GOP Fractures
An article in the Boston Globe describes a rift emerging in the Republican party between the conservatives and the neo-cons. While it's interesting, and even occasionally entertaining, to watch the GOP battle it out, I'm hesitant to believe this will benefit the Democrats. If the election was being held next year, I don't think any fewer right-wingers would vote for Bush. Both sides of the GOP (non-intrusive government and fiscal conservativeness vs. strong religious beliefs) still have more in common with Bush's version of democracy than they do with the Democrats.
If these fractures become more severe over time, this could work in favor of the Democrats when it comes time for the GOP to choose their candidates. Even then, however, it seems more likely that all Republican versions will close their mouths when push comes to shove and toe the party line. Until then, however, the rising voices of dissent can only be positive; it means the government will not necessarily be limited to a single party's agenda.
If these fractures become more severe over time, this could work in favor of the Democrats when it comes time for the GOP to choose their candidates. Even then, however, it seems more likely that all Republican versions will close their mouths when push comes to shove and toe the party line. Until then, however, the rising voices of dissent can only be positive; it means the government will not necessarily be limited to a single party's agenda.
posted by Anonymous at 9:15 PM
9 Comments:
Occasionally, third-party candidates come along with enough charisma to gain a following... maybe we're seeing the beginnings of change in the old-style two-party American system. Early, beginnings, that is - not much will happen in our lifetimes, probably (says Mr. Pessimist).
Real fiscal conservatism just doesn't exist anymore. The Republicans of today are like the Democrats of twenty years ago. You all talk about neo-conservatives, but its really about liberals getting to see what happens when govt. expands in a way that they are not happy with. It sucks, doesn't it. Now you know. It trips me out to hear people call Bush the most conservative president ever. He is not. He is like a bizzarro liberal or an anti-liberal. He wants to expand govt in all kinds of ways, just not the ways that you guys want him to. I agree with him when he says that religious groups are better at helping addicts and helping the poor than the govt. is, but I disagree and think that it is very un-conservative to give those groups government money. If I ran a religious group, I wouldn't want govt. money, because after you got you used to their handouts, they would start dictating how you spent their money (which really isn't their money, but the taxpayers). Now that you all see what it is like to see big government grow in a way that you don't like, you should all become more libertarian in your thinking. Would you not all agree now that government expansion equals less freedom?
Having said all of that, a strong defense and war policy is not a left-right thing in my opinion. All kinds of Americans died in the WTC, pentagon, and in Pennsylvania on that day, and both liberals and conservatives have fought in the wars. I consider myself a real conservative, but I am not an isolationist and I am also a free trader. The whole neo-con thing that you all talk about is kind of funny to me. Its like you made a word that sounds really bad like neo-nazi or the nuclear option. To me a neo-con is a former conservative democrat that has infiltrated the republican party.
Glen Dean, just because you don't understand the definition of neocon doesn't mean they don't exist. "Neocon" refers to those who disguide themselves as conservative to gain support for their agenda, but are most decidedly not conservative. Bush is not a liberal, he is a typical spend-and-spend republican. The republicans have always been the party of big government, big spending, and big deficits, along with their dictatorial intrusion into people's private lives. As far as the libertarian thing goes, maybe you should try that, if you want to kiss a lot of your previous opinions goodbye.
Thanks for the definition. I thought neo-con meant neo-conservative. Since the prefix neo means new, I figured neo-con meant new conservative. Apparantly I was wrong. I didn't say Bush was a liberal, I said he was an anti-liberal. He believes that government is the answer just like liberals do.
As for my opinions, I have opposed an amendment banning gay marriage, the Faith Based Initiave, No Child Left Behind, I oppose the education dept. and I think it should be abolished, and I am for de-criminalizing drug use. If I were governor of my state, I would release all non-violent drug users. I oppose seat belt laws, helmet laws, anti-smoking laws. I opposed the national ID card bill. Where I differ with many others though is that I do not believe that those laws should be changed by a judge legislating from the bench. I believe that laws should be changed by legislators elected by the people. I have posted over and over again about how much I despise big government. I could never be a big L Libertarian because I am not as libertarian as they are, but I think that my ideas are much more libertarian than you seem to give me credit.
I am personally all about Libertiarianism. I have no faith in the Republican or Democrat parties, but especially the Republicans. It really is our senators and reps that are running the show, and they are constantly playing politics and gearing up for the next season, so why not impose term limits on them? Maybe if they could just work together and get their shit done, things would be better. I think they are just too prone to corruption and that they should not be allowed to serve for eternity.
Chickenhawk, I share your disillusion with the "big two." I have always been a registered independent who believed each party was just about equally corrupt, until 2000, when I realized that the powers who took over the republican party not the petty crooks we knew; they were full-blown diabolical Evil... Evil-with-a-capital-E-and-that-rhymes-with-T-and-that-stands-for-Trouble. So, I voted Democrat in 2004, in the hopes of ousting the neocons, and the rest is history. I now believe, however, that the republican party is by far the more corrupt of the two.
I don't know if you've been there, but a Libertarian blog I enjoy visiting is http://cutto.blogspot.com/
He's an anti-bush libertarian. His posts are long, so you might want to peruse his archives.
Even though they kind of are in conflict with my democratic ideals, I could live with term limits. I will take term limits over campaign finance reform any day. Campaign finance reform, in my view, is just a restriction on political speech. When you look at how much influence special interest groups have with representatives who have been in Washington a long time, you see that those guys don't end up representing their districts anymore. Instead, they end up representing the interests of PAC s like the NEA, NRA, AARP, etc. Take the examples of Tom Dacshile for the Democrats and Tom DeLay for the Republicans. Neither of them have been in their district or state for years. They have been in Washington getting served by lobbyists. That is why Dacshile's positions on issues were in conflict with the people of South Dakota. He stopped representing them and started representing the guys who were giving him money. DeLay is the same way. He might be in a district that is conservative like he is, but he still seems to have been corrupted by special interest money. He even started his own PAC. It all just makes you sick. One branch that I would really love to see limited is the judicial branch. With judges who are appointed for life occupying the most powerful branch of government, we now have an oligarchy of elitests running things. I propose that we either elect judges or we limit their terms to maybe one long ten year term and allow the people to recall them with a super majority if they need to.
True, Glen. It may be construed as undemocratic, but if we have term limits for a president, why not for congress or, hell, even judges? You cannot and should not have one but not the other. Is it undemocratic? Or is it a measure to limit corruption and this political infallibility? What I mentioned was on behalf of the latter of course. You are right, the representatives do not serve the people. DeLay is never home, Daschle was not, I did not start to hear about Kerry around here at all, ever, until his "run" for president. Let me say it again, it was not Kerry's votes that troubled me, it was his lack of voting and his lack of representation. Hell, one may hate Ted Kennedy, but at least he makes appearances before those he represents once in a while. And even worse, our president, who should be in Washington, is always in Texas playing grabass with armadillas.
Post a Comment
<< Home