G.W. Bush has proven to be a liberal just like his father, and the conservative constituency seethes with resentment.
A Republican recently said to me that he no longer supports G. W. Bush, although he previously had voted for him. “He’s turned out to be a liberal just like his daddy,” he said, “and I don’t want a thing to do with him.” This seems to be a common theme echoing throughout the blogosphere, where pundits have realized that ‘compassionate conservative’ really means “liberal in disguise.” Is Bush a liberal? On four out of five key issues, Bush has shown his liberal leanings.
First, nowhere is Bush’s betrayal more evident than with immigration. He refuses to recognize that America historically has not been a “nation of [illegal] immigrants” arriving at an extant welfare state, but rather a nation of settlers and colonists. Like a failed Roman emperor, Bush engages in the unbecoming business of auctioning of citizenship for (unlikely) future loyalty. He sides with Ted Kennedy in pushing a guest-worker program, although a recent Zogby poll shows that 81 percent of Republican voters support an enforcement-only approach. Jettisoning reason, tradition, and loyalty to hard-working Americans, Bush attempts to transform America into a third-world country.
Second, Bush also allies himself with Ted Kennedy on education. Bush’s socialist No Child Left Behind should be named “Great Society, Pt. II.” NCLB has removed authority over education from the states and placed it at the feet of a bloated federal bureaucracy; has expanded the role of certification and the proletarian Schools of Education; has reinforced the notion that education should be universal; and will have a dumbing-down effect unlike any we’ve ever seen. One can easily dismiss this piece of legislation as one of the worst washouts in recent history.
Third, Bush is no friend to prudent economic policy. He has spent more money than the previous six presidents combined, and it will require generations to pay off this debt. Under Newt Gingrich, Republicans came to power claiming a Contract with America, promising to reduce expenditures and return authority to the states. Bush has accomplished the opposite, spending like a liberal and broadening big government. Furthermore, regarding international trade, we now have the largest trade deficit in American history vis-à-vis Mexico, China and India – and the situation grows worse each month. Even former free-trade enthusiasts are indignant that Bush is not buoying more trade barriers.
Fourth, in the domain of foreign policy, Bush also lacks any conservative conviction. His failed Wilsonian foreign policy in the Middle East reeks of liberal interventionism. Real conservatives, from Aristotle to the present, have always acknowledged that different forms of government are better tailored for different traditions. The Procrustean conversion of all countries to liberal democracy is impractical, undesirable, and reminiscent of Robespierre. And the very notion of “regime change” comes from Marxist annals. No true conservative would rally round such recklessness.
Fifth, Bush’s only conservative contribution may be the appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court – but it remains to be seen. They could resuscitate the Tenth Amendment, return affairs (like abortion) to the states, and fulfill the noble intent of the Founding Fathers. They, however, could move the other way, and bolster an imperial presidency at the expense of states’ rights, whereby chalking up yet another point to Bush’s liberal legacy.
G.W. Bush has indeed proven to be a liberal just like his father, and the conservative constituency seethes with resentment. Hopefully, Republicans will distance themselves from Bush’s sinking presidency, and wash their hands of Bush’s fellow travelers (Condoleezza Rice, John McCain, Arlen Specter, Mike DeWine, Lindsey Graham, et al.). Otherwise, the GOP will remain unredeemed and unelectable.
I disagree with the interpretation of “regime change” in the war issue. I believe with the advent of nuclear weapons, terroism, and our ever smaller world; conservatives of the past and present must realize that safety within our borders must reach beyond it. I am not naive enough to believe we are in the humanitarian business( if we wanted to preserve life we would spend our defense budget in Africa), but we are in the defense business.
Every other aspect of this article is sadly correct. Bush has been the biggest disappointment as President in a lifetime. No matter what may be accomplished in the Supreme Court, the Republican party and Mr. Bush will never escape the fact that under its watch spending, deficits, and socialism was the gospel which they preached. The GOP is indefenseable as a conservative party.
Sad but so true.
I agree fully with your take on domestic issues. He’s been terribly disapointing. I often feel we’re on a constant march toward socialism no matter who’s in the white house.
