Republican? I Thought I Knew
Is it ironic that this past weekend held two different political landmarks for us Conservative First people?
Perhaps.
First off, we got a massive slap to the face in South Carolina. Not only did Fred take third place, he took third behind the two worst offenders of the bunch. The thought of McCain taking first place makes the bile rise a bit, since if you look at his words and actions they don’t vary a whole lot from Clinton’s… But Clinton is at least being honest about who she is (well, relatively anyway).
Second off, we passed the one-year mark (1/20/2008) which means that we have just one more year of the Bush administration.
So what does this mean to us?
It would seem that we are at a crossroads here. On one hand, we are risking going down a path of more of the same. On the other hand, we are risking a Democrat in the White House, which is worse than “more of the same,” although not by much.
Perhaps we haven’t been clear. What is a Republican? Most average people would tell you that a Republican is stiff, wearing a tie and a starched shirt, tyrannical, selfish, religious, fascist, environment-hating, pale-skinned creeps.
Well, I sport a number of tattoos, earrings, usually somewhat messy hair, bowling shirts and blue jeans… I’m not particularly religious, tyrannical, fascist or stiff. I can be selfish at times, but who isn’t? I am simply more interested in freedom than tyranny. The fact of the matter is that I think that I am fairly representative of the new Conservatives out there while the traditional definition of a Republican is much more appropriately applied to the liberals (or at least the center-left crowd) out there than to us.
When I look at the current Republican “club,” and the Republicans that have stood at the helm of this Country for the past seven years, I don’t see the Conservative base. I see a group that has moved to the center or center-left but still sports an elephant on their lapel. I have spent a long time considering it absolute blasphemy, but I’m starting to accept the reality of the situation. The fact of the matter is that the slick and polished Republican base is breaking with the freedom-first Conservative base and luring the moderate voters out there into some sort of a muddled conglomeration of Republican and Democrat values – none of which mix well together.
The Bush administration has really mixed things up over the past seven years. This new breed of so-called “Compassionate Conservatives” is a dangerous bunch of politicians, because they lure moderate Conservatives with tax cuts and occasional vetoes of brutal liberal legislation… But they then lure moderate Liberals with big government and social liberalism. This gives them a powerful voter base right in the middle, and even though it alienates us Conservatives, it wins elections so there is no real incentive to return to a right-of-center platform.
Can we handle four or eight more years of the status quo? An overall victory for McCain or Huckabee will be a crushing blow to all of the firm Conservatives out there, but a victory for the dems will be a disastrous blow for America as a whole. So where does that leave us?
Personally, I have (had?) great hopes for Fred. If the GOP heads gave a damn about [real] Conservatives, they would have told the turncoats where to stick it and rallied behind Fred and encouraged more Conservatives to run on the Republican ticket. But the GOP seems more concerned with getting elected than showing any loyalty to Conservatism, and we are more likely to be treated with spite for not showing blind support for the party than for questioning the logic behind this insanity.
I do not blame Bush or the Bush administration for any of this. They are simply players in a bigger game. The Bush family is part of the GOP club and the club takes care of their own. George W. Bush is who he is. He has not steered the party the wrong direction. It was already going the wrong direction and he just helped maintain the status quo here. He wasn’t elected to be the next Ronald Reagan; he was elected to be George W Bush, and he did an outstanding job of doing just that. Over the past seven years, there has never been any doubt that George W Bush was steering the boat. Should we have expected anything else?
But this comes right back to the original question. Do we want more of the same? A McCain or Huckabee White House will be exactly what we expect it to be. There should be no delusions about it. President Bush will hand over the keys on 1/20/2009 to somebody who will do a great job of holding the status quo for another term or two. We’re in one hell of a pickle here, because we’re literally caught between a rock and a hard place since the only real change that we’re being offered is a liberal nightmare via a vote for one of the Democrat wingnuts out there.
As I said before, Fred offered a good shot at real (and realistic) change for the Republican party, but that glimmer of hope is starting to flicker a bit… And I don’t want to hear a thing about Ron Paul because his foreign policy stance scares the hell out of me and his idea of change isn’t nearly as realistic as Fred’s. So at what point do the Conservatives simply stand against the status quo and demand real change or threaten to cut their ties as the Republican party maintains their center-left stance?
I think that time will be soon, because I don’t know if we can survive another round of the same old thing.
on January 21, 2008 on 3:11 pm
Well, for what it’s worth, many Christians feel the same way. We see people claiming that Giuliani is better than Huckabee, and want no part of that.
