Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why the GOP Must Lose: Nothing short of defeat will put it back on its limited government track
Reason magazine ^ | October 22, 2008 | Radley Balko

Posted on 10/22/2008 11:32:45 AM PDT by grundle

Why the Republicans Must Lose

Nothing short of defeat will put the GOP back on its limited government track

I grew up in a particularly conservative part of the already conservative state of Indiana. I voted for Bob Dole in 1996 and George Bush in 2000, generally because—though I'm not a conservative (I'm a libertarian)—I'd always thought the GOP was the party of limited government. By 2002, I was less sure of that. And by 2004, I was so fed up with the party that I did what I thought I'd never do—vote for an unabashed leftist for president.

Since then, "fed up" has soured to "given up." The Republican Party has exiled its Goldwater-Reagan wing and given up all pretense of any allegiance to limited government. In the last eight years, the GOP has given us a monstrous new federal bureaucracy in the Department of Homeland Security. In the prescription drug benefit, it's given us the largest new federal entitlement since the Johnson administration. Federal spending—even on items not related to war or national security—has soared. And we now get to watch as the party that's supposed to be "free market" nationalizes huge chunks of the economy's financial sector.

This isn't to say that Barack Obama would be any better. Government would undoubtedly grow under his watch. And from my libertarian perspective, he has been increasingly disappointing even on the issues where he's supposed to be good. We may not go to war with Iran in an Obama administration, but we'd likely become entrenched in a prolonged nation-building adventure in the Sudan. Obama's vote on the FISA bill and telecom immunity also suggests that, for all his criticisms of President Bush's use of executive power and assaults on civil liberties, Obama wouldn't be much better. On the drug war, Obama has promised to end the federal raids on medical marijuana clinics in states that have legalized the drug for treatment, but he wants to resurrect failed federal criminal justice block grant programs that have had some disastrous effects on civil liberties.

While I'm not thrilled at the prospect of an Obama administration (especially with a friendly Congress), the Republicans still need to get their clocks cleaned in two weeks, for a couple of reasons.

First, they had their shot at holding power, and they failed. They've failed in staying true to their principles of limited government and free markets. They've failed in preventing elected leaders of their party from becoming corrupted by the trappings of power, and they've failed to hold those leaders accountable after the fact. Congressional Republicans failed to rein in the Bush administration's naked bid to vastly expand the power of the presidency (a failure they're going to come to regret should Obama take office in January). They failed to apply due scrutiny and skepticism to the administration's claims before undertaking Congress' most solemn task—sending the nation to war. I could go on.

As for the Bush administration, the only consistent principle we've seen from the White House over the last eight years is that of elevating the American president (and, I guess, the vice president) to that of an elected dictator. That isn't hyperbole. This administration believes that on any issue that can remotely be tied to foreign policy or national security (and on quite a few other issues as well), the president has boundless, limitless, unchecked power to do anything he wants. They believe that on these matters, neither Congress nor the courts can restrain him.

That's the second reason the GOP needs to lose. American voters need to send a clear, convincing repudiation of these dangerous ideas.

If they do lose, the GOP would be wise to regroup and rebuild from scratch, scrap the current leadership, and, most importantly, purge the party of the "national greatness," neoconservative influence. Big-government conservatism has bloated the federal government, bogged us down in what will ultimately be a trillion-dollar war, and set us down the road to European-style socialism. It's hard to think of how Obama could be worse. He'll just be bad in different ways.

The truth is, unless you vote for a third-party candidate (which really isn't a bad idea), you don't have much of a choice this November. You can either endorse the idea of a massive, invasive, ever-encroaching federal government that's used to promote center-left ideology, or you can endorse the idea of a massive, invasive, ever-encroaching federal government that's used to promote center-right ideology.