I do disagree with your take on our foreign policy though. As a conservative, I’ve always believed in a strong defense and I don’t see any logical options outside of what we’re doing in the middle east. I firmly believe we needed to take massive action in the middle east to prevent an eventual nuclear weapon headed our way. These terrorist groups only grew stronger and bolder through our inaction to the point now where they are threatening the governments of nuclear powers like pakistan.
To suggest a representative government of the people is not suitable for some is wrong. How do you know? Why not? Did we not see Iraqis risking death in unbelievably high numbers to get a taste of our democracy?
I believe killing terrorists who want to hurt us is the immediate answer, but the long term solution is to bring about an environment where the governments answer to the people and where people enjoy economic freedom and freedom of the press flourishes. This is exactly what we’re doing and working toward and I think it’s unfair to lump the billions spent on our war against terror in with the wasteful domestic, liberal, big government programs like the education bill.
Conservatives should probably spend a little time reminiscing about we wound up with eight years of the not so conservative son.
In the 2000 GOP primaries it was Bush or McCain. Bush was hands down the better choice. That made it a general election choice of Bush or Gore. I doubt many conservatives would have rather had Al Gore as president. Likewise in 2004 is was Bush or John Kerry. Enough said?
Bush may not be the ideal conservative president but given the choices we had to make he the best conservatives could hope for.
Maybe it’s time to spend a little less time tearing apart the party and a little more time finding a real conservative to run for the White House.
Mr. Roberts. It strikes me as arrogant to suggest some people are not worthy of or capable of maintaining and living under a representative government. The more I think of it, the more it offends me.
It is, I think, unfair and inaccurate to call President Bush a liberal
in disguise. Is he everything we hoped he could be? No, but what
President is? President Bush was the best option at the time. I was
originally a McCain man, until he and Sen. Feingold put through
the “campaign finance reform” bill, and I saw that my opinions on
certain things differed significantly from his. I would certainly vote
for Bush against Kerry or Gore or McCain any day of the week.
The so-called ‘Liberals’ in this country are often pretty conservative. The so-called conservatives are close to being full-blown fascists at the moment, what with their rigged elections and ‘pre-emptive’ wars.
Even so, to call Bush a Liberal is like calling the Roman Empire a great democracy.
I think it is hilarious that the denials have finally begun. Talk about rats leaving a sinking ship. I guess being a Bush apologist was wearing pretty thin. You’ll be calling him a ‘girly-man’ next.
If Bush is a Liberal, then I am Mother Teresa.
Max- How is it you never seem to have a point? How disappointing it must be to live a life so full of loss. If you truly believe Bush is a conservative then please, just so how and why. Remember we are speaking fiscally. Useless analogies and mindless rants are just that; useless and mindless.
To the GOP backers who bring out the ever popular argument, he was the best choice we had, I agree with this in terms of the general election but not in the primary races at all. Alan Keyes was available. There is one other position to take as well, we would have been better off with a Dem in the White House in the spending department. Republicans have a tendency to act like conservatives (see Clinton years) when they are not sucking up to a President and giving one another an endless supply of pork projects. GOP lawmakers simply lined each others states pockets and the President couldn’t afford to lose any support in order to stop it. The result was simple: green light all spending. A Dem most likely would have vetoed at least one spending bil in 8 years for political if not practical reasons.
Mr. Macklin,
Let’s reminisce about the 2000 and 2004 election as you suggest. In the GOP primary in 2000 other choices besides McCain and Bush included Buchanan (until he left) and Keyes. I am not a huge fan of Keyes, but he is certainly more conservative than either Bush or McCain. Early in the primary there was also Bauer and Forbes among others. I am not a huge fan of either of them either, but again, both are clearly more conservative than Bush and McCain.
In the general election other choices included Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party, Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party, and of course Buchanan. Howard Phillips has impeccable conservative credentials.
Bush should have had a conservative challenger in the 04 primary, but unfortunately no one stepped up to the plate. In the ‘04 general election other choices included Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party and Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party.
So your Bush or Gore/Bush or Kerry dichotomy is a false one. This lesser of two evils bologna is growing tiresome.
