Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Republican Election Fiasco
The Atlas Society & Objectivist Center ^ | Hudgins | Edward

Posted on 11/09/2006 11:19:29 AM PST by Ed Hudgins

(In my article on "The Battle for the Soul of the Republican Party" in the Fall, 2006 issue of The New Individualist I analyzed the likely results of a GOP turning more and more to big government, interventionist policies. In that issue TNI editor Robert Bidinotto's piece on "Back to the Future?" looked at the philosophical degeneration of the Republican Party. The results of the party's direction were seen at the polls in the 2006 elections.)

November 8, 2006 -- Months of prognostication about the predicted pitiful performance at the polls by Republicans has now given way to prescriptions about the direction of the party. Should the GOP move to the center, the right or the left? Truth be told, Republicans right now are just going around in circles. The party's own confusion and incoherence about what it stands for will ensure that it continues to wander in the political wilderness; it must take up again as its guide the principles of liberty and limited government.

How could the Republicans lose in the face of such a strong economy? Disgust over the Bush administration's confused, incoherent and unsuccessful approach to the war in Iraq certainly was a central factor in the GOP's defeat. So was the perception that the Republicans were corrupt big spenders, which many of them were. Theirs is seen more and more as the party of big government. The rejection of the party itself cut across ideological lines. Liberal Sen. Lincoln Chafee -- who got a favorable rating from 60 percent of voters in exit polls -- was defeated as was liberal Rep. Nancy Johnson. Conservative Sens. Rick Santorum and George Allen also lost, as did Rep. J.D. Hayworth. Further, many newly-elected Democrats are moderates within their party.

Of course, what is missing from the GOP is

(Excerpt) Read more at objectivistcenter.org ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2006election; bush; democraticparty; republicanparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

1 posted on 11/09/2006 11:19:30 AM PST by Ed Hudgins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ed Hudgins
Further, many newly-elected Democrats are moderates within their party.

I keep hearing this. It is irrelevant. They WILL VOTE the way Pelosi tells them to vote.

2 posted on 11/09/2006 11:21:54 AM PST by FlingWingFlyer (Burns and Allen Concede! Say Goodnight Gracie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ed Hudgins

"Further, many newly-elected Democrats are moderates within their party."

We'll see how long that's allowed to go on.


3 posted on 11/09/2006 11:22:04 AM PST by rtsimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ed Hudgins
More rabid stupidity from the Neo Isolationist who know NOTHING at all about Iraq but continually squeal their Neo Isolationist dogmas.

These Neo Isolationist dogmas died 09-11-01. Too bad the Dinocons are too stupid to realize that.

READ the facts on Iraq. This guy is utterly ignorant.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Security_Forces
4 posted on 11/09/2006 11:23:18 AM PST by MNJohnnie (The Democrat Party: Hard on Taxpayers, Soft on Terrorism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ed Hudgins
If Pelosi tries to lead from the far left after having Blue Dog Dems win it for them this will be a short 2 year majority.
5 posted on 11/09/2006 11:24:47 AM PST by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
Doesn't matter. What these Dinocons never seem to grasp is the Committee chairs will allow what they vote on. They can be "Moderate" all they want. What Bills come out of committee will be up to their radical Liberal committee chairs.

Ignorant on Iraq, Ignorant on Congress proceedure. One wonder why this guy thinks anything he says needs to be read. He knows nothing
6 posted on 11/09/2006 11:25:50 AM PST by MNJohnnie (The Democrat Party: Hard on Taxpayers, Soft on Terrorism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
I keep hearing this. It is irrelevant. They WILL VOTE the way Pelosi tells them to vote.

and even if they don't, they'll still carry the weight of the party next time around ala 2008 ads "xxx promised a new direction but ..."

7 posted on 11/09/2006 11:27:06 AM PST by Steven W.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

I saw the first bill Bush is sending to Pelosi is another $160 billion for Iraq. She will have to put up or shut up the first week of January.


8 posted on 11/09/2006 11:28:13 AM PST by BurbankKarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ed Hudgins

"How could the Republicans lose in the face of such a strong economy?"

