Yesterday, it emerged that James Bopp, Jr., a Republican National Committeeman from Indiana, was circulating a resolution to be discussed at the RNC’s annual meeting next January in Hawaii.
The resolution, titled Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates, outlines ten principles that the sponsors want Republican candidates to adhere to (see below or click on link above for the list). Candidates who did not agree with at least eight of the ten points would be denied RNC funding and the Republican nomination.
In a remarkable perversion of a casual comment, Reagan is invoked to set the limit of conservative tolerance. If there was ever a case of a political hero being taken too literally, this would be it. The resolution reads:
Whereas, President Ronald Reagan believed… that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent…
Resolved, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy position of the Republican National Committee…shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee.
FrumForum will be reporting on any new developments surrounding this resolution, but first, a few quick thoughts.
Among the many problems in the resolution is the reinforcement of the GOP as the ‘party of no.’ The list focuses mainly on what the Republican Party finds intolerable, rather than what it would seek to achieve.
Seven of the ten policy points are statements of opposition: candidates must oppose future stimulus bills, government-run health care, cap and trade, card check, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and government funding of abortion. That’s fine – but by God, what do you support?
Further, although the resolution is aimed at moderates, other camps in the broader American conservative movement would likely fail the test. Many libertarians, for example, would fail to reach eight points – the two foreign policy points being likely points of disagreement, and the point on the Defense of Marriage Act being the third.
Indeed, one is left wondering just how many Republicans would pass the test. Would Senators Olympia Snowe and Lindsey Graham manage to scrape by? How about George W. Bush? Or John McCain?
Ironically, it is possible to question whether Reagan himself would have made eight points. Steve Benen at Washington Monthly notes that Reagan had run deficits, approved an immigration measure that much of the right resented, and withdrew Marines from Lebanon in 1983 after the barracks bombing in Beirut. There you go – three points and you’re out.
However, by far the greatest irony is that Reagan’s tolerance for diversity within the GOP is being ignored in a resolution that invokes his name over and over again. Goodbye to Reagan’s big tent, hello to Bopp’s short list.
The ten policy points outlined in the resolution:
1. Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill
2. Market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare
3. Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation
4. Workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check
5. Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants
6. Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges
7. Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat
8. Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act
9. Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion
10. The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership
88 responses so far
1 BarryS // Nov 24, 2009 at 9:21 am
It’s pretty ridiculous to have a list on ‘No,No’s” , Times change, and sometimes on a dime. What today is sensible tomorrow becomes a joke position to hold.
There is no doubt that the GOP has moved to the right in recent years, it’s also illuminating that Reagan would not be welcome in today’s Republican party.
The lack of tolerance and a narrowing of what it means to be a “good” Republican means you end up with the result that we had in NY recently. The Democrat won.
2 mymy // Nov 24, 2009 at 10:01 am
I bet they have polled those 10 point and find a good majority of Americans agree with them
3 ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 10:04 am
……although it’s predominantly about NO’S some of this list is very loosely worded perhaps reflecting the intellectual rigor of it’s authors…….it may or may not be adopted…..it doesn’t really matter…..it just shows the state of mind of today’s GOP and is essentially a reflection of the ongoing schisms in the party
4 WillyP // Nov 24, 2009 at 10:09 am
Yes, I am PURE!
5 Tim Mak // Nov 24, 2009 at 10:12 am
I got 8 points – did you all make the cut?
6 MI-GOPer // Nov 24, 2009 at 10:13 am
Tim, I don’t know if you’ve ever been to an RNC meeting or even know what goes on… I have, lots of times.
I can tell you that Indiana, like Oklahoma, often times has some of the more kookie members on the Committee. These resolutions and tributes and other “official” actions of the meeting are usually done without a lot of debate, a lot of concern and then are tossed into the hotel waste paper recylcing baskets. I’ve heard of resolutions demanding the ChiComs leave the mainland and turn it back over to the Natl’ist Taiwan govt… that all schools have mandatory gun instruction and marksmanship classes… that the federal govt close down the Educ Dept and take the savings to invest in school choice vouchers… etc.
That you would take the Indiana RNC members’ resolution seriously suggests how far afield you are from the reality of these meetings. The Democrats do it too; ScreaminHowieDean use to complain that the real work of the Party was held captive by the “meandering meetings” of the Central Committee & Democrat Commissars.
Two suggestions: 1) get real; 2) find better sources than bathroom magazines like Washington Monthly… good God, what next from you? An article about Mitt Romney’s stylist declares he dies his hair? You can do much, much better than this level of “reporting”.
7 MI-GOPer // Nov 24, 2009 at 10:15 am
dyes, of course… although his coiffe does look a little lifeless at times.
8 Tim Mak // Nov 24, 2009 at 10:44 am
MI-GOPer – the resolution is sponsored not only by a NCM from Indiana, but also by National Committeepersons from Oregon, S. Carolina, Illinois, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, and Kansas. It had 10 sponsors before it began circulation to other members of the national committee.
I hope you’re right – this certainly shouldn’t be serious. But given the mood of the Party at this time, I wouldn’t be surprised if it got some traction.
9 DFL // Nov 24, 2009 at 10:56 am
Purity tests in a political party are foolish. Twenty-five years ago the Republicans were fortunate to win Manhattan’s Silk Stocking seat with liberal Bill Green, who voted correctly on tax cuts most of the time but conservative on very little else. The alternative is Democrat Carolyn Maloney, who never votes anyway amenable to conservative interests. Tip O’Neill gladly supported conservative Democrats Sonny Montgomery of Mississippi and Dan Daniel of Virginia even though each rarely voted with the Democratic mainstream after the Speaker vote at the outset of a session of Congress. Today, Republicans ought to be glad that they have two senators from Maine, however liberal, while Democrats must count themselves lucky with moderate Ben Nelson in conservative, Republican Nebraska. To forge a majority, a political party must bend to local circumstances and not be ideologically rigid.
10 ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 10:57 am
Tim Mak // Nov 24, 2009 at 10:44 am
“I hope you’re right – this certainly shouldn’t be serious.”
…….thanks for putting the record straight on how much broad support this has……the problem of course is that “it is serious” as a cursory examination of the events surrounding Steele’s election would show not to mention subsequent actions that have largely stripped him of the powers normally exercised by the RNC chairman…..watch this space
11 ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:02 am
DFL // Nov 24, 2009 at 10:56 am
……Very true but this is a lesson the GOP has forgotten…….Outside of Snowe, Collins and maybe Lugar the Republican party has no moderate wing in house or senate and furthermore regard this as a virtue…..at least the Democrats have a moderately conservative faction of around 40 in their house caucus and maybe 6-8 in the senate……if Snowe or Collins retire their seats will probably go Democratic
12 Tim Mak » Are YOU Pure Enough for the GOP? // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:05 am
[...] Read more at: http://www.frumforum.com/are-you-pure-enough-for-the-gop [...]