Paul,
Any people that are not willing to fight for their freedom are not worthy of or capable of maintaining and living under a representative government.
Any politician (pick a party) that puts partisanship over the good of the country is not worthy of living under (or representing) a representative government.
Any person who tries to undermine our government in times of war (Jane Fonda, Cindy Sheehan, etc) are not worthy of living under a representative government.
THESE are the people who offend ME.
I’m sure there are other examples. Feel free to add to these.
Newt Gingrich in 2008!
Paul,
“Mr. Roberts. It strikes me as arrogant to suggest some people are not worthy of or capable of maintaining and living under a representative government. The more I think of it, the more it offends me.”
If you are offended it is the Enlightenment egalitarian liberal in you that is offended, not the conservative. Representative democracy did not spring up here de novo. It arose here and lasted because we were a Christian and British colonial nation among other factors. We had Washington and Jefferson and (Samuel) Adams and Henry. To imagine that we can just plop down at gun point American style democracy anywhere in the world and expect it to flourish is the height of Utopian lunacy. It is not a matter of who is “worthy,” but it certainly is a matter of who is “capable.”
“As a conservative, I’ve always believed in a strong defense and I don’t see any logical options outside of what we’re doing in the Middle East.” Perhaps that is your problem. Your conservatism is the conservatism of the last 50 years starting with the Cold War. It is not the conservatism of the Founding Fathers. Perhaps a “logical option” would be to head the wisdom of Washington and avoid foreign adventuring.
Gee, you guys have a short memory. If a democrat had been in power we would have a deficit now. You guys don’t seem to mind government spending if it is on the military, or in the form of corporate welfare, what you hate is spending on things that actually help people (and the ‘No Rich Kid Left Behind’ initiative doesn’t count).
If we cut our insane military budget by even ten percent we would have more than enough money to pay for a good public education system and universal health care, and still be able to balance the budget. This would also leave us absurdly ahead in terms of military spending compared to the rest of the world, though we may have to give up invading other countries for no good reason.
The idea that Bush has spent money on serious social programs is a joke, a sick joke. The Medicare bill was basically a give away to the pharmaceutical companies, and the so-called No Child Left Behind bill is a pathetic, under funded, attempt to weed out poor performers and make sure they get even less public money for their education than they do now.
No, Bush is a conservative par excellence, just not a very subtle one. All this moaning about him being fiscally irresponsible is just posturing, you guys don’t give a damn about the public purse, hell, most of you don’t even think there should be a federal government, except to enforce property rights and co-ordinate the military.
By voting for this moron in 2004 you guys have basically given Bush a blank check, and rubber stamped his insane wastefulness. A well informed child could see which way this was all heading, why couldn’t you? I think you are all hypocrites, who basically support Bush’s broader goals, but can now see the public backlash coming and want to disassociate yourselves ASAP.
You must really, truly, totally believe that the American people are stupid when you try and peddle this utter nonsense.
One more thing, Ron S, anyone who takes us to war on false pretences, should spend a long time in prison.
Mr. Red Phillips,
Yes, I am a fiscal and social conservative in today’s definitions and proud of it.
You want to use Washington’s apparent advice to avoid “foreign adventuring” in the 21st century? In this day of nuclear and chemical weapons and Sept. 11? His advice would have been more appropriate when nations had to field an army then attack our shores. You totally failed to address my main concern. We have the spread of nuclear technology in the middle east. We have a murderous radicalism which was allowed to grow stronger due to our lack of foreign adventuring despite their repeated attacks on us. We have attacks on the government of a nuclear pakistan. We have the combination of technology and a free society which makes it possible for a kid with no military training (only radicalised) to kill thousands of Americans through the use of jumbo jets, tanker trucks, a can of chemicals, etc. We both know Washington hadn’t envisioned this when he gave comments. There is absolutely no way in the world we can possibly protect against this without “foreign adventuring”. You chose to ignore my concerns and argue about the definition of conservatism. If you have any idea of how to better deal with the threats, I’d love to hear it. I’m open to suggestions. This is costing a fortune.
