Every person has the right to govern himself, to fix his own goals, and to make his own way with a minimum of governmental interference.
This idea of the sovereign individual goes hand in hand with an understanding that government has a legitimate, but limited, role to protect the rights and welfare of the people and to be answerable to the people for its actions. This was expressed clearly in the 1964 Platform:
It is for government to foster and maintain an environment of freedom encouraging every individual to develop to the fullest his God-given powers of mind, heart and body; and, beyond this, government should undertake only needful things, rightly of public concern, which the citizen cannot himself accomplish.
This platform from 40 years ago, written in a time of great national challenge and under the clear-eyed guidance of Senator Barry Goldwater, expresses better than almost any other document the fundamental beliefs of the party, including the principles of individual liberty, but also the importance of the Constitution in protecting that liberty:
Within our Republic the Federal Government should act only in areas where it has Constitutional authority to act, and then only in respect to proven needs where individuals and local or state governments will not or cannot adequately perform. Great power, whether governmental or private, political or economic, must be so checked, balanced and restrained and, where necessary, so dispersed as to prevent it from becoming a threat to freedom any place in the land.
Perhaps most unique in that document was an awareness which seems to be forgotten today, that not only do individuals have responsibility for their actions, but that there is a greater responsibility invested in the government through the social contract to do right by its citizens:
It is a high mission of government to help assure equal opportunity for all, affording every citizen an equal chance at the starting line but never determining who is to win or lose. But government must also reflect the nation's compassionate concern for those who are unable, through no fault of their own, to provide adequately for themselves.
The high ideals of Republicanism also extend to the behavior of politicians and how they use the sacred trust invested in them by the people:
Government must be restrained in its demands upon and its use of the resources of the people, remembering that it is not the creator but the steward of the wealth it uses; that its goals must ever discipline its means; and that service to all the people, never to selfish or partisan ends, must be the abiding purpose of men entrusted with public power.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Dave,
I know you've been a history prof and all. I originally went to university to teach history. While American history was not my forté, I did learn a considerable amount of the history of the State (and City) of New York, and, given that my father was a card carrying socialist and labor activist in his lifetime, a considerable amount of material on the labor movements in Europe as compared to America.
On the GOP, you missed a huge issue that has faded all the nice things you wrote about it into insignificance. After the Civil War, the GOP was taken over by the vast moneyed interests who made a fortune on the industrialization of the US in the latter half of the 19th Century, people whose fortunes were kick-started by war production during the Civil War. These are the people whose descendants form the oil and banking interests who control your country, and who have solidified that control using the Federal Reserve System and the CFR.
This is not some wild conspiracy theory. The Federal Reserve Bank is a consortium of private interests who control the American banking system, and the CFR is a think tank devoted to protecting the interests of the major monopolists who emerged in early 20th Century America. Until Barry Goldwater got nominated in 1964, the GOP was the private preserve of these people, known until that time as "Main Street Republicans."
The oil and banking interests who control your control your nation will not be dislodged without a fight - and I do not mean a lot of shouting over who controls the ballot box or electoral posts either.
Your wakeup call, well meaning as it is, will be ignored. The only people who might be able to personify that wake-up call are Ron Paul or Senator Brownback, and frankly, one or two lousy politicians are not going to dislodge thousands of people with real economic power in your nation.
2 - Dave Nalle
On the GOP, you missed a huge issue that has faded all the nice things you wrote about it into insignificance. After the Civil War, the GOP was taken over by the vast moneyed interests who made a fortune on the industrialization of the US in the latter half of the 19th Century, people whose fortunes were kick-started by war production during the Civil War. These are the people whose descendants form the oil and banking interests who control your country, and who have solidified that control using the Federal Reserve System and the CFR.
The party was funded and founded by the people who made fortunes in the first phase of the industrial revolution prior to the civil war. They are the 'secret six' and other northeastern industrialists who backed John Brown and the Free Soil Party and eventually the Republican Party. So the involvement of business and industry in the party was really a continuation of something which had been part of the party all along.
The marriage between business interests and liberalism on which the GOP has always been based makes perfect sense. It is to the benefit of business to create an evironment of individual liberty and an open, highly mobile society. The idea of 'Free Labor' - a dynamic and competitive labor market - was central to the party from the very beginning and even included in its first party slogan. It was the addition of the labor/business alliance to the party which made it viable on a national level.
This is not some wild conspiracy theory. The Federal Reserve Bank is a consortium of private interests who control the American banking system, and the CFR is a think tank devoted to protecting the interests of the major monopolists who emerged in early 20th Century America.
