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.
|
Your focus on Real Polotik only strengthens my resolve to support the libertarians because as you point out it the current popular mind set has been noted and limited government will not be in the GOP program. On a national level the limited government message, I am afraid will not work for a long time to come however I do believe that in a small state a dedicated group of right minded people could restore limited government as the Free State Project proposes. Or so I hope.
Yes.
Is that why more than half of the elligable voters in the US stay home?
Precisely. They are content with the government and see no need to change it.
Is that why more than half of those left voted for a Republican running on a smaller government campaign?
Half of half is a quarter. So a quarter of people voted for a candidate whose party is for smaller government. The debate over small or big government has been waged for over a hundred years, and the vast majority of people have said "Big Government". We need to change the public's perception of what smaller government will mean, but we must first recognize that we are in the minority view in the general population.
Forgive my french, but what a f%cking outright lie!
All those surveys of people who stay home because they feel that their vote does not count, and won't do any good, count for nothing then? I can hit six people with a rock from where I sit who I had that EXACT conversation with just last week.
The people who voted for Republicans, voted for them due to the "smaller government" promise. If the Republicans don't deliver, then they should not expect support next time around.
How goddamn hard is that to understand?
Those who say, 'My vote doesn't even count', are just using an excuse why not to vote, not a reason why they don't vote.
Let's put it this way. (I'm sorry, I work in examples.) Let's say there is a village of 100 people living on a beach at the bottom of a cliff. All they can eat are coconuts that grow on trees at the top of the cliff. The cliff is not too steep, anyone in the village could climb it, but it is an hour climb. 40 people in the village regularly make trips to the top of the cliff to gather fresh coconuts to eat and the remaining 60 eat the old coconuts that fall over the cliff.
If you ask those 60 why they don't climb the cliff, they might say "Why? I'm eating coconuts anyway?" What they don't want to say, but is the truth, is "I get my coconuts, and it's not worth an hour trip just to get better coconuts."
Voter apathy has more to do with their contentment at getting the scraps that roll down to them than philisophical disillusionment with the results.
Nonsequitur replys will not be answered.
perhaps I'm a bit masochistic
I do not want them waging a WAR ON DRUGS. If you catch someone with drugs, throw them in jail. That's all the war I need. Keep it simple. I don't want them handing out money to bums who don't work. I don't want them educating my children. I don't want them "socializing" everyone with programs. I want it all to go away. Give me my money back and I'll be doing great. I don't need Social Security, I don't need Medicare. I can actually BETTER prepare for my older age with MY MONEY. I just need the money back so I can start working.
So, idiot author, you have ill-defined what it is to be a true conservative, so every point you make is completely useless and unworthy of a carefully considered rebuttal. This is all.
END OF LINE
The Socialists edifice represented by Federal programs in all areas continues its growth. While shrinking is some areas others expand. The net effect remains the same. Federal power grows. The federal budget grows ever larger. Corporate welfare/subsidies expand.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-375es.html
Holy s**t, you finally said something wise and truthful.
So you're saying would should accept the downfall of our country and accept the fact that true freedom will not be seen by our children?
If the pubbies fail to curtail federal spending and power grabing, then perhaps the Libertarians will be a more desirable choice assuming some decent candidates are recruited.
ditto/bump
Alexander Tyler, an eighteenth-century Scottish historian, concluded from a study of Athenian democracy that democracies cannot long survive. He wrote,
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship."
And further, he postulated:
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back again to bondage."
Check Cato's Fact and Figure page and post #12
http://www.cato.org/fiscal/2002/factsfigs.html
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.