Where have all the conservatives gone?

www.worldnetdaily.com ^ | 6/22/2002 | Harry Browne

[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

---

---

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.

[Cacophonous]

I agree; I'd love a serving of humble pie.

[sinkspur]

Will the Republicans stick to their "smaller government" promises?

No Republican has shrunk the size of government since the founding of the party by Abraham Lincoln. And no Republican will.

Nor will any Libertarian, because the American people don't want a small government. Oh, they might say they do, but every voter is a special interest, and one man's pork is another man's entitlement.

"Growing government less than the other guy" is about the best you're going to get.

Sorry if you don't like that, but that's reality.

[Dead Corpse]

-partial birth abortion is going to be banned

OK. Roe V. Wade needs to go away and the States need to determine this issue.

-we need to get the judicial nominees to the full Senate ASAP

Especially judges who know what an "individual Right" is and why it is "unalienable".

-we need to defend our borders with troops if needed

I'd prefer a "Metal Storm Area Denial" system. Turning the US into another East Berlin isn't a good thing. Defending us from the invasion of illegals coming across the border may reqiure a forceful deterrent.

-A trial balloon has gone up talking about scrapping the IRS and the tax code

Trial balloon is right. If they go with an NRST as a replacement system, this alone would cause me to switch back to the Republican party.

Still, it's all just talk. Show me a signed bill before you expect me to get too excited. I've heard a lot of talk. The actions will give proof to the lie.

[GOPJ]

Democrats said welfare reform was about "cheaper". We said it was about human dignity.

The poor have been crippled by liberal dependency programs. And yes, it's going to cost more to help them become alive and independent, but in the long run it will be better and cheaper. But just cheaper? Never. That was always a liberal lie.

Any yet we are spending more on welfare programs (check the budget)...ironic isn't it?

[Dead Corpse]

No Republican has shrunk the size of government since the founding of the party by Abraham Lincoln. And no Republican will.

So we should just sit back and shut up as our government gets bigger and more un-Constitutional? Now I know your a crackpot.

You should at least show some shame to call yourself a Conservative. You're nothing more than just another "Big Government" stooge.

Little better than a fascist that the lefties claim you are. If the definition fits, don't bother bitching about it either.

I guess we know which side of the battle lines you'll be on come the next revolution. Tory.

[JohnGalt]

yes, it's going to cost more to help them become alive and independent

So, a principal of Conservatism is to have a federal responsibility to issue checks to the idle classes? The founders believed that the federal government had a responsibility to ensure the populace could live independently?

[sinkspur]

Oh, the Republican Liberty Caucus?

Sure, I'll support 'em if they're not off in the weeds, talking about using "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" instead of the American military to defeat al-Qaeda. That was one of Ron Paul's brain farts.

The RLC websites I've visited seem to be made up of militia, tax protesters, and one-issue right-to-lifers. Nobody wants to compromise with anybody else.

Herding cats would be easier.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Well, you said the clock was ticking. The pre-game clock is ticking, but the new team hasn't even taken the field yet. We do know what their playbook is shaping up like, though. How much progress do you expect in 62 hours?

[Dead Corpse]

Not much. Like I said earlier, they have two years. If at the end of two years they are still the same old "grow the government as fast as we can", lying, thieving, selling out the Constitution, a$$holes that we have come to know and hate... then I'll vote my principles yet again.

If at the next election, I have been proven delightfully wrong, then I will switch my support.

Until they get a chance to start doing things, I'll just sit here and hope.

If sinkspurs opinions are the prevailing ones amongst Conservatives, then they will fail to meet expectations and will deserve the derrision we've been giving the RINO's.

Most Conservatives on FR believe in the Constitution and its limits on Federal and State power. Sinkspur, however, does not believe there should be limits going by his statements on this thread. The people want more government, then they should get more government... in his own words. His lack of speaking out against such blatant un-Constitutional expansion should speak volumes about his own beliefs.

[sinkspur]

So we should just sit back and shut up as our government gets bigger and more un-Constitutional?

You're snide rudeness aside, what is your proposal?

Keep in mind that you've got to sell the American people on cutting government explicitly.

Tax cuts, by the way, cut the size of government de facto by starving it of cash. Tax cuts are also a more tactful and diplomatic way of "cutting," albeit over a longer term.