You're right on the Fed. The CFR is a bit more complex and less sinister than you suggest. It really is much more of a think tank than a power group. But regardless, why does what you say make either of those organizations inherently undesirable? Who better to run the economy than a consortium of banks with government oversight?
Until Barry Goldwater got nominated in 1964, the GOP was the private preserve of these people, known until that time as "Main Street Republicans."
Main Street, of course, standing for the working middle class entrepreneurs who most represent the values of the nation and of the party. This is a bad thing?
The only people who might be able to personify that wake-up call are Ron Paul or Senator Brownback, and frankly, one or two lousy politicians are not going to dislodge thousands of people with real economic power in your nation.
I don't see much value in Brownback and Paul isn't all that viable. But I don't agree with you on where the problem lies, so that's okay. It's not the businesses which are the problem, it's the politicians and the people who elect them and who run the party. Things need to be changed on a much more basic level, starting with what the people expect and demand from their leaders.
Dave
3 - Lee Richards
This is a relevant and reasoned article. It's a pity that because of partisanship and self-interest it will fall on so many deaf ears.
Both parties have willingly prostituted themselves;Republicans have strayed the most, because they have departed so far from their avowed principles and deserted their historic purpose.
A member of my family is the Director of Development of an international non-profit organization. He has worked with various members of Congress for two decades, including a number of Republicans. In his opinion, having observed them at work up close and personal, many of those in office have only one qualification that allows them to be elected and re-elected:they have the ability to raise sufficient money.
That's it. Not principles, character, experience, or intellect. They win because they can get the money to buy elections.
I believe Republican reform should start with fiscal resonsibility, a return to traditional party principles and values, disavowal of the religious extremists, and advocating term limits in Congress. Being a career politician and making a fortune out of public service is the antithesis of Republicanism. And so is wasting money like water and meddling in every aspect of our personal lives.
As Eisenhower said, the middle of the road is better than the gutter on the far left or far right.
4 - Dave Nalle
Mostly I wanted to just lay out exactly what the record of the GOP really is over its history. If the party were to adopt any of its platforms on which it ran prior to 1968 and run on that platform and take it seriously, it would earn back a lot of legitimacy.
Dave
5 - handyguy
Dave has written this article before, most recently in July ["The Tradition of Liberty and the Republican Party"]. I am glad he took the time in this iteration to discuss the influx of Southern segregationists and extreme social conservatives into the GOP from the mid-sixties onward. Possibly my own criticisms of the July article helped guide this correction.
Rerun or not, this is a good article, except for two very large flaws and one major omission:
1. It assumes that all the changes in the two parties in the last 4 decades have not changed their fundamental qualities. But of course they have!
We have to deal in the reality of who the party leaders and candidates are. Neither Bush II, Cheney, nor any of the 3 frontrunners in the GOP presidential contest are 'pure' GOP libertarians of the kind Dave envisions. [For that matter, neither were Nixon, Ford or Bush I; maybe you could make a case for Reagan.]
So where is this magical reversion to form going to come from? More likely from a third party than the GOP itself.
2. The other, and worse, flaw is that Dave is articulate and well-reasoned about many things in the article - but not about Democrats. He continues his irrational campaign of slander against them.
Again, you have to judge the party by its leaders and elected officials: Pelosi, Dean, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Gore, Frank, Biden, etc. If you try to apply this outrageous sentence to all those individuals, you realize that Dave is simply partisan: "...big government, corruption, and trying to run people's lives are the politics of the Democrats".
It ignores the pro-business moderates who have a large role in the party; and it ignores many of the congressmen and senators newly elected in 2006 from more conservative districts. We need to deal with the reality of actual individuals, not tar everyone with the same tired old brush.
3. Finally, Dave's pronouncements on the two parties ignore possibly the most important, long-lasting effect of which group controls the White House: the appointment of judges and Supreme Court justices. Does Dave think Scalia, Thomas and Roberts represent anything close to his GOP ideal? Would he classify Ginsburg and Breyer as two of the 'enemies of freedom,' as he has often painted the Dems?
This kind of bashing and labeling is at best limiting and at worst destructive.
6 - Dave Nalle
Dave has written this article before, most recently in July ["The Tradition of Liberty and the Republican Party"].
Urk. Forgot I had previously released that earlier version of the article. I've had it sitting around for ages doing periodic revisions.