Because the places in the Midwest, Pennsylvania and even Connecticut where the Republicans lost seats don't HAVE a strong economy. The manufacturing sector and those who support it has been foundering fast with unbridled globalization. The average national economy is good. The financial sector and many services are great.
But if you're in manufacturing, or dependent on it, the economy's terrible and you voted Democrat this time. Look at the places where all those Republican seats shifted in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Ohio and Indiana. They're all manufacturing centers who cannot possibly compete with Chinese slave labor, and the government refuses to use tarriffs or other means to block cheap goods coming in from impossibly low-wage workers. Result: unemployment, anxiety...and Democrat...takeover of seats in these areas.

The unstable secondary manufacturing tier went Democrat this time, because the economy's not great for THEM, and they blame Republican trade policies for it.

And they're right too.


9 posted on 11/09/2006 11:31:29 AM PST by Vicomte13 (Aure entuluva.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl

Heh heh heh. Let's see if the Great American Landside REALLY wants to leave our troops in the field. The Commie 'RATS have been screaming about how they "support the troops." Now they are going to have to prove it.


10 posted on 11/09/2006 11:32:10 AM PST by FlingWingFlyer (Burns and Allen Concede! Say Goodnight Gracie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ed Hudgins
So how did the GOP get here? It all started with Ronald Reagan allowing GWB I on the ticket in 1980 to appease the Beltway blue bloods. The GOP hasn't suddenly "gone moderate" in the last couple years- it's degenerated back into what it always was. RR was a momentary conservative abheration. I cringed as I pulled the lever for GWB in 1988, knowing what was coming next.

And it has. But worse than I expected. GWB II is the posted child of the party machine. Oh, I'm sure we'll get more conservative rhetoric from the GOP to try to drum up the base in 2008. But the candidate will be even more leftwing than GWB.

11 posted on 11/09/2006 11:32:18 AM PST by mikeus_maximus (Americans are sick of Republicanism, not conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ed Hudgins
Bears repeating:

"Truth be told, Republicans right now are just going around in circles. The party's own confusion and incoherence about what it stands for will ensure that it continues to wander in the political wilderness; it must take up again as its guide the principles of liberty and limited government."

12 posted on 11/09/2006 11:34:12 AM PST by ImpBill (All gave some. Some gave all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl

She'll sign only because she almost has to but for that amount this administration better make sure Iraq gets on the right track. I heard that it would cost $100 billion to rebuild the infrastructure in Iraq so this should work.


13 posted on 11/09/2006 11:37:27 AM PST by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
You seem to have posted this response concerning neo-isolationism on the wrong thread since my article has nothing to do with the subject. But since you're interested the foreign policy and, I assume, the war against Islamo-fascists, you might find these articles/links of interest:

The Jihad Against Free Speech:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1666-Jihad_vs_Free_Speech.aspx

Cartoon Journalists:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1667-Cartoon_Journalists.aspx

The Means and Ends of Islamists:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1569-The_Means_and_Ends_of_Islamists_.aspx

Flushing The Koran or Reason Down the Toilet:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-43-1609-Flushing_the_Koran_or_Reason_Down_the_Toilet.aspx

The London Massacre:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-43-1605-The_London_Massacre.aspx

Deep Savages:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-43-1613-Deep_Savages.aspx

And good luck, of course, finding the thread to which you meant to post. I would suggest that you respond with reasoned arguments rather than emotive outbursts manifest in words like "rabid stupidity" and the like. If you have trouble containing your emotions there are prescription medications that can help you manage your condition.
14 posted on 11/09/2006 11:38:21 AM PST by Ed Hudgins (Rand fan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ed Hudgins

Ed,

It didn't help that between 2-5% of Republicans threw their votes away on Libertarian candidates, which in some races allowed the Democrat to squeek by the Republican by a narrow margin. Once again "better becomes the enemy of good enough."


15 posted on 11/09/2006 11:38:22 AM PST by anymouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ed Hudgins
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Brace yourselves for the coronation of our future queen.