I think that part of the problem you’re describing, though, is related to party loyalty. Far too many commentators, legislators, statesmen, and citizens just put up with — and defended — too much from the Bush administration, so credibly calling for idealogical purity now is virtually impossible.
For what it’s worth, I know how you feel … even if we’re not in exactly the same place about what to do about it.
on January 21, 2008 on 5:56 pm
Have you been listening to Jason Lewis?
on January 21, 2008 on 7:00 pm
I had trolled/trawled your contribution earlier. I like the outside the box comparative nature to it. That sounded better in my head. Anyway post specific.I’m leaning towards this position. It is not up to the candidates to be the package I like as in a car on a lot. It is up to me to “order” what I want.The option laden car I really want to drive. I’ll confess in 2000 I was in for W early. I looked at McCain but I actually thought “compassionate conservativism” sounded like an updated version of pulling up bootstraps and America together stuff. The big government mash it turned into hasn’t discouraged me. I felt unleashing faith based orgs at vices and issues for the benefit of people was good. I think Medicare super Rx is bad.Anyway thanks for participating and for adding a different flavor. I2TF
on January 22, 2008 on 11:15 am
Look guys the system is about to fall apart Fred isn’t going to help, the mass-police state is here and now.
Our economic collapse is here our system will and is being used against us.
people if you have to ask if you are free you are not a free person but you are in some-kind of enslavement and you just don’t know that fact yet.
by the way liberals and conservatate is only a joke on you.
on January 22, 2008 on 2:58 pm
Fred has dropped out. Now what?
Mittmentum!
on January 22, 2008 on 6:28 pm
Time to join us in the Paul camp!
)
on January 22, 2008 on 9:24 pm
To the Fred Dawes commentor: WHAT????????
Mass police state?
What color is the sky in your world?
on January 22, 2008 on 9:45 pm
Camel, after reading a bit on Ron Paul I’m interested in understanding what you like in him. He seems extremely focused on the constitution to guide him in everything…almost to a fault…it’s a little concerning. He seems to support local/state government to make decisions rather than the federal level. I think that is good and bad.
You’re thoughts?
on January 22, 2008 on 10:55 pm
What’s up with the alaskanspawn and the alaskancamel?
on January 23, 2008 on 6:49 am
wickle Said:
That is true, and at least we both see a problem. I know that you are a vehement supporter of Huck, and more power to you. I disagree with some of his positions, which is why I won’t get behind him… But he’s a much better choice than McCain…
on January 23, 2008 on 6:55 am
ChenZhen Said:
Of course! All three hours, every single day. I couldn’t make it through may day without him to get my blood boiling
I don’t always agree with him, but for the most part I see eye-to-eye with him on things.
I’ve always wondered the same thing. It’s an invasion. There’s also an AlaskanAmber who lurks over on some of my other posts! I think Alaska has been off the radar too long and it plotting an invasion from the North.
on January 23, 2008 on 7:00 am
Fred Dawes Said:
I would be more apt to say nanny state than police state… Although there are exceptions, and to a certain extent we are headed down a very scary path that could lead to a police state. If you want something to really scare the hell out of you, read this:
http://www.pheistyblog.com/archives/1349
Sadly, it sounds more like a police state than a free society. It’s happening, but it’s happening under a guise of compassionate concern which make people blindly accept it… Which honestly scares the shit out of me.
on January 23, 2008 on 7:08 am
Holly Said:
Holly, I know it sounds scary, but before you go thinking Fred is too crazy, read the post I linked to above. If police SWAT breaking into a house to take a kid away to a hospital because the parents wouldn’t release the kid to the paramedics for “observation” after they had previously said he was ok isn’t reminiscent of a police state, I don’t know what is…
on January 23, 2008 on 7:16 am
alaskanspawn Said:
That is federalism, which is what our nation was founded on. The federal government was never meant to be the all-powerful entity that it has become. While the fed has some useful purposes, it was designed intentionally to be limited in its powers while passing most of the responsibility of government onto the states themselves. Each state was supposed to be able to run as it wanted – so long as they didn’t violate the US Constitution in the process.
Over time, however, the federal government grew out of control. As they say, power corrupts, and what greater power is there than the mighty hand of federal government? Look at what so many of our politicians do when they get into office. They expand their power. They spend money. They engage in pet projects that have nothing to do with government…. The list goes on and on.
In the immortal words of Reagan, government is not the solution, government is the problem.
If you look at any of our major woes right now, each and every one of them can be traced back to government overstepping its bounds and screwing up the country. Under federalism, that would be much less likely to happen because each state would have the ability to run things as they see fit. Each state was supposed to be like an experiment, and if some experiments fizzled, at least they weren’t going to drag the whole country down with them while they recovered from their problems.
on January 23, 2008 on 7:20 am
To all, I am preparing a statement regarding my support now that Fred has left us. It’s a sad day for us conservatives, but if we let this demoralize us any further it’s going to destroy us. So with chin up, we press on.
on January 23, 2008 on 9:29 am
I guess you might have missed my point about government control with regards to Ron Paul. I believe in a “living constitution” in that the day it was ratified does not reflect the World of today. I have a feeling that will fly in the face of strict conservatives. That being said, a strict, unbending view of the constitution as a basis for all decisions worries me a bit. That’s what I was trying to get at.
on January 23, 2008 on 8:35 pm
Spawn, I agree with you that we need to be flexible, but the Constitution still should provide a basic framework that we should abide by. There is obviously room for some interpretation.
A strict view of the Constitution is important, but so is being realistic… With that said, however, the Constitution was put in place to ensure the country was kept in a place were the people are free. That shouldn’t change, but much to my dismay it would seem that the government is infringing on that very freedom they were supposed to protect and uphold.
on January 23, 2008 on 11:18 pm
You know, I just had a small revalation. I’m starting to understand your side of things better because it’s very similar to how I feel about religion. Now, I don’t really want to start a religious argument but allow me to elaborate.
Religion is oppresive. It’s stifling, mostly inflexible but open to interpretation (almost a contradiction).
on January 23, 2008 on 11:23 pm
Crap hit the wrong button too quick…
Religion has it’s roots in acquiring power through fear and force. It makes decisions based in what is thought as the greater good but makes absolutely no sense. This could go on and on but you get my point.
I’m not agreeing with you, let’s be clear about that, but in my quest to understand your way of thinking this is as good a comparison as it gets for me.
This biggest difference would be that government is needed where religion is useless in our modern world.
on January 23, 2008 on 11:30 pm
Oh and btw, Mitt being a fairly strict Mormon scares me. Have you ever been to Provo, UT on a Sunday morning? I have and I gotta tell you it was frightning! That place (as a city) is the largest single cult group on the planet.
Polygamy, golden tablets, secret rituals and buildings, separatists…etc. There has to be no better example of a modern day scam than Mormonism. Hell even Bringham Young was against polygamy right up to the end when he finally gave in to Joe and took multiple wives.
I wish there was an atheist on the ballot. I wonder if that would still be political suicide these days?
on January 24, 2008 on 7:11 am
Spawn, that is a good analogy. You’re right, both religion and politics are quests for power. I think that people like to believe that they are “above that,” but when it comes down to it who doesn’t like power?
What worries me is when power expands in an uncontrolled manner. I am not an anarchist nor am I a libertarian. I like government. I understand that government is necessary. Being a Veteran, I have worked for government. However, government should remain in check and should not have absolute power over all aspects of a free society. The government was never meant to be an oppressive regulatory body, nor was it meant to be the country’s universal insurance policy against disasters, sickness or misfortune.
When the government starts telling private businesses what they can or can’t make despite market demands, tells consumers what they can or can’t buy, and tells people what activities they can or can’t do on their own private property, they have gone too far.
At no time should government be a nanny or a babysitter. The assumption that we are all a bunch of idiots who would kill ourselves, each other and the planet if we didn’t have the government to hold our hand and guide us is insulting to say the least. If you look at our growth and prosperity as a nation, we somehow managed to not only survive, but to grow into a mighty technological and industrial powerhouse during a time when government was much more minimal. Yet, these days were under the constant impression that we wouldn’t be able to even function in our day-to-day lives without government.
It really makes you think, doesn’t it?
on January 24, 2008 on 11:26 am
I guess when it comes down to it, Romney’s religion is of little concern to me. Yes, they have their secret little rituals and whatnot, but for the most part they are decent enough people. Interestingly, many of the restrictions they have and rules they have to follow help to make them better people.
I served with a Mormon in the Navy, and spent a good amount of time with him and his wife, and they were great people. A large portion of my extended family is Mormon as well, and I have never seen anything that would make me question them.
And to answer your question, I fear that an atheist wouldn’t fare too well in an election. There is too much bigotry towards atheists right now, and the fact that all too often whenever pointless squabbles and frivolous lawsuits arise over things like Christmas decorations it is due to self-proclaimed atheists which tends to really piss off the rest of the population who perceives atheists as godless troublemakers. We know it’s a bunch of crap, but we are also not the general masses.
on January 24, 2008 on 12:58 pm
Hmm, well my 2 best friends are Mormon (err…Camel has recently converted to objectivism) so I have no quarrel with them as people obviously but when it comes to the President of the United States, I personally have a problem with someone that would allow themselves to believe such crap.
In this case, and this case only, it scares me to have someone in the political arena that could possibly make decisions in a vacuum. Actually, Alaskanamber also graduated from BYU like Romney. I was living in Salt Lake at the time which is why I mentioned Provo on a Sunday.
Btw, without turning this into a religion topic hopefully, why do you think that your mormon friends needed the religion to make them better people? Is it not possible to become “better people” without religion? I personally think I am a nice person and am always looking for ways to better my life as well as those around me (that was partly how I ended up as an EMT for a while). I certainly don’t need religion to understand right from wrong nor do I base any decisions on “what would Jesus do?”. I certainly hope, for the sake of this country/World, we move past the age old mythologies and start to focus on what’s really important for mankind.
on January 24, 2008 on 6:53 pm
The same could be said for pretty much any religion. I mean, consider the fact that the universally accepted “norm” involves some bizarre aspects too… I mean, the ark, Jonah and the whale, a guy who rose from the dead after being dead for three days, angels, devils… And what about communion? Eating bread and drinking wine which is representative of flesh and blood?
Spawn, you surprise me, because I thought that you were more dynamic in your thinking than this. Mormonism may sound odd, but so do other major religions when you look at them from an objective perspective. I mean, you speak of Provo, BYU etc, but if you’ve ever been to Vatican City (I have) and seen the nutty rituals that go on there, you’d look at Catholics in the same light.
Oh, absolutely! You don’t need religion to be a good person. But if you’re true to a belief or cause, and that belief encourages living a good life and being a good person, all the better.
I’m not saying that they were good people because of their religion, or that they wouldn’t be good people otherwise. But I will say that they I found it interesting that they not only lived like that, but they had the backing and support of people who help foster and encourage that sort of lifestyle.
Don’t forget that the average person does best when they are guided by a belief system. People like you and I (and many other readers here) are intelligent and aware enough to manage on our own, but many people are terrified of the thought of a world where they have to be guided by their own moral compass. It doesn’t make them bad, it’s just that lots of people don’t have the fortitude required to “go at it alone.”
on January 24, 2008 on 8:48 pm
To be clear, all religions are hokey. Mormonism is just a relatively new one like scientology. Christianity is just as screwey, so don’t get me wrong, I believe most, if not all, religions are just as looney as the next.
Perhaps Romney is a moderate Mormon or “jack” mormon as some call it. I don’t think that religion makes these people bad but it certainly perpetuates the problem of religion. This perpetuation (not sure that’s a word but it sounds good) is what worries me and to have the President of the United States perpetuating what I think of as the root of all evil is just wrong.
So it’s just that in the relative history of things, Christianity has a long tradition that somewhat dilutes its’ insanity. Mormonism, a recent uprising in relative terms, just makes me puke in my mouth. I seriously get sick to think that…really…I can’t even complete my thoughts I get so aggravated.
The extremists and fundamentalists may be the immediate problem but the moderates are actually the real issue. They are the masses, the majority, and as such continue and make the lunacy acceptable.
on January 24, 2008 on 8:50 pm
You know what it comes down to? I have high hopes for humanity and feel completely helpless and ashamed that we continue to waste our time with ancient mythology.
on January 25, 2008 on 5:53 pm
Oh where to even start. Sorry I have been away for awhile, travel sucks this time of year. A quick post and then away for another week.