Slash and burn ain't gonna work, friend. Gingrich tried it in 1994, and was slapped down, hard.

Now, if you want to continue a civil conversation, let's do so. If you just want to run your toilet mouth, then you can do that with somebody else.

[sinkspur]

The people want more government, then they should get more government... in his own words. His lack of speaking out against such blatant un-Constitutional expansion should speak volumes about his own beliefs.

Are you an old woman? Is talking behind someone else's back common behavior for you?

YOu don't understand the first thing about politics, obviously. You have to get elected to do anything. To get elected, you have to convince people to vote for you. People are not going to vote for you unless you sell them on your ideas.

So, tell me how you would convince a majority of voters to vote for you so that you could do the things you want.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

My own opinions are that most people who rail for a return to the Constitution fail to understand that many of the "unconstitutional" issues they have philisophical problems with were initiated by the founders.

There is also a failure to realize, or possibly just accept, that while not a "majority rule" democracy, a large percentage of agreement is needed to successfully affect change in a Republic. When a sizable amount of people, say even 20%, desire a much smaller government, it will be feasible to reduce the size of government. With only a 4 to 6% of the population wanting the Federal government reduced to 1860 size, it isn't even feasible to do so.

My current hopes, and since I voted for the Republicans in my State my expectations, are to see the following in the next two years:

-The abortion issue addressed in what I would view as positive ways
-Taxes lowered, tax code simplified
-Affirmation of Second Amendment rights as being in the portfolio of individual rights
-Borders treated as a serious security risk for the United States
-Department of Education having a serious overhaul

My overall goals of the above are:

-Roe v. Wade overturned
-IRS scrapped
-Supreme Court case stating individual right to keep and bear arms
-INS and Border Patrol folded into new Homeland Security agency and current structure demolished
-Department of Education dismantled

I just want to see some movement on the next two years towards these goals at the minimum. I do not demand the goals to be met at the minimum.

[Dead Corpse]

NRST and burn the IRS.

Cite Constitutional Authority in each new Bill and make it a retro-acitve requirement on all legislation dating back to the year 1800.

The first will win big with the populace due to the fact that the IRS is pretty universally hated. "The Taxman has no friends". The second, most of the population will ignore until after it is passed due to their lack of comprehension of the full scope of the issue. The trial lawyers may fuss, but let the parasites sweat.

Those two steps there would go a long way towards restoriing our Constitutional Republic, complete with the support of the population.

If the Republicans in office are not talented enough to get changes through with the support of the public, why should we bother supporting them again?

If you weren't so "rude" to begin with, you would have gotten civil responses from the first. Calling people "losers", no matter the accuracy, is no way to endear them to you.

[Howlin]

Did you know that James Trafficant got 15 percent of the vote FROM HIS JAIL CELL?

Does anybody know how much the Libertarians got?

[Howlin]

A better question might be how much progress have their candidates made in the last 62 hours? 62 days? 62 weeks? 62 months? 62 years?

[rintense]

I'm intrigued. Why are you a former Lib?

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Progress doesn't matter as long as you have principles. Accomplishment is no substitute for purity of thought.

[Howlin]

So what you're saying is Tuesday night was bad. Good to know. :-)

[Dead Corpse]

Old woman? First you ask me to keep a civil tongue with you, and you come back with that?

All right pal, I see how you would like to play this.

Elected? What effing good is it to vote for a bunch of sisies who are afraid of doing the job they were elected to do? You really think most people out there WANT more government intrusion in their lives? Is that why more than half of the elligable voters in the US stay home? Is that why more than half of those left voted for a Republican running on a smaller government campaign?

You have still yet to address Republican campaign promises to reduce the scope of government, and how you translate this to mean that We the People want more government. Especially in light of the big win just handed to the Republicans.

They won due in part to the message of smaller government. Own up to it, or that support will evaporate.

Or would you like to contiue trying to come up with idiot repsonses that are blatantly untrue?

[Howlin]

His lack of speaking out against such blatant un-Constitutional expansion should speak volumes about his own beliefs.

You know what, you're exactly right. We should speak out when we strongly agree or disagree, regardless of the consequences.

And since I have been guilty of this, let me say it now: your posts are total BS, self-serving, bloviating, specious, condescending drivel.