16 posted on 11/09/2006 11:40:06 AM PST by Bon mots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ed Hudgins

Good job, Ed, you put your finger right on some key points.


17 posted on 11/09/2006 11:44:07 AM PST by Sam Cree (Don't mix alcopops and ufo's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ImpBill

The remaining Republicans on the Hill as well as everyone else around Bush should call to his attention the fact that he can and should pick up one of the pens on his desk and write the four-letter Latin word "veto" across the stuff that will flow into his office from Capital Hill.


18 posted on 11/09/2006 11:44:09 AM PST by Ed Hudgins (Rand fan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ed Hudgins
Stick to what you know. Pretty clear you have no qualification at all to comment on how Counter Insurgency ops are done.

Counter Insurgency is not Total War. It is as much Political as Military. Iraq is a done deal. The Terrorist were never able to get beyond state 1 Guerrilla warfare. Now thanks to the help of supposedly "Conservative" Talking heads who were more interested in sticking knives in Bush's back all the time, it is back almost to square one.

The Terrorist are counting on the Democrats to cut and run. Suddenly their failing effort is embolden. All they go to do is hang on and the Dems will save them.

The Buchannaite Know Nothings with their perpetual ranting about Iraq and arrogant refusal to learn ANYTHING about the issue are helping insure that will happen.

The Russians followed your dogmas in Afghanistan. How did that work out for them?
19 posted on 11/09/2006 11:44:39 AM PST by MNJohnnie (The Democrat Party: Hard on Taxpayers, Soft on Terrorism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
The unstable secondary manufacturing tier went Democrat this time, because the economy's not great for THEM, and they blame Republican trade policies for it.

And they're right too.


You are absolutely correct! You can't be anymore correct! You are more correct than you know. The block head pro-free trade idiots on Fr will bash you at every turn.

Look how Reagan spent money and who benefited from it. It was the Midwest and Northeast that gave him the working man's vote. Many high tech factories hummed 24/7 during this time and Reagan carried the Midwest / rust belt.

People did not vote on Iraq, they voted their pocket books in Ohio, Indiana and PA. Those bone heads in DC are totally disconnected are so are many Freeper's who say otherwise. They are responsible for turning Ohio Purple by advocating the use of slave labor from China instead of paying a working class stiff a fair wage.

You think its bad now? Wait till 2020 when all these displaced, underemployed people start aging and have no pension or savings. Those who have will be those who get taken from.
20 posted on 11/09/2006 11:44:39 AM PST by mr_hammer (They have eyes, but do not see . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

review


21 posted on 11/09/2006 11:45:32 AM PST by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
You've obviously posted again to the wrong thread, going on about a topic not discussed here. And your post seems even less coherent and speculative than the last one. You seem, for example, to believe that you have some sort of knowledge about the qualifications of the person you're addressing that you clearly don't have.

Thus I would suggest, for your own sake, that you see a physician about the medication that I mentioned earlier that can help you manage your problem.
22 posted on 11/09/2006 11:55:57 AM PST by Ed Hudgins (Rand fan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
Plus the newly elected so called "moderate" Democrats will be in no position of power.
23 posted on 11/09/2006 12:20:32 PM PST by Uncle Hal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Hal

True, but those slightly more moderate Dems in the House know that they could be booted in two years if they are smeared with the radicalism of a Pelosi or Conyers or the criminality of an Alcee Hastings. Thus there will be at least a little discomfort among their ranks. Further, the new House Republican leadership might very well include Jeff Flake who's one of the best!


24 posted on 11/09/2006 12:34:34 PM PST by Ed Hudgins (Rand fan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13; sittnick; steve-b; ninenot; Tax-chick; ArrogantBustard
Bingo!

Also, note the attempt of the Randian crowd to talk about a "Goldwater-Reagan" GOP. Goldwater resisted Reagan every step of the way. Goldwater was an abortion enthusiast, publicly bragging in his dotage that he brought his daughter to an abortion mill to kill his grandchild and that anyone who did not like it could kiss the portion of his anatomy upon which he customarily sat. His first wife, Peggy, was a member of the Planned Barrenhood Board of Directors from 1940 or so through her death in the mid-1970s, right along with Mrs. Prescott Bush, grandmother of Dubya and mother of Bush the Feckless Elder.