Spawn, the reason I like Paul so much is that first of all, he really seems to say what he believes. It if very hard to find a time where he “flip flops” and isn’t consistent. I firmly believe that the government is extremely bloated, and he seems to be the only one who really wants to shrink it. I am a strong proponent of capitalism and he couldn’t agree more. I often times say that the market would right itself if it weren’t for government interference. The government always interferes and makes things worse. Ron Paul is often miss-represented as and Isolationist and anti war. This is far from the truth. He wants to have vibrant global trade and an interaction with the world where it makes sense to do so. He isn’t anti war; he just wants to know what’s in it for us if we do go to war. He doesn’t believe in deficit spending and he thinks a system like the gold standard (but not necessarily the gold standard) makes more sense for a secure future. He is pro life and doesn’t believe in affirmative action. All affirmative action does is continue the cycle that we are on. He doesn’t pander to the masses just so people can hear what they want to hear. And finally, even though the media is ignoring him (his second place finish in Nevada wasn’t even reported on in Alaska) he still has swelling support. In a nut shell, that’s why I like him.
Oh yeah, I checked into that anti Semitism thing. All bull crap. Couldn’t be further from the truth and is just more miss-representation of the facts by people who are scared of a true conservative in the White House.
As for religion, most of my family is Mormon, but I have not considered myself one since I was 14. Since then, I have considered myself an Agnostic, a generic Christian, and yes finally an Objectivist. Even though Objectivism isn’t really a religion, some could consider it to be. I agree with the earlier comment, there are wackos in every religion (and in every non religion). People seem to take away what a religion stands for by the wackos they see. Look at Atheists. Most people when they hear of an Atheist think of people like Marilyn Manson. From previous conversations, we know that is not the norm, it’s just what we take away. I think the same goes for Mormons. 99% of the Mormons I know are great people who are nothing like your previous post. Honestly, however, I don’t that has anything to do with the Presidential race. I don’t care if Romney is a Mormon, I just don’t like his policies or the policies of his father. If he is anything like his dad and he wins, were worse off than we are now.
Well, that’s my 10 pages for the day (sorry). I am off to a meeting but I will try to check back later. Off to Vegas this week so won’t be able to respond much.
on January 26, 2008 on 6:28 pm
So What new he over its hopeless
on January 26, 2008 on 7:46 pm
“I just don’t like his policies or the policies of his father. If he is anything like his dad and he wins, were worse off than we are now.” W isn’t anything like his dad or his policies. There’s really no reason to think there’s any chance of it w/ Mitt. The policy potential Romney brings to the table is one of real world as opposed to the wRong one.
on January 28, 2008 on 10:26 pm
You all have heard the phrase “if you don’t vote you can’t bitch” right? What if no one voted, no one at all. What if we exercised our right to end the political rhetoric by a “no vote sit out” or something like that. What would they do? It would be a monumental task to organize something like that but as a theory what would happen?
on January 29, 2008 on 7:12 am
Wha! I don’t know how I missed these comments. I’m falling behind!
alaskanspawn Said:
That is very true, and what’s even more amusing is that nobody in this day and age would consider a religion like ancient Egyptian, Greek, Roman or Norse… It’s all just “mythology” now, but back then it was religion! What’s the difference between modern-day conventional religions and ancient Egyptian? None that I can see… In another 2000 or so years, will people look back at Christianity and chuckle?
However, don’t downplay the role of religion in people’s lives. There’s a reason that religion has always been a part of mankind in one way or another. It’s the opium of the people.
Sadly, I think that we would elect a gay, black Jew before we elect an atheist as our president. I think that the mainstream masses(i.e. most people) have an inherent distrust in people who don’t believe in a higher power of some sort. Of course, the irony of the fact is that a true atheist is probably just as, if not more trustworthy than any religious person out there. They’re just guided by their own principles instead of the principles of a religion. But people tend to not like the idea that people can deny something that they themselves feel so strongly and passionately about.
on January 29, 2008 on 7:15 am
Camel, Spawn, as for the Ron Paul issue, I’m going to steer this conversation to this post, where another guy is really getting into it with me:
http://arclightzero.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/why-the-gop-is-failing-fred/#comment-11493
He has some really good points and interestingly is making me question my decision a bit… Can I put aside my foreign policy/military issues? I dunno…
on January 29, 2008 on 7:19 am
alaskanspawn Said:
It would certainly send a message, but I’m not sure what message it would send.
Personally, I think a better message to send would be to get most (or all) people to vote for third parties. If the dems and republicans had no votes and were knocked out of power, they would get the message very quickly.
Come to think of it, I don’t rightly understand how it is that we ever became a two-party system. Why do the republicans and dems think they run the country? There is nothing in our Constitution or government that says these two parties are the only ones who can rule. In fact, they didn’t even exist when our nation was founded.
I would LOVE to see these two corrupt parties knocked down a peg or two… But we would need to convince the masses that the dems or republicans aren’t the only choices for running the country.