I am a Republican...
 

I am Republican. I have certain beliefs. And with the GOP in charge of the White House and Congress, I thought I would see thought I would see those beliefs move from mere ideas, to reality. Let’s see what George and the rest have done for me.

I believe in a balanced budget. Under Bush, we went from balanced budget to the largest deficit in the history…and his plan appears to be to make it worse.

I believe in lower taxes. But the GOP has plunged the country into such dire financial times, taxes will need to be raised dramatically, and soon. The few hundred bucks I saved this year on my federal taxes were more than consumed by the higher prices on things like education, insurance, and local taxes.

I believe in the less government, not more. But right out of the gate, Bush grew our government to a record size. And that was before he continued the governmental expansion in the name of the “War on Terror.”

I believe in personal freedoms. Yet George Bush and his ilk are obsessed with what I do with my crotch, what my wife does with her uterus, and what my gay friends choose to do with their lives. John Ashcroft works to deny terminally ill Americans the right to die. It doesn’t get much more personal than that.

I believe in a foreign policy that keeps my country safe and our enemies at bay. But Bush’s policy seems to do just the opposite. Pakistan sells nukes to North Korea and Iran; George does nothing. North Korea threatens us with nuclear attack; George sends negotiators. Iraq, contained and neutralized, is attacked, and thereby turns millions against us. Money and resources that should be spent fighting terrorists I Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afganistan are squandered in Iraq.

And then there are those other beliefs I have; those I attribute to the GOP, but maybe I should not.

Maybe, because I am a Republican, I’ve always felt that those in the GOP have more integrity than those in the Democratic Party. When Clinton lied about sex, he embarrassed my nation. He cost the taxpayers millions. I smirked to myself “Typical Democrat.”

But George lied about Iraq. It cost our country billions. It cost hundreds of American lives. And the embarrassment it caused is the least of our problems.

And then there is the environment. I grew up with guns and fishing poles. I loved, respected and feared mother nature, but I did not consider myself an “environmentalist.” Environmentalists were hippies and liberals from the city. They killed jobs to save a few trees. I was a Republican. After all, the Republicans founded the national park system. They poured money into environmental preservation through Ducks Unlimited and fishing license fees. And while we all owned chainsaws, we all thought clear-cutting was an abomination.

And so, I foolishly hoped that with Republicans in power, our natural resources would be managed sensibly. Now we are facing 500 clear-cuts in parts of Alaska that used to be protected. Mountain tops are being torn off in search of cheap coal. Corporations who illegally foul the air we breathe and water we drink are let off the hook; charges dropped. Cases are dismissed. This isn’t resource management. It’s rape.

I believe that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to keep Americans employed. But the GOP gave tax breaks to those companies who shipped tens of thousands of jobs overseas, rather than using a payroll tax cut to reward those companies who employ Americans.

I am a Republican. And that is why I will vote AGAINST George W Bush.

As always, Clavus, you have found yet another way to educate me.

I thank you for these words, and I haven't yet decided how I'm going to vote.

Clavus I couldn't have said it better myself. This is what I grew up believing Republicans to be and this is exactly why I cannot vote Bush for a second term. Where oh where, I ask, did this new form of Republicanism come from?

Awesome post. I have been thinking many of these things and you spelled them out very well.

EXCELLENT POST.

It came from the same sources that have caused the Democrats to veer steadily to the middle, abandoning their traditional ideology...namely, a political system where candidates are forced to raise huge sums of cash to compete with the next guy. You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to believe that the donors of the aforementioned piles 'o cash might earn a little consideration when it comes time to draft legislation or hammer out a platform.

*Stands and applauds clavus*

Well said, my friend. Very well said.

I am a Republican also.
You could be on this T.V. thing I saw where you write something. You get to read it infront of a lot of ppl.
Well,bush's dad had only one term so maybe its going to be like father like son lol.

Indeed.

I *would* be a republican, if it stood for the values you list. Heck, I'd be a member of any party with the platform of:
- a balanced budget
- minimal taxes for individuals and businesses
- less government where possible
- minimal intrusion into personal freedoms
- sensible and strong defense and foreign policy
- committment to preserving the environment

I would add to this:
- a committment to transparency and non-secrecy where possible in government operations
- a committment to reducing the effect of money in elections
- a committment to freedom of religion for all religions, and a strong separation of church and state

The libertarians, of course, are closest to this platform. I've always found them to be a bit kooky as a party though.

Excellent statement. I agree with everything you said; which is why I'm an independent. I think Americans are steadily focusing more on issues, and less on party affiliation.

Again, great post.

I believe the phrase you are searching for is "neoconservative" or simply "neocon". Yes, by every definition I have seen of neocons; Bush is a flaming neocon.

"WHAT EXACTLY IS NEOCONSERVATISM? Journalists, and now even presidential candidates, speak with an enviable confidence on who or what is "neoconservative," and seem to assume the meaning is fully revealed in the name. Those of us who are designated as "neocons" are amused, flattered, or dismissive, depending on the context. It is reasonable to wonder: Is there any "there" there?

Even I, frequently referred to as the "godfather" of all those neocons, have had my moments of wonderment. A few years ago I said (and, alas, wrote) that neoconservatism had had its own distinctive qualities in its early years, but by now had been absorbed into the mainstream of American conservatism. I was wrong, and the reason I was wrong is that, ever since its origin among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s, what we call neoconservatism has been one of those intellectual undercurrents that surface only intermittently. It is not a "movement," as the conspiratorial critics would have it. Neoconservatism is what the late historian of Jacksonian America, Marvin Meyers, called a "persuasion," one that manifests itself over time, but erratically, and one whose meaning we clearly glimpse only in retrospect.

Viewed in this way, one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against
their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy. That this new conservative politics is distinctly American is beyond doubt. There is nothing like neoconservatism in Europe, and most European conservatives are highly skeptical of its legitimacy. The fact that conservatism in the United States is so much healthier than in Europe, so much more politically effective, surely has something to do with the existence of neoconservatism. But Europeans, who think it absurd to look to the United States for lessons in political innovation, resolutely refuse to consider this possibility.

Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the "American grain." It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked. Of course, those worthies are in no way overlooked by a large, probably the largest, segment of the Republican party, with the result that most Republican politicians know nothing and could not care less about neoconservatism. Nevertheless, they cannot be blind to the fact that neoconservative policies, reaching out beyond the traditional political and financial base, have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters. Nor has it passed official notice that it is the neoconservative public policies, not the traditional Republican ones, that result in popular Republican presidencies.
One of these policies, most visible and controversial, is cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth. Neocons are familiar with intellectual history and aware that it is only in the last two centuries that democracy has become a respectable option among political thinkers. In earlier times, democracy meant an inherently turbulent political regime, with the "have-nots" and the "haves" engaged in a perpetual and utterly destructive class struggle. It was only the prospect of economic growth in which everyone prospered, if not equally or simultaneously, that gave modern democracies their legitimacy and durability.

The cost of this emphasis on economic growth has been an attitude toward public finance that is far less risk averse than is the case among more traditional conservatives. Neocons would prefer not to have large budget deficits, but it is in the nature of democracy--because it seems to be in the nature of human nature--that political demagogy will frequently result in economic recklessness, so that one sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth. It is a basic assumption of neoconservatism that, as a consequence of the spread of affluence among all classes, a property-owning and tax-paying population will, in time, become less vulnerable to egalitarian illusions and demagogic appeals and more sensible about the fundamentals of economic reckoning.

This leads to the
issue of the role of the state. Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study alternative ways of delivering these services. But they are impatient with the Hayekian notion that we are on "the road to serfdom." Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his "The Man Versus the State," was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today's America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not. Though they find much to be critical about, they tend to seek intellectual guidance in the democratic wisdom of Tocqueville, rather than in the Tory nostalgia of, say, Russell Kirk.

But it is only to a degree that neocons are comfortable in modern America. The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives--though not with those libertarian conservatives who are conservative in economics but unmindful of the culture. The upshot is a quite unexpected alliance between neocons, who include a fair proportion of secular intellectuals, and religious traditionalists. They are united on issues concerning the quality of education, the relations of church and state, the regulation of pornography, and the like, all of which they regard as proper candidates for the government's attention. And since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power. Because religious conservatism is so feeble in Europe, the neoconservative potential there is correspondingly weak.