The widow Bush was enraged when her son George the Elder (once known as Congressman Rubbers for his own PP connections) went ostensibly pro-life on the basis that being Reagan's VP was worth a switch on the issue. Dubya seems genuine on the issue and his grannie is dead anyhow.

As to Ronaldus Maximus, he did sign a pro-abort bill as California governor and the very next year tried to petition its repeal onto the California ballot. He changed the GOP and was closer to the pro-life movement than any other president.

Click on the link. The proponents of this nonsense are Objectivists, followers of the long-dead athiest serial adulteress Ayn Rand.

In 1976, la Rand, in her Ayn Rand newsletter, warned her sycophants to be sure to support liberal stumblebum Gerald Ford over Reagan because Ford could be trusted to preserve legal abortion and Reagan could not. So much for fiscal conservatism and individual human freedom. These people are about as conservative as SDS and the street revolutionary scum of the 1960s.

At least Rand herself had the minor integrity not to claim to be part of anything Reaganite. Her successors are less honest even than she.

25 posted on 11/09/2006 12:50:33 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

I'm proudly not part of the religious right, as my longer analysis clearly indicates. Here's the link again:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1794-GOP_battle.aspx

Take a careful read of the language from both the Goldwater 1964 and the Reagan 1980 platforms. That's the vision to which Republicans need to return. (By the way, Rand didn't back Reagan in 1980. I did and I thought she was wrong. I'm an Objectivist, not a Rand cultist.)

To repeat my central political point, the libertarians -- small "l" -- and traditional conservative factions of the party agreed that the rule of law, constitutionally-limited government and checks and balances were necessary barriers to the abuse of political power.

To the extended that Republicans today -- whether social conservatives or neocons -- want government to manage our lives, only from the right rather than the left, they should at least be honest like Santorum and declare themselves opponents of individual liberty. (See extended quotes from him in my longer piece.) I'd rather at least know if my liberty is being targeted from the right and the left.


26 posted on 11/09/2006 1:16:51 PM PST by Ed Hudgins (Rand fan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Ed Hudgins
You know the real irony of all this is? The Dems do not have to do anything but wait. Keep the Junk Media occupied with show trials of Bush people in Congressional hearings plus a couple of brusing political fights over big glittery handout social spending on emotionally appealing items like "Federal Funding for Stem cells" or "Global Warming" and let the Bush plan finish it's course in Iraq. Oh they probably will make some cosmetic changes along the way. Their new calls to "hold an International Conference on Iraq" is a perfect example of a do nothing worth while at all time wasting maneuver. Then late 2007-2008 scream victory was caused by them as soon as any troops start coming home. Bush won the War for them. Now Old Boy Washington will have two years to revenge itself on him for his being right in 2003 and most of them being dead wrong. The only joker in the deck here is if the Democrats can sit on their moonbats long enough to NOT screw it up and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory Try reading the data on Iraq instead of clining to your "realists" ideology. It is rather intresting. http://icasualties.org/oif/ http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Security_Forces
27 posted on 11/09/2006 1:56:13 PM PST by MNJohnnie (The Democrat Party: Hard on Taxpayers, Soft on Terrorism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
"The unstable secondary manufacturing tier went Democrat this time, because the economy's not great for THEM, and they blame Republican trade policies for it. And they're right too."

I disagree. This is an issue where the far left and far right converge, and where their perception is correct: both major parties solidly support the major international, globalist economic arrangements: GATT, NAFTA, the WTO. NAFTA was conceived under Bush, Sr., implemented under Clinton, and claimed as an achievement by Dems until outsourcing became an issue two or three years ago. Then Dems tried to distance themselves from the same legislation they had previously been claiming as one of their achievments. But they will never go back on it in any serious way.
28 posted on 11/09/2006 2:08:14 PM PST by Steve_Seattle ("Above all, avoid the moor, where the powers of darkness are exalted.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
I keep hearing this. It is irrelevant.