I have to chuckle when people always say “American style democracy”, is not democracy choosing your own government and leaders? The people may not like our military there but there’s no doubt they’ve fully embraced democracy (yes, I do know the difference between democracy and representative republic, so no lecture needed). We’re seeing it right before our eyes, it’s taking shape. I guess the reason it offends me is because humans are humans and I have faith in them. That’s why I’m a conservative.
“Representative democracy did not spring up here de novo. It arose here and lasted because we were a Christian and British colonial nation among other factors.”
Your cynicism is breathtaking. Did post-war Japan have a strong Christian component that enabled democracy to flourish? How about modern day India? Taiwan? Your “realist” approach to foreign policy is nothing more than cynical intellectual laziness. It basically boils down to: Some humans deserve freedom and the chance to fight for it because they are they were born in one particular part of the world. Screw everyone else. Let
barbarism and totalitarianism flourish in those places that we have deemed unfit to taste freedom. They deserve no less in their roles as products of lesser cultures. But what of the day when that barbarism comes and touches our shores? Such as September 11, 2001? Maybe the realist in you should mull that over just a bit. As for the resident left wing loon Mad Max Godwin beyond Moonbatdome, why don’t you stop making us all laugh out loud with your assertions that, “If we cut our insane military budget by even ten percent we would have more than enough money to pay for a good public education system and universal health care, and still be able to balance the budget”. Or that “anyone who takes us to war on false pretences, should spend a long time in prison.” Nobody buys that crap. Probably not even you. Well, maybe you and Howie Duck Dean.
George Bush is just about as far away from liberal as you can get. I think fascist is a more appropriate term. A study by Laurence Britt, of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, and Pinochet came up with 14 characteristics of Fascism. Read them and make up your own mind……by the way, a child could see the eerie similarities……..
1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2.) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3.) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc
4.) Supremacy of the Military: Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5.) Rampant Sexism: The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
6.) Controlled Mass Media: Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7.) Obsession with National Security: Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses
8.) Religion and Government are Intertwined: Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.
9.) Corporate Power is Protected: The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10.) Labor Power is Suppressed: Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11.) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
12.) Obsession with Crime and Punishment: Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations
More…
13.) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption: Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections: Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
If you can’t seem to wrap your minds around this on your own go to :http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm to see the connections for yourself.
This should no longer be about partisanship. I don’t care to be associated with either party because neither one is truly interested in what is right for the majority of this country.
We are headed down the wrong path. We, as a nation, need to be more aware of what is truly going on around us.
Don’t bother with Max Goodwin. In my view, he has lost any credibility he might have had because of these commments found elsewhere on this site: “I can’t speak for anyone else, but to me the conservative perspective is as illegitimate as the Nazi or the Roman one…” “I hate conservatives, I really do.” When given an oppoortunity to retract, he declined. See “The Worst of the Left Wing Blogosphere” For more of his vitriol.
Conservatives, it seems to me that we are excused from responding to Max, or even acknowledging his existence. This is a place for dialogue among equals, not purveyors of hate and bigotry.
Aww, c’mon Rich! Lighten up. The rants are funny! Kinda like reading Dave Barry. Okay, not THAT funny, but still…
Ya got me, Ron. He is funny in an odd sort of way, I admit. But I am actually saddened that there are people like him out there like this, people who would rather live in their moveon.org fantasy world
than grant that those who happen to think differently are not eeeevil.
Thanks for keeping me solid, Ron. You’re a great American!
I agree with all your points except the foreign policy issue. Bush lost my support after the first election, and the Republican Party is close to losing me as well. I would rather hand the country over to the Democrats than to be continually betrayed by the Republicans. At least when the Democrats are in power the Republicans show an united front; with El Presidente’ Bush, the conservatives have no voice, and the party is being ripped at the seams. Where do we go from here, the Constitution Party?
Sorry guys, I would like to join you but I have trouble laughing at pre-emptive wars and rigged elections.
Max- How can a Lib not BELIEVE in rigged elections? Kennedy, the entire city of Chicago. Grow UP.l
Many of the posts in this string, and this site, reveal many of the things wrong with the political debate arena in this day and age. Ridiculous machinations, spewed by ridiculous people, using ridiculous logic and arguments.
