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 1-5051-100101-150151 next last
I don't think it is as bleak as Sartre portrays it. What distinguishes the two parties is not the so called moderate middle, which both parties must attract to win, but their respective bases, which both parties must hold solid or lose badly.

The Republic base includes conservatives and fly over country. The Democratic base includes the radical left, Unions and inner city down trodden.

The Democratic base would, if given a chance, push us toward a Communist Totalitarian central government. The Republic base would, if given a chance, reduce the role of the federal government in domestic affairs. Neither party can long afford to appear in public as their most energetic base supporters would like them to appear. Both parties must keep the support of their base with somewhat symbolic gestures, designed to appeal to the base while not offending the great middle.

Part of Bush's skill is in making the largely symbolic gestures that will take away the issues that the other side could make hay with. These moves, such as signing an Education Bill without vouchers (as if any other sort of Bill had a chance in hell this year) or not denouncing Campaign Finance Reform or being soft on illegal immigrants, carry a risk -- of pissing off the base and not being so symbolic afterall. But they also carry an upside -- of weakening the radical left and establishing a Republican majority in the Senate, which would allow for a more conservative direction and in particular for some good Judges. If Bush wins the War on Terrorism and seats a few good Supreme Court judges over the next 7 years, then he's a success in my book.

1 posted on 03/12/2002 11:34:12 PM PST by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
"establishing a Republican majority in the Senate"

There is your key. The fact is we need a more conservative government. How do you make it more conservative? The obvious answer is you make it less liberal. How do you make it less liberal? Vote out the Democrats. After you get the worst of the socialist lot of the Democrats replaced, then you can make it more conservative yet, by eliminating the worst of the lott of the Republicans. May sound dumb, but it's the only way. In other words, you're gonna have to make government a whole lot more Republican before you can make it conservative.

2 posted on 03/12/2002 11:48:26 PM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
"After you get the worst of the socialist lot of the Democrats replaced, then you can make it more conservative yet, by eliminating the worst of the lott of the Republicans."

Pun, or Freudian fat-finger?

3 posted on 03/12/2002 11:50:32 PM PST by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
yup.
4 posted on 03/12/2002 11:51:08 PM PST by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: toenail
I'll never say.
5 posted on 03/12/2002 11:52:04 PM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I look forward to our being able to separate the wheat from the chaffee.
6 posted on 03/12/2002 11:55:13 PM PST by RichInOC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
May sound dumb, but it's the only way. In other words, you're gonna have to make government a whole lot more Republican before you can make it conservative.

Yes but many think that wining is a bad thing and are more angry at the GOP than the Democrats. Conservatives are famous for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

7 posted on 03/12/2002 11:55:54 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
That is it, in a nutshell. Now, if ONLY the more radical FReepers and one issue FReepers would wake up to tis fact, all would be well.
8 posted on 03/13/2002 12:01:18 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Your statement makes sense to me.
Only other solution I can see is a HUGE influx of conservative Independents elected.
But that isn't going to happen in our lifetime.
I'm still a registered Independent but it would take a really bad Republican to get me to vote for a Democrat.
9 posted on 03/13/2002 12:04:36 AM PST by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Mr. Robinson..

Honestly, many of these people may as well be Democrats.

I mean, for all practical intents and purposes they are selling us down the river.

I think the only way to win government is through the media.

Put enough pressure on any of these serpents and they will bend your way.

10 posted on 03/13/2002 12:04:42 AM PST by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
How do you make it more conservative?

For starters here's a fairly complete list [right hand margin]

11 posted on 03/13/2002 12:08:27 AM PST by The Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
Yep, it would be great to change the media. But that's another item that ain't gonna happen in our lifetime. That has to start in the halls of our colleges and universities and before that in elementary and high schools. We're talking generations here.
12 posted on 03/13/2002 12:09:36 AM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Hmmmm, that looks great. How may Capitalists can we expect to elect this cycle?
13 posted on 03/13/2002 12:11:13 AM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
Not the only way, but an essential part of the way.

And Jim Robinson knows it well. For he is part of the media. Many of us freepers used to turn into the Nightly News on the major networks for news. Now we logon to this site.

Thanks, Jim. The news babes may be better looking than you, but this site sure gives better news.

14 posted on 03/13/2002 12:12:40 AM PST by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
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?

----------------------------------------

Because few Republicans have the capability to refute leftist arguments...

