Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Where have all the conservatives gone?
www.worldnetdaily.com ^ | 6/22/2002 | Harry Browne

Posted on 11/08/2002 10:59:18 AM PST by winner45

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27868

Thursday, June 6, 2002


Harry Browne Harry Browne


Where have all the conservatives gone?


Posted: June 6, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Harry Browne


© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

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:

  • Liberals were impatient with society as it was and wanted to use the force of government to change it.

  • Conservatives were skeptical of change, and were reluctant to use government to force changes on society.

Today, however, it's almost impossible to tell the two groups apart.

Liberals

The modus operandi of liberals has always been:

  1. Cite a social problem.

  2. Assume that this represents a failure of freedom that only the federal government can repair.

  3. Propose a big-government program.

  4. When someone objects, accuse him of ignoring the poor folks who are suffering.

  5. When the new program fails to solve the problem (and instead makes it much worse), throw more money at it, pass more laws, make the penalties more oppressive, and then ignore the situation (until it's time to cite the failure as a reason to expand the program again).

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.

  • Cite social problems as justification for expanding the federal government.

  • If anyone opposes the proposal, accuse him of being heartless or anti-American.

  • Ignore the Constitution if it conflicts with one's pet crusade.

  • And no matter how bad a program gets, the answer always is to make it bigger, more expensive, and more powerful.

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.



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: conservative; liberal
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last
To: GOPJ
Any yet we are spending more on welfare programs (check the budget)...ironic isn't it?

In 1994, when the GOP took the House and Senate, we were bold enough to talk about shutting down the Department of Education and defunding the National Endowment of the Arts.

Now we control all three branches, and the top three priorities are a new cabinet level deparment, troop movements in the Middle East, and making permanent a tax rate cut that barely keeps pace with inflation, phased in over 10 years.

And that's just in 8 years.


21 posted on 11/08/2002 12:15:40 PM PST by JohnGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: winner45
Libertypost.org?
22 posted on 11/08/2002 12:16:37 PM PST by Triple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I voted for two. One Rep and a Judge. Both running solely against a Democrat with no Libertarian candiate running as well.

You'll either give us the time of day or stand proven as a hypocrit. Or should we assume that you approve of candidates who say one thing to get elected, then do the opposite once you are in office?

23 posted on 11/08/2002 12:17:03 PM PST by Dead Corpse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: VRW Conspirator
Thanks for addressing the issues!

Government grew more rapidly under Nixon, Reagan, Ford or Bush because of the DEMOCRAT controlled congress.

If that's the case, we should expect different results now?

24 posted on 11/08/2002 12:17:14 PM PST by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
I predict no one will attempt to address the points made in the article.

A little hard to when he cites no empircal evidence of his allegations, which are all phrased in a "When did you stop beating your wife and dog" sort of double-speak.

Browne lost my respect when he began to write more and more of these types of articles, which do nothing to truly articulate the percieved problem, and offer nothing in return. Some of his claims have gone further and further off the deep end in the process.

Add to that the constant foolishness of some LP candidates/representatives (i.e., Mr. Smurf in Montana, and the Spitting Candidate in California), and the LP's credibility begins to sink to near the level of Lyndon LaRouche and his ilk.

While I have no problem supporting some of the issues of true libertarianism (little "l"), the LP is nothing more than a laughing stock as far as I am concerned. And as such, attacks posing as position papers like this one do not serve much more than to reenforce the increasing fringe perception that the LP has earned of late.

25 posted on 11/08/2002 12:17:58 PM PST by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
One only need to look at the latest Senate race here in NC. The candidates were from different parties yet the main argument I could see is who could spend the government's money faster to take care of citizens. FWIW, one candidate recommended and plans to push for drug testing for teens to get a driver's license and the other thought it may be a bad idea, not endorsing it. I'll let you guess which one was for it
26 posted on 11/08/2002 12:22:24 PM PST by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I voted straight R and agree with everyword he said.

1994, with out the White House, we were talking about closing down the Department of Education, in 2002, with all three branches, we are talking about a new cabinet level department.

Where have all the conservatives gone?
27 posted on 11/08/2002 12:22:46 PM PST by JohnGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
You'll either give us the time of day or stand proven as a hypocrit.

Hypocrite? I knew exactly who and what I was voting for on Tuesday. You, OTOH, voted for losers, people like Harry Browne whose "blame America" stance after 9/11 assures that he will get even fewer votes than he did in 2000 if the Libertarians are goofy enough to nominate him.

