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

Skip to comments.

What Makes a Republican - a REPUBLICAN?
NewsCorridor ^ | March 10, 2002 | Sartre

Posted on 03/12/2002 11:34:12 PM PST by ThePythonicCow

The only method by which people can be supported is out of the effort of those who are earning their own way.
We must not create a deterrent to hard work.
 
 - Robert A. Taft

We have spent the better part of the last half century forgetting the reasons that Republicans are part of an American First tradition and the real meaning of the GOP. Just what are the principles and policies that separate the platform of Republicans from that of the Socialists that wear the Democratic label? Sorry to say, not much of a difference presently exists; let alone a dedication to enact legislation that counters the legacy of FDR. It wasn't like this - once upon a time . . .  For Republicans knew what they were all about and had an example of a true champion of principle in one, Senator Robert A. Taft.

Taft is most famous for his opposition to Franklin Roosvelt's New Deal Legislation and policies. He has been called the last "Old Right" political.  While some may conclude that this description points out that we have 'moved on', the essential question remains. Were the policies of Taft the real essence of Republicanism? Principles never die, changing circumstances only seek out appropriate applications. Liberty of the individual was the hallmark of Taft that earned him the name, Mr Republican.  The New Deal's expansion of federal power at the expense of state and local government is incompatible with the core  bedrock of Republican philosophy. Taft vigorously urged economy in government and restoration of balanced budgets, while supporting a very limited role in foreign affairs. He voted against NATO, supported strong tariffs, opposed the draft and sponsored legislation that bears his name, the Taft-Hartley Law.

If Republicanism isn't about opposing the Federal Income Tax and the Federal Reserve System, just what did the party ever stand for to begin with?

When it comes to foreign policy, the last century is one of "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace". Taft speaks directly to this point:

"Fundamentally, I believe the ultimate purpose of our foreign policy must be to protect the liberty of the people of the United States. The American Revolution was fought to establish a nation "conceived in liberty." That liberty has been defended in many wars since that day. That liberty has enabled our people to increase steadily their material welfare and their spiritual freedom. To achieve that liberty we have gone to war, and to protect it we would go to war again . . .

Only second to liberty is the maintenance of peace. . . . Our traditional policy of neutrality and non-interference with other nations was based on the principle that this policy was the best way to avoid disputes with other nations and to maintain the liberty of this country without war. From the days of George Washington that has been the policy of the United States. It has never been isolationism; but it has always avoided alliances and interference in foreign quarrels as a preventive against possible war, and it has always opposed any commitment by the United States, in advance, to take any military action outside of our territory. It would leave us free to interfere or not according to whether we consider the case of sufficiently vital interest to the liberty of this country. It was the policy of the free hand."

In his book, Principles Without Program: Senator Robert A. Taft and American Foreign Policy - he conveys his views as core Republican principles that are as valid today as they were when originally written. So why does the Republican Party work overtime to run in lock step with the Socialism of the New Frontier, Great Society and New World Order? The answer is obvious, the Republicanism has been removed from the party and has been replaced with a neo-conservatism sham that is a betrayal of America's tradition.

How many remember the names of these brave leaders that fought so hard to retain the promise of the American way of life? Just what was their cause and why do most Republicans ignore their heritage? Taft sums up nicely the purpose of their task:

"There are a good many Americans who talk about an American century in which America will dominate the world.... If we confine our activities to the field of moral leadership we shall be successful if our philosophy is sound and appeals to the people of the world. The trouble with those who advocate this policy is that they really do not confine themselves to moral leadership. They are inspired by the same kind of New Deal planned-control ideas abroad as recent Administrations have desired to enforce at home. In their hearts they want to force on these foreign people through the use of American money and even, perhaps, arms, the policies which moral leadership is able to advance only through the sound strength of its principles."

Robert Taft believed in the "Federalism" model of the American Republic. His faith was in basic American values and the abilities of the people to seek Liberty. Achieving this goal requires that such liberty is founded upon an economic system based on free enterprise, a political system based on citizen participation, and national independence and sovereignty for our country.

Internationalist Republicans have become mutants, with the abdication of purpose for their party. Just what is the point of having two shades of the same color when that hue is one and the same in Socialism. If you say the debate is over and the future belongs to the most popular collectivist, then America is already deceased.

Even under the great Ronald Reagan, the Departments of Education and Energy continued. Just look at the record! When was the last time a 'so called' conservative remained ardent in the fight against social democracy? Taft's principles are timeless because they represent the best chance for the freedom of a free people. Or does that idea scare so many, that Liberty is no longer our mutual objective? With the dawn of this new century, it is time to remember the common sense of past generations and devote ourselves to the reinvention of practical policies that apply those principles to our current condition. Anything short of this reformation, will confirm that the GOP has lost it's way. Rediscover what a Republican really means . . .