These idiots need to intern for a congressman. The leadership picks the Committee Chairmen, and the Chairmen decide which legislation ever sees the light of day. If someone is a "moderate" Democrat, all it means is if it's a vote that might defeat him (say a gun control bill), he goes to Pelosi and asks permission to vote against the bill. They do a vote count, and if there's enough votes, the guy gets to take a pass, telling his constituents he "went against my party." Pelosi is already saying she is going to fire Jane Harman, the Dem congresswoman who worked with Bush on the Patriot Act, from the House Intelligence Committee chairmanship and replace her with Alycee Hastings or Reyes because Pelosi wants "party discipline."

29 posted on 11/09/2006 2:15:18 PM PST by justanotherfreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Did you even read the article? It's not about Iraq at all. What are you talking about?


30 posted on 11/09/2006 2:45:46 PM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

I wonder why we should read what you write. How about commenting on the article instead of rabbidly responding with little buzz phrases like "dinocon".


31 posted on 11/09/2006 2:47:06 PM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie; Ed Hudgins
You know the real irony of all this is?

The real irony is that you are posting to the the correct thread and the originator of the thread doesn't know it.

32 posted on 11/09/2006 2:59:59 PM PST by Stentor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Stentor

The originator of the threat knows that you and perhaps the other guy don't recognize that you're being made fun of.


33 posted on 11/09/2006 3:14:18 PM PST by Ed Hudgins (Rand fan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

FYI -- Here's another perspective on the problems in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. Not whether people in those countries deserve freedom but whether they're fit for it. Remember that Europe had centuries of religious warfare.

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--883-Are_People_of_Middle_East_Fit_Freedom.aspx


34 posted on 11/09/2006 7:19:37 PM PST by Ed Hudgins (Rand fan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Ed Hudgins; ArrogantBustard; sittnick; ninenot; Tax-chick
There is no liberty to rob banks.

There is no liberty of a non-owner to "liberate" your real estate.

There is no liberty to murder the innocent unborn.

There is no liberty to force taxpayer subsidies of the faux "marriages" of Bruce and Lance or of Bruce and Lance and Bowser or of a thirteen ring "marriage" of twelve dormitory resident college students and Puffy, the Perfect Persian Puddy.

I am generally a proponent of individual liberty. If Bruce and Lance can leave the innocent household pets alone, I have not the slightest desire to know much less to witness their perversions so long as they keep them behind closed doors and out of the public eye. Actually, I am not anxious to witness Romeo and Juliet in action either.

As Americans, we not only tolerate but protect many people whose behavior may disgust us as individuals. In her Romantic Manifesto, Rand was right to regard the comprachecos (who kidnapped and distorted the bodies of living toddlers to become circus freaks) as being less evil than those who would purposely pervert and distort the minds of children. A teacher who subverts the consciousness of students by persuading them that socialism is somehow a virtue is an evil but protected person. Not protecting that teacher paves the way for suppression of better men like Ed Hudgins who would teach others the virtues of freedom, markets, responsibility and the fact that the initiation of force or fraud against the innocent is an evil.

Regrettably, la Rand was not always so insightful. She inspired Ludwig von Mises, at his 75th birthday party, to lie in wait for her expected late arrival, to wheel upon her at a distance upon her entrance, to speak to her in a voice above the noise of the crowd and start a fifteen minute tongue lashing with: "So you are the silly woman who thinks you can be free without God!" She never attended a conservative movement gathering again and a good thing too!

I do regard myself, as a Roman Catholic, to be part of the "religious Right." This nation of ours was not founded as a Catholic friendly place but the public institutions of the US have proven hospitable to people of my Faith. We have thrived here despite the opposition of a small minded few. Likewise, other Christians and also Jews have thrived here. I don't try to make you go to Mass. Jerry Falwell does not try to make you attend the Thomas Road Baptist Church. No Jew tries to make you a Lubavitcher. Heck, no Unitarian or Universalist drafts you either. You seek to persuade but not to draft anyone into Objectivism. Well, as the saying goes, America: It's a GREAAAAT country!