AND THEN, of course, there is foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention. This is surprising since there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience. (The favorite neoconservative text on foreign affairs, thanks to professors Leo Strauss of Chicago and Donald Kagan of Yale, is Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War.) These attitudes can be summarized in the following "theses" (as a Marxist would say): First, patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public institutions. Precisely because we are a nation of immigrants, this is a powerful American sentiment. Second, world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. International institutions that point to an ultimate world government should be regarded with the deepest suspicion. Third, statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies. This is not as easy as it sounds, as the history of the Cold War revealed. The number of intelligent men who could not count the Soviet Union as an enemy, even though this was its own self-definition, was absolutely astonishing.

Finally, for a great power, the "national interest" is not a geographical term, except for fairly prosaic matters like trade and environmental regulation. A smaller nation might appropriately feel that its national interest begins and ends at its borders, so that its foreign policy is almost always in a defensive mode. A larger nation has more extensive interests. And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns. Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal. That is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II. That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.

Behind all this is a fact: the incredible military superiority of the United States vis-à-vis the nations of the rest of the world, in any imaginable combination. This superiority was planned by no one, and even today there are many Americans who are in denial. To a large extent, it all happened as a result of our bad luck. During the 50 years after World War II, while Europe was at peace and the Soviet Union largely relied on surrogates to do its fighting, the United States was involved in a whole series of wars: the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Kosovo conflict, the Afghan War, and the Iraq War. The result was that our military spending expanded more or less in line with our economic growth, while Europe's democracies cut back their military spending in favor of social welfare programs. The Soviet Union spent profusely but wastefully, so that its military collapsed along with its economy.

Suddenly, after two decades during which "imperial decline" and "imperial overstretch" were the academic and journalistic watchwords, the United States emerged as uniquely powerful. The "magic" of compound interest over half a century had its effect on our military budget, as did the cumulative scientific and technological research of our armed forces. With power come responsibilities, whether sought or not, whether welcome or not. And it is a fact that if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you.

The older, traditional elements in the Republican party have difficulty coming to terms with this new reality in foreign affairs, just as they cannot reconcile economic conservatism with social and cultural conservatism. But by one of those accidents historians ponder, our current president and his administration turn out to be quite at home in this new political environment, although it is clear they did not anticipate this role any more than their party as a whole did. As a result, neoconservatism began enjoying a second life, at a time when its obituaries were still being published."

Irving Kristol is author of "Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea." "

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...tzmlw.asp?pg=2

clavus.....you have just earned 1000 respect credits in my book. That was one of the most amazing posts I have ever read in the TFP. I was republican until halfway thru Reagans run, I now have no party....and really don't want one. Bravo!!!!

I need to respond to this and this is how I choose to respond:

I vote Republican because they are closer than the other party in representing my views. That's good enough for me. I don't expect any more from a vast national organization. Republicans are realists as far as I am concerned. Realists understand how the real world works. I don't expect anything more than pragmatic politics from a political organization. I don't consider my views to be the be all and end all of social existence.

....and I am a democrat why?

Good post Clavus!

shouldn't this be moved to "general discussion" analog, as their is no real discussion but as our friend filtherton likes to put it - a "love-in" or something like that.


I just don't have the time guys...sorry..if you wanna swallow it...my condolesces..

You have so little time that you respond twice in 15 minutes. You sure are above it all.

Modern day Republicans and Democrats are both socialist parties, but the GOP are slightly less so which means they favor a government that steals slightly less of my hard earned money. If that's the best I can do for the time being, so be it.

The biggest budget deficits in American history have been under Republican presidents who slash taxes and drastically increase spending. Although modern day Democrats aren't stupid enough to call for tax hikes, a la Mondale '84, isn't tax and spend more financially prudent than borrow and spend? That's tantamount to a business slashing prices while increasing operating costs. Witness Bush's massive tax cuts while fighting two wars and forming a new government department. Strangely enough, in this race, Kerry seems to be the financially conservative candidate.

same here i say we go back and earase FDR from our history and solve our minute socialistic tendancies :thumbsup:

Wow. I can't believe the number of people who agree with me. I honestly thought I'd be swimming in venomous responses by now.

