Skip to comments.What Makes a Republican - a REPUBLICAN?
Posted on 03/12/2002 11:34:12 PM PST by ThePythonicCow
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
The GOP is selling a product. Will you pay for it?
Political parties don't "deserve" votes any more than buisnesses do. They market a product and try to earn your vote.
You sound like the kind of person who would open a buisness and then chase people down the street cursing at them if they refused to purchase your inferior product.
Not a good buisness model, imVho.
Hell, just beat that dollar out of them.. That's got to be good for buisness, right?
Mr. President. If you sign a bill, granting illegal aliens amnesty, I cannot vote for you ever again. My support for the GOP in general is even in doubt.
You know, the democrats are handing out anything and everything in the hopes of purchasing my vote, but I vote on principle and thus far I have ignored them. Doing the right thing was motivation enough to vote Republican.
So you can understand how dissapointed I am to find out that the "party of principle" has comprimised itself for it's own self interest. I AM SUPPOSED to remain balanced on principle, while the party sells itself out..? It's an insult.
It's an insult to my intelligence.
People talk about "Political Capital" and how that you have enough to simply steamroll the wishes of average Americans because of the War Effort.
And my answer to that argument is: "What's capital investment without sales?"
I am one less "sale" you will have in 2004 if you grant law breakers status President Bush.
I am forced to observe every, stupid law ever written.. right down to the last letter, but yet an entire class of criminal get's a pass? Like I said before, it's an insult to me.. A slap in my face. Just how stupid do these people think I am anyway?
Please tell me that you have more respect for than this.
Regards and best wishes, Jhoffa_X
(now, I am really going to bed.. oh geez. )
We must recognize that we're losing the war in politics because we are losing the culture war. Although I believe it's a two-flank battle--keeping an eye on government (the unique responsibility of a free people) and fighting threats to the culture, I believe that the latter is the primary flank. Yet it's the aspect of the battle that gets the least attention because it's much easier to deal with political issues than it is to tackle moral and spiritual ones.
In short, if we don't do something to change the spiritual state of this nation, our troubles will only get worse. The solution to our governmental problems is an indirect one. One that emphasizes a change in the hearts of Americans, one by one, who in turn will impact this nation for the better.
That's the first flank, and certainly no waste of effort. But what about the second, more long term?
Jim, I have been an unhappy Republican for 40 years watching them get in step with the Democrats. I am fed up with their definitions of right and wrong. When are we going to follow the Constitution again? I will vote 3rd Party until I see definite changes in the House and Senate. They're lying to us Americans about everything that they do. I have never heard a Republican Senator admit that they are following Agenda 21 page by page, nor have I heard any of them ask for our help in stopping the NWO that was designed in the United Nations 60 years ago.
I must thank you for bringing all of these political crimes to the forefront on your website for America to see and discuss.
Capitalism can only serve man well when tempered with a modicum of morality. Without the morality, capitalism is no better than socialism and potentially worse.
With the ratification of the sixteenth and seventeenth amendment to the Constitution, it simply became a matter of selecting which form of corruption a person prefers. There remain today basically only two forms of corruption from which to select, Republican corruption or Democrat corruption. Generally, I have preferred the Republican corruption as it is usually more productive but there is also merit in some of the Democrat corruption. Both parties have been successful in corrupting justice.
Jim, the only problem with your solution is that political incumbents are re-elected 97% of the time. That gives us a 3% chance of executing your plan.
The only areas I see political success for our side is on the internet and on talk radio. If we continue to strenghten these two tools and concentrate our voting impact at the lowest local level (starting at the school board), we could begin to dent this beast...
Talk about throwing down the gauntlet. Are either of these goals realistic for the GOP in this day and time? I could roll with them but can anyone else?
That's a good word. Amen.
Maybe things would be all well around here, but in terms of the electorate, those radical Freepers and one issue freepers probably don't add up to more than 2% of the popular vote nationwide. They may be a benefit, by giving conservatives something to be to the left of, which may help make them more palatable to the "center" voters.
Great theory, however in practice few Republicans can be considered conservative. And if conservative means smaller, less government, neither party represents this ideal.
Doesn't look like either one of 'em is very "conservative" to me.
As a rule, they're both groups of political opportunists, saying and doing whatever is necessary to maintain power, without regard for it's impact on the republic or it's constitution.
I am completely at a loss -- how does that guy, who constantly preaches one thing but does another, maintain this lofty status with the folks?
I know that defeating Hillary was a big deal, but if SOME of the money that went to one Republican candidate (Lazio) had been more evenly spent on four other close races, we would have control of the Senate, even without Jeffords. Sometimes our national party organization gets stuck with an East Coast bias just like the media.
(Hey, for what it costs for roses these days, they're probably using $100 bills for blankies!)
Dawg says howdy -- nitey-nite for now!
I don't see how that will work. The McCains don't care about America at all - only about getting attention and perks for themselves. They hold the party back with their power to change sides (like Jeffords - how many concessions were made to keep him happy before he actually jumped ship?) held over the leaders' heads.
Unless you mean we need very sick Republican Senators who may die in office and can then be replaced with a conservative by the party.
That will look like a ladies sewing circle if the Senate majority is widened by the democrats. Bush will never get a supreme court justice through that vipers nest. I feel that Bush should withdraw all nominations to the bench until the mid term elections are over. We can survive without judges but we can't compromise with judges that have the democrat seal of approval.