If you believe what the Cons/GOP are telling you, wake up. If you believe the Libs/Dems will be very different, wake up. Take off your partisan blinders and start searching for the real truth.
You may want to start with educating yourself on the true meaning of Liberal/Progressive and Conservative, because it is obvious many of you don’t know what it is.
The majority, if not all, of the major positive strides this country has taken in the past hundred years have all been based on progressive ideas. You may want to start there also.
Remember, take the blinders off, stop being a sheep, and think for yourself for once.
Lyon,
Name one positive stride attributable to leftist initiatives.
Well, going through the points I have to wonder if any nation that ever went to war hasn’t fulfilled most of those points?
Oh, and lecture has been noted. I am humbled, ashamed and contrite regarding my infantile intellectual meanderings compared to the magnificence of your ‘real truth’. I realize now that I am blind and only you can truly see. I will avail myself of sackloth and ashes immediately (I think I have some in the garage).
Lyonbrave,
Why don’t you try having the guts enough to be specific. How about expanding on comment #16 so your points can be argued. How about points #3, 4, and 7. I’d especially love to know your ideas on how to protect this country against repeated attacks by radical muslims.
Ron. That’s hilarious. I was gonna write something like that. The arrogance of these far left-wingers is astounding!
Paul, I probably shouldn’t have done it, but I didn’t (not “couldn’t”) resist. I don’t care what side of the political aisle they come from, arrogant people drive me nuts. I really need to work on supressing the urge toward sarcasm since it doesn’t really help an argument. Guess I need more sackloth and ashes. Wonder if they sell that stuff at Home Depot?
Is it arrogance or the truth that drives you nuts? Be as sarcastic as you like, in fact “bring it on”.
So I am arrogant am I? Why, because I will not bow down at the alter of Lord Bush in the divine temple of Neo-Con. The more I post here the easier it gets, I so needed a good laugh, thanks.
Rich: how about womens suffrage…..how about civil rights…..how about Social Security……how about Protecting the environment……how about child labor laws……how about labor unions(yeah a bit out of control now, but where would we be without them?)
All of these are based on Progressive Ideas. Wake up man…educate yourself.
Ron, it is a shame that every NeoCon I have ever discussed issues with turns to sarcasm and personal attacks when they have no real facts/truth/arguments left to stand on.
Paul,
First, there is not enough time or room to expand the way I would like to. That is why I supplied a link to a site that explains things very well. Personally, I thought the points were obvious and clear. When you speak of “guts” do you mean I should have the same amount of guts your fabled administration has?
Don’t speak to me or question me about “guts”. I have more than enough to stand outside the party line and try and search for the truth. Do you?
History has shown that to end a terrorist action you must LEAVE THEM ALONE. Did we terrorize the British after they left….NO…….Did the Indians terrorize the British after they left India…..NO……Did the Algerians terrorize the French after they left…..NO. Leave the Middle East alone. We have our hand in everything…..we feel we have a right to do this…..this is why they hate us. We are arrogant, selfish, and belligerent. Leave their interests to themselves and they will leave us alone. Besides, our differences stem from mostly cultural differences. You can’t overcome this with war…..only education and understanding on BOTH sides can accomplish this. If this is not possible then we(both sides) have already gone too far and the option is complete Genocide of Muslims. Do you think that is really an option?
Also, terrorism is a tactic. How do you go to war with a tactic??? The term “War on Terror” is just Con rhetoric to stir up a patriotic frenzy.
After reading the responses to Bravelyon’s comments, I can’t help but notice how ignorant some of your criticisms are. Bravelyon’s assertion that the Bush(Cheney/Rumsfeld) administration has numerous facist characteristics is right on the mark. I thought that this web site was called “intellectual conservative.” There is nothing conservative about the Bush administration; not in regards to conserving the environment, conserving oil and other natural resources, conserving human life in Iraq, conserving our national debt, conserving our civil liberties, etc. Additionally, I have yet to read anything intellectual coming from the white house on any of these issues. Perhaps you need to rid this website of all neo-con material, and focus on republicans who are both conservative and intellectual. Good luck finding any these days.