Go figure.

You make some good points, but it seems to me that you should weigh the faults/weaknesses of BOTH sides before making a judgement.

What's Kerry's policy? I believe he'd be the type to sit on his duff. You talk about mediators in North Korea, but he'd have mediators all over the world kissing more ass than Lewinsky in the Oral office. You notice all he has made clear (lately) is that he's against war. When asked about war policy, he manages to try to dodge the question, or criticize George Bush. Every time he talks it's George Bush this, George Bush that. What are HIS stances? Recall that key figures in the left not too long ago agreed with how much of a threat Saddam Hussein is. This includes Kerry. If he did nothing and let Saddam have his way (turning away weapons inspectors), then he'd be criticised. And of North Korea, why risk nuclear war? You speak of casualties, your North Cal butt would lie in a giant West coast ash tray. The harsh reality is you either fight a war, or let the war come home. Which is better? These weapons were in Saddams custody at one point. Mass graves are evidence. They were either a) distroyed, or b) sent over to Syria.

great argument!

Though I agree one should look at both sides, has it ever occured that some people vote people out because they feel they have been dissapointed?

I know thats how many vote and if i felt my representatives were doing a bad job (fortunatley most haven't) I'd be glad to vote em out if they didn't represent my beliefs

And to a post above - ironically yes the more fiscally conservative appears to be Kerry at this point which is funny because in recent years fiscal conservativsm has flipped parties

Good that a republican has written this, a democrat would have been called "liberal pussy" ,"un-american" or "Hippie" ;)

You would think that this "imminent threat" nonsense would be firmly discredited by now. Bush and co. have backed away from the idea (it's about the Iraqi people now, remember?), but I guess not everyone has gotten the message. Do you really think that Saddam Hussein was likely to launch an attack on the US? What kind of sense does that make?

As for the cruelty of Saddam's regime, yes, that is undeniable. However, remember that it was not "cruelty" that led us to war in the first place. Also, this same cast of characters has a rich history of supporting tyrants whenever it is advantageous to them, so their humanitarian cries ring more than a little hollow to me.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/atrios...eld-saddam.jpg

Edited for grammar

I am not a Republican. Never will be. I will also never call myself a Democrat. Neither party has ever embodied principled stands on issues I consider most important to me, and the continued greatness of this country, to deserve my allegiance. When I vote - - and I always do - - I usually vote against the greater of two evils.

The U. S. is so politically polorized right now. The rancor in political discussion is probably is bad as it could be. Part of the problem is blind loyalty to political parties. The only reason I can see for Bush's still relatively high approval ratings is the support he receives from those who will stand by him and defend his policies no matter what - - simply because he is a Republican. My man, right or wrong.

I salute you, clavus. I salute you for your thoughtful, well-written contribution to this forum. But most of all, I salute you for rising above party affiliation and standing by your principles.

clavus...I'm not a republican, and although I'm a registered democrat I vote for the person not the party. I applaude you for looking past party lines at the reality of life in the united states today. I just don't understand how some people can be so party affiliated that they don't see what is happening to this country.

We should all open our eyes and then hopefully our minds will follow!

Clavus: nicely put. My ideal vision for the country isn't represented by either party.


So bitter... Let's put it behind us.

I'm looking forward to neoconservatism being relegated to the trashbin of history, along with other failed political thought like fascism and islamic fundamentalism.

What ever happened to the Rockefeller Republicans?

Extremely well put, Clavus. This thread deserves to be a frickin' sticky.

that is well put, and it reflects my opinions pretty well, but i don't think you should vote against a person out of dissapointment. You should vote for someone else who you think will do better. I dislike bush just as much as you do, but I honestly think that kerry would be even worse (i really wish there would've been a better dem candidate). That is why (as much as I don't want to) I will most likely be voting for bush.

heh, pwned. :p


And Clavus, I think I love you. I realize that this board is atypical in a lot of ways, but nearly every time I get in a discussion with someone who labels himself a Republican, I end up practically frothing at the mouth... not so much at their opinions, but at their seemingly complete lack of recognition of facts. I'm not saying all Republicans are like this (or that Democrats are not... they're just as bad), but I don't know if I've ever seen a Republican as willing to examine his OWN party's follies as you.

