No, I'm sorry, NOW its dead
Standing in Jackson Square last night Bush signaled the rebirth of New Orleans, and the death of Goldwater/Reagan conservatism. Key quote: "It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces -- the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice." So here's the President saying that we need to get used to more Federal authority, and as an added bonus here comes the military. So the "war on drugs" required that we give up the 4th Amendment, the "war on terror" requires that we allow the government unfettered access to our lives, and confiscate toe-nail clippers from air travelers, and the "war on natural disasters" requires that the Federal Government take an even larger role in local issues, and that it brings the military with it. The Founding Father's would be so proud. How do Reaganites stick with this guy? Hurricanes Camille, Andrew, and Charlie didn't require that the feds take over everything, nor did the San Francisco earthquake, the Chicago fire, the LA riots, or the last time my car didn't start. Not only that but the fix is "hey free money everyone." No Democrat could get away with this, why the long leash for Bush? No cap on spending? Well you can trust Congress to be frugal. But, just in case you're a cynic check here, and here. There is an argument, made famously by Cheney, that deficits don't matter. Now, I totally disagree. But for those that don't, just look at it this way. The deficit is the measure of government intrusion in our lives. That money's going somewhere and the first "here" link shows the programs. If you're at all a small government type, then rising spending should bother you because it signals a larger government. Its sad, but Reagan was betrayed by his own party.
Posts
3 comments:
The eloquent UBlo makes a case that cannot be refuted. Bush and the GOP are anything but small government conservatives. But my question is, "Where do you expect the Reagan Republicans to go?" The only "almost" option would be they could take over the Libertarian party and try to grow up its foreign policy. Or do you propose a new party? I don't see a viable option. Just as many democrats are stuck with an extremist peacenik party that they are at odds with the true conservatives are stuck with todays "compassionate conservatives".
This is an interesting question. (I will let the "peacenik" comment go because 1, the patriot act, Afganistan, and Iraq all recieved overwhelming support form the Dems and 2, Yes it's horrible to want peace, oh the shame). But here's what I wrestle with. The Dems have big flaws, as does the GOP, so to dismiss the Libertairians for their flaw is short-sighted (I'm talking about my own analysis here). So is the best thing to make the jump to the Libertarians and accept that the foreign policy issue will resolve itself (its just impractical, and any elected official would have to get that)? Since on almost all other issues they're my party, I've seriously concidered making the change. But the last time, I kid you not, I was thinking about it, I saw an interview with the head of the NY Libertarian party. There he was in his home office with a bookshelf full of superhero action-figures behind him. It was then that I thought to myself, "if they don't take themselves seriously, how can I?" To make matters worse, when there was a follow-up story months later, he was still the head of NY, and he still had the dolls. Why wasn't he canned? Why didn't someone make him take those figures down? Libertarian Party, great ideas, lousy execution. So what should the Reagan Republican's do? The gutsy move is to take back the party and not support the new GOP. I don't even think this would cost them an election cycle. It would pull folks like me in immediately, and the message resonates with lots of other folks. It would cost the party the social concervatives, but that's the risk to take to get the party back. Its basically the same dance Clinton and the DLC made. And the Dems won their only Presidential election in a 20 year span. With all the gerrymanderding its even easier to change. Just vote for the small goernment Republican in the primary, and he'll probably win in the general election (congressionally). The alternative is to keep enabling the shift away from traditional GOP values by sticking with the new GOP no matter what. This leaves with country with two big goverment parties. Isn't that great? Nothing would bring the GOP around like losing the House or Senate. Only then would they realize they abandoned their beliefs.
On a second note, I do believe the US needs more political parties. I've felt this way for a while, and I feel it strongly.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Superman for president.
The Libertarians are not a serious party at this point. But the Dems and Repubs are so flawed that they are only barely serious. I agree that the Reagan conservatives in both parties are too quiet. In fact, they are to blame for the slides. But enough agreeing...where does that get anyone?
What is this view that social conservatives are not Reagan conservatives? Reagan was the ultimate social conservative. He defined what one is. The block Republicans that are moving the party in the wrong definition are what Rush calls the country club Republicans. They want to go to cocktail parties with elites and not be on the defensive. They are the compassionate conservatives. They want to be seen as caring about the "little guy" just like the Dems do. They like good press and they know that federal spending on "helping people" is good press. They want to call government bad only because they think its power is wielded by the wrong people. And the worst of them have the same fascist instincts as the worst of the left.
Post a Comment