15 posted on 03/13/2002 12:16:10 AM PST by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Imvho, It is happening..

Slowly.. I mean, our idea sells (and completely unvarnished) in any form you can name..

It sells on TV (Mr. O) It sells on radio (Rush) It sells in book form (Bias)

In my opinion, we just need more of it..

We need to funnel support in this direction.. We have a brand new product that's hundreds of years old, and people can't wait to buy..

We need our own medium.

16 posted on 03/13/2002 12:17:04 AM PST by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Just choose a direction..
17 posted on 03/13/2002 12:18:12 AM PST by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
That's true. It would take an awful long time to change the media, ie, remove the liberal bias from the existing media. But you're talking replacement here. A new media. Cable outlets like FOX, plus Talk Radio, Internet, conservative mags and papers, etc. Could happen.
18 posted on 03/13/2002 12:22:37 AM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
"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."

I disagree. I think he's right on the money. There isn't much left of the above statement today. I find it very depressing.

19 posted on 03/13/2002 12:22:53 AM PST by brat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RLK
True, but at least this bothers you.

If you were in the liberal base, rather than the conservative base, you would be complaining that the unwashed masses couldn't spin and demagod the VWRC arguments, rather than complaining they couldn't refute them.

That is, the more serious minded conservatives have principles and guiding concepts. The more rabid liberals have bitterness and guiding lust for power.

20 posted on 03/13/2002 12:23:01 AM PST by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

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]

To: Jim Robinson

Yes, but we aren't selling snake oil..

There are exactly zero mental aerobatics involved with our product. And it alreadly dominates all other forms of medium. They are profiting from this century old concept, like they invented it themselves.

It's easy to grasp.. It's honest. anyone can understand it.

But, you can't lie and sell it.

All it requires is honesty and a medium.

Look at the success others have marketing this "worn out" product.

41 posted on 03/13/2002 12:48:44 AM PST by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
we need more John McCains?
42 posted on 03/13/2002 1:01:05 AM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
BTW- don't hurt me
43 posted on 03/13/2002 1:02:00 AM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Agreed. And we need to be careful to filter liberals out of our party. If they feel its unfair to them, they can join the Rats but they shouldn't be allowed to sabotage and sidetrack conservatism when they're not faithful to the philosophy and to the program of the party.
44 posted on 03/13/2002 1:06:03 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Believe it or not, we need more McCains. We need more McCains so we can start replacing them without turning over majority control to the other side.
45 posted on 03/13/2002 1:09:53 AM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Now, if ONLY the more radical FReepers and one issue FReepers would wake up to tis fact, all would be well.

Yup--people of prinicple are the ones holding back a conservative revolution. What a contradictory crock of chicken spit!

46 posted on 03/13/2002 1:15:23 AM PST by Egg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Egg
It is NO " crock " ; it is the truth. If I had a dollar, for everytime, someone who imagines that they have " principcles " , has posted here, that they would rather have a Dem elected, than a Republican, who is , after all, no different at all ( and THAT statement is the crock, dear ! ) ... I would be far richer than almost anyone, but Bill Gates. That is what really WILL defeat the Conservative movement. Learn to have some patience and that some so called " principles " , will only hamper your desires.

Instant gratification ( call it the Dr. Spock PRINCIPLE " , and THAT has ruined several generations ! ) is bad for babies, children , and political causes.

47 posted on 03/13/2002 1:25:19 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
:0)
48 posted on 03/13/2002 1:26:05 AM PST by brat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Egg
Well, if there were enough people of principle then obviously we would not be having this problem. But I do not see the numbers of that exclusive group growing very rapidly, so what do we do in the meantime?
49 posted on 03/13/2002 1:30:33 AM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
I have to leave now, but if by "one issue" you are condemning all Conservatives who dissagree with you.. you are sadly mistaken.

How bout I demolish your "one issue" (how about the Second Amendment?) and then call you names nopardons?

Everyone has something that drives them to the polls, and it's based on the party platform.. you go to vote what you believe.

If you are abandoned there, then why go back?

Even better, why listen to some hack who tells you that your beliefs aren't worth voting for in the first place?

I dunno about you, but if the things I believe in aren't worthy of discussion, then I won't bother voting.

Your argument is a shell of "well, you won't do things my way with YOUR vote, so I am angry, grrrr."

50 posted on 03/13/2002 1:32:12 AM PST by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151 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