For many of the reasons I could give that I would prefer not to vote Democrat, I consider myself an independent (I am a registered Democrat, but that's only so I can vote in the primaries... I know, I'm weak). I have such a hard time aligning with either party, because of the glaring inconsistencies in everything they do. I'm so happy to see someone from the "other side" finally agree with me. Thank you.

Actually it was not nonesense at all. Iraq WAS a gigantic mess, it may not have had the sack or sense to attack the US directly, but it definately had an impact on America's interests. Recall in the early 1990's when we were asked to overthrow Saddam by the U.N. and we refused. The world knew then what he was capable of. It was cruelty that led us to war. This man used biological weapons on his own people, threatened people to advance to his high position in Iraq, threatened and murdered those who might have schemed to overthrow him... this man was a tyrant. Hitler had NOTHING to do with us, but he formed mass graves of people with his ethnic cleansing. Although the motives are slightly different, the outcomes are the same. If you think the deaths of countless numbers of Kwaitis and Iraqis who wished Saddam out of power is not a just cause to go to war, then my friend you have a serious moral problem. As of your picture to make your argument, at the time, we were against Iran. You might recall the hostage situation in the Tehran embassy in which militant students took control of a U.S. embassy. You might also recall the Iraq-Iran war from 1980-1988. In 1982, when Iraq was on the brink of defeat, the U.S. decided that a victory by Iran would not be in their best interests, so neutrality by the U.S. in this situation was ended, and we supported Saddam. He was the lesser of two evils here. Here is a link to this history lesson.

As I always say, most of the time, the difference of how you vote is often determined by the little amount of research, interest, and knowledge of the situation. We must look at both sides and make sure that by casting a vote against Bush is really what Republicans want to do if we are against some of the things he's done. I myself agree he's not the best president, but if Kerry ran things, I guarantee you this board would light up with more complaints than you have ever seen, and you'd be pulling your hair out at the mistake you have made. Further, I suggest you all go HERE . This is yet another resource to help you decide. Let's at least agree with who's the BEST candidate rather than be retalitory.

Hitler actually attacked our merchant vessels, before we entered the war, there can be no reasonable comparison between the two....but this is irrelleveant.

As far as the BEST candidate, we will not get to vote for the best person for the job, as they are too smart to want it. The best availible however, is what politics is all about. In my opinion.....Bush ain't it.

*applause* to clavus.

--jaded

Ok, let's try this again....the administration's reason for going to war was WMDs and the threat of Saddam, plain and simple. Humanitarianist concerns were not cited as a major justification until after we were unable to find any WMDs. Have you forgotten the months and months of debate over Saddam's nuclear program, the Yellowcake uranium scam (which precipitated the Valerie Plame scandal), Colin Powell's UN presentation, the ridicule of Hans Blix and all the other events that led up to this war?

Your "history lesson" only confirms what I said earlier...this administration is composed of some people who will lie down with the devil when it serves their interests. 20 years ago they were so interested on destroying Iran that they actively supported a madman that was gassing his own people. I can go into the history of American interventionism in Iran , and how it ultimately harmed our interests there, if you'd like. You are right in saying that it was against "our best interests" for Iran to prevail in the war with Iraq, but "our best interests" had nothing to do with the best interests of the people of Iraq (or Iran, for that matter). People like Paul Wolfowitz have been advocating the invasion of Iraq for a decade, and their motives have nothing to do with humanitarianism (no, they think Iraq would make a dandy foothold in the Middle East). I wouldn't be so quick to claim the moral high ground, if I were you.

very good post, clavus. I applaud you for, as MooseMan called it, being willing to examine your own party's follies, i'm sure there are a far greater number of us too frightened to do so (myself included). More power to you, man.

Add this to the "HEAR HEAR" chorus. I don't understand how any American could not be for these things, but apparently some are.