I may or may not read your "longer analysis." These are initial thoughts.

It is good that you are not a Rand cultist. Barry Goldwater (using the rhetoric crafted by the late and brilliant Karl Hess) made me a Republican and a conservative when I was 17. By the time he died, I would not have voted for him for dogcatcher (and not just because dogs should be free). Killing babies is not conservatism. If they have no rights, neither do you, neither do I.

You might want to consult Doris Gordon of Maryland, the atheist who runs Libertarians for Life (assuming she is still alive) or her associate John Walker, a degreed philosopher without any religion of which I have known. They fight the lonely battle among the libertarians for innocent human life. They are my answer to anyone who suggests that I might deny that the agnostics or the atheists cannot be moral people. They can be moral and when they are, they are particularly heroic.

As a Catholic, I believe in the efficacy of grace provided by God via the Mass and the sacraments. You probably do not share that belief. That does not mean you cannot be moral but, at least in my mind, it makes it much more difficult for you and therefore more heroic.

Finally, the ritual use (actually misuse) of the term "neocons" does not assist a conservative argument. Properly speaking, neocons are a group of quite elderly or quite dead refugees from the Great Society who walked away from the Demonrat Party over its increasing McGovernism and chosen doormat status in the face of Marxism-Leninism. Jean Kirkpatrick, Irving Kristol, Sidney Hook, Alexander Bickel, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Midge Decter, Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Bell, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. They are neither their own children nor are they the PNAC. The latter group have been mislabeled "neocons" by the New Republic magazine which is scarcely conservative and by the pathetic pantywaist "paleocons" who are also scarcely conservative but in other ways similar to Neville Chamberlain or to the "blood and soil" racism that sees Monetenegro as a desirable and quaint little satrapy.

I would love to resurrect la Rand to have her debate Pat Buchanan on the question of hermetically sealed borders. I would be more likely to side with the Rand who wrote of borders in We the Living. I cannot imagine that Rand chanting "rule of law" as an excuse to shoot the would-be border crossers.

The "paleos" are irrelevant by their own hand. Guzzling port wine to excess while speculating on imaginable but not terribly likely applications of the 10th Amendment and contemplating the wonders of the foreign surrendermonkeyism of lavender Justin Raimondo and antiwar.com is NOT conservatism either. Reagan regarded them as not ready for prime time, not likely to become ready for prime time and as an embarrassment. They figured this out in year 6 of Reagan's administration and revolted at the Mont Pelerin Society meeting that year, beginning their pretense of being the "real" conservatives. They have rendered Buchanan a laughing stock.

If we need Barbara Boxer or Nancy Pelosi or John Murtha to wield "chacks and balances" then checks and balances must be vastly over-rated. I don't need to have anyone else's view of Scripture or the Constitution preached at me. I can read and I have copies of both. I'll bet you are a lot like me in those respects.

35 posted on 11/09/2006 8:59:44 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Thanks for the post. I actually know a lot of Catholics who, atheism aside, like Rand. She is, after all, one of the few people to defend capitalism on moral grounds. (FYI, I got my Ph.D. at Catholic University because at least they had high standards and a Thomist-Aristotelian tradition that an Objectivist could appreciate.)

I'm glad you focused on Rand's Comprachicos, which really does describe how young minds are twisted by education today. The most important thing, teaching kids to think, is absent from most schools.

I'm not sure where you got the story about Rand and Mises. I did a doctorate on Mises (among others) red much of his personal letters looking for connections with Rand and others and never came across that story. It sounds like an exchange she had with Bill Buckley. Another story that Mises and Hazlett both deny in writing is that Mises called Rand a silly little Jew girl (both were Jewish).

And yes, I've known Doris Gordon for three decades.

Cheers!
36 posted on 11/10/2006 2:29:11 PM PST by Ed Hudgins (Rand fan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Ed Hudgins

More tripe to furthur confuse the electorate.


37 posted on 11/10/2006 2:33:50 PM PST by beckysueb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Start taking oil to pay their tab.


38 posted on 11/10/2006 2:36:00 PM PST by beckysueb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: beckysueb
I think that was the plan but we got Shanghaied into fronting the money before the oil.
39 posted on 11/10/2006 2:42:04 PM PST by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13

Also note that Jim Webb campaigned on an "America First" economic platform. That's how he got past his primary opponent, Harris Miller, who is a lobbyist for the "export IT jobs" crowd.


40 posted on 11/12/2006 4:54:42 PM PST by ninenot (Minister of Membership, Tomas Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie; Ed Hudgins

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

Are you telling us that it's necessary to maintain 150K++men in arms in Iraq for counter-insurgency?

Isn't Iraq supposed to have its own Gummint and army? Didn't GWB "plant democracy" there?

Or how long, exactly, SHOULD we baby-sit Iraq's Gummint?

Until they have a Modern Industrial Economy? Several auto plants? Starbucks-on-every-corner?

Vote fraud?

What's your thought?


41 posted on 11/12/2006 5:00:16 PM PST by ninenot (Minister of Membership, Tomas Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Ed Hudgins; BlackElk

No--Black Elk will tell you that Buckley attacked Rand at a different party, and effectively tossed her from the Conservative movement.

It's interesting to note that Buckley wrote that the Iraq adventure is a failure (see his columns--about 60-90 days ago.)

Heh.


42 posted on 11/12/2006 5:07:57 PM PST by ninenot (Minister of Membership, Tomas Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Ed Hudgins; ninenot; sittnick
Ed Hudgins:

Sorry to take so long to reply.

As I heard the story in Young Americans for Freedom (in about 1970, about ten years after the fact), the confrontation was between Ludwig von Mises and Rand at a major national YAF fundraiser in a rooftop hotel restaurant in Manhattan on the occasion of von Mises's 75th birthday party. Buckley had nothing whatever to do with it directly or, IIRC, indirectly.

There are other stories on Rand as well that she read Murray Rothbard out of her social circle when he was still an agnostic or atheist because he introduced her to his Episcopalian (?) fiancee and Rand informed Rothbard that rational people could simply NOT marry believers in God. Murray told her it had been nice knowing her. Eventually, Murray became an Evangelical and, at the time of his premature tragic death was working on projects to politically unite Evangelicals with libertarians.

I would appreciate evidence as to von Mises's religion since I had heard him called Jewish and also called Catholic but have never seen definitive evidence either way. Whatever he was, he was IMO probably the best mind of the 20th century.

Before I was active politically, Hazlitt was, I believe, living in Westport, Connecticut (my original home state), and devoting his full time to the care of his homebound wife. I never had the pleasure of making his acquaintance. I was acquainted with the late John Chamberlain and with the late Frank Meyer and with David Nelson Rowe (old China hand/Yale history professor/neighbor).

Some Catholics (including the then youthful me) liked Rand because she wrote in a style reminiscent of the most authoritative papal encyclicals. As Ronaldus Maximus used to say: bold colors, no pale pastels!

43 posted on 11/12/2006 9:25:14 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
Bill has entered winter. We will honor him as he was in his more youthful days of impish humor and relentless interventionism. His conservative critics have long predicted that his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations would lead to no good.

Robert Gates, an associate of Bush the Elder, Brent Scowcroft, James Baker III, and the Henry Kissinger "realist" types (barforama!!!!). Next thing you know, we will be promising reparations payable in small unmarked bills to the Syrian and Iranian thugs in exchange for business "considerations!"

Baker!!!, who gave us Sandra Day O'Connor by having Ken Starr lie to Reagan that she was a pro-lifer, favors such ideals and principles in foreign policy as: Can't we line our pockets playing Let's Make a Deal with the Syrians and the Iranians, Castro, the Red Chinese, the former KGB types, Gorby, Kim Jong Il? For enough money, won't anyone help (the "pragmatists'" business interests????? What's that up ahead, dragging a mattress, a portable red light and a sack of quarters???? It's foreign policy "realism"!!!

