Posted on 05/06/2010 8:42:10 AM PDT by scottfactor
Although I am a registered Republican, I never really considered myself a party-line kind of guy. Party-line people are concerned with the survival of the party, no matter the consequence. Although I realize that this isn’t the ideal situation or approach to political governance, party survival is critical if the party you are trying to preserve is representing your political values in the governing process. However, I consider myself a conservative first, Republican voter second.
The basic core values of conservatism from a governance standpoint are less government, less taxes, more personal freedom. Less government is good government because the less you have the more personal freedom you have.
(Excerpt) Read more at scottfactor.com ...
If we accept the traditional linear view of politics/ideology then we must accept that there is a left and a right with extremes at both ends.
‘The center holds’ is a political cliche but if there are certain views at the poles it logically follows that those views moderate as one travels towards the center. For better or worse the belief (and probably the reality) is that the majority of votes fall somewhere between those two extremes.
The key, then is getting the ‘center’ to shift adequately both in terms of numbers/voters and in terms of issues.
One would think/hope that the oceans of blood spilled in the 20th century would completely discredit collectivists but they persist with one of their own presently in the White House.
Uh You and all REAL conservatives(me) were the ones THAT high jacked the Republican Party from the Rockefellers and their N/E Ilk. Us and Reagan re-made the GOP in the Late 1970s and 1980s. When Bush(41) was elected the party slowly(at first) re-verted to what is was, a bunch of Wussy Country-Clubbers. I am NOT saying go Third-Party(that ensures Dem Victory) BUT we need to permanantly Take over the GOP from the ground up and RID this party of Wussy Country-Clubbers.
Great! Since true conservatives don’t want to legislate any morality, I assume that under your governance, I’ll be free to exercise my choice to be a serial killer. Of born humans. That morality stuff is so pesky and, you are right, we should just be done with it once and for all.
One must always look suspiciously at “conservatives” who attack pro-lifers rather than liberals. Don’t snipe at your own side.
First, you seem to be confusing conservatism with libertarianism. The central tenet of libertarianism is less government. The central tenets of conservatism are the rights to life, liberty and property.
In conservatism, it is the proper role of government to protect those God-given rights which are Constitutionally enumerated. A government that refuses to protect the lives of the unborn is no more conservative than a government that refuses to defend American liberty against foreign invasion, or a government that confiscates private property.
The rights of liberty and property without the right to life is meaningless.
SnakeDoc
It was never your party. With the exception of Coolidge and Reagan, the GOP has always been a liberal, big gov, big tax party.
I totally agree
Liberals never legislate morality?
It was taken a long time ago. Pay attention next time.
The problem is the left is the one that started legislating their immorality. They pushed for Roe v Wade which abridged the rights of citizens the vast majority who were against the idea of abortion on demand. The same can be said for gay activism which is being used to restrict freedom of association and to punish people who dare speak out or take political action in opposition. Last time I looked it was prayer that was removed from schools while sexual liberalism which is being forced into schools regardless of the will of the people.
All law has a moral context pretending it doesn’t is a self deception.
“The Republican Party has been hijacked by big business, evangelicals, and the military-industrial complex.”
Yup!
I’d be careful before agreeing to wholeheartedly. The central thesis of his column is ...
“The Republican Party has been hijacked by big business, evangelicals and the military industrial complex.”
He’s got the same ridiculous boogey-men that liberals have. Its the evil corporations, Christians and military that are destroying “his” party.
SnakeDoc
Other than saying a prayer or something, I haven’t noticed the Evangelicals having any influence at all, so I don’t really care.
I know in my county and state business can not run faster, hard enough to buy/sell/co-opt, get competitive advantage via the GOP, and or the Democrat Party.
So, I agree.
Lincoln brought in the first income tax.
High tariffs were to pay off/buy high cost domestic producers.
There was/ is a wing of Mid Western, Rural, agrarian GOP that was anti-intervention, they also were the GOP support for farm support via taxing non-farmers.
Cleveland would be a blessing today.
“Liberals never legislate morality?”
Of course they do. The traditional police power of the states has been involved with legislating morality since the beginning of the Republic. The Feds made a huge power grab as against the states with Roe vs Wade and the Roemer case by assuming control of the legislation of morality at the Federal level.
The point of my post was not that noone legislates morality. It is that unless you are willing to let serial killers run free, then you are in the business of legislating morality. And we are all in the business of line drawing about what is a sufficiently urgent moral issue that it must be regulated.
Pro-choicers, for example, believe (at least implicitly) that the killing of babies in the womb is NOT a sufficiently urgent moral issue to be addressed by the State. Some of them think it is such a good thing that taxpayers ought to pay for it.
Pro-lifers believe it is sufficiently urgent to be addressed by the State.
Both of these groups agree (I hope) that once a baby gets past the killing field of birth, that others no longer have the choice to kill her or him. Thus, a moral decision that is enforced by law is made.
So the issue is line drawing, not whether or not the State should legislate some moral principles.
Of course, another big issue the constitutional issue: whether the Feds should assume responsibility for legislating morality (as they have done in Roe and the sodomy cases) or whether that should be left to the states.
The final big issue is whether we should admit as a society that we think abortion is a good thing and, therefore, subsidize it with tax money. I personally think that’s not much different than sending Ted Bundy a check for each kill.
My big beef is with the sanctimonious liberals and some conservatives with their specious mantra about not legislating morality. The questions are: (1) what moral issues should be legislated; and (2) if so, at what level of government.
Articles like the posted one have an amazingly narrow historic perspective. A position held by almost ALL Americans from 1783 to 1970 (abortion could be subject to legislation) is, somehow this radical new position that has hijacked conservatism. In fact, the pro-abortion position is a radical new position that is somehow, in the mind of the author, a new, “conservative” litmus test for drumming about half of the conservative base out of the party because we have “hijacked” the party with a traditional American and conservative position.
I am a life, liberty and property conservative. period.
Although I am 100% against abortion, the insistence of the evangelical right to impose its pro-life beliefs on the nation is requiring the creation of new laws that have the ear of Republican politicians looking to expand their voter base. These laws in essence expand government intrusion into the personal lives of its citizens. This statement will anger pro-lifers, but is on point when discussing the conservative principle of less government. It is the personal responsibility of each of us to live our lives according to God’s word, and those who don’t will be judged by the Creator. While I find abortion a sickening and disgusting substitute for proper family planning, imposing the will of the government on a woman’s body is an expansion of government and does not follow conservatism’s core principles.If Scott Factor wants to know who hijacked the GOP, he should look in the mirror.
There may be some confusion on morality versus rights. Rights end where another’s rights begin. Restricting the government to enforcing individual rights would encompass your serial killer example since murder is a violation of rights. The real trouble in many of these abortion debates is that both sides tend to ignore that there is some disagreement on exactly when life begins. However, there is little disagreement that once that starting point is determined; having that life protected is a right. It ceases to be just an issue of morality or personal belief.
Morality, in contrast to rights, differs among each individual. Some believe the use of drugs/alcohol or the ownership of weapons is sinful. These are issues of morality and differ from person to person. But using a gun to murder or forcing someone to use drugs is a matter of rights. Both the conservatives and liberals have been eager to impose their version of morality onto the populace through legislation. Maybe it’s time to scale the scope of their influence to only enforcing our individual rights and leaving morality to each individual to sort out.
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.