Sadly, if the GOP does lose, it's likely to be interpreted not as a repudiation of the GOP's excesses, but as an endorsement of the Democrats'. When the only two parties who have a chance at winning both have a track record of expanding the size and scope of government, every election is likely to be interpreted as a win for big government—only the brand changes.

Voting yourself more freedom simply isn't an option, at least if you want your vote to be taken seriously (and I'm not denigrating any third parties here; I'm just reflecting reality).

Which brings me back to why the Republicans need to get throttled: A humiliated, decimated GOP that rejuvenates and rebuilds around the principles of limited government, free markets, and rugged individualism is really the only chance for voters to possibly get a real choice in federal elections down the road.

Of course, there's no guarantee that's how the party will emerge from defeat. But the Republican Party in its current form has forfeited its right to govern.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: conservativism; mccaintruthfile; nationalgreatness; paultards; reason; smallgovernment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-203 next last
I'm voting for Ron Paul, because I want the government to get smaller, not bigger.
1 posted on 10/22/2008 11:32:45 AM PDT by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: grundle
I'm voting for Ron Paul, because I want the government to get smaller, not bigger.

ROTFLMAO

2 posted on 10/22/2008 11:33:58 AM PDT by Tribune7 (Obama wants to put the same crowd that ran Fannie Mae in charge of health care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Idiots abound!


3 posted on 10/22/2008 11:34:14 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle
I'm voting for Ron Paul, because I want the government to get smaller, not bigger.

Good luck with that. One more vote against McCain.
4 posted on 10/22/2008 11:34:17 AM PDT by Cheerio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Palin is way more conservative than Ron Paul...why not support her??? Is Paul on the ballot in your state???


5 posted on 10/22/2008 11:34:46 AM PDT by Fred (The Democrat Party is the Nadir of Nihilism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle
President For Life Barack Obama thanks you for your vote.
6 posted on 10/22/2008 11:35:43 AM PDT by McGruff (Country First and I don't mean music.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle
...they had their shot at holding power, and they failed. They've failed in staying true to their principles of limited government and free markets. They've failed in preventing elected leaders of their party from becoming corrupted by the trappings of power, and they've failed to hold those leaders accountable after the fact. Congressional Republicans failed to rein in the Bush administration's naked bid to vastly expand the power of the presidency (a failure they're going to come to regret should Obama take office in January). They failed to apply due scrutiny and skepticism to the administration's claims before undertaking Congress' most solemn task—sending the nation to war. I could go on...
I'm voting for Ron Paul, because I want the government to get smaller, not bigger.

Ping for later

7 posted on 10/22/2008 11:35:46 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (What can I say? It's a gift. And I didn't get a receipt, so I can't exchange it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle
Nothing short of defeat will put it back on its limited government track

I'm afraid that "cure" will be much worse than the disease.

8 posted on 10/22/2008 11:35:53 AM PDT by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

And doom the nation? No thanks. I’ll take my chances with McCain/Palin.


9 posted on 10/22/2008 11:35:56 AM PDT by Paul_B
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Voting for Obama to get rid of big government
is like
shooting yourself in the head to get rid of a headache.


10 posted on 10/22/2008 11:36:16 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle
I'm voting for Ron Paul, because I want the government to get smaller, not bigger.

Allowing our country to COLLAPSE is not limited government.

Most liberaltarians have NEVER understood that limited government DOES NOT necessarily mean small government.

11 posted on 10/22/2008 11:36:33 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Good luck with that smaller government...Obama’s appointments to the Supreme court and the federal courts will surely help.


12 posted on 10/22/2008 11:36:56 AM PDT by dogcaller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

I’ve never heard anything like this before!


13 posted on 10/22/2008 11:37:09 AM PDT by wireman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio

NO.

Michael Medved’s column today makes a devastating argument against such defeatist reasoning. Supreme Court/Cabinet appointments and Commander-In-Chief status alone prevent me from sinking into this loser mentality.


