The GOP's Ideas Deficit [Warning: A Real Stinker]

The Reagan era in American politics is about to end, and we have George W. Bush to thank for its demise.

In this respect, it doesn't matter who wins the Democratic nomination or even who wins the general election in the fall. I was going to try to write this column without using the word "paradigm," but already I've failed: Regardless of who takes the oath of office in January, the paradigm that reigned for nearly three decades -- the notion that government is useless, if not inherently evil -- is no longer operative.

All three of the remaining presidential candidates propose a far more activist role for government. Even John McCain, who tells conservatives that he's a Reagan disciple, proposes far-reaching government action on issues such as climate change, high energy prices and the mortgage crisis -- problems that are supposedly better left to the cruel genius of free markets, according to the old paradigm that Bush has pushed to absurd extremes.

It took a leader of the Decider's uncommon gifts to kill the philosophy he worships. To be fair, there is one area in which he has been the most proactive of presidents, to our nation's lasting discredit: Violating the basic rights of citizens and noncitizens alike in the name of his "war on terrorism."

Otherwise, he has interpreted Reagan's small-government mandate as an excuse -- or an instruction -- to abdicate government's most fundamental responsibilities. Anyone who wants to argue this point need simply remember the "heck of a job" our government did in handling the devastation from Hurricane Katrina.

What a splendid example of liberal reasoning. Eugene Robinson shows how little he knows of conservativism or Ronald Reagan.

For example, he cites "the paradigm that reigned for nearly three decades -- the notion that government is useless, if not inherently evil." Well, this is not the philosophy that has reigned since Reagan. Rather, the argument in favor of limited government means to safeguard freedom and individualism against coercsive powers of the state and recognizes, as Lord Acton did, power's ability to corrupt.

And who but an irrational leftist critic would term the response to Hurricane Katrina as an exercise in "small-government"?

Can Robinson provide a single example of the administration "Violating the basic rights of citizens and noncitizens"? He can't, of course, because there have been no such violations.

Finally, the author fails to appreciate that Bush departed in many respects from Reagan's principles. Bush's failures are due to his decision to be too liberal, not too conservative.

The author asserts that conservative values have gone "stale." Wisely he refrains from trying to convince us that they had been "worn out" from overuse. Stale they might be, or even Rusty, for both of these conditions come with disuse. More likely, they are only resting.

The values are eternal. The question is whether the next time it is morning in America will there still be a constituency ?

For a guy writing about the "GOP's Ideas Deficit," Gene Robinson sure doesn't put much in the way of ideas on the table himself.

The three big, structural domestic issues remain Social Security reform, health care reform, and education. The GOP is on the right side of all three. The dems are stuck on stupid. We win these issues hands down if we stick to our guns.

We want to cut taxes. The dems want to raise them. We win that one too, at least among the taxpaying classes.

Then there's globalization. Gene is apparently hot for protectionism, and no doubt there's a populist groundswell at the moment. But again, that's not an issue where we should cut and run.

There are very few new issues and new ideas in politics. The question, as always, is whether the pols willing to bell the cat. McCain isn't my ideal candidate but he's on the right side of most of the big questions. Obama is an empty suit.

I find it most interesting that the Libtards in the WaPo and Politico are so arrogant to tell us where we have gone wrong and eager to tell us what we "should do". What a bunch of jerks. Is there problems? Sure. But when we were shellacking Dems from 1994-2005, I don't remember us being arrogant enough to tell the Dems what they should do. We pointed out their foibles, sure. But this borders on sheer arrogance.

But then, lefties thrive on that particular character trait. I too am worried, though, when they win, they will do what we failed to do. They will make sure of us. They will crush us under their heel to make sure those "Evil Republicans" never trouble them again, fairness doctrine, permanent AWB, strengthened McCain-Feingold, everything in their power to marginalize conservatives. And they'll do it under the claim that "See, markets don't work, look what the Republicans have wrought!" George Soros, their high priest and guru is shilling a new book with that very argument.

Get ready for the Brand New Deal folks. It's going to suck, bad.

Answer me this. What Reagan/conservative ideals did President Bush and the Republican leadership in Congress display and clearly enunciate during the past eight years? We got a couple of good SCOTUS Justices and tax cuts. Other than that, zilch.

Face it: Bush has been a disaster for the Republican Party and the so-called Congressional leadership not much better.

I just called the republican leader ship in the senate to voice my opinion on the immigration bill tied in with the iraqi funding bill, and the lady who answered said he would not make a public statement about it... and I told her I wanted to make a public statement to the senator about it.. and she hung up.... I called her back and gave her my statement and she did not answer and hung up again.. this is todays leader ship in the senate..Sen Mc Connell. They dont want to hear from us... it is their way or the hi way

Similar experience with Dole’s office. They didn’t have a statement as to how she will be voting nor did they want my name and address. Total disinterest. I think she’ll be interested come Nov. when she’s out.

Richard Burr however is voting against this stealth amnesty.

"Face it: Bush has been a disaster for the Republican Party"

Hmmm...

1) During the Bush Administration Libya gives up its nuclear weapons program.

2) During the Bush Administration the black market from Pakistan led by A.Q.Kahn for nuclear weapons technology is broken up.

3) During the Bush Administration North Korea begins dismantling their plutonium enrichment reactors.

4) During the Bush Administration Israel and the U.S.A. destroy Syria's nuclear weapons enrichment reactors.

5) During the Bush Administration, Saddam Hussein who said quite clearly while in jail awaiting his trial that he would have had the U.N. sanctions broken and be in full production of WMDs within a year. That would be the years 2004 - 2005 approximately that Saddam would have been re-armed with WMDs. It now goes without saying the obvious that Saddam will not be getting nuclear weapons anytime soon. Nor will he be directly funding and training the terror group 'Islamic Jihad' which is al-Qaeda and whom blew up two U.S. embassies. (see the recent: Iraqi Perspectives Project).

6) During the Bush Administration the U.S.A. has nuclear weapon ambitious Iran pinned in on both sides from Afghanistan and Iraq which is pure strategic genius.

Under Clinton the countries Pakistan and India successfully test nuclear weapons and North Korea begins plutonium enrichment .

When Townhall still had a chatroom, I insisted that Bush, like his Dad, wasn't a conservative and that the GOP should pick someone else (like Forbes). My questioning of Bush's political persuasion brought out boatloads of Bush apologist, all of whom insisted that he was as conservative as Reagan. I don't have to tell you which side was proven correct.

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.