Posted on 11/03/2009 4:34:29 PM PST by presidio9
The founders envisioned a federal government constitutionally limited to defending our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For that to happen, we must have at least one political party that strongly advocates limiting the power of government. For much of the 19th century, that party was the Democrats. For the early part of the 20th century and from the early 1960s through 1988, that party was the Republicans.
Today, it is difficult to find noninterventionists in either party.
The Democrats demonstrate a disdain for capitalism, free trade and the validity of contracts. They cheer the restriction of certain types of speech on campus and in federal law, and think nation-building is our moral obligation, even when there is no discernible U.S. interest involved. Lately, the Democrats have been popularly associated with principled opposition to waging war in far-flung corners of the globe. But evidence on the ground today tells a somewhat different tale.
As for the GOP,
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Some of us still remember 911.
A federal government that focused on national defense instead of everything else would have done a better job on 9/11.
For starters the GOP needs to drop it’s Democrats.
...and not look for advice in the LA Times.
So because of 911 we just throw the Constitution out the window?
Fight them over there, or fight them here.
It is that simple.
democrats, since Jefferson never limited gov intrustion.
Dem’s have never passed a law controlling or holding its own government accountable, it only passes laws, taxes and restrictions on private business.
From 1994 to 2000 this was 50% republican.
Now the GOP has joined the Dem’s to ensure they only pass laws and taxes on the American people and never hold government accountable.
Edward H. Crane is the founder and president of the Cato Institute. Cato is pretty libertarian as think tanks go, but Crane is definitely not an LA Times employee. The WSJ has published pieces by Jimmy Carter and Al Gore.
so does Silverstein..he remember 9-11 real good...billions good...So does the Fed...won’t use Fed dollar for oil...BOOM...check out architects and engineers for 911 truth...their leader is a Reagan republican,,,,we been had my friend...check out George Herbert Walker bush calling for the new world order on Sept. 11th 1991...10 years to the day...there is real evil afoot my friend..Long live the republic!!!!against all enemies foreign AND domestic.
We used to have badass Americans like Grant and Patton.
Now we have morons who blame themselves for the violence of the enemies.
No wonder we now have the George McFly foreign policy.
God I love it when someone points out for the benefit of the uneducated that Thomas Jefferson was not a Conservative. The Conservatives of his time were all Federalists.
Fighting and nation building are two separate matters.
The first two sentences of this propaganda. I couldn’t read any further.
Edward H. Crane ran Ed Clark's Libertarian Party campaign against Reagan in 1980.
He's not entirely wrong about the neocons: you don't want them running the show.
But start talking purges and everybody comes out with an axe to take out their own particular enemies.
The writers of the LAT as so mindless that they don’t even know what a neocon is.
I must say he had me going at the beginning. Started losing me as the article went on. The deal breaker is when he called David Brooks a Neocon. C’mon!
“So because of 911 we just throw the Constitution out the window?”
Never let a crisis go to waste.
and the Democrats should drop the 0bamunists.
See post 9.
BTW, Libertarianism occupies a very different wing of the Republican “Tent” from Conservatism. And most of the memorable aspects of the Reagan Presidency were in direct opposition to Libertarianism. So Crane does have some nerve here.
The author is not employed by the LA Times.
Not all neo-cons are for Big Government, he paints with way too broad a brush. I don't mind being called a neo-con and I'm for small government. Plus he's wrong about the need to fight terror. That's why Libertarians stay irrelevant.
I’m wary of advice from these Libertarian crazies.
“..and not look for advice in the LA Times.”
Yes Good Point!
The only reason we might have to “fight them over here” is that we have LET THEM IN.
If we deport all radical Muslims, plus a few other Muslims just to be safe, we will not have to “fight them here.”
Whatever the LA Times recommends: Do the opposite.
The Libertarians at Cato couldn’t bring themselves to agree the U.S. should defend itself after 9/11.
That’s when I quit CATO in disgust.
It wasn’t primarily Americans who were involved...remember, in the congress and executive and judiciary, we are fighting people who no longer believe in the nation-state. The globalists will use states to effect their goals. The Paki ISI transferred 100,000 to Atta in Germany..this was never dealt with in the 911 investigation...Know that I do not blame Bush...it’s way bigger than him..people think that govts control countries that happen to have banks in them when the reality is that banks control govts and thereby those populations...look at America today...the economic crash is the second stage of their attack.
“Edward H. Crane is the founder and president of the Cato Institute. Cato is pretty libertarian as think tanks go, but Crane is definitely not an LA Times employee. The WSJ has published pieces by Jimmy Carter and Al Gore.”
Thank You for the Info!
Yep ... and anyone with a brain would choose to fight them over there. I suffered through much of that article but disagreed with so many of the premises and spin that I gave up.
Well, first of all WE should of purged the traitors here who allowed 9/11 to happen and then went after the supporters of the 15 Saudis, err, I mean terrorists.
Buahahahaha! There is NOTHING neo about us.
But the LA TIMES Bum Boy? Definitely a neo fascist. The Dem party should dump its neo fascists.
If we stop letting them in and become energy independent we wouldn’t have to fight them anywhere.
Lol...yeah...this part got me:
we must have at least one political party that strongly advocates limiting the power of government. For much of the 19th century, that party was the Democrats.
The theme of the left has always been government debasing the currency. Only government and its courts can do that. Making property worthless by rigging the payment of debt is not "limited" government. That, not the Bill of Rights as the LA writer proposes, is why we have a constitution. From Shay's Rebellion to Jeffersonians slapping taxes on New England merchants, William Jennings Byran, the left always, always wants something for nothing and will wreck the currency to get it. And oh yeah LA Times writer....that 19th century party of "limited government" rejoiced when government, the Supreme Court in particular, was used to prolong slavery.
Co-signed! See tag.
Yep, it needs to weed out the plants, the trojans and the "cross-dressers"...
Its easy to complain about those danged neocons.
Its a bit harder to skip the pejorative, and just promote your own ideas. What do you propose, from where we are, that we do in Iraq? What do you propose that we do in Afghanistan? From now, where we are?
Granted if we had taken a different policy 40 years ago, things would be different, but you never have the option of going back 40 years, you have to start from where you are.
Granted again, the people we work with that we consider the “good guys” are a mixed bag, but thats always the case.
So what do you do? Stay and back up the “good” guys, pack up and head for home, or what. Do you think if we pull back that we won’t get hit again?
Pick a policy and defend it, and it makes for a good conversation, and we can sometimes find our way to a better solution. Just call people neocons, or paleocons, or whatever doesn’t really answer the question. Do we stay and build the force that will keep the Talibs out of Kabul? Do we send SEAL units into Waziristan? Do we try to shut down Iran’s nuclear facilities? Do we try to do something about Somali pirates taking down our ships? And if so, how.
And if not, what do you propose. Considering the realities we deal with both at home and abroad, what do you propose.
ROFLOL! It is starting to get obivious that all of these media folks got their talking points from the DNC! Isn’t it special that they think we will all fall for their ill given advice?
And the Libertarians / Paleocons should join up with your friends, the anti war Left wing Democrats
LMAO ain’t that the truth. Sad to see so many stupid people guzzling the koolaid..
I think the author conflates Neo-Cons with RINO’s. They are not the same.
Yeah, like I’d ever take advice from the LASlimes.
Running against Ronald Reagan was the most successful race in history for the Libertarian candidate wasn't it?
“That was very much a bi-partisan effort, incorporating wish-lists of intrusion into people’s lives from all across the political spectrum, along with some legitimate security measures.”
That’s exactly the point the article makes — that there is no group out there trying to limit gov’t right now.
But, still, the neocons are quite comfortable with big gov’t. They are just like Democrats, they just have a different set of goals and laws they want to enact. But they are pretty much all of the same stripe.
Well I don't accept your premise or solution.
The attitude which brought us 9/11.
I am not thrilled with the growth in spending under Bush, but the deficit went up and then was coming back down in the later years. It mostly went up intially both due to more spending and also a sputtering economy around 2000-2001, and post 9/11. The deficit went up and then was cut down again due to strong growth and increased tax revenue. The GOP really missed a golden opportunity from 2002-2006 to limit spending, but they blew it. What they did while controlling congress and the White House through 2006 is a tiny fraction of what is happening since Sept 2008 with the bailouts and now under this Democratic rule. Not even a close comparison between the two administrations.
The Republicans have not backed up their rhetoric with spending cuts. It was all about tax cuts and economic growth (not bad things). The argument used to be made that the government could collect more tax revenue by lowering the tax rates and increasing economic growth. Why was it a good idea to grow government?
As far as the neocons are concerned, purge the lot of them. They will go to the democrats and maybe bring them a little (very little) to the right. Republicans could then embrace the libertarian-minded (liberty and freedom are always winners) and prevent a serious third party challenge to the right.
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.