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

To: Dawnsblood
I disagree with the definitions used in this article. How can Progressive Republicans be described as both reliable on limited government and willing to go off on big government crusades? Either they're one or the other, but not both. The truth is they aren't reliable on limited government.

The assertion that Bush Republicans accept big government as long as it does socially conservative things is totally incorrect. Bush signed onto No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug bill, and McCain-Feingold, none of which did socially conservative things. I suppose the argument here is the libertarian nonsense that allowing states and localities to regulate abortion or stop homosexuals from prancing around nude in public is “big government”, but the Founding Fathers would have disagreed.

As for Goldwater Republicans, they're just socially leftist Republicans who want a massively powered federal government to “protect” them from local socially conservative ordinances. In other words, they want unelected wolves in the henhouse to protect them from elected foxes. In fact, they go beyond that to supporting radically big government to promote certain social causes they've adopted, particularly on the subject of homosexuality. See the linked column below noting Goldwater's support for a federal law to prohibit “discrimination” against homosexuals:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater072894.htm

What we need is a true conservative. Someone favoring limited government, strong defense to protect our interests (not to bring “democracy” to the world), and who wants to preserve the traditions which made us great in the first place. This latter means family values, preferably at the local & state level, though in certain cases it may require a constitutional amendment when aggressive leftists are spreading a depravity from one state to another via the courts and subversion of the law (i.e., same-sex “marriage”).

James Madison knew that a corrupt people won't remain free. This is why the left has been so aggressive in changing our culture to one that is socially liberal. A place like San Francisco, which is socially liberal, will never be fiscally conservative or strong on national defense. In other words, it will never be free.

3 posted on 05/31/2008 4:32:47 AM PDT by puroresu (Enjoy ASIAN CINEMA? See my Freeper page for recommendations (updated!).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: puroresu
The assertion that Bush Republicans accept big government as long as it does socially conservative things is totally incorrect

In addition to the examples you cite, Bush's aid to "faith-based" private-sector aid programs creates a deadly danger to the independence of churches and their programs. The foot is now in the door, and govt. regulations and controls will surely follow, including all the multiculturalism, affirmative action, pro-gay, anti-"hate speech rules already seen in other parts of society.

6 posted on 05/31/2008 5:21:43 AM PDT by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

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