13 WillyP // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:05 am
“if Snowe or Collins retire their seats will probably go Democratic”
Yes, I believe that’s why they’re referred to a RINOs.
What’s the point in two parties when they’re ideologically identical? It’s like asking whether you prefer the slow or fast track to the Euro style socialist welfare state.
14 PracticalGirl // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:08 am
“Ironically, it is possible to question whether Reagan himself would have made eight points…Three points and you’re out”
For Reagan, isn’t it more like four points and you’re out? Add to the list his support of the Brady Bill and the last one is smashed.
In baseball, he’d still be hitting .600 and would be a STAR! In today’s GOP, he’d be an unwelcome, unelectable hack. How the mighty do fall.
15 MI-GOPer // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:08 am
Tim, to be more accurate, the resolution is sponsored by NCM. It is co-sponsored by the other RNC member and per RNC rules, it must have at least 15 co-sponsors or letters of support from state party chairs to make onto the agenda of the Rules Committee. Even if it gets out of Rules and to the meeting floor, so what? It’s in the recylce bin in a nanosecond.
Second, you see the “mood” of the Party far different than I. I’ve just watched the moderates in Michigan kick out a far Right libertarian, Reaganite-self described party chair in favor of a more nuts & bolts moderate party chair. I’m watching the Michigan candidates for the GOP Gov nomination fight a 5 way battle and each of the 5 are moderate or pragmatic GOPers… and the Democrats don’t have a hope in Hell of holding onto to the gov’s office after 8 yrs of failed leadership by Jenny2Penny Granholm.
In fact, it looks like the State House may be a viable take-over as well… as this very Blue state goes back to its historic roots as a Red state and the birthplace of the Republican Party.
I’m not a big one to rest on “hope”. The only traction the resolution will get is into the recycling bin along with some 44 other now “ripe” resolutions… and there will be more for sure before the meeting convenes. The big event will still be the poll briefing session and main speeches by Romney and Rove.
16 MI-GOPer // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:09 am
Practical grrrrl gives us the small engine repair shop perspective… nice flannel shirt there, sister.
17 ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:15 am
PracticalGirl // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:08 am
…..you could also have mentioned Nancy’s support for stem cell research
“16 MI-GOPer // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:09 am
Practical grrrrl gives us the small engine repair shop perspective… nice flannel shirt there, sister.”
……..he has no other medium of expression unfortunately……when losing make it personal
18 mymy // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:19 am
I’m asking this here.What is a moderate Republican?One who votes with Democrats?What is a moderate Democrat?One that votes with Republicans?
19 WillyP // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:25 am
mymy // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:19 am
I’m asking this here.What is a moderate Republican?One who votes with Democrats?What is a moderate Democrat?One that votes with Republicans?
mymy, the abuse of the word “moderate” is the problem. A moderate, I’d think, is someone who is close to the status quo, not just slightly less extreme than the further extremist. Frum and his ilk venerate the idea of “moderation,” although no one can explain exactly what it means. It’s malleable, like Hope and Change…
Echoing a non-moderate, I prefer my moderates in moderation.
20 MI-GOPer // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:27 am
I guess we’ll have to accept the TrollTribe’s rendition of what’s best for the GOP and what RR would have scored if tested against the 10 touch points.
I score RR as a 10. A solid 10.
I don’t agree with the TrollTribe’s assessment that withdrawing from Beirut was the equivalent of “Cut & Run” in Iraq or Afghanistan –as the democrats want to do this week.
I don’t agree with the TrollTribe’s assessment that RR would fail item #5 either –especially since the 86 law RR signed had strong employer fines and increased border security that TeddieKennedy gutted over the ensuing 8 yrs… RR agreed to allowing 2.5m illegal aliens to keep their jobs in the US only because he thought the employer enforcement provisions would be strict and draconian enough to dry up labor opportunities for illegal aliens.
RR did have deficits but the deficits created by defense spending (and massive tax cuts that made America’s economy rebound from the Carter Recession) helped to break the back of Russia and freed Eastern Europe from the yoke of communism. Those are largely different deficits than the gluttony spending deficits Obama Messiah is racking up like a hooker in Singapore.
I knew Ronald Reagan. He’d be as at home today in the GOP as he was in 1968, 1972, and 1976. He loved the Party’s diversity and vibrancy –and those two elements are as strong as ever in the GOP.
21 PracticalGirl // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:28 am
MyMy asks a great question:
“I’m asking this here.What is a moderate Republican?One who votes with Democrats?What is a moderate Democrat?One that votes with Republicans?”
Perhaps a moderate on either side is simply one who is practical enough to represent his/her constituency and fight the issues without being beholden to the extremem demands of Party. Much is made of Snowe and Collins, but they each represent their state’s overall moderate views. That they are not rabidly behind all things right wing with every speech they give-and that some in the party would ditch them- reflects more on the GOP’s inability to understand how regional politics fit into their platform than it does on them.
22 MI-GOPer // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:30 am
AutomaticBSer does the echo chamber game proud with: “he has no other medium of expression unfortunately……when losing make it personal”.
Still quoting verbatim from Saul Alinsky’s book on Community Activism, automaticBSer? Kind of ironic that you should try to write something that is so projective of your best contributions here, no?
TrollTribe and Village Idiot –this site has you pegged, BS boi.
23 Demosthenes // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:32 am
Wow, the Republican Party is becoming more and more like a cult than a political party. As an Independent who scored a “4″, I guess they do not want my vote. Can I get the polling places to rescind my votes for Reagan and Bush in 2000?
24 WillyP // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:32 am
I’m going to quote my own brilliant self-
“Moderate, being one of the most abused words in political journalism, I must confess means nothing of substance to me. It is at time used correctly, to label views that closely cling to the status quo – the only practical way of defining a “middle” when other options exist. (I admit the definition is not perfect, but as a defense, I’d ask the reader to submit a more consistent summary of how the word “moderate” can be used meaningfully in the political sense.) More often, however, it is used to identify what should be called party dissidents: those who buck their party’s current fashion and side with the opposition. To the extent that they do this and align to the closely to the status quo, “moderate” is acceptable verbiage. When, however, the “moderate” is only slightly less radical than the extremist, journalistic dishonestly is manifested through linguistic fraud.”
25 mymy // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:40 am
I still don’t get it.Collins and Snow are praised for breaking with Republican.What about Lincoln and Landreu(sp).They talk about smaller government, less spending and then vote for “Health Reform”.L and L are still praised as being moderates.Just seems the only way you win praise for being a Republican moderate is to vote for more spending.If you are a Dem.moderate all you have to do is talk
26 ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:42 am
mymy // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:19 am
“I’m asking this here.What is a moderate Republican?One who votes with Democrats?What is a moderate Democrat?One that votes with Republicans?”
…….In broad terms yes on certain issues…..cross party voting was common until the early nineties even in the house…….it’s largely disappeared there now and is becoming progressively rarer in the senate……..since the essence of politics in a democratic society is compromise (that’s what distinguishes the democratic political process from totalitarian regimes of left or right) the Republicans are making a major mistake by creating ideological litmus tests but they are not going to be dissuaded even when the evidence is in front of their eyes (eg. NY 23 or Spector’s defection).
“He loved the Party’s diversity and vibrancy –and those two elements are as strong as ever in the GOP.”
………any reports of Republican doctrinal schisms and litmus tests in places like Florida, NY or PA are totally without foundation: OFFICIAL
27 24AheadDotCom // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:43 am
#5 doesn’t say what most people will think it does:
http://24ahead.com/rnc-considers-loony-obama-socialist-resolution-including-dec
McCain and Graham could easily sign on to it, a sure sign that – like other things the RNC has said about this issue – it was designed to deceive.
28 ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:45 am
25 mymy // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:40 am
“Just seems the only way you win praise for being a Republican moderate is to vote for more spending.”
……..you mean like the prescription drug benefit which unlike the current healthcare legislation was totally unfunded and was passed in the house after 3 hours of arm twisting by moderates like Tom DeLay
29 PracticalGirl // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:48 am
MyMy-
Lincoln, Landrieu, Snowe et all haven’t yet voted for anything on health care but to allow a debate. We’ll need to wait and see how they actually vote on a final bill. And I think we’d have to take a look at overall voting patterns for the senators in question to give us a really good sense of why they’re called moderates.
30 ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:48 am
MI-GOPer // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:27 am
” I score RR as a 10. A solid 10.”
……..I’m surprised you didn’t score 15
31 WillyP // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:52 am
For those claiming that this list, whatever it ultimately amounts to, is harmfully exclusionary, I’d be curious to hear which of the 10 items you take issue with….
They’re basically just conservative planks, and watered down ones at that.
32 ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:58 am
……..the current Republican party aren’t remotely interested in compromise although it’s fundamental to the democratic process……they haven’t accepted the outcome of the election and indeed rather more than half of them think the election was stolen by Acorn stuffing about 9 million votes………essentially the party is betraying ever more signs of inherent totalitarianism……personally I have no problem with this for awhile because although it’s totally destructive of the political process it’s also ultimately going to be destructive of the GOP as a national party………at some point of course the light bulb is going to come on and Republicans will revert to big tentism but it’s going to take a long time and by then there will have occurred further massive and generally irreversible shifts in our polity
33 PracticalGirl // Nov 24, 2009 at 12:02 pm
WillyP-
The point of the post is the bastardization of what Ronald Reagan-with the policies and legislation he supported- took issue with. The name of the resolution alone, Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates, is enough to “take issue with”.
The namesake of this screed himself couldn’t pass the “8 out of 10″ required in order to be considered a good conservative. If today’s GOP wants to define itself differently, wants to distinguish itself quite apart from Reagan and distance itself from his work, fine. But putting out a litmus test that doesn’t apply to its namesake was stupid and takes away from anything else it might have been intended to advance.
34 ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 12:03 pm
WillyP // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:52 am
“They’re basically just conservative planks, and watered down ones at that.”
……I somewhat agree they are very loosely worded in some cases but there are some absolutes……..the whole abortion/stem cell and immigration cans of worms for example…….the reality of course is that a the local level they absolutely guarantee the selection of hard right candidates who deny the law of economics for instance……I have no problem with this but it’s going to be a big problem for the GOP
35 WillyP // Nov 24, 2009 at 12:13 pm
otto, you’re a (discredited) keynesian. we established that fact already, and therefore you are absolutely allergic to small government. i’d recommend joining a fascist party, or something. keynes was an admirer himself, as we can see from the introduction to his General Theory, german edition:
“the theory of aggregated production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state [eines totalen Staates] than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire.”
aside from otto’s fetish with deficit spending, #9 is undoubtedly the one that bothers most people here (possibly #8). it states -
“9. Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion:”
Again, I don’t see anything too controversial. Not looking to ban abortion, not looking to illegalize state funding for the disturbing “procedure.” no, i think mr. mak’s whole posting is a red herring for those serious about taking back the party and then the country. as republicans, our goal should be forcing the other side to reconsider their hard leftism, socialism, communism, radicalism… (call it what you like).
36 ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 12:30 pm
WillyP // Nov 24, 2009 at 12:13 pm
“otto, you’re a (discredited) keynesian. we established that fact already, and therefore you are absolutely allergic to small government.’
……oh do stop parading your bizarre ignorance….. as I’ve demonstrated to you several times “we’re all Keynesians now” because it’s the central system of economic thinking that underpins the entire management of the world economy…..it’s why a Republican administration pumped literally trillions of dollars of liquidity into the US economy last year when the financial system was teetering on the edge of collapse
“aside from otto’s fetish with deficit spending”
…….a fetish shared by Republican presidents apparently since as is well known the largest creators of federal deficits since the war were Reagan and Bush
“and therefore you are absolutely allergic to small government. ”
……Only a dweller in fantasy land could believe that a country that had combined federal and state expenditures of around $4.5 trillion at the end of eight years of a conservative administration has any real interest in “small government”……it’s a mirage that exists in the fevered imaginations of the economically illiterate like yourself
37 PracticalGirl // Nov 24, 2009 at 12:30 pm
WillyP-
“Again, I don’t see anything too controversial.” The points themselves aren’t controversial in conservative thought. Nobody disputes that.
Like an unpopular, desperate prom queen candidate who sneaks into the back of a photo op with the cheerleaders, though, the GOP is coopting Reagan’s name in the hopes of regaining some magic and credibility. But no matter how they (or you) spin it, Reagan himself would be unfit for GOP leadership under this test.
You get the irony, right, and the baldfaced attempt of the GOP to wrap itself in the comfort of a popular blanket that they, with this resolution, would reject today?
38 I’m not pure enough : Backseat Blogger v2.0 // Nov 24, 2009 at 12:45 pm
[...] Too bad, so sad(NOT). I’m not pure enough to be a supporter of the American Republican Party. Thank God for small [...]
39 WillyP // Nov 24, 2009 at 12:45 pm
otto,
contained somewhere in between your frenetic ellipses, is:
“as I’ve demonstrated to you several times “we’re all Keynesians now” because it’s the central system of economic thinking that underpins the entire management of the world economy”
experiment: do you have a single in your possession? take it out, and look at the picture of the seal with the pyramid. underneath, you will see the latin words “novus ordo seclorum,” which translates to “new world order.”
contrary to the crazy conspiracy theorists, this “new order” is the order naturally established by liberty. it is against your central planning. i recognize how far off america has come from its original conception, but it is not my intention in politics to quibble over tactics, or argue just how MANY billions to spend ourselves into national debt. my purpose is to preach the american way – that of a free people, unmanaged by an american equivalent of the politbureau.
i’m sorry you don’t share my enthusiasm for genuine freedom. that’s my problem with you.
40 Carney // Nov 24, 2009 at 12:58 pm
I guess I’d fail #5, for OPPOSING legal immigration.
The post 1965 wave of immigration has been our biggest and most different from America yet, representing our biggest and most urgent assimilation challenge. But we’re doing less to Americanize these newcomers than ever before, even inculcating many with a rejection of our history, culture, heroes, and even a right to our own land. In this context, legal immigration needs to be stopped immediately, and our traditional policy of a 20-30 breather after a wave of immigration is more vital than ever. We need time to digest this huge and extremely spicy meal we’ve stuffed ourselves to bursting with.
All that has been true for years, and now that we are in a recession with over 10% nominal unemployment (with the real figure being even higher, especially among groups that compete directly with immigrants for jobs), bringing in more immigrants amounts to catastrophic economic malpractice, even malfeasance against American workers.
41 PracticalGirl // Nov 24, 2009 at 1:17 pm
WillyP-
Great theory, but please learn a little basic Latin before asserting…”Novus Ordo Mundi” would translate to “new world order”. “Novus ordo Seclorum” traslates loosely to “new age (or “century”) order. My 14 year old first year Latin student/son taught me that.
42 WillyP // Nov 24, 2009 at 1:23 pm
As I’ve been denied an education in Latin, it being replaced by the Spanish language in public school curricula, I admit error. Nonetheless, the main point remains the same. It’s much more than a “theory.”
“The Seal has two Latin mottoes, one for the heavenly and one for the earthly part. The mottoes are taken from the great Roman poet Virgil.
The pyramid is labeled novus ordo seclorum, “a new order of the ages.” Thomson’s report explains, “the words under it signify the beginning of the New American Era, which commences from that date [1776].”
The phrase is a variant of a line in Virgil’s fourth Eclogue: “a great order of the ages is born anew”. This Eclogue describes the return of the golden age, an age of peace and plenty. The change of words is significant. America is a “new order,” not just a “great order.” Virgil’s golden age has come before and will come again, but nothing like the American founding has ever happened. No nation has ever grounded itself on a universal principle, discovered by reason, affirmed by God, and shared by all human beings everywhere:
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.30/pub_detail.asp
43 BarryS // Nov 24, 2009 at 1:25 pm
WillyP.
I would be interested, when going back was the last time that you thought that
” the american way – that of a free people, unmanaged by an american equivalent of the politbureau.” was actually in existence?
44 steelyblades // Nov 24, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Not surprisingly, seven out of these ten points contain some version of the word “oppose.” I guess we can clearly see what Republicans want to stand against. Maybe someday they’ll remember what they’re in favor of, besides trying to let the air out of Obama’s tires.
45 ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 1:30 pm
WillyP // Nov 24, 2009 at 12:45 pm
” my purpose is to preach the american way – that of a free people, unmanaged by an american equivalent of the politbureau.”
…….the “American Way” as Bruce Bartlett pointed out in a recent Forbes piece is not very different from the “European Way” and where it differs it’s usually less effective most notably in managing healthcare……your American Way like your Small Government is a mirage I’m afraid
” i’d recommend joining a fascist party, or something. keynes was an admirer himself, as we can see from the introduction to his General Theory, german edition:”
…….And btw Churchill was on record praising both Mussolini and Hitler….did this make him a fascist?…..the inability to perceive context and complexity implied by your rather facile comment suggests your immaturity is not limited to just the economic aspect of human affairs
46 WillyP // Nov 24, 2009 at 1:43 pm
For a so-called “new” majority, to use the outmoded term, it is very apologetic of the status quo.
I guess I frankly do not understand what the point of this website is. I see a lot of carping, complaining, ankle biting, derision, interest in short term practical politics over long term strategy and governing principles, and smart alecks. I see little thought, less vision, and no inspiration. I find it amusing, from an antagonistic point of view, that all (I use that term loosely) these moderates can never paint with bold colors. A trim here, a stitch there, and a pet idea everywhere: “Republicans” should be RINOs, and we can get back to winning elections.
Mark Levin makes a much better leader than Mr. Frum.
47 WillyP // Nov 24, 2009 at 1:47 pm
BarryS ,
If you’re going to force me to call a time period, the New Deal marked the distinct end to American liberalism.
48 BarryS // Nov 24, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Thank you for your answer WillyP.
Just to get things right in my own mind. I am certain they are very clear in yours. Can you tell me exactly which freedoms have been lost since the new deal? If you can give me a list I would appreciate it.
49 ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 2:00 pm
47 WillyP // Nov 24, 2009 at 1:47 pm
“BarryS ,
If you’re going to force me to call a time period, the New Deal marked the distinct end to American liberalism.”
…….So we yearn for a return to the twenties…… leaving aside how generally beneficial was the era of freedom based prohibition, wealth concentration, racial segregation, isolationism and stock market bubbles ….. it’s now 2009……the clocks are never, as in never, going to be reversed…….the tooth paste is out of the tube and your attempts to put it back in are coating you in whites sticky stuff that makes you look slightly ridiculous
50 DFL // Nov 24, 2009 at 2:00 pm
The problem I have with Mark Levin is that he argues that conservatism is some abstract about liberty rather a historic, organic cultural achievement of over three centuries. It is almost as if Mr. Levin is a foreigner in his own country. Maybe that’s why he does his radio show from an underground bunker in a non-descript building in an undisclosed location.
51 WillyP // Nov 24, 2009 at 2:01 pm
BarryS,
No, I can’t. It’s not that a list couldn’t exist, but the work required to list the Federal restrictions that have appeared since the New Deal is the work required of a scholarly tome. Simply put, it changed the relationship between citizen and Federal government. It also neutered the State governments to a large extent. If you are actually curious and not just looking to bother me, I would recommend starting here:
http://mises.org/books/pottage.pdf
“The Revolution Was” should pique your interest.
52 WillyP // Nov 24, 2009 at 2:03 pm
ottovbvs,
“the tooth paste is out of the tube and your attempts to put it back in are coating you in whites sticky stuff that makes you look slightly ridiculous”
Then there’s nothing left fighting for. Might as well give up now and stop wasting your time, bud.
53 Carney // Nov 24, 2009 at 2:07 pm
WillyP, said, “Mark Levin makes a much better leader than Mr. Frum.”
Mark Levin? Really? Snarling juvenile insults (such as “Her Thighness” for Hillary Clinton) in his whiny voice day after day, not as a momentary lapse but a deliberate ongoing policy? Who shouts down and directly insults callers with names and taunts? And who then turns around and adopts a high-falutin’ tone as a lofty principled constitutional scholar, so much smarter than anyone else? Would you really bring a mushy, middle of the road type, or your mother / grandmother, to the radio and trust a random moment from Mark Levin to persuade her and enlighten her as to what conservatism is all about? I for one couldn’t trust him not to embarrass me and what I stand for with his nasal tirades. It would be one thing if he were a teenager or college student (especially with the horrible heavy metal bumber music), but he’s middle-aged. He has no excuse and is a very poor leader and spokesman for our cause.
Frum isn’t always right but at least he’s THINKING and trying to PLAN instead of just raging at pet hates. Banzai charges against a cool calm collected enemy don’t work; ask the Japanese, who were brim-full of blind enthusiasm, or the French, who bled themselves white with “elan” in Word War I.
Yes, we can’t be totally cerebral, but in the late 70s the RIGHT wast the movement with interesting new fresh ideas. We rejected Goldwater and Taft’s tax-hiking balanced budget above all conservatism. We rejected Kissinger’s realpolitik and accomodationism with the USSR and decided to pressure the whole Red empire. We embraced free trade and welfare reform and tried new ideas like block grants.
What new do we have now? The late 70s are as far in the past as the 50s were for Kemp and Reagan and James Q. Wilson.
I for one suggest two new ideas – switching from enemy-funding oil to alcohol fuel, and reviving the American frontier spirit of exploration with a robust program of Mars exploration and settlement (which can fit in NASA current less than 1% of the total budget).
54 ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 2:07 pm
WillyP // Nov 24, 2009 at 2:01 pm
“and not just looking to bother me,”
……how unreasonable that anyone should bother you by actually asking you to back up your weird assertions……and if the state govt’s hadn’t been neutered (ie. financially rescued) we’d still have those good old Jim Crow laws an lots of other enlightened stuff around
55 BarryS // Nov 24, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Thank you WilleyP.
I am genuinely interested in your view. It’s a pity that you can’t list just a very few real freedoms that have been lost. I am sure that you know because yo are so certain in placing the idea out there.
My intent is not to “bother you” I am sure me asking you to give me a few examples of these lost freedoms is not a bother. You have obviously thought and read deeply on the subject.
So , please give me some of the lost freedoms. Real things not just generalizations. I have a genuine reason for asking.
56 BarryS // Nov 24, 2009 at 2:14 pm
My apologies Willy, I snuck an extra e in your name, old fingers I guess
57 ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 2:17 pm
WillyP // Nov 24, 2009 at 2:03 pm
…….Willy for a young man you are surprisingly Canute like (and I say that without malice)……you may not believe it but in matters personal and financial I’m a very conservative and traditionalist guy but asked to weigh what has been surrendered in largely notional individual “rights” against the huge social and material advances brought about over the 75 years by social and economic liberalism it’s a no brainer…….and that’s forgetting that the economic and social conditions that existed in your 20’s golden age were largely the consequence of progressive and liberal economic and social policies implemented over the preceding 150 years
58 WillyP // Nov 24, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Carney,
I do not mind that an experienced, seasoned, intelligent and articulate conservative activist calls the opposition names. Frankly, that’s life, and especially political life. That it serves to embarrass and humble them is good in my book.
BarryS,
Consider that before WW1, the only interaction a citizen had with the Fed gov’t was through the post office. Now it seizes a huge amount of private citizens wealth, redistributes it along political lines (like governments do), and claims moral superiority. If you’re interested in specific restrictions on personal freedoms, why don’t you inventory the alphabet soup of our Federal bureaucracies, and try listing the volumes of regulations that amount to legislation. Take the FDA: they ban drugs until companies pay for a testing procedure EVEN IF THOSE DRUGS have been approved in and used in Europe for many years. The New Deal was not a set of rights restrictions in the negative sense, but a positive intrusion into the personal sphere of the individual and society. There is a real, tangible difference in a people that believes in its own power, rather than the power of some amorphous overlord class. Was our freedom of speech attacked as it was under Wilson? No – but our entire economy was taken over in a way not unlike Germany’s was under Hitler. Is this too general? The reasons for generality is because, like I said, I am not a scholar and have not researched the historical record myself. But I understand how central control works, and I also understand how a system of private property works, and I can tell you – there’s a reason why older people call the American dime, with Roosevelt’s picture on it, the “Destroyer Dime.”
http://mises.org/books/vampireeconomy.pdf
otto,
I think Canute is one of the more admirable figures in political history. He knew his boundaries, and saw the value in demonstrating in an irrefutable way that he was no more God than his subjects.
I am not forgetting the progressive era; I merely did not mention it. I do not think it is my responsibility to, nor do I have the time to properly, write exegeses on American intellectual history.
59 Stewardship // Nov 24, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Gosh, too many self-defined conservatives like those proponents of this litmus test are completely ignorant of what conservatism means (as defined by Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan). For example, Reagan’s administration is the one that came up with cap and trade as the most market friendly (ie-not the typical big government command and control process) way to deal with acid rain and global warming (yes, his administration became aware of the looming problem at the end of his eight years). The Reagan staff member, Boyden Gray, who shepherded the plan stayed on with President Geo. H.W. Bush. He signed the Clean Air Act of 1990 and made cap and trade the law of the land. It worked incredibly well to curb acid rain, and is credited with saving Americans upwards of $122 billion a year in health, economic, and other costs (while costing just $3 billion on the utility side).
Cap and trade, as Reagan and Bush I envisioned, removed government from the equation. It gave the market free rein on how to innovate, how to cut emissions, and how to profit from the process. American ingenuity met the cap goals in a fraction of the expected time, at a fraction of the expected cost.
This litmus test would essentially eliminate any meaningful input from Republicans in Congress (everyone there would have pledged to vote “no” on cap and trade), and we’d be left holding the baggage of command, control, regulations, and pork barrell favors doled out by the only party left at the table…the Democrats.
60 BarryS // Nov 24, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Willey P,
Thank you for your respectful answer. It has been nice discovering your reasoning. All I can say is that you have not given me one real tangible freedom that was in the founding documents that has been lost.
You have a basic belief that any government is too much government. That used to be called Anarchy.
How do you propose this great individualistic society be directed as a nation? How do you organize the defense of the realm if there is no realm? How do you provide common benefits that are way too expensive for the individual to provide for himself?
I guess the sort of society that you pine for could have been possible in the 1800’s. Unfortunately in a modern society it is just a pipe dream. I would ask you to name one civilized country on earth that operates on the principles that you espouse.
The USA is a young nation. Look around the world at nations that have been in existence for millennia. Do you see any nations that consist only of isolated ungoverned individuals? Even the savages had a tribal council. Even the tribes of the Amazon had a head man and his wise advisors. here is a reason that societies develop in this way, it works.
It’s been great discussing this with you in a respectful way. Thank you.
61 WillyP // Nov 24, 2009 at 3:21 pm
BarryS,
What part of politbureau don’t you understand? They expressly exist to limit freedoms; put another way, they issue dictates – specific directions that must be followed OR ELSE. Would you rather have a government say “You cannot speak of Subject X!” or “You must ONLY speak of Subject Y!” I think you’d agree that both constitute an assault on freedom. And this is exactly what central control does.
For me to list the restrictions inherent in all the New Deal would simply be the inverse of what its bureaus decreed.
You’re what I would call a pseudo-liberal, neo-Hegelian. Society evolves ever more into a freer state of being. It’s complete hogwash, of course, but that’s the mentality.
“How do you propose this great individualistic society be directed as a nation? ”
All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
-Benito Mussolini
Excuse me? “Directing” society? What are we being directed towards, sir? Why do we need a council deciding what is to be “goal” of the country? Are free people not up to the task? Can they not self organize? Or is it that they require an external stimulus, such as a cattle prod, to do what an arbitrary elected official (or more likely, unelected bureaucrat) decide?
Yes, a New Order of the Ages – not the same retrodden ground of tyranny cloaked in one form or another.
-WillyP (no E)
62 BarryS // Nov 24, 2009 at 3:37 pm
WillyP.
“Can they not self organize?”
Um yes they can self organize. They could look around the group of individuals for someone wise to lead them (A king) Or they could form a group of wise people to be elected by popular vote (A council) Or they could all meet together and vote on each and every decision that was to be made with the majority winning the day ( A true Democracy).
The problem with the ideal third way is that as a society grows there is not enough space for all the people to meet together and discuss the way they wish the town, county, state, country to go. Plus there would be little time left to actually do anything else.
Thats why we have a form of representative government both at the State and Country level. If it works as it should the representative takes the views of his constituents and speak and votes on their behalf.
Sounds fine in theory. However it falls down in a number of ways, firstly representatives stop actually being of the people and become of themselves. They then take the dollar of the interest groups either in industry or pressure groups and soon you have nothing like a representative government. Then the Party system forces a “group” ideology on the representatives and the local people loose out again.
I agree with you more power to the States would be good. However that in my opinion would just result in more cronyism if that were possible at the local level.
To clean up the system and get closer to the sort of Government that founders envisaged we need to do two things.
(1) Term limits for Congress 5 year terms no second dibbs. Both houses
(2) We need to take ALL money out of campaign finance that is not donated by individuals. Maximum donation $10. Or just a flat tax generated amount to each party on an annual basis (tightly controlled)
Same to go with State Governments.
63 WillyP // Nov 24, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Cutting through all that, some of which I agree with (term limits and more local government), the simple way of preventing the abuse of legal power is NOT TO GRANT THE POWER IN THE FIRST PLACE.
The power exercised in the New Deal was usurped, was extra-Constitutional. A corporation has no legal power unless the government it operates under is corrupt.
It’s clear you don’t understand how a free market works to self organize without the use of political votes or laws. Money serves to direct order and resources, not the force of law. It is a voluntary system, flexible, adaptable, and (in the true sense of the word) PROGRESSIVE.
I am not an anarchist. I am very far from an anarchist, in fact. Federally speaking, I am a Constitutionalist. I believe the Federal government should be doing relatively very little! I believe in the right for local governments to censor what they wish, assuming that the censorship is not impinging on free political speech. Hell, I even recognize that at one time States were able to establish official Churches! I would not recommend such a course, but ultimately they have the legal right (whether that would hold up in court, I have serious doubts). In short, I believe that at the top, the government should do very little else but protect us and our private property rights and serve as our ambassadors to foreign nations.
I have no idea what your ideal of governance is, except for the few very vague notions you put forth when you decide they’re worth sharing.
64 BarryS // Nov 24, 2009 at 3:53 pm
As to your other points. I don’t see any real change in first amendment rights, please specify where your rights to speak freely have been denied.
Are you seriously holding Mussolini’s Fascist state up as an example of what you wish for the USA?
I don’t think I am a pseudo anything. I try to be a practical person. You have not met me and I really don’t see how you can form an opinion based on a few paragraphs on an anonymous blog!
Thank you for your time.
65 ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 4:58 pm
58 WillyP // Nov 24, 2009 at 2:49 pm
“BarryS,
Consider that before WW1, the only interaction a citizen had with the Fed gov’t was through the post office. Now it seizes a huge amount of private citizens wealth, redistributes it along political lines (like governments do), and claims moral superiority.”
…..ah so his real ideal society is the gilded age when wealth was even more concentrated than now; women knew their place and could not vote; blacks were effectively disenfranchised; Frick could call in the Pinkerton men to break strikes; they lived in dire poverty and slept six to a bed in the bowery; there was no shortage of servants; the air of Pittsburgh was permanently one huge black cloud; run off from the stockyards in Chicago contaminated the water supply; the financial activities of people like Harriman and Hill were completely unregulated so they could swindle at will; congress was entirely in the pocket of big business; college education was largely the prerogative of the wealthy…….as against this men at least dressed properly and wore silk hats and tailcoats……..amazing the pockets of lunacy that lurk in today’s Republican party isn’t it.
66 sinz54 // Nov 24, 2009 at 5:28 pm
This list of ten points is too short.
Let’s add some more litmus tests:
11. Every spermatozoan has a Constitutional right to life.
12. [from a 1979 book] Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech; but “speech” shall be defined as sounds that come out of the people’s mouths or, if provoked, out of their guns.
13. We’re fighting the Klingons in the Mutara Sector so we don’t have to fight them here at home.
67 WillyP // Nov 24, 2009 at 5:36 pm
“Are you seriously holding Mussolini’s Fascist state up as an example of what you wish for the USA?”
No, I was illustrating another person who decided it’s better to DIRECT society.
“As to your other points. I don’t see any real change in first amendment rights, please specify where your rights to speak freely have been denied.”
Bad example… better example – “You must sell your corn at $20/bushel.” I want to sell it at $15. This is a violation of freedom.
“ah so his real ideal society is the gilded age when wealth was even more concentrated than now…” blah blah blah
This is such an unfair and ridiculous assertion I won’t bother responding.
68 sinz54 // Nov 24, 2009 at 5:37 pm
WillyP:
That’s not entirely true (though there wasn’t the big welfare state apparatus then).
Perhaps citizens were unaware of it, but they were settling lands in the West that were negotiated with (or captured from) American Indians by the Federal Government. The transcontinental railroad was built with land grants and Federal bonds. The Homestead Act just gave away vast tracts of land (10% of all the land in CONUS) to settlers for a pittance. Even freed slaves qualified. All they had to do was file an application; get the land; improve it; and get title.
So we had a mixed economy even in the 19th century. However, the actions of the Federal Government back then were geared toward growing the economy and growing the nation, not to redistribution of existing wealth as happened in the 20th century.
69 sinz54 // Nov 24, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Stewardship:
A Gallup poll showed that some 60% of Republicans do not believe that global warming is really happening. Hence they’re opposed to any measures that might cope with it, regarding them all as a scam and a hoax.
I don’t know where they got that idea from. It certainly didn’t come from Reagan, or Gingrich, or any of the Bush family.
But the choice of Al Gore to be the spokesperson for this issue cemented the idea in their heads. Gore, a reminder to them of the disastrous 2000 Florida recount, couldn’t be a worse spokesperson if the intent was to try to get any Republicans on board.
70 WillyP // Nov 24, 2009 at 5:46 pm
otto, not only are you a Keynesian, but truly a modern “liberal” – in your attitude, in your assumptions, in your dishonest and slighting rebuttals.
At least the Royalists were frank about their intentions. You’re a phantom menace.
71 ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 5:51 pm
sinz54 // Nov 24, 2009 at 5:37 pm
“Perhaps citizens were unaware of it,’
……..Not only was much of the intercontinental railway system built with honest graft from the federal or state govt, so was much of inner city mass transit (Chicago was notorious) and other utilities like water, paving, gas, street lighting…..combine this with stock market swindles which were rampant and that was how much of the US infrastructure and industry was built………Willy was unfortunately born yesterday……He needs to familiarize himself with a few names like Thomas Scott, Yerkes, Armour, Huntingdon, Chandler, Drew, Hearst, Cooke, Vanderbilt, Gould, Carnegie, Frick, Pullman……unfortunately he’s in thrall to all sorts of myths
72 ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 5:58 pm
WillyP // Nov 24, 2009 at 5:46 pm
“At least the Royalists were frank about their intentions. You’re a phantom menace.”
…….Since above you accused me of being a self confessed Keynesian how could I be a phantom menace?…….but then intellectual coherence isn’t exactly your trademark
…..And you couldn’t be more wrong about the royalists…..shell companies…….phony contracts…….economic blackmail (how much are you willing to pay us to bring the rails to yerrrr purtty little town)…….secret rebates…..watered stock……..phony bonds….etc etc were all standard operating procedure…..but then facts aren’t exactly your strong point either
73 ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 6:03 pm
sinz54 // Nov 24, 2009 at 5:41 pm
” I don’t know where they got that idea from. It certainly didn’t come from Reagan, or Gingrich, or any of the Bush family.”
……the energy companies?…… both Bushes and the vp Cheney used to work for them……..Bush JR and Cheney have regularly denied it…..not Bush snr as far as I know but he’s much more subtle anyway……global warming denial is an article of faith in the GOP
74 ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 6:07 pm
“ah so his real ideal society is the gilded age when wealth was even more concentrated than now…” blah blah blah
This is such an unfair and ridiculous assertion I won’t bother responding.’
……of course you never do respond other than with airy generalisations which usually reveal a startling low level of knowledge of US economic history and basic economic reality…..never mind I’ve got used to it
75 sinz54 // Nov 24, 2009 at 7:06 pm
WillyP:
I’m sure you are a strong believer in free trade among nations. But free trade among nations requires peaceful transport of goods and passengers. In the 19th century, this was made possible by the actions of the British and American navies, which swept piracy off the high seas (and also did away with their state sponsors like Tripoli).
This is similar to what the U.S. Navy does now in the Persian Gulf. In 1987, Reagan authorized the U.S. Navy to escort supertankers through the Persian Gulf. The fact that all nations, even little Liberia, can send their oil tankers through one of the most volatile areas on earth without fear has helped keep oil (and gasoline) prices low.
Free trade is great in principle. But in practice, it requires the use of government force to keep the sea lanes open. (And more recently, to keep airlines safe from terrorism.) Freedom of the seas has been a joint project of Western governments.
In the 19th century, the British navy had that role. Since World War II, the U.S. picked up where the Brits left off.
76 ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 7:33 pm
sinz54 // Nov 24, 2009 at 7:06 pm
“In the 19th century, this was made possible by the actions of the British and American navies, which swept piracy off the high seas (and also did away with their state sponsors like Tripoli).’
……Actually Sinz the British and French govts made a deal with the Tripoli pirates which is why they turned their attention to American merchant ships……The British had an immense navy and the tripoli pirates weren’t going to go head to head with them……by 1805 the only navy in the world that mattered was the Royal Navy……after 1815 they could have snuffed out the US if they’d wanted to but London had too many financial interests here to make it worthwhile…..in fact the Monroe doctrine rested on British seapower
77 Reason60 // Nov 24, 2009 at 9:01 pm
I haven’t made it through all the comments yet: I am still in the thick of the “so’s yer mama” parts…
But the list is why I left the party in the 90’s. Namely, Items #1 and 6 are at war with each other.
#1 calls for a limited government.
Great.
#6 calls for additional troops in Afghanistan. I will go out on a limb and assume it also means continuation of Iraq, and Pakistan as well. Meaning a very large, nay, massive defense appropriations. This year alone, Defnse/ Homeland Security sucks up 1/3 of our entire budget; 2/3 of the discretionary budget.
So how do we get a “limited” government that has a massive military and nearly unlimited Security State?
And why has a balanced budget disappeared from the GOP platform?
78 WillyP // Nov 25, 2009 at 8:47 am
sinz says
“Free trade is great in principle. But in practice, it requires the use of government force to keep the sea lanes open.”
When did I ever say something against America maintaining strong armed forces? This is kind of out of left field to me.
79 WillyP // Nov 25, 2009 at 8:53 am
said otto,
“Willy was unfortunately born yesterday”
Born yesterday or not, I’m old enough to know when I’m dealing with a dishonest troll; a consummate liberal masquerading on an allegedly conservative website.
80 CentristNYer // Nov 25, 2009 at 9:48 am
sinz54 // Nov 24, 2009 at 5:41 pm
” I don’t know where they got that idea from. It certainly didn’t come from Reagan, or Gingrich, or any of the Bush family.”
I think your point about Gore as the global warming “spokesperson” and why that’s the reason Republicans resist the idea is an interesting one. I’m certain that any cause Cheney got behind — no matter how benign — would be dismissed as unworthy by most Democrats.
Still, I think your statement about how the Bushes didn’t encourage skepticism of climate change is disingenuous. Bush II dragged his feet on any exploration of the topic and — as he did with creation “science” — only spoke of teaching the “debate,” lending credibility to the lie that there was rampant doubt within the scientific community.
81 MI-GOPer // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:19 am
BarryS, the newest troll from the TrollTribe writes: “Thank you WilleyP. I am genuinely interested in your view. It’s a pity that you can’t list just a very few real freedoms that have been lost. I am sure that you know because yo are so certain in placing the idea out there. My intent is not to “bother you” I am sure me asking you to give me a few examples of these lost freedoms is not a bother. You have obviously thought and read deeply on the subject. So , please give me some of the lost freedoms. Real things not just generalizations. I have a genuine reason for asking.”
Wow, the grammar and syntax sound remarkedly like our old trolling friend balconesfault or BlankHead… any chance we can pull the white hood off the new BarryS?
Of course not; the first rule of trolling on a conservative/GOP blog for the trolls is to lie, distract, dissuade, disrupt, annoy, irritate and inflame. We can’t get “truth” from the trolls –it’s not in their rule book.
82 sinz54 // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:35 am
Reason60:
This is your favorite hobbyhorse,
so let me repeat my earlier arguments.
During the Cold War, the U.S. spent far more, both in real dollars and as a percentage of GDP, on national defense than we are spending now. As I recall, during the JFK administration, 12% of our GDP went for national defense. If we did that now, the Pentagon would have a budget of $1.44 trillion.
Why did we do that? After World War II, the U.S. disarmed, relying on nuclear weapons to keep the peace. That proved disastrous, as the USSR started subverting Western nations everywhere and the U.S. couldn’t just nuke them all. So we rearmed.
Today, the U.S. military budget is only about 4% of U.S. GDP. That’s an entirely sustainable percentage, only 1% more than our NATO allies spent from their budgets during the Cold War.
The decision to fight in Afghanistan after 9-11 was forced. No President could look past the mass murder of nearly 3,000 Americans with just a token response like a few cruise missiles or something.
The decision to fight in Iraq was in error, a mistake due to a false strategic perception that Saddam was a major terrorist threat to America.
We had HOPED that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would be temporary. But as long as you’re at war, you’re chewing up military equipment at a very high rate. Our F-15 fighters have started to crash due to stress and old age. Our combat vehicles have taken a lot of abuse in the sands of Iraq. All that equipment has to be replaced–at a high cost.
Does that answer your question already?
You can stop ranting about “security states”. Any nation that spends only 4% of its GDP on defense is not a “security state.” We spend far more than that on Social Security and Medicare. Maybe you should call America a “senior citizen state.”
83 sinz54 // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:39 am
CentristNYer:
But what I’ve heard from the GOP base goes much further than skepticism.
On Redstate.com and Townhall.com, the GOP base clearly regards anthropogenic global warming as a “scam” created by liberals and anti-American foreign scientists to cripple America. They don’t just regard global warming as false; they regard it as a left-wing plot against America.
Now where did THAT come from?
Bush 43 never even hinted at anything like that.
It sounds like the kind of thing you might here on a talk show, or maybe on one of the new Howard Beale wannabes on cable news.
84 CentristNYer // Nov 25, 2009 at 12:01 pm
sinz54 // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:39 am
“But what I’ve heard from the GOP base goes much further than skepticism.”
I don’t disagree, but our former oilman/president gave the fanatics cover by opening the door to the idea that the scientific community was still widely debating the issue, which it is not. He lets the hardcore Global Warming deniers shout down the science via FauxNews, talk radio and the blogs, and then he has clean hands.
85 WillyP // Nov 25, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Does anybody else feel that if the planet were in imminent danger, and the consensus were SO convinced, we would not spend decades mired in inert debate?
It’s clearly a scam, and the data supports it. I guarantee nothing will pass, and if something does, will be ineffective at curbing emissions. Until people actually believe there is anthropogenic global warming, which they’ll do when they can sense it, feel it, pay the cost of its consequences, there will continue to be little political will.
Even the countries that passed that utterly ridiculous Kyoto Protocol could not keep to the targets, and the governments didn’t bother enforcing. It’s funny – the U.S. cut emission growth, as a percentage, more than Canada. They signed the protocol; we did not.
86 race42008.com » Blog Archive » What I Want For Christmas: A Moratorium on Ronald Reagan References // Nov 27, 2009 at 9:47 am
[...] Jeb Bush put it well when he said that we need to move beyond Reagan. It’s not that Ronald Reagan wasn’t a wonderful president, and it’s not that he doesn’t provide us with a lot of timeless wisdom about how to win. It’s that we’re not living in the 1980’s, we don’t face the problem of the 1980’s, and moreover, the Reagan that we all are discussing is really not the Reagan that existed. If we’re going to talk about him, let’s also talk about the man who authorized the selling of arms to the ayatollahs, ran up deficits, granted amnesty to illegal immigrants, and withdrew from Lebanon prematurely. He wasn’t a god, and on the wrong day he may not have passed the purity test. [...]
87 sinz54 // Nov 27, 2009 at 7:45 pm
WillyP:
No.
The debate was over in the 1960s. When I was a kid, I read articles by Isaac Asimov that predicted global warming from CO2.
The problem is that all too often, we engineers and scientists don’t get the last word.
We lost Space Shuttle Challenger and Space Shuttle Columbia, because while engineers knew there were serious engineering flaws, non-engineers had other plans.
Ever read the sci-fi novel “When Worlds Collide”? Or see the movie?
In it, a bunch of astronomers discover through their telescopes a planet that’s on a direct collision course with Earth. They announce that our world will end, and that we must build spaceships to evacuate as many people from Earth as possible.
Does anyone pay attention? No. Instead, the astronomers are ridiculed as alarmists and crackpots.
Because politicians considered it an attack on their authority.
Businessmen considered it bad for business.
Investors didn’t like how the announcement dragged down the stock market.
Folks don’t start to pay attention until the planet can be seen with the naked eye in the night sky, getting larger and larger as it races toward Earth.
That’s when the panic starts for real.
88 WillyP // Nov 30, 2009 at 10:12 am
sinz, for someone sounding an alarm bell without any immediate perception…
you might take a cue a wonder what inflating our money supply recklessly is going to do to our dollar. unlike this, i maintain, preposterous global warming/climate change/whatever makes for a good sounding name for the ignorant public, we have several precedents for monetary crack-ups. and we show every sign of ignorance and hubris in thinking we’re so very different!
You must log in to post a comment.