Lyon,
Thanks for the list. I simply asked you to provide examples, that is all. You do not need to throw out an insult (“Wake up, man…”) because of my question. Or do you gravitate towards meanness every time someone asks you a question?
Womens suffrage: This is an issue of society being brought up to speed with the Constitution. Embracing the Constitution is not a progressive idea.
Civil rights: Lincoln was a Republican. Martin Luther King was a devout fundamentalist Christian. It was the church in the mid 1800s that was the major thrust behind freeing slaves. It was the church in the 1950s that was the major thrust of the civil rights movement.
Social Security: Oh, you mean the pension system with the 1.2% annual yield that forces senior citizens to choose between medicine and food that will be bankrupt in 40 years?
Protecting the environment: Would probably have happened anyway through market forces. Besides, everyone wants to protect the environment, they just differ on the best way.
Child labor laws: This has some benefits in that it prevents the exploitation of children. But my son wanted a job when he was 11, and he couldn’t work. There is no go reason to prevent those who want to work to do so, no matter their age.
Labor unions: Workers organizing to put pressure on business to improve working conditions is a free market solution. It didn’t take long for unions to become corrupt as they wielded power in ways that made the eeeevil businesses look like school children in comparison.
Sure, there were a lot of Marxists spouting their slogans about the evils of capitalism, but it was the pressure of the free market that made unions succeed.
Now, remember your claim: “The majority, if not all, of the major positive strides this country has taken in the past hundred years have all been based on progressive ideas.” Obviously you were in error. What has really caused the greatest strides is average individuals, motivated by self interest, doing great things by their hard work and innovation. This was achieved without the help of government or know-it-all progressives who don’t trust people to spend their own money “correctly.”
It is liberty, sir, that stirred the greatness of this country, not government, not central planning.
Rich, don’t be so sensitive. “Wake up Man” is a plea, and not to just you. A plea to stop believing things solely based on party lines.
Obviously, I was in error???? Why, because you came up with ridiculous responses, revealing your ignorance of the subject. I did say they were Progressive IDEAS. It doesn’t matter who implemented them..i.e. Lincoln.
Social Security is a Progressive idea, your response is idiotic and does not address the issue. If it was handled the way Roosevelt suggested it would not be in trouble…if in fact it is. Also, did you forget who took all the S.S. money? Reagan,Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. took the last of it. Also, if you don’t think it had a positive effect ask the millions of people that have collected it over the past 60 years.
“Everyone wants to protect the environment…” Keep listening to the lies and spin of this administration…..
Suffrage was embracing the constitution??? Maybe so, but what was the Constitution based on???? Freedom….Liberty(what you say made this Country what it is) Guess what….those are Progressive/Liberal ideologies.
In Wikpedia….Progressivism…..Early in the 20th century, progressives worked to reform the political process in the US. In several states, they succeeded in reducing the power of political bosses by instituting presidential primaries and non-partisan elections. They exposed corruption, and established public control of the existing monopolies over public resources, such as water and gas works. They were the driving force behind the reform and regulation of child labor, the institution of public education, and the right of women to vote. Their efforts contributed to the writing and ratification of the 17th Amendment (the direct election of senators) in 1913, and the 19th Amendment (right of women to vote in federal elections) in 1920. They sought to improve transportation for the public. They also pressured state legislatures to raise the property tax in order to spend more money on schools, parks and other public facilities. They usually worked at the state level to make changes.
In Wikpedia….Liberalism…..parties which identify themselves as liberal claim to promote the rights and responsibilities of the individual, free choice ……
Soooooo…….with the above evidence it appears that I am not in error….you are. No apologies are necessary….it happens…..this is why I make the plea…wake up man…..stop being snowed, by both political parties.
Back to your last comment….”It is liberty, sir, that stirred the greatness of this country, not government, not central planning.”
lib·er·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-t)
n. pl. lib·er·ties
The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one’s own choosing.
The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.
Hhhmmmmmm….sounds like you are a Liberal/Progressive and didn’t even know it……..Congratulations
How funny, Lyon! You appropriate the central tenants of conservatism (Self determination, liberty, and hard work) and use them to argue against it.
You may use the same word, but there is a distinction between the work of the founding fathers and today’s progressivism. Conservatism is progressive in the classic sense of the word; that is, looking to the future, advancing the cause of liberty, getting oppressive government off peoples’ backs, embracing the freedom of mankind to worship as they choose, recognizing the individuals’ right to exist and pursue their legal interests unmolested by government… that’s conservatism, not “progressive” as you misdefine it.
The founding fathers, moved by a desire to be free from oppressive government, and motivated by a profound faith in God, set forth classically progressive ideas that created what became the greatest nation on earth. It is not great because of what government can do, but because of what government is prohibited from doing. That’s the beauty of the Constitution that today’s progressives so disdain.
Today’s progressive movement is nothing other than leftist/Marxist philosphy couched in noble sounding words and government programs that invade the right of individuals to set their own course and make their own choices. Today’s progressives seem to have a singular goal: Increasing the size and scope of government because it cannot trust the individual to make the “right” choice.
I am not a party man, I have no affinity for the free spending, liberty-encroaching Republicans in Congress. They are acting just like progressives when they were last in power. You, however, parrot the moveon.org line of thinking almost verbatim, and then accuse others of following the party line. The irony is complete.
About Social Security: Please check your facts. The Social Security trust fund has been empty for decades, thanks to a democratic congress in the 70s who gave themselves the authority to take out these funds and substitute government bonds in their place. In case you don’t know, a bond is an IOU. The trust fund is an unfunded liability that must be paid back. But the Democrats started the budgetary practice of including the IOUs as assets, making the deficit look smaller (or in the case of Clinton years, making it seem as if there was a budget surplus).
And this program is a progressive success? You have got to be kidding me. This is the poster child amongst conservatives of the grandiose failure of extra-constitutional government.
At the end of your post you define liberty. Well done, but why would you do that when the definition contradicts almost every point you made? Let me make this simple. One definition of slavery is the act of depriving someone the fruit of their labor. That is, forcing someone to work, and then taking from them the pay they rightly deserve. The government takes money from workers via the income tax and other taxes, thereby denying them the right to the fruits of their own labors.
Therefore, taxation is simply a form of slavery. You admire increasing property taxes, which makes you an advocate for slavery. Perhaps you can reconcile this, but I wonder how.
Max, I owe you an apology. My comments were not directed at your comments and I did not make that clear.
LyonBrave, other than one simple question in post 25, I never got to your arguments because I didn’t get past your attitude. You could have presented your points in a way that invited comment and debate, but instead, you seem to have chosen condescension and derision. I concluded that you didn’t come to discuss or win anyone to your point of view, but to lecture and impress. If I am mistaken here, please let me know. However, you are somewhat correct about the sarcasm. It was uncalled for and childish and I apologize to you too.
As for being a NeoCon, I couldn’t tell you if I was or not. While I’ve heard the term, I’ve never heard the definition. Does my sarcasm make me a neocon? If I don’t agree with you, does that make me a neocon? I really don’t know what the term means to you, so please explain if you would.
I would discuss whatever you wish, but if you’re just here to lecture and sneer at us for being sheep…well, I wish you well, but I’ll take a pass.
I will pose my previous question again.
Well, going through the points I have to wonder if any nation that ever went to war hasn’t fulfilled most of those points?
I would point out that the above question is not a personal affront to anyone. I would like to get opinions on it.
Ron S, if you want to learn about the political beliefs of the poeple I assume you voted for then type into Google;
‘Project for the new American century’
All will be revealed. You might also want to look at Greg Palast’s amazing book;
‘Armed Madhouse’
It contains a good description of the differences between the neo-cons and the conservative traditionalists in government at the moment.
Okay, Max, I went to the website and did some sampling. Here’s my point of view:
- I’m not for aggressive americanization of the whole world. If countries want to become like us, great. If not, their loss.
-I don’t want the U.S. to be the world’s policeman. It’s a thankless job. Other countries would just sit on the sidelines and criticize everything we do.
