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.

[winner45]

bump bumpty bump

[winner45]

re: msg #39

If someone doesn't know the difference between Liberals and Conservatives, they haven't been paying attention.

There is little difference between democrats and republicans. See msg 12.

[winner45]

Hey Dead Corpse, lighten up a little. Msg 45 was kinda heavy.

[yoswif]

If Republicans were really interested in reducing government, intergenerational equity is the tool to achieve it. Because of all the government programs and policies currently in effect, the average child in America will be required to pay 82% of their lifetime earnings in federal taxes. To reduce that number to a morally responsible level, say 10%, would require repealing virtually every federal law, abolishing virtually every federal government program and bureaucracy, and firing virtually every federal employee and starting over from scratch. That the Republican party has no interest in using the intergenerational equity issue (do it for the children) to achieve it's stated goal of reducing the size, power, and scope of the federal government to a Constitutional and morally responsible level clearly demonstrates their opposition to Constitutional and morally responsible government.

[winner45]

re: msg #71

For started (and finishers), I'm conservative and oppose nearly all government involvement and programs. I believe in the government building roads, protecting its people, running the military, running the prisons, and generally keeping an orderly society. I pay them to do this. 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

I hope you get what you want. I assure you neither I nor Browne are idiots. Since the purpose of Browne's piece was not to define conservativeism, your assertion to its use and worth is nonsequitur. However, I wish you well.

[Tall_Texan]

Great platform! You've got my>/b> vote!!

[sinkspur]

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?

No. I'm not as paranoid as you are. This "downfall of our country" and "children in chains" stuff is pure crap, and you know it.

[VRW Conspirator]

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.

Bingo. Here lies the ugly truth. There are soooooooo many people and businesses that benefit from from government hand-outs of one form or another. After FDR, the rush to "buy votes" has ebbed and flowed but only while in the stratospheric range of government spending. When the Dems had control of Congress from the 60's to the 90's they created a dependency on "big government" all the while. This trend needs to be reversed. But how? If the Republicans tried to cut the government the way the so-called libertarians want, they would be chastized to say the least.

I hope this NRST can be instituted. Yet, I do have a reservation or two. This should be an interesting two years for the fereral government.

BTW, I am curious to see if Rep. Dick Armey(R) will write a book after he leaves office.

[GOPJ]

Good point:

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

[Celtman]

Anitius Severinus Boethius:
You are incorrect. Your individual experiences aside, the vast majority of people who do not vote, and even more of those who do not even register, do not care what happens. They are apathetic, even content, with the way the government is run.

      It's not really the apathy of the sheeple that bothers me.  It's their ignorance.  Our newspaper had a column last month about the results of a poll which concluded that less than 10% (don't remember the exact figure) know that freedom of the press is guaranteed by the Constitution, or are aware of any of the other Bill of Rights guarantees.
      The result, maybe, of an educational system which spends more time on the biographies of movie stars than it does on the biographies of the Founding Fathers?
      Personally, I hope the ignorant and the apathetic stay home on election days.
     
Shooter 2.5:
If someone doesn't know the difference between Liberals and Conservatives, they haven't been paying attention.

      But anyone who believes that Liberal == Democrat and Conservative == Republican should take off the blinders.

[AAABEST]

This "downfall of our country" and "children in chains" stuff is pure crap, and you know it.

No I don't "know it". I know that as parents we're already working over half our lives for the collective, and you admit it will do nothing but get worse and worse. You're perfectly happy with that, a socialist's best friend.

Isn't bad enough going through life as a chubby security guard type without being a virtual pinko?

[Spunky]

As a former stated Libertarian, a better question for you to ask Mr. Browne is: Where have all the Harry Browne supporters gone?

It appears even HE is not their perfect man.
I wonder if they will ever find one?

From Harry's stite

While Harry Browne supports the Libertarian Party and the American Liberty Foundation, his views are his own and do not represent the official policies of either organization. There are Libertarians who disagree with Harry Browne's position on the "War on Terrorism" and on other topics.

[u-89]

Are you saying that sinkspur is a security guard? Honestly, I thought he owned a company that got lucrative contracts from the government, you know the $800 monkey wrench type. I figured that he gave big donations and support to crooked pols(is that redundant?) and they gave him some fat contracts. I really wondered why he supported the establishment the way he does. Thought there had to be a financial angle because that's the only way his brand of loyality made sense to me.

Sinkspur, which is it? I've been lurking here at FR for years, did I have you wrong all this time? I'm not trying to bust your chops or mock you or anything, I am really surprised.

[u-89]

You talk about ignorance of the constitution, what really bothers me is that people think that their rights are granted to them by the government, spelt out in the BOR. So when(if) they read "congress shall make no law..." it doesn't even strike them that the BOR is a check on government activity, not a grant of priviledge to the citizen. Amazing.