© 2002 SARTRE


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: taftfederalism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-151 next last
To: Jim Robinson
Is happening -- right here.
21 posted on 03/13/2002 12:24:41 AM PST by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Short answer: Any one who's a true blue conservative and NOT a RINO is a Republican.
22 posted on 03/13/2002 12:27:18 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
At your local library ....Conservatism for Dummies
23 posted on 03/13/2002 12:27:28 AM PST by The Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brat
I agree that we are disagreeing over whether the glass is 90% empty or 10% full. I vote for 10% full.
24 posted on 03/13/2002 12:27:42 AM PST by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
You're the leader.. and you have a good product.

It's proven, we need no studies.. It sells.

Please consider a market and a product that suits our company. A way to capitalize on our strength, and profit from it.

Then, take advantage of it.. and as shareholders we will all reap the benefits.

Ways to expand our time tested, proven product.. Unvarnished Conservatism.

"Conservatism.. Here today, here tomorrow.. "

25 posted on 03/13/2002 12:28:30 AM PST by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
If Republicanism isn't about opposing the Federal Income Tax and the Federal Reserve System, just what did the party ever stand for to begin with?

uh, if I remember history it began with opposition to slavery

26 posted on 03/13/2002 12:30:44 AM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
How may Capitalists can we expect to elect this cycle?

I'm the only one I know and I'm not running for office.

27 posted on 03/13/2002 12:30:50 AM PST by The Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
If you make the whole government conservative it will be run by liberals.

A GOP Majority in the Senate will have them beholden to do everything they can to keep 'moderate' members from defecting. Moderate Republicans are about as good as Democrats, RINO's are as much the enemy as Dems'.

28 posted on 03/13/2002 12:33:07 AM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
I'm afraid that with the 17th Amendment (1913 - Changing the Senate to not be explicitly elected by State legislatures, if I recall correctly) and subsequent liberalisms such as the Income Tax and The New Deal, that the Constitution, as written, no longer much helps our understanding of the political landscape.
29 posted on 03/13/2002 12:34:02 AM PST by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Republicans gave us CFR didn't they? illegal alien amnesty?

Republicans control the House, but the RINO's get their way

30 posted on 03/13/2002 12:35:26 AM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
Radio!
31 posted on 03/13/2002 12:35:50 AM PST by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Here, in Tennessee, RINO Lamar Alexander will probably be the next Senator, but expect the Dems to put big bucks here, or convince Gore to run.
32 posted on 03/13/2002 12:36:10 AM PST by The Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Au contraire my friend. They're worse than Rats cause they burrow into the Republican Party from within and work to undermine and discredit conservatism from without. The RINOs are the true bane of all who love freedom and limited government.
33 posted on 03/13/2002 12:36:39 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
We haven't had a GOP CONSERVATIVE majority since 96'. Since then the House has been run by a defacto Rat RINO coalition.
34 posted on 03/13/2002 12:37:43 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
before you ask, no I don't know what to do about it, I am just a pathetic follower after all, =o)
35 posted on 03/13/2002 12:39:14 AM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
"Conservatism.. Here today, here tomorrow.. "

Heh, heh. Yup, could happen. But first you have to sell it to the great brainwashed masses, most of whom have never heard of conservatism. Remember, "The Democrats are for the little guys and the Republicans are for the fat cats!"

I laughed like hell when I first heard the Bush campaign say Compassionate Conservatism. But what the heck, can't argue with what works. At least the folks down home are being introduced to conservative lite.

36 posted on 03/13/2002 12:39:14 AM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
yup, the Rat-Rino Coalition, good name
37 posted on 03/13/2002 12:40:16 AM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
hey, FR could make a little money selling copies of its software can't it?? It sure beats all those other message forums..
38 posted on 03/13/2002 12:41:47 AM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
"Republicans are for the fat cats!"

ROFLMAO!!! The fat cats and the country club Republicans are all unvarnished LIBERALS. And people still think conservatives represent the rich & powerful? Dear friends, the masses have been laboring under a misleading delusion this entire time!

39 posted on 03/13/2002 12:43:40 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
I think the vast majority of the Republicans in the House voted against CFR. It was something like almost all of the Democrats and 41 turncoat Republicans. I repeat, the key is to replace more of the Democrats. If there were about 22 more Republicans, the thing probably would not have passed. Actually, a dozen more would've taken care of it. It would've been a lot easier to sway the rest. Doesn't do us any good at all to replace a Republican with a Democrat. That only makes it that much harder to gain a majority.
40 posted on 03/13/2002 12:48:10 AM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-151 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