44 posted on 11/12/2006 9:43:42 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
The unstable secondary manufacturing tier went Democrat this time, because the economy's not great for THEM, and they blame Republican trade policies for it.

And they're right too.

Trying to stop outsourcing and automation in manufacturing is like declaring a war on gravity. I'm sorry, but the days of achieving a middle-class life style by being a factory worker are over.

45 posted on 11/12/2006 9:57:45 PM PST by Aikonaa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ed Hudgins
I have read your essay. I will want to read it a couple of more times to give it the attention it deserves and a serious reply. I will certainly disagree with parts of it, particularly that which deals with Rick Santorum. My initial impression is that you do write well and that it is an essay which, while not infallible, is certainly worth reading and which is a basis for needed discussion.

BTW, if you know, how is Doris Gordon doing?

46 posted on 11/12/2006 9:58:07 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ed Hudgins

What is it with this never ending stream of Libertarian crap?


47 posted on 11/12/2006 10:18:12 PM PST by DesScorp (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Regarding Von Mises, the answer is "Tastes Great AND Less Filling."

Seriously, Von Mises religion was Roman Catholicism. His cultural heritage was Jewish. Here is an excerpt from a Von Mises biography:

On 30 January 1933, however, Hitler came to power and on 7 April 1933 the Civil Service Law provided the means of removing Jewish teachers from the universities, and of course also to remove those of Jewish descent from other roles. All civil servants who were not of Aryan descent (having one grandparent of the Jewish religion made someone non-Aryan) were to be retired. Von Mises in one sense was not Jewish for he was a Roman Catholic by religion. He still fell under the non-Aryan definition of the act but there was an exemption clause which exempted non-Aryans who had fought in World War I. Von Mises certainly qualified under this clause and it would have allowed him to keep his chair in Berlin in 1933. He realised, quite correctly, that the exemption clause would not save him for long. On the 10 June 1933 he wrote to von Kármán about a young German, Walter Tollmien, who was looking for a position:-

Von Mises biography link, University of St. Andrews, Scotland
48 posted on 11/13/2006 5:04:47 AM PST by sittnick (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Aikonaa

"Trying to stop outsourcing and automation in manufacturing is like declaring a war on gravity. I'm sorry, but the days of achieving a middle-class life style by being a factory worker are over."

Hogwash.
The Japanese, Germans and French all manage it nicely, because they have prudent importation laws that do not allow foreign slaves to compete directly with domestic workers. Can you ship Chinese goods into Japan and Europe? In some cases. But you have to pay equalization tarriffs which offset the Chinese advantage of labor slavery.
These means have protected the Japanese and European manufacturing sectors, which continue to be robust. Americans buy German-made cars and Japanese cars because they have a reputation for luxury and quality, respectively. The Japanese and Europeans refuse to let free trade put substantial segments of their populations out of work.

You are right: the American manufacturing sctor does indeed appear to be doomed. But this is no law of gravity. It is the product of conscious (bad) policy choices. These policy choices PARTICULARLY cut against the Republicans, because in addition to being gung-ho free traders, the GOP are ALSO the ones most eager to unravel the social state on which displaced manufacturing workers are increasingly dependent. That's a recipe for electoral disaster.


49 posted on 11/13/2006 7:49:43 AM PST by Vicomte13 (Aure entuluva.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
The Japanese, Germans and French all manage it nicely, because they have prudent importation laws that do not allow foreign slaves to compete directly with domestic workers.

The Germans especially are living on borrowed time with huge structural problems and high employment. I don't know how closely you follow the industry in Germany, but I can tell you that a lot of low-end manufacturing has already been shipped abroad. A good example is AEG, which used to be a leading German appliance maker. There's basically nothing left of their manufacturing operations in Germany.

Us usual, the US is ahead of the curve in comparison to Europe when it comes to accepting the reality of macro-economic trends. Manufacturing will be more or less fully automatized in the next 20 to 30 years.

50 posted on 11/13/2006 9:46:49 AM PST by Aikonaa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson