibustered", "there's a war on, he had to expand the government", etc.).
And to be fair, those of us that doubt have to be ready to concede if the size of the government does shrink.
"The Polls said...."
"Regulations passed by previous administrations are holding us up and we are too gutless to change them ourselves."
"Starving puppies."
"Read my lips...."
"A thousand points of light..."
"Forging a New World Order..."
They've used them in the past. I guess we'll find out.
Philosophers of tremendous merit are normally regarded in their own time as crack-pots, heretics, and criminals. While I don't know that Harry fits among such luminaries, the philosophy he espouses is such a "dangerous notion". Dangerous at least to those in power and their status quo.
I just hope that more people catch on to the message before the powers that be start shooting messangers.
Your other points are well taken Mr. Browne. However, I would like to point a teeny tiny difference. Government grew more rapidly under Nixon, Reagan, Ford or Bush because of the DEMOCRAT controlled congress. We had deficit spending until the Repubs showed up. If you remember the first two years of Clinton, he pushed tax increases and tried to socialize America.
Bold faced type. A double-helping of crow pie. Eat my own words. Admit I was a unfaithful dumbass.
In two years, assuming I haven't gotten sick of the admin's selective censorship policies, I'll start a thread with a bold type heading...
"I'M SORRY I DOUBTED YOU".
I'll even switch to a registered Republican.
No BS. I'm serious.
If you didn't, I don't see why those of us who did should give you the time of day.
And what does Harry Browne know about what conservatives used to stand for?
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.