Replies

Nixon, like so many other politicians, became convinced that his re-election was somehow necessary for the survival of the free world. The New Left simply capitalized rather completely on his mistake.

And in the process, the Left's successes have tended to prove Nixon right, haven't they?

People forget how close we came to tempting the Soviets to attack West Germany with our weakness in the 70's. Fortunately, SecDef Harold Brown and Jimmuh himself saw the danger and started turning (some) things around .... although Jimmuh did stupidly cancel the B-1 bomber program, that Bob Dornan and Ronald Reagan had to go out and rescue from the junkheap.

But considering the way things have gone, we'd be infinitely better off today if Nixon had completed both terms and been succeeded immediately by Ronald Reagan.

But considering the way things have gone, we'd be infinitely better off today if Nixon had completed both terms and been succeeded immediately by Ronald Reagan.

Possible Presidential actions can be considered in three classes, those that are clearly legal, those that are clearly illegal and those that are somewhere in the gray area in between.

We can also divide possible actions a President takes into two basic categories: those that are a means to the end of his getting re-elected, supporting his party or other candidates, etc., i.e., political maneuvers, and those that are primarily about the nation, i.e., foreign policy, the economy, etc., which, while they will reflect on him in history, at the time they are made they should be made without regard to his legacy but only out of an intention to do the right thing for the nation. These would be called his "job" per se, or his duty as President, as defined by the Constitution correctly interpreted.

Now, if a President is going to push into the gray area towards illegality, it should only be for his duty regarding the good of the nation - not for decisions or actions that have to do with elections and his own political fortunes. Ensuring that the better man is elected is not one of the enumerated Constitutional duties of the President. This is where President Washington set a standard that has not been fully met to this day. Certainly Congressman have the duty to do political wrangling - voting on legislation is what they do, and having an effect on whether or not laws or passed is the most important part of their job. But the Presidency is defined to be focused primarily on the nation as a whole, not the party of the President. Such independence has eroded over time, and Presidential partisanship started increasing in earnest with the advent of Presidential campaigning.

While I can agree with your Nixon hypothetical on very simplistic or general terms (one can only imagine all the what-ifs), I'm sure you can agree that if the "bad guys" are operating a massive grassroots campaign to corrupt hearts and minds throughout all of American society, the only possible solution to that is to meet them on that battlefield with appropriate tactics as opposed to trying to elect a few people to govern an immoral, deceived population into morality, though clearly there needs to be a simultaneous effort to keep electing people who represent better morals.

The Democrats have taken on the mantle of the party of immorality. It defines their party. Everyone, both those for and against, can instantly identify everything and anything as being either a "Democrat" thing or a "Republican" thing. Anything deceptively labeled as a "freedom" which is actually selfishness, or faux selflessness which is actually self adulation, is intuitively associated with what Democrats offer. Left wingism and false populism always consists of material things offered, whereas true freedom offers nothing material - it offers the opportunity for the self to earn and then to keep for oneself. Democrats paint the keeping as "greed", but of course it is decidely not because of the earning. And of course the freedom to commit immoral acts is no freedom at all, since one becomes enslaved to the immorality; sin is not a servant but a master.

With the Democrats having already claimed the ensign of immorality, Republicans can not claim it as well even if they wanted to - because they could always be labeled as liars who are promising things merely for votes, as opposed to the Democrats who had these "ideas" first.

Republicans today argue not for removing the regulatory and big business cabal that shackles the poor and thereby greatly increaseing their opportunity to gain wealth, instead they argue for "less welfare". Trying to keep conservatives happy with the "less" and centrists happy with "welfare" ? It's the same on moral issues. Not no abortions, but fewer abortions. Not no gun laws, but fewer gun laws. Not no immorality, but less immorality.

The true stance is not to say that in reality a law "eliminates" something evil. It simply establishes the benchmark for punishment. We know that people are not perfect, so the law may broken, in which case there should be prosecution. But to say the answer to people's imperfection is to remove the law is an age-old mistake which simply produces an excrutiating existence. This is why I think it's time to retire the GOP - to purge it's leadership, to de-GOPify. Their theory of government, that if the other party is 100% wrong that we should make the party's platform 50% wrong makes them not a party of opposition but simply a watered-down also-ran party.