Or should we assume that you approve of candidates who say one thing to get elected, then do the opposite once you are in office?

I approve of candidates who will do what they say they're going to do, not embrace the dictates of a bunch of losers who didn't even vote for them.

Did you see that, for the first time in 13 years, the Libertarians won't have a slot on future Texas ballots? They didn't get 5% in any race, so they're out!

28 posted on 11/08/2002 12:23:07 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
No. I don't vote for big government candidates. I honestly don't care what party they belong to, or who they are running against. I will not give my consent nor empower those who will make government one bit bigger. I refuse to vote for any candidates who violate the Constitution and ignore their oaths of office. That's my line in the sand, and its not moving.

Why should you give me the time of day? Because I'd like to vote for your party, I just can't vote for the people you currently run. I will vote for RLC candidates over my own party when I have the chance. Maybe you'd like to help them get on the ballot?

29 posted on 11/08/2002 12:26:14 PM PST by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I voted for RINO Jeff Sessions. He won.
30 posted on 11/08/2002 12:27:26 PM PST by fish70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
If you didn't, I don't see why those of us who did should give you the time of day

C'mon sink. You know the crowd Harry Browne articles draw. Vote? Some of these guys wouldn't take a chance coming out of their bunker long enough to vote.

31 posted on 11/08/2002 12:28:58 PM PST by Cable225
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: billbears
I'll let you guess which one was for it

And the answer is < drumroll > Giddy Dole!

She's a prime example of a big government carreer politician and the poster child for what's wrong with the Republican party

32 posted on 11/08/2002 12:32:49 PM PST by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
They have two years to make at least SOME meaningful changes, and the clock is ticking.

Well, the very first meaningful change that will be made is that the Department of Homeland Security will become the law of the land.

And I , for one, don't like the meaning...

not one bit.

33 posted on 11/08/2002 12:33:07 PM PST by Beenliedto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: winner45
Warning to all, this is a druggie topic, and there is no point in arguing with them. We are all wrong and they are right. I entered this thread by accident, and I will not be returning, would advise the same to others.
34 posted on 11/08/2002 12:42:55 PM PST by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I approve of candidates who will do what they say they're going to do, not embrace the dictates of a bunch of losers who didn't even vote for them.

What do you thin I'm talking about you abrasive moron! Will the Republicans stick to their "smaller government" promises? It is going back on such promises that drove me from the Republican party to begin with. I cannot tolerate a LIAR.

How, in even your twisted mind, is that kowtowing to libertarian ideals? All they have to do to gain my support is stick to their own damn promises.

Is that so effing hard?

35 posted on 11/08/2002 12:43:46 PM PST by Dead Corpse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
I will vote for RLC candidates over my own party when I have the chance. Maybe you'd like to help them get on the ballot?

I vote Republican. Period. I'm not really interested in putting a competitor on the ballot, especially one with the potential to drain support from Republicans.

36 posted on 11/08/2002 12:46:16 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
They have two years to make at least SOME meaningful changes, and the clock is ticking.

The clock is ticking? It's been about 61 hours since the Republicans have been assured of taking control of the Senate this next year and we have heard from Republicans:

-partial birth abortion is going to be banned
-we need to get the judicial nominees to the full Senate ASAP
-we need to defend our borders with troops if needed
-A trial balloon has gone up talking about scrapping the IRS and the tax code

How much faster do you think the Republicans can put out statements of what they want to do?

37 posted on 11/08/2002 12:47:05 PM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Did any of you vote for Republicans on Tuesday?

I voted for the most conservative candidates on the slate Tuesday; as it happens, they were all Republicans. Some of them won.

But don't read it as carte blanche support for the GOP.

If you didn't, I don't see why those of us who did should give you the time of day.

Hell of a way to defend your positions. I guess you will be first in line with the excuses.

38 posted on 11/08/2002 12:48:41 PM PST by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: winner45
If someone doesn't know the difference between Liberals and Conservatives, they haven't been paying attention.
39 posted on 11/08/2002 12:48:53 PM PST by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I vote Republican. Period. I'm not really interested in putting a competitor on the ballot

Um, RLC members are Republicans. Small government, constitutional Republicans. What could be wrong with that?

40 posted on 11/08/2002 12:48:53 PM PST by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson