|
Why Are Most Repubs Apologists As Opposed to Conservatives? Do Principles Matter?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
This is not intended as a post inciting a flame war. But as an old school conservative I have been noticing a disturbing trend among the Republican party over the past few years that I would like to finally address head on.
It seems that people are less and less inclined to adhere to principled beliefs as they are to toe whatever line that their party advocates (if you want to raise this same issue among liberals do so in another thread ... since I'm conservative please keep things on topic). I can raise example after example after example. We have the abandonment of fiscal conservatism (no child left behind, prescription drug benefit, deficit spending in support of hurricane releif/nation building, etc.), we have infringements upon the constitution (detention of US citizens without charge), we have the biggest growth in governemnt in terms of discretionary and non-discretionary spending, we have superfluous and wasteful beurocracy in our federal programs as outlined by crises such as Katrina (to which maximum effort is taken by Republicans to divert criticism rather than recognize bloated beuarocracy which should be self-evident to EVERYBODY in the private sector where you're actually ... you know accountable for your inadequacies). Then you have the erosion of state's rights and the massive expansion of federalism across a multitude of issues. I'll never forget the Supreme court's ruling against California's medicinal marijuana law in favor of federal jurisdiction under interstate commerce. Of course my opinion against the feds was challenged by a "conservative" to which I quoted Clarence Thomas's entire dissent in response. Naturally I received no rebuttal because Thomas didn't just toe the party line but relied upone principle for his argument.
So my question is thus: Where is the principle behind the Republican party? If principles have changed since the 90's why have they changed? Were republicans simply closet democrats on so many issues in the past? Why am I the only conservative that really bitches about this administration for all the issues I've outlined above? Why am I the only conservative that feels betrayed? Why am I the only one that feels like I'm throwing my money away by supporting the incompetance of this federal governemnt???
If you are conservative, what conservative principles do you subscribe to? If you tailor make your "principles" to whatever the Bush administration currently subscribes to, why does that supercede traditional conservative principle?
As an aside, now that that twit Delay is finally gone, the republicans are finally starting to look Republican again:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5101601055.html |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
*tumbleweed rolls by*
 |
|
|
| Yoepus |
I don't think most Repubs apologize for this.
They are pissed off as much as you or the next guy about many of these issues and some others.
I know that government incompetence and enlargement of government spending is ridicilious and I don't mean to defend it. I don't think even think major increased defense spending is necessary.
However detention of US citizens caught actively fighting in a foreign force against US troops doesn't really bother me that much, and I can "apologize" for any transgression this might cause as it is inline with my stronger conservative principle that is the (sole/prime) duty of government to defned its citizens.
Sum it up my conservative priciples:
Hawkish, strong military.
Limited Government programs, particularly social spending
(infastructure and research spending don't bother me as much).
Low taxes.
Federal system (stronger states rights to balance the federal government). |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
However detention of US citizens caught actively fighting in a foreign force against US troops doesn't really bother me that much, and I can "apologize" for any transgression this might cause as it is inline with my stronger conservative principle that is the (sole/prime) duty of government to defned its citizens. |
So holding your own citizens (well, imo there is no difference between your own citizens and others but anyway) without a trial, are no problems according to you? :wtf:
Anyway, interesting post occrider, and I really agree with you. The Bush admin PR machine has been really successful I guess... |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Great post, and you hit upon the answer - Tom Delay. This Republican machine built up has taken decades to create, and in my view it abandoned the real debate between liberals and conservatives on how to successfully address issues of importance. Perhaps now we will hopefully see an actual debate of ideas without squelching, silencing, or intimidating any and all dissenters.
I liken the moderate, sensable Republicans to the current Dems. - both have lost their backbones in the fight. I've always believed the best form of government is a well-balanced one. As much as I'd love to see a Democratic lean in all 3 branches of government, I truly believe the best means of governing is a good debate and balance of power between the 2 primary parties. Keeping both sides in check, learning how to compromise, it's just like a successful marriage really. And it's the best way in my mind to run a country.
Here's to hopin' for '06. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
So holding your own citizens (well, imo there is no difference between your own citizens and others but anyway) without a trial, are no problems according to you? :wtf: |
Err yes, can't you read? :conf: :p
As long as they are fighting against the USA and caught on the battlefield or in the act. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Err yes, can't you read? :conf: :p
As long as they are fighting against the USA and caught on the battlefield or in the act. |
If they are all guilty, why not prosecute them in a court then? :conf:
I don't mind having prisoners at Guatemano, but they have the right to a fair trial, as any other. |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
In response to the original poster.
When it comes to American politics, everything these days is 100% scripted. The first person to have recognized that, and pointed it out, was the comedian who appeared on Crossfire and called the bow-tie a dick (quite rightly, but that's another topic).
The point is, politicians in America have become so scared and paranoid (lest anything they say might be non-scripted that might upset .5% of the party base), that it's forbiddingly scary to state principles and operate according to those principles. Legalese and verbal manuevering have become the norm, at the expense of principles.
In a country where, during the 2004 Presidential Debates, neither candidate was courageous enough to utter a word beyond prepared catch-phrases, and everything was scripted to the degree that the distance between the podiums (!) had to be observed to .01 inches, what kind of principle-based, unscripted modus operandi do you expect??! |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
If they are all guilty, why not prosecute them in a court then? :conf: |
A public court will potentially expose security/intelligence operations and operatives. Information that is and should be classified. These people will either have their day in military or closed court if charges are filed against them, otherwise they will be detained as prisoners of war until the war is over.
| quote: |
I don't mind having prisoners at Guatemano, but they have the right to a fair trial, as any other. |
What do you sentance a prisoner of war for exactly? Fighting for the other side? There is nothing illegal about that. |
|
|
| Shakka |
It's an interesting question Occ, and I think you hit on some primary hot buttons that the GOP is dealing with. I do have problems with several issues, though admittedly I am not very vocal about them because I hear enough Bush/GOP/Conservative/Christian/Redneck bashing in this forum that I don't often feel the need to fuel the fire.
I am annoyed at the lack of fiscal restraint, though I point a heavy finger towards all of Congress on that one. They control the purse and they create the pork. Bush has requested and pledged plenty of ludicrous dollar amounts without much of a second thought about how it's going to get paid for, while talking out of the other side of his mouth about fixing social security for the generations ahead of us. The value of the dollar is going to take a real nosedive before this is all over if other levers aren't pulled.
For me, my conservative approach is based largely upon a general personal philosophy. For me, to swing the opposite way, so to speak, would be a betrayal to my own core beliefs. Spite for the rich because of their achievment generally makes me sick, and it's generally something I associate much more with Progressives and Liberals than I do with Conservatives.
I associate Big Government with the left, but I think it's fair to say the current administration has solidified their place in the books for increasing the size of government--against an oath to reduce it--even though a lot of the increase was arguably largely necessary.
The problem with politics in general is corruption. Corruption that breeds from Power addiction. Is anyone for more term limits on congressmen? Does anyone really think it's right that Supreme Court Justices get to serve for life? I mean John Roberts will be sitting the bench when my ing kids are 30!
Anyhoo, back on topic. My personal philosophy aligns me more with the right than the left so I tend to argue the issues from those points. I think I tend to be too get on the defensive. I'll try to be more assertive about particular issues that annoy me if it's pertinent. I'm pretty sure I've always said that the lack of fiscal restraint was problematic to me. It's just irresponsible to throw gobs of money at problems, but it's also what people have come to expect when disaster strikes. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Anyhoo, back on topic. My personal philosophy aligns me more with the right than the left so I tend to argue the issues from those points. I think I tend to be too get on the defensive. I'll try to be more assertive about particular issues that annoy me if it's pertinent. |
Dood...I so feel your pain...lol
(hint: use short words and sentences and for god's sake, don't insinuate anything.)
:p |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
A public court will potentially expose security/intelligence operations and operatives. Information that is and should be classified. These people will either have their day in military or closed court if charges are filed against them, otherwise they will be detained as prisoners of war until the war is over. |
I don't disagree, however I do believe that evidence should be solid against the prisoners. The idea of having innocent men locked up for years on end, only to eventually set them free and see their hatred turned against us is, well, quite the catch 22 we put ourselves in. And aren't the rules set up for these tribunals pretty substantially different in terms of the rights of the prisoners and the evidence against them, as well as their rights to an attorney or something like that?
| quote: | | What do you sentance a prisoner of war for exactly? Fighting for the other side? There is nothing illegal about that. |
Well it looks like we found another nice and convenient way of gettin' rid of these prisoners:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051019...n_usa_bodies_dc
Nice touch, ain't it? |
|
|
|
|
