Posted on 08/01/2007 1:07:53 PM PDT by SJackson
thanks for the article.
However classic liberalism has changed terminology twice now. First it was coopted by the marxist left(and identified itself as "conservative"), and now, it has been co opted by the fascist right, and has had to revert to its liberal roots and call itself "libertarian." (I did not say "completely co-opted"). Both groups have a "fatal conceit" in that they falsely believe that FEDERAL government can be an effective tool for shaping social and world policy. The only difference is that they differ on the vision with which they start out. The problem is that the corrupting nature of power despoils all who attempt to wield it. In Tolkein language, you cannot wield the ring of power. It is stronger than you.
As far as my "problems" with the religious right, I think I have credentials with this group as strong as anyone on FR. I grew up with them. I helped form key political action groups (not pacs). I studied with some of the earlier leaders, and have had personal conversations with D James Kennedy, Francis Schaeffer, Jim Hurley, Gary deMar, Joseph Scheidler, and many others on strategy and implementation of stuff from "get out the vote" to pro life efforts to educating Christians on a world and life view. I don't repent of my criticisms. After YEARS of working there, I think modern evangelicals are largely idolaters, who are primarily interested in social activism in order to save a middle class lifestyle, and have no interest in burying themselves in the gut of the institutions which are primarily responsible for social decay. Further, they look for "top down" solutions of infiltrating positions of power and then wielding it for good , rather than the method of Jesus, which was to focus on the transforming power of the gospel in the "little platoons." I can write you more about that later, if you wish. My criticism is that God generally rescues whole societies, not leadership, and that the Chrisitian right largely looks for a cheap substitute.
Again, you err greviously in intimating that traditional conservatives were not restrictive in their approach to government. Sometimes government was necessary, and not all activities (like your very good example of Friedman) are 100% consistent, but it is the ideological position of these guys that you favor small federal government and NOT that you use it to enforce ideas of behavior or world policy...., even if those ideas are good ones. This is where the fascist element of the republicans (the neocons) are badly confused. They (and you) posit that because something is laudatory that this must mean it is ok to federally legislate it. This is a road to tyranny, and traditional conservatives realized it. It is only the johnny come latelies who have this romantic notion that the virtue of their cause will avoid the corrupting influence of power. What is quite amazing is to watch the leaders elected fall one after another, and hear them bawl about how the reason is that the evil leftist media is out to get them. The desires of the left here are plain, yet irrelevant. It is our own corruption that is killing us, and you guys are just like the left, arguing that what the sick patient needs is just MORE of what made him sick in the first place!
You carry that hubris into foreign policy as well, with the same disasterous results.
Again, Let me be frank. The conservatives have split, but NOT just the expulsion of the paleocons. The movement has been hijacked by neocons, and your claims that neocons ARE traditional conservatives is simply hogwash. The movement was LIBERTARIAN at the core, and it is people like you with your ideology, who have hijacked the conservative movement and are now determined to run off those who once provided you with a theology of liberty. You have embraced big government interventionism and its inevitable result, which is tyranny. If we become a fascist state, it will be folks like you who march us in with the flags flying and bugle blowing.
ping to 322
I meant “forcefully resist”. Meaning an overwhelming and determined opposition, not a revolt.
... well: it'd take a heart of purest, chiseled anthracite NOT to point and laugh, really.
Social conservatives today wrestle tirelessly, daily, with genuine, demonstrable threats to our society and our safety: the steady of cheapening of human life in a soulless abortion culture, and the left's attempts to "normalize" (or even champion) the tenets of radical Islamofascism and/or sharia law within our own borders, just to name the first two to pop instantly to mind.
Libertarians, contrariwise, fret and fritter over comparative irrelevancies such as "fiat currency," and readier legal access to really high-grade weed.
The former are the proper concerns of a thinking, morally centered adult; the latter, those of a perpetual (and not overbright) adolescent.
Dismissed.
You confuse the libertarian party platform with the essence of classic liberalism. Is this deliberate or are you genuinely unaware that there is a difference?
While my criticisms of you do still stand, there is much in your post I do agree with. We largely agree in analysis. It is our prescription for what ails us where we diverge...., and it is a LARGE divergence. I do think your insistence that in essence “if it is bad the fed should outlaw it, if it is good the fed should legislate it” is as sure a path to totalitarianism as that of the screeching left. The difference is that you will do so while meaning well......., (as he nods to Blaise).
RINOs are the confused ones.. for they are stealth democrats..
Ann Coulter the leanest meanest RINO exposer of all time.. exposes their confusion..
Its not the true liberals that hate her, it is the RINOs..
Even on FREE republic she exposes them, they cannot help themselves..
They gasp with vapours tear their clothes and throw dust in the air.. when she strips them naked.. Oh! by the way RINOs HATE Ron Paul too.. Ron Paul is not as smart as Ann Coulter but he's TRYING.. God Bless him..
Were you there for Bill Clinton’s draft dodging?
You’re implying Ann Coulter supports Ron Paul? Don’t think so.
Yeah, that was a bit too strange for me. i have no idea what the poster was trying to say,
Feel free. God bless you and yours.
A foreign policy that kills as many of the lunatic Islamofascists as possible as soon as possible.
It ain't a popularity contest. As Machiavelli observed long ago in advising the prince, it is better to be feared than to be loved.
I implied nothing of the kind..
Only that they are on the same team..
With some of the same goal posts..
RINOs and Democrats are both socialists..
Part of the same Mob promoting Mob Rule(democracy)..
Does Ann know she's on the Ron Paul team? Personally I seen no connection between Ann Coulter and Ron Paul at all.
It hasn’t yet been realized by so many that those who give up the sword can still die by the sword.
And, indeed, it is much more likely in a hostile environment. If you would have peace, prepare then for war. The barbarians will enter through the weakest part of the wall. If the door is open, they’ll take that, but it is not enough to shut the door.
Are you a RINO?.. Most RINOS have no idea they are RINOs..
OR in essence democrats.. Pity.. But if they did they wouldn't be democrats, I guess..
Are you going to connect Ann Coulter, Ron Paul and RINOs?
Are Repbulicans who don't support Paul RINOs?
Given the fact that that's about 99% of Republicans, common sense dictates the 99% are Republicans and the 1% RINOs.
Try "true conservatives" as a description instead, it's a nebulous term with no real meaning.
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.