I am glad he took the time in this iteration to discuss the influx of Southern segregationists and extreme social conservatives into the GOP from the mid-sixties onward. Possibly my own criticisms of the July article helped guide this correction.
I've always had an issue with those invaders and I hope I wasn't too subtle in mentioning the Neocons as well.
Rerun or not, this is a good article, except for two very large flaws and one major omission:
1. It assumes that all the changes in the two parties in the last 4 decades have not changed their fundamental qualities. But of course they have!
Of course they have, and not for the better. That's a lot of what I talk about in the last few paragraphs, the negative changes in the GOP, but my conclusion is that the party can still remove those influences even if it means splitting the party. As for the Democrats, that's an even scarier prospect. If you look back at the quote from the GOP platform of 1908 they had already identified the Democrats for exactly what they had turned into 100 years ago, and since then they have only gone deeper into socialism and statism.
We have to deal in the reality of who the party leaders and candidates are. Neither Bush II, Cheney, nor any of the 3 frontrunners in the GOP presidential contest are 'pure' GOP libertarians of the kind Dave envisions. [For that matter, neither were Nixon, Ford or Bush I; maybe you could make a case for Reagan.]
I sure hope you didn't get the idea I thought any of these guys were the embodiment of the Republican ideal from this article.
So where is this magical reversion to form going to come from? More likely from a third party than the GOP itself.
I think a crushing defeat in 2008 would lead to a split in the party which would make a purification possible.
2. The other, and worse, flaw is that Dave is articulate and well-reasoned about many things in the article - but not about Democrats. He continues his irrational campaign of slander against them.
Also known as just telling the simple truth. Why is it that when I say things just as bad about the GOP in the last 40 years in this article that's all believable, but when I say the same things about Democrats it's irrational slander?
Again, you have to judge the party by its leaders and elected officials: Pelosi, Dean, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Gore, Frank, Biden, etc.
A list which includes several of the most dangerous, corrupt and socialistic autocrats in America today.
If you try to apply this outrageous sentence to all those individuals, you realize that Dave is simply partisan:
I can make a list of some good and some bad Republicans too. The fact that some Democrats like Gore and Frank aren't completely corrupt and power mad doesn't redeem the party as a whole.
"...big government, corruption, and trying to run people's lives are the politics of the Democrats".
Just the truth as it has been for more than 100 years.
It ignores the pro-business moderates who have a large role in the party; and it ignores many of the congressmen and senators newly elected in 2006 from more conservative districts. We need to deal with the reality of actual individuals, not tar everyone with the same tired old brush.
These reasonable folks aren't running the party any more than Christie Whitman or Ron Paul is running the GOP.
3. Finally, Dave's pronouncements on the two parties ignore possibly the most important, long-lasting effect of which group controls the White House: the appointment of judges and Supreme Court justices. Does Dave think Scalia, Thomas and Roberts represent anything close to his GOP ideal? Would he classify Ginsburg and Breyer as two of the 'enemies of freedom,' as he has often painted the Dems?
I rather like Thomas and Roberts. I'm neutral on Breyer and I think Ginsberg and Scalia go too far in their opposite directions. I submit that a real libertarian judge would NEVER have made it through the confirmation process. If the religious right didn't sink him on abortion or related issues the democrats would have rejected him out of pure terror.
Dave
This kind of bashing and labeling is at best limiting and at worst destructive.
7 - handyguy
We can probably agree that much of the status quo is uninspiring. Foreign policy has distorted some of the traditional party distinctions during the past 6 years as well.
But is HRC, the wife of the man who proclaimed that "the era of big government is over," really likely to be a radical, destructive statist as president? I think she knows she has too much to lose if she moves too far in that direction.
And your other female bete noire, Nancy Pelosi, is constantly criticized by her left flank for not going far enough on anything. Both of these women are proceeding cautiously and skillfully and they are over-criticized and underrated by many.
8 - Lumpy
Hilary is a fascist in democrats clothing. Elect her and when shows her true colors it will be too late.
9 - handyguy
Yeah yeah yeah, Lumpy, and you base this eloquent opinion on what, exactly? Zero evidence, just your gut contempt for her. This is as good a reason as any for me to vote for her.
10 - bliffle
"...big government, corruption, and trying to run people's lives are the politics of the Democrats".
All politicians want to do those things. Just look at the current crop of maniacs in this "Republican" government.
But these guys have actually grabbed the power to do it. And a lot of titular republicans (even here on BC; lawdy, lawdy) have cheered them on.
11 - gonzo marx
from the Article
"They will not be stopped unless the Republican Party remembers its purpose and stands up against them."
bullshit, show your Proof...it's an Opinion, but is stated as a unproven Fact and used as an axion for the article's thesis...hence, bullshit
"That description of the Democrats is as accurate today as it was 100 years ago, and the same Republican principles are just as valid today as they were then."
more bullshit..again , show your Proof...but again, it's fine for the purposes of rhetoric , since the Article is clearly marked Opinion...
yet again, for the purposes of debate and discussion, this is also used as an unproven axiom for the thesis
"Within our Republic the Federal Government should act only in areas where it has Constitutional authority to act, and then only in respect to proven needs where individuals and local or state governments will not or cannot adequately perform. Great power, whether governmental or private, political or economic, must be so checked, balanced and restrained and, where necessary, so dispersed as to prevent it from becoming a threat to freedom any place in the land."
this one is Quoted for Truth...Goldwater had some solid Thoughts on the topic...what's missing here is the Recognition that since he uttered those words, the GOP, ESPECIALLY between 2000 and 2007, have violated those Principles time and time again
just to show i'm trying to be as fair as possible , i'll end with this one....
"Today it seems as if the Republican party and many of its leaders have lost their way."
Quoted for Truth
better to stick to whatever the Author is trying to do to reform from within the GOP, and stop the pure partisan swinging at the Opposition...
imo, to do so might win more allies than create enemies
your mileage may vary...
Excelsior?
12 - Dave Nalle
Gonzo, like it says at the head of the article it's Opinion, even if there's some nice solid history in there too.
What you miss - as usual - is that I'm just as critical in the article of the GOP as I am of the Democrats, but you only object to the criticism of the Democrats. Anything bad I say about the GOP is just fine and correct. But the fact is that BOTH parties are corrupt and misguided in the ways I specify for each, and the fact that you don't recognize the flaws in your party of choice makes you the one who's partisan here.
Dave
13 - Baronius
Handy, I don't think the Republican ideal judge upholds Republican policies. The majority of the GOP doesn't want judges to make rulings based on any political agenda. Even the religious zealots that Dave fears so much. Sure, there are some activist conservative judges and some people who favor them. But if you look at Scalia's opinions, for example, you'll see positions based on a legal reading. That's all we want, a fair fight. You may also notice that the recent "conservative" courts regularly rule for and against corporations, the military, and the White House.
14 - Dave Nalle
Baronius, there are definitely some in the GOP who would like judges to make decisions on a couple of issues on non-constitutional grounds, especially when it comes to prayer in schools and abortion. But on the whole on most issues Republicans are right in thinking that if decisions were made on the Constitution as written they would tend to fall in line with what most Republicans want.
Dave
15 - gonzo marx
@ #12 - do you actually read my Comments, or just cut and paste a smear reply with my name on it?
either that or you are being deliberately obtuse and trying to rile me up to generate some traffic
i don't like to think that you are deliberately lying when you say... "What you miss - as usual - is that I'm just as critical in the article of the GOP as I am of the Democrats, but you only object to the criticism of the Democrats. Anything bad I say about the GOP is just fine and correct. But the fact is that BOTH parties are corrupt and misguided in the ways I specify for each, and the fact that you don't recognize the flaws in your party of choice makes you the one who's partisan here."
and here's why it's a pure fucking Lie...did i or did i not put in your usage of the Goldwater quote and state that i also thought it was completely Truthful, as well as your usage of it?
sorry if i wasn't clear enough in stating that much of what you said of the GOP from 40 or 100 years ago is completely correct and admirable...here i had thought that showing my support for your use of Goldwater, and his Quote sums up quite well much of the finest in the GOP history/platform
you appear to have completely missed that in your rush to cast aspersions, and in so doing take what is 3/4 of a damn fine Article and flush it down to the level of JoM or mr
you also appear to have forgotten my own bashing of Dems , and the fact that while i have gone after this Administration in an Article or two...i NEVER paint the entire GOP with broad brush stroke, rather i speak about specific individuals or actions that i disagree with as opposed to the bullshit generality about the Dems which i Quoted in my comment...
my problem is not with you correctly stating the accomplishments the GOP has achieved in it's history, but the unfounded cheap shots you take at the opposition rather than sticking to the factual portions of your thesis...which i mostly agree with...i hit on both, what i thought was good and what i thought was shit
it's called Critique, one would think an editor of this site would "get it"
but there you have it...again, i'll gladly leave it to the Readers to decide who is the pure partisan...
Excelsior?
16 - Dave Nalle
Gonzo, again, you don't get my point. My criticism of the dems is just as true and factual as my criticism of the GOP. Until you can acknowledge that fact I am likely to continue to call you partisan.
I realize you've said a few bad things about the Democrats before, but so long as you continue to excuse their massive ideologically based failings you're just not looking at them with honest eyes.
You just don't judge democrats and republicans by the same standards. You're hardly alone in that, so accept and admit it and don't take it so personally when I point it out.
Dave
17 - gonzo marx
"I realize you've said a few bad things about the Democrats before, but so long as you continue to excuse their massive ideologically based failings you're just not looking at them with honest eyes."
again, pure bullshit..nice how you now claim you can read my Mind, especially since the entirety of my typings here on BC belie your assertion
"You just don't judge democrats and republicans by the same standards. You're hardly alone in that, so accept and admit it and don't take it so personally when I point it out."
MORE bullshit...show yer fucking Proof
just because you make a claim loudly does NOT make it Truth...example: anyone die in Iraq today?
fucking pathetic, imo
Excelsior?
18 - Lumpy
I have't really been looking but I've seen nothing but attacks on republicans based solely on the fact that they are republicans from u in the comments gonzo.
I can't say if u have a double standard because i've never seen u say anything good or bad about the dems.
19 - gonzo marx
Lumpy...read the link in my previous comment...and i fucking DEFY you to show me ANY quote from me EVER that makes a blanket statement about the Republicans as a generic whole and NOT something very specific about well defined actions by Individuals or a sub-grouping which i also define specifically (example, showing the PNAC charter members signatory list form their own website in 1997 to demonstrate which Administration officials were neocons)
so sorry, Lumpy...again until you show proof...i call bullshit
go ahead, prove me wrong...but you can't even be bothered to look at a link 3 comments before yours to an entire Article of me slamming Dems for fucking up
and that's the thing...NO double standards from me here..i'm VERY careful about that....i also DEFY you or Vox to find a Quote of me praising Dems in a generic fashion...hell, tough to find me giving ANY political representative my *thumbs up*...like i gave Goldwater right in this Thread
nice try "Lumpy"...but pure bullshit...go ahead, prove me wrong...i have shown my Proofs, let's see yours
otherwise it's just more of the same, bullshit allegations with no basis in Reality...
Excelsior?
20 - handyguy
Dave's answer to those of us who find his overheated criticism of Democrats objectionable is always "I'm just stating the simple truth." No, you're not. You are just restating your own bias.
I am a Democrat. I am not an 'enemy of freedom' and wouldn't vote for anyone I believed to be an 'enemy of freedom' 'making war on our basic rights.' You're stating an opinion, in hyperbolic language, not stating truth, not citing facts. And you don't make it more true by repeating it over and over.
I'm more interested in problem-solving than in ideology. There is no such thing as a 'pure' capitalist/libertarian government, nor a 'pure' socialist state. Even the most capitalist European government is further left than any Democratic president would be. Yet European countries are still democracies, still free.
Yes, most Dems are more open to federal government solutions than most Republicans are. But to twist and distort this, making it sound like a 'war' on basic tenets of democracy and freedom, is genuinely offensive to those of us on the left who believe very strongly in democracy and freedom.
Bottom line: You are far more ideological than you are willing to admit.
21 - gonzo marx
"I'm more interested in problem-solving than in ideology"
/golfclap
best...line....of...the...week, imo
but wasted on those who can only feel good about the results of their choices by tearing down any dissent to those choices
i would dearly love to live to see the day when the two Parties break up into their component constituencies...the finest of the GOP taking up the Principles of folks like Goldwater, the best of the Dems getting all Kennedy/FDR....REAL discussion and debate meant to find Answers and Solutions rather than the momentary "victory" of winning the next election
but that would take folks being adults about shit, like admitting when they have been proven wrong...rather than just shrieking distractions and deprecations of their opposition
good luck with that, i guess...
Excelsior?
22 - Clavos
gonzo,
What's a "golfclap??"
23 - gonzo marx
polite applause...
taken from the flick "Men at Work"
used in Unix geek fashion as a chat command
next Question, please...
Excelsior?
24 - Clavos
Got it.
Didn't know the movie connection, but had figured it had to be at least quiet applause.
25 - gonzo marx
@ #24 - be really worried if i start using...
/mosh
heh
Excelsior?