14 posted on 10/22/2008 11:37:17 AM PDT by Cap74 (God is a Republican, Santa Claus is a Democrat -P.J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

The only problem with your theory is that John McCain isn’t for limited government or smaller goverment either.


15 posted on 10/22/2008 11:37:42 AM PDT by lainie (The US congress is full to the brim of absolutely disgusting thieves who deserve humiliating ouster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: All

Of course the other option is putting Palin in office as VP and turning her loose on the spendocrats in Washington...


16 posted on 10/22/2008 11:37:44 AM PDT by Maverick68 (w)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: grundle
Socialism will save us from....

Socialism.

17 posted on 10/22/2008 11:37:53 AM PDT by jwalsh07 (MSM Lied, Journalism Died. RIP 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Your vote for Ron Paul won’t accomplish a darn thing, except take a vote away from the Obama/McCain vote war.

It’s like shooting your last bullets into the ground as invaders rush toward you.

That’s truly ignorant thinking, there.


18 posted on 10/22/2008 11:37:53 AM PDT by ConservativeMind (Concerning Larry Sinclair: It is strange when you can be thankful for having a pervert on your side.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

That’s like saying to someone - you have sinned, so you must redeem yourself by shooting me in the head.


19 posted on 10/22/2008 11:37:55 AM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Uh, sorry, Radley. We’re at war. That’s job one my friend.


20 posted on 10/22/2008 11:37:59 AM PDT by paddles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle
Libertarians are often very poor stewards of libertarianism. It's a shame.

21 posted on 10/22/2008 11:38:09 AM PDT by I see my hands (_8(|)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGruff

Exactly, I cannot think that this thug would ever part with power once installed. This maybe our last election.


22 posted on 10/22/2008 11:38:35 AM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Conservatives who say the GOP needs to lose to teach it a lesson is like volunteering the walk the plank to to shame pirates. You commit suicide and the bad guys sail away to loot others.

Obama and a Democrat majority Congress/Senate will turn the USA into a socialist tyranny. We won’t get our constitutional republic back without a violent revolution, one made harder as we will have been stripped of all firearms. We will have to fight with stones, arrows and improvised weapons.

McPain and the RNC/GOP are a poor imitation of conservatism, but better than Obama communism.


23 posted on 10/22/2008 11:38:37 AM PDT by RicocheT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle
Reason magazine said the SAME THING about voting for Clinton over Bush. I was more "L" at the time, and I actually vote for Ron Paul at the time I believe.

Gave us Clinton, and overall, what good did that do for the party?

What the Republicans need is for the Small Government conservatives to rise to the top. Some smart, well spoken, small government conservatives. My ideal person? Someone well spoken, with a strong background in economics, an advanced degree perhaps. An Intellectual even. That kind of person/people, along with Palin, and you have a winner.

24 posted on 10/22/2008 11:38:42 AM PDT by Paradox (Obama, the Audacity of Hype.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle
"I'm voting for Ron Paul, because I want the government to get smaller, not bigger"

I'm voting for Ron Paul, because I want to help secure Obama's victory.

Fixed.

25 posted on 10/22/2008 11:38:52 AM PDT by Slapshot68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Idiots abound!

Which ones are the idiots tho - The ones that hold to their principles or ones that vote for McCain believing he will govern anywhere near the principles of conservatism?

26 posted on 10/22/2008 11:38:57 AM PDT by SwankyC (Paris Hilton 08 - I'm voting for 2 small boobies instead of 2 huge boobs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paul_B

It’s not about “teaching them a lesson” -

it’s about us making sure that Hunter/Thompson/Palin types get into positions to LEAD the movement.


27 posted on 10/22/2008 11:39:22 AM PDT by MrB (0bama supporters: What's the attraction? The Marxism or the Infanticide?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: lainie
The only problem with your theory is that John McCain isn’t for limited government or smaller goverment either.

Which leads me to a question I've always wanted to ask: why do Rep. Paul and Sen. McCain have nearly identical ACU Lifetime ratings?

28 posted on 10/22/2008 11:39:44 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: grundle

“I’m voting for Ron Paul, because I want the government to get smaller, not bigger.”

What country are you planning to live in?

I’m planning to live in the USA, and I’d rather not spend my final years under communist rule. The perfect is the enemy of the good.


29 posted on 10/22/2008 11:39:47 AM PDT by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle
Let's try restating this in other terms and see if the logic still holds:

Why the USA Must Lose in Iraq: Nothing short of defeat will put proper warfare planning back on its "last-resort" track.

Do we still want this kind of reasoning?

-PJ

30 posted on 10/22/2008 11:39:48 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (You can never overestimate the Democrats' ability to overplay their hand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle
If I had a sliver of hope that this country would recover from the disaster of an Obama presidency I would feel better about this. I don't think a govt. can stop proving cheese once it begins.
31 posted on 10/22/2008 11:39:58 AM PDT by Damifino (The true measure of a man is found in what he would do if he knew no one would ever find out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle
It will be alot easier to reform the Republican Party under a McCain/Palin administration than it will be to undo the damage of an Obama/Biden administration while simultaneously reforming the Republican Party.
32 posted on 10/22/2008 11:40:05 AM PDT by 84rules ( Ooh-Rah! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

“I’m voting for Ron Paul, because I want the government to get smaller, not bigger. “

Expect to see your government baloon in size as every important government office is relocated to blimps and dirigibles


33 posted on 10/22/2008 11:40:18 AM PDT by Jmerzio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Wow, what a day.

This thread is almost as disturbing as the Jehovahs Witness dude I just chased off my property.


34 posted on 10/22/2008 11:40:26 AM PDT by se_ohio_young_conservative (SP for VP ! ......GO SARAH !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Ah, the old ‘destroy the village to save it’ logic.

Pardon me, but you Paulistinians are idiots. This fight was for the primaries. You lost. Get over it.


35 posted on 10/22/2008 11:40:27 AM PDT by Antoninus (If you're bashing McCain/Palin at this point, you're helping Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Never underestimate the power of stupid people.

What do you think Ron Paul will accomplish with a Democrat controlled house and Senate? With the Republicans, they will most assuredly override any veto.


36 posted on 10/22/2008 11:40:32 AM PDT by listenhillary (Should we turn Alaska or Texas into our Galt's Gulch?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Mostly very valid points, except the party did not show a refocus on limited government after 2006. No reason the ‘lessons’ learned this time will be applied to refocus on these issues. We need to reform from within, but 4-8 years of Obama will not help our case. He will advance the cause of socialism and American weakness, open borders, and have control of the justice department and attempt to squash opposition (us).

If a Ted Strickland or Evan Bayh were the candidate on the left, I might be able to deal with a lost election, but not with the empty suit marxist we have on the ballot.


37 posted on 10/22/2008 11:40:36 AM PDT by ilgipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Ivory tower nonsense. This may be your last meaningful chance to vote. Do you not see that the institutional integrity is in tatters? You think your vote will count after Obama gets control of justice and court nominations?

The “More-conservative-than-thou” crowd has promoted the slide to the left by pulling out of the game. Rs move left to make up the difference. I truly suspect Communist money has fueled the Paleo Con movement.


38 posted on 10/22/2008 11:40:47 AM PDT by Rippin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Here’s why this is retarded, and why Obama must NOT win:

If Obama wins and gets his agenda through (which he will, with Pelosi and Reid behind him), this will soon be a country where more than 50% of the population does not pay any taxes whatsoever to finance the federal government, yet they derive ever-growing benefits from it.

Once that happens, we will never again have a chance to get government under control or reduce spending, because a voting majority will always vote to protect the programs they benefit from but do not pay for.

Once that happens, revolution will be the only escape.


39 posted on 10/22/2008 11:40:48 AM PDT by Zeddicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: grundle

And when president Ron Paul is sworn in having received 0.000000000001% of the vote then get back to us.


40 posted on 10/22/2008 11:41:08 AM PDT by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Idiots abound!

Thank you Jim.

It is a straw-man argument to suggest that conservatism can't rebound on its own merits but needs a catastrophic liberal administration to justify its value system.

41 posted on 10/22/2008 11:41:23 AM PDT by big'ol_freeper (Gen. George S. Patton to Michael Moore... American Carol: "I really like slapping you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: grundle

He makes some fair arguments, surrounded by unfettered bullboop


42 posted on 10/22/2008 11:41:28 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Um...

Ok...


43 posted on 10/22/2008 11:41:46 AM PDT by ejonesie22 (Finally a Conservative on the RNC ticket....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

I am going to take the road back down the Palin road. We will get lost in the woods if we allow Obama to win. He will act as a Castro or Chavez, and you may never get another chance.


44 posted on 10/22/2008 11:42:22 AM PDT by dforest (Is there any good idea out there that Obama doesn't lay claim to anymore?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle
WTF?

Are you old enough to remember Jimmy Carter's presidency? Take an 0bama 4 years and multiply it by 10... How long did it take Reagan to turn it around... Look at the POLICIES we got under Carter... Want to guess where the sub-prime BS started?

I'll take my chances with McPalin...

45 posted on 10/22/2008 11:42:22 AM PDT by bfh333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lainie

The only problem with your theory is that John McCain isn’t for limited government or smaller goverment either.


Unfortunately no longer a meaningful question. The question now is whether we will have rule of law. McCain is definitely a real American on that score.


46 posted on 10/22/2008 11:42:33 AM PDT by Rippin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: grundle
Mean while, by assisting Obama’s win millions more babies will die from abortions that could have led productive lives. Under McCain and Palin, we have a chance to appoint two more conservative judges to SCOTUS to overturn Roe versus Wade. Under Obama we will get two or three judges that make Gingsburg look like Scalia.
47 posted on 10/22/2008 11:42:55 AM PDT by jrooney (I am not voting for Spread the Wealth/Senator Government. I am voting for the War Hero and Baracuda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SwankyC
The ones that hold to their principles or ones that vote for McCain believing he will govern anywhere near the principles of conservatism?

False choice.

I can hold to 80% of my principles and vote for McCain, or I can hold onto 85% of my principles and vote for a loser who isn't even running and has no chance to win, thus helping Obama.

Are 5% of my principles worth losing 80%? How stupid do you think I am?
48 posted on 10/22/2008 11:43:18 AM PDT by Antoninus (If you're bashing McCain/Palin at this point, you're helping Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SwankyC

The real idiots are the ones who think voting for a third party candidate - which is pretty much a vote for Obama - will somehow get them closer to that conservative ideal they crave.
I guess the last two years of ‘punishing’ the GOP with Reid and Pelosi really did the trick! Why not four to eight years of a real out and out socialist? Just think of how we’ll punish those nasty RINOS like Mc Cain!


49 posted on 10/22/2008 11:43:39 AM PDT by antceecee (McCain ~ Palin '08 May God have mercy on us and protect us from evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: grundle

NO! You will have no vote in 2010 or 2012 when ACORN/SEIU/CAIR run our elections. Obama wins and you speak up - you get Joe the Plumber police state treatment.

We elect McCain then we start kicking the asses of RINOs and tell them to start acting like Conservatives or we will vote them out. We start beating on RINOs like a “red headed step child” or a “rented mule.” Note I am not abdicating child or animal abuse. I am for RINO abuse.
:-)

I think we may get the House back. If we do we also get to the bottom of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

McCain should get on the stump and say - “we are going to get answers on Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac and people are going to be indicted if they broke the law.”


50 posted on 10/22/2008 11:44:06 AM PDT by Frantzie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-203 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
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

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