-However, when our national interests are concerned, I want aggressive action when necessary. I do not want us to crawl to the U.N. whenever we feel we need to do something in the world to protect our national interest. Consult and try to build a consensus, yes, get permission, no. Some believe that the U.N. is a collection of countries that gather to do what’s best for the whole world. I don’t believe that. I see a bunch of nations coming together to get out of it what’s best for THEIR respective countries (and I include us in that assessment).
I guess the difference between myself and a neocon in this case, is scope of action. To me, it’s a big difference, to you it may not be.
Using the definition of neocon inferred from the website you sent me to, I’m still at a loss as to how I got labeled as one. I don’t believe I previously posted anything that would lead one to think that I’m for (or against) American world leadership.
I guess you should do some research before you vote for someone next time.
LOL, Max. You’re a funny guy. Thanks for caring, but I did enough research to know not to vote for Kerry.
I was just commenting on the fact that you seem unaware of what the people you voted for really stand for.
Point taken, Max. I know who I voted for and what they stand for, but I can’t know everything they will do when in office. If anyone says they can, well…I’d like to ask about some lottery numbers for next week too.
Through the election process, you get a picture of what the candidates stand for and what you HOPE they will do or not do. Beyond mind reading it’s the best one can do.
Yes, I can do web searches until I find some conspiracy theory or another on a candidate, (I could find them on any candidate, actually) which will either uncover some hidden objective or make them a monster. How much stock can I put in these stories?
Guess it depends on who the story is against, doesn’t it? We tend to believe anything about ‘the other guy’. We have preconceived notions about the other candidate being ‘evil’ while our guy is ‘good’, so we tend to believe any stories or rumors that fit those notions. I see it time and again here from both sides of the aisle. Hell, I do it myself sometimes if I don’t catch myself. And, like I said, each side can find stuff on the internet to back them up. And almost every thing you’ll find on the internet painting the other guy evil is written or funded by someone with a political axe to grind. Some are obvious, like moveon.org or Rush Limbaugh, while some are by people no one has ever heard of. Those we’ve never heard of are the most difficult because you have to do some real digging to find out where they hid their axe. A good example, I think, is with global warming. You can find stuff that ‘proves’ global warming. Stuff that a bunch of scientists or columnists put their names to. I can find as many things from other scientists and columnists that ‘prove’ global warming isn’t happening. I don’t know who any of these scientists are, and likely, neither do you. We just find someone saying what we want to hear and we believe it.
Anyway, back to the candidate stuff…Bush does some things I approve of and some things that make me wonder where his head is (borders and immigration come to mind). Some stuff I’m not sure of. The Iraq war comes to mind. I wasn’t and still am not thrilled with it. But I recognize that it’s a gamble. Historically, it will either be a huge blunder or a bold stroke for democracy in the region. Unfortunately for us, all we can do is guess which it will be. I don’t know, you don’t know. Even Bush doesn’t know. We all seem to see the outcome through political lenses, though, and I don’t understand that. Some people believe it will all be great because they like and trust Bush, which makes no more sense to me than people who think it is evil because they can’t get over their hatred for Bush.
Okay, I’m done. I’ve written too damn much already. :-)
You say “He has spent more money than the previous six presidents combined, and it will require generations to pay off this debt”. This is not correct. What will happen is that the economy will collapse, America will default on its international loans (Americas trade deficit is consuming 90% of the world savings), resulting in an international naval blockade. Americas 200 ship navy is greatly outnumbered by the rest of the worlds combined navy. This will result in the defeat of America and its citizens being sold into slavery. A nightmare world is on the horizon. This slavery to get their money back is true justice rather than the present robbing and enslaving of the young and unborn with the 9 trillion dollar international debt, and the half million plus dollar per household internal govermental debt. The above will happen.
Have a nice day.
Social security is progressive? It is one of the most regressive programs ever implemented for retirement. The interest rates on the money taken by the government is pathetic. No one in their right economic mind would voluntarily park money for long term savings in such a plan.
2, 19, 25, 29,35, 48
Oh, and the Project for the New American Century has been in existence since 1997.