Conservative Policies
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 01:16
VIEWED: 2425
PAGE 3 of 3
Well said, more or less. I have a few problems with Rush Limbaugh, but at least he gets it, overall.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Well said, more or less. I have a few problems with Rush Limbaugh, but at least he gets it, overall.
Ditto.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree that this show has a bunch of conservative values but the number one value is limitation of a bloated government. It’s what makes us conservatives (or Reagan Conservatives as some of us have been called) the idea that our government was made by the people to protect and serve us not rule and control us, a representative government that believes in free enterprise and the basic human rights that are endowed to all men by the creator. Sounds religious? Damn right it is, a government that supports capitalism also has an innate trust in a divine being while as a socialized government represents mans trust in man (a truly evil thing). Let’s look at the past 60 years in America everything that the government has gotten their hands on has been destroyed, prime example: Social Security. Our social security is like Canada’s heath care system it’s broken and one day will inevitably collapse on itself. A Privatized Social Security would have been a good step in the right direction (other countries that have tried this system stated great successes with it) but Democrats refused to even look at this issue. Why? For the following reasons:
-Fear of turning Americans into Capitalist
-Fear of an informed populous (it shouldn’t surprise you that the majority of democratic votes come from improvised under educated families that believe anything our one party media cries out.)
-Fear of turning against their socialist ideals
So who do they hurt when they implement socialist ideals into a free society? (After all every other country who has tried it has had great success, right?) You, that’s who. Tax and spend liberal’s use our government as a personal penny bank all while spouting moral highs such as helping the poor, but all they are doing is keeping the poor suppressed so that they can continue to vote for them (just you watch as they ask the refugees from new Orleans to vote absentee). Redistribution of wealth, limitation of free enterprise, the disembowelment of religion (Freedom of religion not from it)…that’s not my America.
And just because somebody is gay or a whore doesn’t mean us Christians hate them. Jesus didn’t turn people away and neither do we.
(Post Script: Even though I don’t agree with the left I do believe that they and their opinions are needed in order to have a truly functional democracy.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I agree that this show has a bunch of conservative values but the number one value is limitation of a bloated government. It’s what makes us conservatives (or Reagan Conservatives as some of us have been called)
I know people associate themselves to some extent with when they came on board with the idea, but I don't think there is such a thing specifically as a 'Reagan Conservative.' I tend to think of the GOP evolution as taking a few small steps, and then holding fairly steady, with the occasional misstep. Here's the stages of GOP I see:
Adams Republicans. (1824-1860) These are people who identify with the original Nat. Rep. Party, JQ Adams, and the original Jeffersonian ideas.
Lincoln Republicans. (1860-1900) This is the crowd to whom aggressive US policy represents a part of Manifest Destiny. I think these guys probably still support Bush, but they're not the same.
Roosevelt Republicans (1900-1950) This is the reinvention to end the concept of American isolationism in favor of an international diplomatic role, and a carefully moderated international free trade.
Eisenhower Republicans (1950-1980) This obviously includes Nixon, Dwight's VP, and was the re-invention to survive Hoover and FDR. It's based on economically a reaction against the advance of govt. and in favor societal values to prevent decadent decay. Internationally it was characterized by the doctrine of Containment.
1980-2000 was a period of flux in which two republican camps struggled for dominance in Washington. One was the old Eisenhower set, and the other was the neocons. Reagan had a number of Both in his govt. I was a liberal then, I didn't switch until I was won over by G.H.W. Bush. My never looking back was strongly brought on by the horridness of Clinton.
Now is a serious turning point for the GOP. It's the biggest one since 1932. There are two roads we could go down. To make my point, I need to revisit the Hoover debate.
Hoover was a firm believer in the idea that European Socialism had proved a success, and that it would be a good idea to institute this for America. He raised taxes from 10% to 30% and embarked on a huge series of govt. social programs which failed, cost much money, and Hoover's spending bankrupted the economy.
What happened with FDR is FDR basically took Hooverism, and redesigned it for the democrats, and to some degree, as well as could be hoped, made it work. To some extend this may have forced the GOP's hand, but in 1932, there was an internal debate:
Does the future GOP evolve Hooverism into a workable platform and try to build on that? or does it reject Hoover utterly, return to T. Roosevelt/Taft, and try to build on that?
Well the obvious answer of what it did was reject Hoover utterly and return to Roosevelt/Taft.
We are now at that crossroads again. Some people like myself, feel that Neoconism is a failure, a wrong turn like Hooverism. I would like to see the GOP return to Eisenhowerism as a base, evolve that philosophy forward to the 21st century, much the way Eisenhower did with Roosevelt Taft, bring it up to date half a century.
The opposing idea would be to accept Bushism as a new base, and build from that. What I would expect to happen is that the Democrats will take Neocon/Bushism, adapt it to the democratic party, and that would force us back my way. But, I understand there are opposing views on this issue.
Quote:
the idea that our government was made by the people to protect and serve us not rule and control us, a representative government that believes in free enterprise and the basic human rights that are endowed to all men by the creator. Sounds religious? Damn right it is, a government that supports capitalism also has an innate trust in a divine being while as a socialized government represents mans trust in man (a truly evil thing).
Oh, I'd so disagree with this analysis. I think the GOP is based on faith in man, but realistic, pragmatic faith, accepting that man is flawed. But we have no christian right here. Even our pro-Bush segment don
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME