Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Republican Liberty Caucus Stands Up for Gay Rights in Texas

Republican Liberty Caucus Stands Up for Gay Rights in Texas

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

In a sign that things are changing in the Republican Party, even in the heart of the most conservative part of the country, a group of activist Republicans in Texas have come out strongly in opposition to three planks in their state party platform which oppose equal rights for gay citizens.

Coming in the wake of the defeat of the religious right at the party's state convention and the election of Steve Munisteri as a new, more reform-oriented Chairman for the Texas GOP two weeks ago, this signals that more change is on the way for Republicans in a state which the Obama political machine has targeted as one of their top priorities in the next two elections. Democrats hope to turn Texas from red to blue, but the newly revitalized and more inclusive Republican party is organizing to stop them.

One stumbling block to this has been a party platform which seems to have been assembled by a committee with no filtering ability whatsoever, including every extremist idea supported by every small but vocal pressure group in the state. It's a platform which most Republicans can't really agree on and which candidates certainly can't run on. It endorses conspiracy theories, is hostile to minority groups, and promotes theocracy and intolerance. It's a document no candidate wants to have to defend in a debate or an advertising campaign.

Focusing primarily on the issue of gay rights, the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas has come up to an answer to this problem. In a recent press release objecting to platform planks which propose restoring the sodomy law, denying gay parents custody rights, and making marrying a same-sex couple a felony, they propose a solution which would also address the entire broader issue of the party's unappealing platform.

Since the platform cannot be officially revised or replaced until the next party convention in 2012, they are urging the party leadership to issue a clear declaration that the platform is non-binding on candidates and does not represent the core beliefs of the party or its candidates. This runs directly opposite from proposals made during the convention, but not acted on, that candidates be required to publicly endorse the platform in some way. Having seen the platform, many party leaders are recoiling from that idea, and the alternative proposal from the Republican Liberty Caucus may gain support instead.

The issue of anti-gay wording in the platform has already gained negative publicity in the state and national media. Left-leaning online news sources like RawStory have condemned it for gay rights and other issues. Gay media like DallasVoice have expressed their outrage. The Log Cabin Republicans have spoken out against it. Most significantly the national media is picking the story up and that is resulting in some very unwanted attention, including a public statement from the Human Rights Campaign demanding that the Republican National Committee take action.

In the face of this growing media firestorm, the quiet press release from libertarian-leaning activists within the Texas GOP may go unnoticed, but their suggestion of the quick release of a simple statement from the State Republican Executive Committee and the Chairman absolving Texas Republicans of any allegiance to the party platform may be the wisest course and the easiest out for the party. The truth is that the platform has been allowed to get to this state because it has traditionally been largely ignored by candidates and neglected by the party organization, and making that disregard of the platform into official policy might be the best way to salvage a situation which is becoming a national embarrassment for the Republican Party in Texas and nationwide.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dave –

    [The Texas GOP party platform] endorses conspiracy theories, is hostile to minority groups, and promotes theocracy and intolerance.

    I tend to regard those who are willing to stand up for what is right even against their own group in high regard. I sincerely compliment you for it.

    I’ve heard several liberal pundits over the years wonder just why it is that libertarians almost always stick with the Republicans rather than the Democrats. Now don’t get me wrong – I know that a real libertarian is neither a Democrat nor a Republican, that you have your own particular political philosophy…but the more we look at the actions of the presidential administrations since Nixon took office, it seems to me that regardless of what the Republicans or Democrats SAY, the libertarian political philosophy is much more in line with what the Democrats DO.

    Now please correct me if my assumptions about libertarianism is wrong…and I’m sure you will.

    1 – The deficit. “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter” – Dick Cheney said that, and the behavior of the Republican party since 1980 proved it…and it’s only now that Obama’s in office that they’re all of a sudden deficit hawks. And WHY are they deficit hawks? Is it because they really want to bring down the deficit? That’s not what their actions have said for the past 28 years. The Democrats, on the other hand, at least tried with PAYGO in the 1990’s, and succeeded in having a budget surplus (which the Republicans promptly blew up).

    And the stimulus package – since it’s not even all spent yet – doesn’t account for a majority of the presently-ballooning deficit. The increase in defense spending and especially the significantly-lower tax revenues DO account for much of the deficit.

    The Republicans spent money like a drunken sailor for wars and for tax cuts for the rich…yet the libertarians would rather support this party than the one that actually had a budget surplus and tried to draw down our federal debt. Why? Because they love what the Republicans SAY, but pay little attention to what the Republicans DO.

    2. Abortion – libertarians are pro-choice, like most Democrats. But libertarians are FAR more likely to support Republicans than Democrats…never mind that Republicans want to nullify Rove v. Wade and outlaw abortion.

    3. Big Government – The Republicans love to say how Democrats are such supporters of Big Government, and one of the central tenets of libertarianism is that government needs to stay out of people’s lives. So not only do the Republicans feel that government needs to regulate our behavior in the bedroom, and not only do they want to regulate what women do with their bodies, but the Bush administration also got rid of Habeus Corpus and instituted warrantless wiretapping (and Dems had a hand in this too, but not to the same degree)…and this is on top of the present majority-conservative SCOTUS which is legislating from the bench like never before. Federal spending ballooned vastly under Reagan and under Bush 43 – and no comparable rise can be found in Democratic budgets with the exception of the stimulus package of last year.

    Yet the libertarians are FAR more likely to believe that the Republicans are all about ‘small government’. Why? Because the Republicans TELL them so, and the libertarians aren’t paying attention to what the Republicans actually DO.

    4. Wars. IIRC, most libertarians don’t think we should involve ourselves militarily outside of our country. But who was it that most strongly supported going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq? The Republicans…and the Bush administration even went so far as to knowingly LIE to the American people to get us to support the invasion of Iraq. And they told us that torture was a good thing, too.

    But the libertarians would much rather believe that the Republican Party only wants peace…because that’s what the Republican Party tells them, and the Word of a Republican is apparently all a libertarian needs in order to hate the Democrats.

    5. Separation of church and state – libertarians, as I understand it, do NOT believe that religion should have aught to do with government. Neither do the Democrats – that much is certain. But the Republicans? “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!” And teach creationism instead of evolution to our children in our public schools, too.

    But the Republicans are all about freedom, right? That’s what they told the libertarians, and that was good enough for the libertarians, never mind that their ‘official’ political philosophy is much closer to the Democrats’ than to the GOP’s.

    6. Gun rights – Why is it I get the impression that this one issue is more important to libertarians than anything else? No, I don’t think that’s the case – it just seems that way sometimes.

    But most gun-rights supporters don’t seem to understand that the majority of Democrats don’t want a full ban on guns, even on handguns! We can tell the gun nuts that we really do support sensible gun rights all day long, and they’ll just ignore us and tell each other that they can just about hear the black helicopters about to clear the ridge, and they’re a-comin’ to take all our guns away!

    Most Democrats know full well that a total gun ban will never work in America…because Pandora’s out of the box, and she ain’t gettin’ back in no way, no how. All that most of us want is simple doggone registration of those firearms so we can see who’s selling them on the black market, so we can ensure responsible ownership of these weapons.

    But that’s not good enough for the libertarians, I guess. You see, all they had to hear was that the Lib’ruls wanna take away our guns, and maybe that was all it took for the libertarians to believe that the Republicans are better for our economy, more responsible with our tax dollars, more peace-loving, more determined that government stays out of our bedrooms and out of women’s bodies, and bigger supporters of freedom of religion (as long as you believe in religion the way most Republicans do).

    So why do libertarians support Republicans far more (or at least hate them far less) than the Democrats? Look at these two phrases:

    “Deeds, not words”. “By their works shall ye know them.”

    Those two phrases apparently are not found in the libertarian political philosophy manifesto. That’s why libertarians are much more often in the Republican camp.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I wish you luck, Dave Nalle.

    I presume you’re being active on behalf of your political organization, which is why you spend so little time here.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I tend to regard those who are willing to stand up for what is right even against their own group in high regard. I sincerely compliment you for it.

    If only you could see that standing up for what is right includes opposing most of what you believe in.

    I’ve heard several liberal pundits over the years wonder just why it is that libertarians almost always stick with the Republicans rather than the Democrats. Now don’t get me wrong – I know that a real libertarian is neither a Democrat nor a Republican, that you have your own particular political philosophy…but the more we look at the actions of the presidential administrations since Nixon took office, it seems to me that regardless of what the Republicans or Democrats SAY, the libertarian political philosophy is much more in line with what the Democrats DO.

    Libertarianism is a philosophy, while the Republicans and Democrats are political parties. And while there may be superficial similarities between what I believe as a libertarian and what the Democrats profess to believe, trust me that you’re misreading the situation gravely.

    The reason why libertarians are more likely to work with, vote with and even become Republicans is that on the most basic issues the philosophy which dominates the Democratic party is repugnant to them. In contrast, while they may disagree with Republicans on specific issues, the Republicans at least attempt to hold to a set of principles which are not entirely hateful.

    At the heart of the Democratic party is a belief in collective solutions to problems. That citizens give up responsibility for their own welfare to government and that government should then impose solutions to those problems on society as a whole This includes providing for the welfare of the people, making sure that they are functionally equal, and solving their problems for them. It is the idea of the greatest good for the greatest number.

    The problem with this for the libertarian is that the libertarian believes in individual responsibility and does not believe in group or collective solutions to problems. While there may be many flaws in the Republican party it remains less devoted to collective government than the Democrats are, so for libertarians it is the lesser of two evils.

    1 – The deficit. “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter” – Dick Cheney said that, and the behavior of the Republican party since 1980 proved it…and it’s only now that Obama’s in office that they’re all of a sudden deficit hawks. And WHY are they deficit hawks? Is it because they really want to bring down the deficit? That’s not what their actions have said for the past 28 years. The Democrats, on the other hand, at least tried with PAYGO in the 1990’s, and succeeded in having a budget surplus (which the Republicans promptly blew up).

    So? Republicans did a poor job of following their ideals and some Democrats exceeded expectations. This does not change the underlying philosophy of the Democrats which is that wealth is ultimately the property of the state and that welfare and prosperity should flow from government.

    That Republicans act badly and don’t fulfill their ideals is a problem, but it is something which can be changed without challenging their fundamental beliefs. You can’t change the Democrats without changing their beliefs until they are no longer Democrats.

    And the stimulus package – since it’s not even all spent yet – doesn’t account for a majority of the presently-ballooning deficit. The increase in defense spending and especially the significantly-lower tax revenues DO account for much of the deficit.

    Again, you’re trying to hold all Republicans and all libertarians accountable for the fact that some Republicans acted like Democrats. Nation building and wars of liberation originate in the ideology of Woodrow Wilson who was the ideological father of modern Democratic Party foreign policy. Another big factor in the deficit is the medicare/medicaid/social security system – again, a Democrat idea, even if some wrongheaded Republicans made it worse by passing a huge expansion under Bush.

    The Republicans spent money like a drunken sailor for wars and for tax cuts for the rich…yet the libertarians would rather support this party than the one that actually had a budget surplus and tried to draw down our federal debt. Why? Because they love what the Republicans SAY, but pay little attention to what the Republicans DO.

    Because Republicans who act like Democrats may eventually be put back on track, but Democrats remain Democrats no matter what you do, and if they do behave well briefly they always revert to type.

    Look, think of it like dealing with dogs. Which would you trust with your children, the domesticated dog who occasionally bites someone or the feral wolf who wags his tail when you feed him? Which one is more likely to kill your kids when you leave them alone with him?

    2. Abortion – libertarians are pro-choice, like most Democrats. But libertarians are FAR more likely to support Republicans than Democrats…never mind that Republicans want to nullify Rove v. Wade and outlaw abortion.

    Actually, libertarians are NOT pro-choice. The Libertarian party specifically leaves the issue out of their platform because they do not uniformly agree on the issue, and most libertarians believe that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional even if they believe that abortion should be legal.

    And Republicans do not necessarily want to outlaw abortion. If you follow the polls, only a small percentage of Republicans are hardcore pro-life. They just have influence out of proportion to their numbers because they’re fanatics and therefore can deliver votes. It’s the nature of political parties – including the Democrats – that the highly motivated single issue fanatics who actually turn out to vote get more influence than they deserve.

    3. Big Government – The Republicans love to say how Democrats are such supporters of Big Government,

    Again, medicare, medicaid, social security – the largest portion of the budget and the debt, even counting the wars.

    and one of the central tenets of libertarianism is that government needs to stay out of people’s lives. So not only do the Republicans feel that government needs to regulate our behavior in the bedroom, and not only do they want to regulate what women do with their bodies, but the Bush administration also got rid of Habeus Corpus and instituted warrantless wiretapping (and Dems had a hand in this too, but not to the same degree)…and this is on top of the present majority-conservative SCOTUS which is legislating from the bench like never before.

    And libertarians in and out of the GOP opposed these things and still do. But all of these things passed with Democrat support, so how are they any better than the Republicans?

    Federal spending ballooned vastly under Reagan and under Bush 43 – and no comparable rise can be found in Democratic budgets with the exception of the stimulus package of last year.

    Your statement is only true when applied to the Clinton administration. The budget exploded under Johnson and FDR.

    Yet the libertarians are FAR more likely to believe that the Republicans are all about ‘small government’. Why? Because the Republicans TELL them so, and the libertarians aren’t paying attention to what the Republicans actually DO.

    Sure we pay attention to what the Republicans do, but we believe that since they at least have an awareness of the need for smaller government they can be persuaded to follow up on that. Governments don’t even have a basic desire to limit government’s scope and power.

    4. Wars. IIRC, most libertarians don’t think we should involve ourselves militarily outside of our country.

    Libertarians are actually divided on this. Don’t confuse real libertarians with Ron Paul style isolationists.

    But who was it that most strongly supported going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq? The Republicans…and the Bush administration even went so far as to knowingly LIE to the American people to get us to support the invasion of Iraq. And they told us that torture was a good thing, too.

    They were an aberation. Most prior wars have been carried out by Democrat administrations and the idea of wars of liberation or to spread Democracy is specifically Democratic.

    But the libertarians would much rather believe that the Republican Party only wants peace…because that’s what the Republican Party tells them, and the Word of a Republican is apparently all a libertarian needs in order to hate the Democrats.

    We also have the example of Reagan whose foreign interventions were brief and inexpensive and did not include nation-building or long-term occuptions in the Democrat style.

    5. Separation of church and state – libertarians, as I understand it, do NOT believe that religion should have aught to do with government. Neither do the Democrats – that much is certain.

    I disagree. Democrats clearly believe that certain ideological beliefs which are as irrational and faith based as religion should be imposed by government. Libertarians would oppose that as much as they oppose religion imposed by government.

    But the Republicans? “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!” And teach creationism instead of evolution to our children in our public schools, too.

    SOME Republicans. But many – and I think and increasing number of young Republicans – believe that separation of church and state is as important for the protection of the church and of religious liberties as it is for protection of the government. The left has taught them this the hard way.

    But the Republicans are all about freedom, right? That’s what they told the libertarians, and that was good enough for the libertarians, never mind that their ‘official’ political philosophy is much closer to the Democrats’ than to the GOP’s.

    Actually, I’d argue that the Republican’s political practices are quite close to those of the Democrats. Libertarians are really on the other side of Republicans from the Democrats.

    6. Gun rights – Why is it I get the impression that this one issue is more important to libertarians than anything else? No, I don’t think that’s the case – it just seems that way sometimes.

    It just fits in with the rest of the philosophy, really. We don’t want the government to tell us what to do, including telling us what to do with our guns. Simple.

    But most gun-rights supporters don’t seem to understand that the majority of Democrats don’t want a full ban on guns, even on handguns! We can tell the gun nuts that we really do support sensible gun rights all day long, and they’ll just ignore us and tell each other that they can just about hear the black helicopters about to clear the ridge, and they’re a-comin’ to take all our guns away!

    The problem is that it’s become very hard to tell the difference between the well-intentioned Democrat rank and file and the increasingly influential statist element whose loyalty is to political power and the growing bureaucratic class rather than ideology or a party. Taking away guns is not a Democrat issue, it’s a statist issue, and increasingly the loyalty of Democrats is to institutions of the state, including unions which have become an adjunct of the state.

    Most Democrats know full well that a total gun ban will never work in America…because Pandora’s out of the box, and she ain’t gettin’ back in no way, no how. All that most of us want is simple doggone registration of those firearms so we can see who’s selling them on the black market, so we can ensure responsible ownership of these weapons.

    And those of us who know that your party has sold out to the state are concerned that the inevitable outcome of registration would be confiscation.

    But that’s not good enough for the libertarians, I guess. You see, all they had to hear was that the Lib’ruls wanna take away our guns, and maybe that was all it took for the libertarians to believe that the Republicans are better for our economy, more responsible with our tax dollars, more peace-loving, more determined that government stays out of our bedrooms and out of women’s bodies, and bigger supporters of freedom of religion (as long as you believe in religion the way most Republicans do).

    Libertarians are entirely and fully aware that they ARE liberals. they just don’t think that Democrats are liberals any longer and I agree.

    Both political parties have made alliances. Republicans allied with the church and Democrats allied with the state. Libertarians find the state more threatening than the church.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    oh good god. i’m sure plenty of what dave has to say in the comments is ridiculous, but since i haven’t read them, i’ll go ahead and compliment him on the article. god job, dave. the gop sucks, but thank you for doing your best to put a finger up the ass of those who would do the worst. it’s best that you do, because you’re within arm’s length. taint.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    If only you could see that standing up for what is right includes opposing most of what you believe in.

    I can show you lots of examples of successful and free modern countries that work on what we refer to as Democratic principles. You can show me NO examples of a successful and free modern country that works on libertarian principles. Do you really think that’s mere happenstance?

    Libertarianism is a philosophy, while the Republicans and Democrats are political parties. And while there may be superficial similarities between what I believe as a libertarian and what the Democrats profess to believe, trust me that you’re misreading the situation gravely.

    Okay…I’ll agree that it’s a philosophy.

    The reason why libertarians are more likely to work with, vote with and even become Republicans is that on the most basic issues the philosophy which dominates the Democratic party is repugnant to them.

    To that, then I would say that you understand less of liberal philosophy than you think.

    In contrast, while they may disagree with Republicans on specific issues, the Republicans at least attempt to hold to a set of principles which are not entirely hateful.

    By this statement you proved my whole contention – that since the Republicans tell you pretty much what you think you want to hear, you support them…but I have shown you before that as a whole, the Republicans have been more corrupt and (with few exceptions) worse for the economy time and time again. Yet even though you can see the results of their DEEDS as well as I can, you blind yourself to the systemic faults of modern conservative thought that are enabling those deeds.

    At the heart of the Democratic party is a belief in collective solutions to problems.

    What you think of as ‘collective solutions’ is what I refer to as pragmatism. There are modern first-world democracies that are more liberal than America is, but there are NO modern first-world democracies that are more conservative than America is. What you’re doing is ignoring what governmental philosophy is PROVEN to work with human nature, and perpetually insist that your way is a better way…never mind that there is NO example to back up your contention.

    That citizens give up responsibility for their own welfare to government and that government should then impose solutions to those problems on society as a whole.

    What happens when one walks on a tightrope and falls, Dave? They FALL. If there is a safety net, then the person has the opportunity to go back up and walk the tightrope again. If there is no safety net, then it’s a lot harder for the person to get back up to that tightrope.

    When someone loses their job in a country where jobs are really hard to come by, if there is no safety net and if they can’t get a source of legal income soon, what happens, Dave? THEN ask yourself about what happens to society as a whole when this happens to MILLIONS of people.

    Crime goes up (and we spend more taxes as a result). Homelessness goes up (and we spend more taxes as a result). Foreclosures go up (and we have less tax revenue as a result). Divorce rates rise, and so do domestic violence and teen pregnancy rates. With high unemployment comes all of these problems. What a social safety net does, Dave, is LESSEN the magnitude of all these problems. It doesn’t solve them, but it lessens the magnitude.

    By lessening the magnitude of those problems, we spend less of YOUR tax dollars fixing those problems…because whether you like it or not, you are PART of this nation, and what everyone does has an effect on the other people around them.

    This includes providing for the welfare of the people, making sure that they are functionally equal, and solving their problems for them. It is the idea of the greatest good for the greatest number.

    Dave, in all of history, the wider the gap between the rich and the poor, the worse the social conditions of the country in question has become. There are very, very few exceptions to this rule. A rising tide lifts all boats, Dave. In the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s, did the rich people lose all their money? I think you’ll find they did just fine…and so did most of the rest of America. That thirty years was when America’s middle class was the strongest.

    But with Reaganomics, the wealthy have watched their fortunes skyrocket, while the middle class and the poor have watched their incomes rise hardly at all (and sometimes fall) compared to the rate of inflation.

    Again, there are MANY modern first-world free nations that have economic systems that are so repugnant to you…but there is not a single modern first-world free nation that has the kind of economic system that you seem to support. Why? Because while libertarian ideals sound good to you PERSONALLY, they do NOT work with the nature of humanity as a whole. The proof is in all the world around you.

    The problem with this for the libertarian is that the libertarian believes in individual responsibility and does not believe in group or collective solutions to problems.

    Again, while libertarian ideals sound good to you personally, they do NOT work with humanity as a whole. What you’re choosing to do is insist on what you think will work, although there is NO example of it having worked at all in the modern world…except for in Somalia, perhaps.

    Dave, libertarianism can work in very rural settings, but the greater the population, the more unworkable libertarianism becomes. Why? Because the more people there are around, the more everyone is affected by those other people, even indirectly. Here’s a societal law that I really don’t think you can refute: “The greater the population of an organization, the greater the number of laws and regulations necessary to ensure the continued function of that organization.”

    While there may be many flaws in the Republican party it remains less devoted to collective government than the Democrats are, so for libertarians it is the lesser of two evils.

    You should say that they remain less devoted to lawful behavior and more devoted to looking out for their own best interests – specifically, when it comes to power.

    The idea of “collective government” might be quite repugnant to you, but the more people there are, the greater the size of the government that is required – from school to police to fire protection to military service.

    You are not an island, Dave. What you do has an effect on those around you – and even people you don’t know. And they have an effect on you. At a basic level, this explains why libertarianism is a flawed philosophy.

    So? Republicans did a poor job of following their ideals and some Democrats exceeded expectations.

    There you go again – thinking that economic results were simply events or aberrations rather than the results of deliberate actions taken by those in charge. It’s like you sit back and tell yourself that “nah, all these problems couldn’t be because of deregulation, even if we had NONE of these problems while we DID have those regulations, because nothing good comes of regulation anyway”.

    This does not change the underlying philosophy of the Democrats which is that wealth is ultimately the property of the state and that welfare and prosperity should flow from government.

    That’s a load of crap, Dave. That is NOT the philosophy of the Democrats. What that IS, is the excuse you’re giving yourself to ignore the success of modern first-world democracies that have better social safety nets than we do…and also to ignore the fact that there are NO modern first-world democracies that work on libertarian principles.

    That Republicans act badly and don’t fulfill their ideals is a problem, but it is something which can be changed without challenging their fundamental beliefs.

    What you’re not seeing is that their behavior is BECAUSE of their fundamental beliefs. On the macroscopic level, you cannot and will not change their behavior without changing those beliefs. It’s BECAUSE of those beliefs – the individual uber alles – that the Republicans believe that “the rules don’t apply to them”, and that “the ends justify the means”. Their behavior is BECAUSE of their beliefs.

    You can’t change the Democrats without changing their beliefs until they are no longer Democrats.

    To an extent, that’s TRUE. For example, when the Civil Rights Act was passed, it was understood even within the White House that there were many whites – particularly in the Deep South – who left the Democratic party. This resulted in Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” which continues to resonate in the Republican party even today.

    Again, you’re trying to hold all Republicans and all libertarians accountable for the fact that some Republicans acted like Democrats.

    Was the buildup during Reagan’s and Bush 43’s years the result of “some Republicans”? Was “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter” the result of “some Republicans”?

    Dave, it looks to me like you’re projecting what you WANT to see of the Republicans, and willfully blinding yourself to what they have actually DONE.

    Nation building and wars of liberation originate in the ideology of Woodrow Wilson who was the ideological father of modern Democratic Party foreign policy.

    Was he now? Did he do anything really different from McKinley in the Spanish-American War where we reacted to a provocation and then went nation-building in Cuba and the Philippines? Did he do anything really different from Dubya and his reaction to 9/11? Actually, NO – unless you buy into a couple of conspiracy theories, because Dubya lied to America to get us to invade Iraq…and YOU supported the invasion and even wanted him to expand the war on terror to other nations!

    So…no, you’re completely wrong on that count.

    Another big factor in the deficit is the medicare/medicaid/social security system – again, a Democrat idea, even if some wrongheaded Republicans made it worse by passing a huge expansion under Bush.

    Didn’t you yourself say that you’d like to see a form of socialized medicine here? Has it ever occurred to you that the reason why we can’t have a better form of socialized medicine – perhaps even the kind YOU would like to see – is because the Republicans won’t allow it?

    Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security…now, Dave, you go on out there and talk to a few hundred old folks and ask them what THEY think about these Democratic evil deeds.

    And there you go again with how “SOME wrongheaded Republicans” made it worse under Bush…as if it was only just a few Republicans who supported it…and you IGNORE the fact that most Democrats OPPOSED it.

    Because Republicans who act like Democrats may eventually be put back on track, but Democrats remain Democrats no matter what you do, and if they do behave well briefly they always revert to type.

    So…since Reagan took office, when has the Republican party as a whole “ever got back on track”?

    And as for those oh-so-terrible Dems, go once more to all those old folks and ask them to give up their Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security, and tell the blacks that passage of the Civil Rights Act was a bad thing…and try to tell me that giving my oldest son an opportunity to have health insurance was a bad thing.

    In fact, Dave, can you name even ONE major societal advance spearheaded by the Republican party? Other than “let’s cut taxes for the wealthy!” and “let’s reform Medicare so Big Pharma will make Big Bucks!”, what major American societal advance was spearheaded by the Republican party?

    Look, think of it like dealing with dogs. Which would you trust with your children, the domesticated dog who occasionally bites someone or the feral wolf who wags his tail when you feed him? Which one is more likely to kill your kids when you leave them alone with him?

    Y’know, I remember hearing that same sort of argument about blacks – but ‘blacks’ wasn’t the word they used. That argument against blacks was based on wrong assumptions, just as your argument against Democrats is based on wrong assumptions.

    Actually, libertarians are NOT pro-choice. The Libertarian party specifically leaves the issue out of their platform because they do not uniformly agree on the issue, and most libertarians believe that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional even if they believe that abortion should be legal.

    Ah. Okay, so that’s a fancy way of saying that libertarians DODGE the question.

    And Republicans do not necessarily want to outlaw abortion. If you follow the polls, only a small percentage of Republicans are hardcore pro-life.

    Lemme see here – seventeen percent want a total ban – that’s just over one out of six – and 30.4 percent want it only for rape, incest, and health of the mother. Um, Dave – 30.4 percent is not a ‘small percentage’.

    Again, medicare, medicaid, social security – the largest portion of the budget and the debt, even counting the wars.

    So you go walk into some suburb of Anytown, Texas, and ask the old folks what they’d do if they no longer had Medicare and Social Security?

    And I also want you to find a major first-world democracy that doesn’t have some form of social safety net like these – you know, a major first-world democracy run on libertarian principles?

    And libertarians in and out of the GOP opposed these things and still do.

    Problem is, you’re only opposing those few things by the Republicans and DO NOT REALIZE that your support of them in other things helps to enable them to be strong enough to do the things you don’t like to see them do!

    But all of these things passed with Democrat support, so how are they any better than the Republicans?

    Did they have WIDESPREAD Democratic support? Or was it just the Blue Dogs, ConservaDems, and DINO’s? Remember, Dave, unlike the Republicans, the Democrats don’t walk in lockstep. It’s repugnant to them – but it’s expected of you if you’re a Republican.

    Your statement is only true when applied to the Clinton administration. The budget exploded under Johnson and FDR.

    Did the deficit balloon under Truman? Or Kennedy? Or Carter? It didn’t under Clinton…and if you’ll check, the deficit did NOT balloon under LBJ. Go back and check the numbers.

    And when it comes to FDR and Obama, they both had to implement a stimulus package. When Obama took office, we were bleeding 750,000 a month. Now, even though we’re not gaining, we’re not losing, either. The day before FDR took office, FIVE THOUSANDS BANKS FAILED. You see, Hoover had had over three years to deal with the Crash and the Depression, and his Treasury Secretary believed in austerity measures…and you see where it got them.

    But instead of making your decision on the actual results, you’re approaching the question by FIRST assuming that Democrats must be wrong, and so what they did must have been wrong, too.

    Sure we pay attention to what the Republicans do, but we believe that since they at least have an awareness of the need for smaller government they can be persuaded to follow up on that. Governments don’t even have a basic desire to limit government’s scope and power.

    Dave, has it ever occurred to you that Democrats DON’T want all government, all the time? What we DO want is a more effective government…which is what we DON’T get when a Republican gets into office and replaces all the regulators with industry lobbyists.

    The greater the population, the bigger the government must be. You might not like that, but that’s a fact of human society.

    They were an aberation. Most prior wars have been carried out by Democrat administrations and the idea of wars of liberation or to spread Democracy is specifically Democratic.

    So…how many wars were started by the Democrats based on lies to the American people? I hold Kennedy responsible for Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs. But since then, have we started any wars by lying to the American people? The Republicans have Iraq, and nearly did so with Iran-Contra.

    As for your “most other wars were carried out by Democrats” crack, well, should we have let the Allies lose WWI? The war was in doubt even in 1918, you know. Should we have let the Allies lose WWII? Should we have let the Chicoms have Korea?

    And as for “…the idea of wars of liberation or to spread Democracy is specifically Democratic”, that particular statement is TOTALLY false. I do blame Kennedy for Vietnam…but you’re trying to paint ALL the Democrats with a broad brush, never mind that the Republicans supported the Vietnam war more strongly than the Democrats did. And let’s not forget a little bit of military adventurism in Iraq – but silly me, it only cost us a trillion dollars and 5,000 lives, so we should just ‘put it all behind us’.

    We also have the example of Reagan whose foreign interventions were brief and inexpensive and did not include nation-building or long-term occuptions in the Democrat style.

    Yeah, Reagan’s BRIEF foreign interventions…like that nearly two-year occupation in Lebanon? Come to think of it, to exactly WHAT ‘nation-building’ and ‘long-term occupation’ by the Democrats do you refer, other than to Vietnam? Or is it just you trying to throw out yet another unfounded accusation when the Republicans are MORE guilty of it than are the Democrats?

    I’d really appreciate it if you didn’t use unfounded accusations like this, Dave. If you were wrong merely due to misunderstanding (like my assumptions about libertarianism), I could understand – but these “Democrat-style nation-building and long-term occupations” are accusations which as an historian you MUST know are false.

    I disagree. Democrats clearly believe that certain ideological beliefs which are as irrational and faith based as religion should be imposed by government. Libertarians would oppose that as much as they oppose religion imposed by government.

    But by opposing the Democrats much more vehemently than you do the Republicans, you help to enable them to pass wrongheaded efforts such as the recent fiasco with the textbooks. You can claim all day long that the libertarians had naught to do with it…but all actions (including the lack thereof) have consequences and effects.

    SOME Republicans. But many – and I think and increasing number of young Republicans – believe that separation of church and state is as important for the protection of the church and of religious liberties as it is for protection of the government. The left has taught them this the hard way.

    Ah – the Republicans are protecting religion FROM the government? So why is it that my tax dollars should go towards helping promote a religion in which I do not believe?

    Actually, I’d argue that the Republican’s political practices are quite close to those of the Democrats.

    I think any senator or congressman from either side would disagree with that statement.

    The problem is that it’s become very hard to tell the difference between the well-intentioned Democrat rank and file and the increasingly influential statist element whose loyalty is to political power and the growing bureaucratic class rather than ideology or a party.

    THAT is yet another baseless argument, an ephemeral statement that has all the substance of smoke looking for a mirror.

    Taking away guns is not a Democrat issue, it’s a statist issue, and increasingly the loyalty of Democrats is to institutions of the state, including unions which have become an adjunct of the state.

    Dave, I very rarely cuss on line, but that’s such a load of crap. Where is your PROOF that the loyalty of Democrats is ‘increasingly to the institutions of the state’? As above, that’s an ephemeral statement based on absolutely NO factual information at all.

    And those of us who know that your party has sold out to the state are concerned that the inevitable outcome of registration would be confiscation.

    And yet ANOTHER baseless statement. Dave, why don’tcha get some proof of this? You won’t, because there is NO proof. If you were claiming that many Democrats had sold out to corporate America, I’d agree with you and can show you substantial evidence of it – but selling out to the state?

    Oh, come on! If you’ve just got to make up an accusation, at least try to make one that’s not so transparently false.

    Both political parties have made alliances. Republicans allied with the church and Democrats allied with the state. Libertarians find the state more threatening than the church.

    Ephemeral accusations. Gossamer gossip. Dave, you could be SO much better than this!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Is this a contest who can outlast whom?

  • Cannonshop

    It’s like watching two Battleships duelling, each comment is an article in itself.

    (gotta go to work now, then I can come back and read it all!!)

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Arrrrr, matey! Reload for the next broadside afore I keelhauls you and your little dog Toto, too!

  • http://austinliberty.org Rock Howard

    Hi Dave,

    The Travis County Libertarian Party had a booth at the recent Gay Pride event. Didn’t see y’all there. Nice press release though. Let me know when you get the Republicans to change their position.

  • http://www.rlc.org Westmiller

    @Glenn Contrarian
    There are modern first-world democracies that are more liberal than America is …

    The new term for them is “PIIGS” (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece & Spain) which have “progressed” into exteme welfare states, now on the verge of total bankruptcy. Europe has already become what Democrats want to make America: an abject failure.

    … never mind that there is NO example to back up your contention.

    The first hundred years of the United States, ignoring the obvious faults, were closest to libertarian principles and demonstrated a century of prosperity that was unequaled in human history. You can argue that its never been done before, but that has no relevance to the question of whether it should or can be done, for the benefit of all.

    … If there is no safety net, then it’s a lot harder for the person to get back up to that tightrope.

    Private charity is “scrupulous” in that donors care that the the victims are innocent and worthy. Government doesn’t care, it simply provides incentives for perpetuating eternal dependence and the pretense of being helpful (with other people’s money).

    … ask the old folks what they’d do if they no longer had Medicare and Social Security?

    Ask them what they would do if they had been allowed to keep their own money in the first place, earned a pedantic interest over a lifetime, and been able to pass on the proceeds to their children when they’re gone. Medicare and Social Security aren’t just bad investments, they’re legal Ponzi schemes.

    … in all of history, the wider the gap between the rich and the poor, the worse the social conditions of the country in question has become.

    Probably the inverse causation is true: the worse the social conditions, engendered by government intervention and favoritism, the greater the gap between rich and poor. The dependent class are paid to remain dependent, while the elite class collect special favors, while the middle class pays the bills.

    … there is NO example of it having worked at all in the modern world…except for in Somalia, perhaps.

    Perhaps you’re confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Libertarians believe in securing individual rights through objective laws and courts, not some fantasy “absolute freedom” from all social constraints and just deserts. Granted, many libertarians are willing to suffer anarcho-utopian anti-statists, while they’re sufferable.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Westmiller, I’ll leave others to respond to most of your nonsense but as far as Europe is concerned, at least we don’t have tens of thousands of respectable middle class citizens living in tent cities and cars as you do in the USA. If that is being an “abject failure”, I’ll take it over your “success” any time.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    Europe an abject failure? Hardly. The United States has modeled itself after the ancient Roman Empire. Rather than adopt mostly British standards, they went for the greed and corruption. That’s not to say that Britain is problem-free. But, the way I see it, being a British citizen isn’t the horror that we’re being led to believe. Europeans have passion. They’re connected and when they get mad they take it to the streets in the form of protests and strikes. They have the moral fiber we lack. “Moral fiber” is not based in theology as they would have you believe.

    And to see the RLC stand up and take possession of an issue that rightfully belongs in the Conservative dialogue I am pleased! The LGBT community has made a terrible mistake by aligning themselves with Progressives and the so-called “left agenda”. Rights are rights. Respect for the rights of the individual is a conservative issue. The problem is the Right has reluctantly assigned their fate to a band of fundamentalist whack jobs who have the cash they need. It all comes down to aligning with the lesser of two evils, I guess.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Count me out, Rose. I have better things to do than to respond to foolishness.

  • Mark

    In the 19th century Marx’s Capital was a critique of the political economy that underlay British Liberalism. 21st century Marxists must perform a critique of neo-liberal political economy comparable in rigour and moral depth to Marx’s 19th century critique. In particular we must engage with and defeat the ideas of the Austrian school: Boehm-Bawerk, Mises, Hayek, whose ideas now constitute the keystone of reaction…If we are to reconstitute socialism as the commonsense of the 21st century – as it was the commonsense of the mid 20th, then these are the ideas that must be confronted. P Cockshott

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Westmiller –

    The new term for them is “PIIGS” (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece & Spain) which have “progressed” into exteme welfare states, now on the verge of total bankruptcy. Europe has already become what Democrats want to make America: an abject failure.

    Gee – then why is it that most western European countries have longer life expectancies, lower poverty rates, lower crime rates, higher education rates, and lower teenage pregnancy rates than America does? Hint – it has nothing to do with illegal immigrants because much of Europe has a worse problem with illegal immigration than we do.

    The first hundred years of the United States, ignoring the obvious faults, were closest to libertarian principles and demonstrated a century of prosperity that was unequaled in human history. You can argue that its never been done before, but that has no relevance to the question of whether it should or can be done, for the benefit of all.

    But you ignored the question – is there ANY example of a MODERN first-world democracy that is run on libertarian principles? Not one. Not a single one. All you could do is point to pre-WWI days…and your example applies NOT AT ALL to the modern world.

    Private charity is “scrupulous” in that donors care that the the victims are innocent and worthy. Government doesn’t care, it simply provides incentives for perpetuating eternal dependence and the pretense of being helpful (with other people’s money).

    So tell me, Westmiller – all of a sudden you lose your job through no fault of your own, and you’re getting $300/week to feed, house, and clothe your family. Tell me how the hell a family man will be made into an ‘eternal dependent’ when he’s got a family to feed!. When there are no jobs to be had, Westmiller – and this applies especially to those who are middle-aged thanks to rampant age discrimination – what are we supposed to do with a lousy $300/week? That won’t pay my mortgage! That will barely pay my utilities and food…and if I’m really, really careful and resourceful, I can rent at an apartment if my house gets foreclosed!

    But you know what that $300/week DOES mean? It means me and my family do NOT become homeless (ever try to get a job if you’re homeless?). It means that I do NOT have to turn to a life of crime just to feed my family! It means I have a chance to find another job – graveyard cashier at 7/11, delivery guy at Pizza Hut, whatever – so I can earn ENOUGH to feed, clothe, and shelter my family.

    Unemployment insurance is a good thing, Westmiller – otherwise you wind up with a lot more homeless, a lot more crime, a lot more domestic violence and divorce…and a lot more tax dollars spent at the municipal level dealing with those problems!

    Ask them what they would do if they had been allowed to keep their own money in the first place, earned a pedantic interest over a lifetime, and been able to pass on the proceeds to their children when they’re gone. Medicare and Social Security aren’t just bad investments, they’re legal Ponzi schemes.

    Yes, what would they have done if they’d been allowed to keep their own money? Ask the tens of thousands of people who invested their life saving in Enron!

    Probably the inverse causation is true: the worse the social conditions, engendered by government intervention and favoritism, the greater the gap between rich and poor. The dependent class are paid to remain dependent, while the elite class collect special favors, while the middle class pays the bills.

    So why, then, do the countries that have BETTER standard of living than America ALL have more comprehensive social safety nets than we have?

    Tell you what, Westmiller – come with me to the Philippines later this year. There you can see what happens when there is NO social safety net.

    Every modern first-world democracy has a significant social safety net. Do you really think that’s just a coincidence?

    Perhaps you’re confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Libertarians believe in securing individual rights through objective laws and courts, not some fantasy “absolute freedom” from all social constraints and just deserts. Granted, many libertarians are willing to suffer anarcho-utopian anti-statists, while they’re sufferable.

    No, I’m not confusing anything. Can you show me a modern first-world democracy that works on libertarian principles? No, you can’t.

    THAT, sir, is the proof of the pudding. Like communism, libertarian principles sound really nice IN THEORY. In fact, in rural communities, libertarian principles can work quite well. But IN REALITY, libertarian principles canNOT work on a national scale.

    Go look at a map sometime, Westmiller. Look at what states are more urbanized, and which states are more rural. You know already that the more urbanized a state is, the more likely that state is to be a ‘blue state’.

    THEN go to census.gov and start looking up which states generally have higher education rates, higher income rates, lower crime rates, lower murder rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower domestic violence rates. The ONLY metric where blue states are worse than red states is in drug abuse.

    Now why do you think that is? I’ll make it easy for you – the greater the population, the more that population will tend to vote for liberal candidates and social programs that you hate so much…and if those social programs did not work, then the blue states wouldn’t generally be better for their populations as a whole. But the results show that those social programs WORK, they keep things from getting worse, and they make it easier for people to recover from economic hardship or disaster.

    THAT, Westmiller, is a FACT. All your rhetoric to the contrary is only that: rhetoric. And your rhetoric fails miserably in the face of the measurable FACTS.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And for Dave –

    Philip Jose Farmer – great author. I read several of his books. He had…interesting ideas. At least he wasn’t as quite as kinky as Jack L. Chalker was, though.

  • Ed

    umm….why have a platform if you’re just going to ignore it?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I’ll attempt to condense some of this with quich responses, since the comments are getting so long.


    To that, then I would say that you understand less of liberal philosophy than you think.

    What I understand is that liberalism and the Democratic Party have nothing to do with each other.

    I have shown you before that as a whole, the Republicans have been more corrupt and (with few exceptions) worse for the economy time and time again. Yet even though you can see the results of their DEEDS as well as I can, you blind yourself to the systemic faults of modern conservative thought that are enabling those deeds.

    As I’ve made very clear here and elsewhere I’m not at all blind to the failings of the Republican Party, but the fact remains that there are people in the GOP who at least attempt to do good, while that is no longer tolerated in the Democratic Party. The point you’re ignoring is that the GOP has the potential for change, while the kind of change rational people want to see in our government is antithetical to the very existence of the Democratic Party.

    What you think of as ‘collective solutions’ is what I refer to as pragmatism.

    Ok, then you’re misidentifying it.

    There are modern first-world democracies that are more liberal than America is, but there are NO modern first-world democracies that are more conservative than America is.

    If you believe this then you do not understand what liberalism is and are joining in the popular delusion of thinking that statism is liberalism, but that is incorrect. There are other nations which have a larger welfare state than America does, but that is not the definition of liberalism.

    What you’re doing is ignoring what governmental philosophy is PROVEN to work with human nature, and perpetually insist that your way is a better way…never mind that there is NO example to back up your contention.

    Are you kidding? There are examples galore from history which show that the more open government is and the less bureaucracy there is, the more prosperous the people are. It has become an accepted axiom of governmental theory that prosperity for the individual is inversely proportional to the size of government.

    What happens when one walks on a tightrope and falls, Dave? They FALL. If there is a safety net, then the
    When someone loses their job in a country where jobs are really hard to come by, if there is no safety net and if they can’t get a source of legal income soon, what happens, Dave? THEN ask yourself about what happens to society as a whole when this happens to MILLIONS of people.

    The solution to this is to not create a society where opportunity is artificially limited, forcing people to be dependent on government, but to create a society which is open to opportunity and has a sufficiency of jobs as a result.

    Crime goes up (and we spend more taxes as a result). Homelessness goes up (and we spend more taxes as a result). Foreclosures go up (and we have less tax revenue as a result). Divorce rates rise, and so do domestic violence and teen pregnancy rates. With high unemployment comes all of these problems. What a social safety net does, Dave, is LESSEN the magnitude of all these problems. It doesn’t solve them, but it lessens the magnitude.

    All of these societal problems are a product of excessive government and restriction of the marketplace, especially by the increasing tax burden on entrepreneurs and the growth of state-capitalism and monopolies which are the direct result of corrupt government policies.

    By lessening the magnitude of those problems, we spend less of YOUR tax dollars fixing those problems…because whether you like it or not, you are PART of this nation, and what everyone does has an effect on the other people around them.

    So why not address the source of the problems rather than the effects? What you advocate is making sure that everyone on the Titanic has a lifeboat when I’m proposing that we steer around the iceberg instead. I’d say that we ought to have sufficient lifeboats, but that we should do everything we can not to have to use them.

    Having your social safety network is entirely reasonable. Creating situations through bad government policy which promote the use of that network and are predicated on its continual growth is a disastrous and ultimately terminal way to run a government.

    Dave, in all of history, the wider the gap between the rich and the poor, the worse the social conditions of the country in question has become.

    Absolutely, so why do you support policies which keep the poor poor and make the ultra rich even richer? These are the policies of the Democratic Party, even if some misguided Republicans have also engaged in them.

    But with Reaganomics, the wealthy have watched their fortunes skyrocket, while the middle class and the poor have watched their incomes rise hardly at all (and sometimes fall) compared to the rate of inflation.

    Actually, under Reagan we saw the entire society prosper and did not see this widening gap between rich and poor. That development came as a result of policies pursued after the Reagan era, though both parties are to some degree at fault.

    there is not a single modern first-world free nation that has the kind of economic system that you seem to support.

    This is the fallacious argument that if all your friends are jumping off a cliff, you should to.

    Why? Because while libertarian ideals sound good to you PERSONALLY, they do NOT work with the nature of humanity as a whole. The proof is in all the world around you.

    What I see is the proof that liberal ideas do not serve the interests of entrenched elites and have therefore been suppressed in favor of faux liberalism and an overwhelming growth of government.

    Again, while libertarian ideals sound good to you personally, they do NOT work with humanity as a whole. What you’re choosing to do is insist on what you think will work, although there is NO example of it having worked at all in the modern world…except for in Somalia, perhaps.

    You keep saying “in the modern world” – but you seem to be oblivious to the reality that the “modern” system of statism which you advocate is a disastrous failure and is collapsing all over the world. You live in an active denial of history, which has shown us that mercantilism and its modern incarnation as state capitalism cannot work on a sustained basis and eventually result in a collapse into despotism.

    You are holding up as your shining example a system which has already failed and is careening towards complete collapse.

    Dave, libertarianism can work in very rural settings, but the greater the population, the more unworkable libertarianism becomes. Why? Because the more people there are around, the more everyone is affected by those other people, even indirectly. Here’s a societal law that I really don’t think you can refute: “The greater the population of an organization, the greater the number of laws and regulations necessary to ensure the continued function of that organization.”

    This maxim makes no sense at all. We have proven that it’s entirely possible to distribute government to different entities and establish federated systems which divide people up into self-governing groups. That this can work is abundantly clear right here in the US where many of the states managed on more libertarian principles are far less impacted by economic issues than other states run on more socialist principles.

    If you compare the conditions of the individual states it becomes immediately clear that the more control Democrats or left leaning governments in general have over the state the worse condition it is in right now as a result of the general economic conditions.

    You are trying to argue that the approach to government taken in California and Michigan is superior tot he approach taken in Texas and Florida (to compare states of similar size). That’s a losing argument.

    It’s like you sit back and tell yourself that “nah, all these problems couldn’t be because of deregulation, even if we had NONE of these problems while we DID have those regulations, because nothing good comes of regulation anyway”.

    Deregulation is a fiction contrived by politicians and never really implemented. I have no problem with reasonable regulation. It’s one of the necessary functions of government. But I do object to policies which empower corporations to become monopolistic because of special relationships or conditions created by the government.

    Was he now? Did he do anything really different from McKinley in the Spanish-American War where we reacted to a provocation and then went nation-building in Cuba and the Philippines? Did he do anything really different from Dubya and his reaction to 9/11? Actually, NO – unless you buy into a couple of conspiracy theories, because Dubya lied to America to get us to invade Iraq…and YOU supported the invasion and even wanted him to expand the war on terror to other nations!

    You’re kidding, right? We’ve been over this before on this thread already. I do not consider Bush’s foreign policy or his execution of these wars to be Republican in character. That’s why the current anti-government movement began under Bush, because he made these wars into long-term occupations and attempts at nation building in the Democrat style. If you look back at my own articles you will see that I clearly turned against Bush’s policies when he went beyond the reasonable boundaries of an appropriate response to the real threats we faced.

    And as for those oh-so-terrible Dems, go once more to all those old folks and ask them to give up their Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security,

    What’s that quote again…

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”

    In fact, Dave, can you name even ONE major societal advance spearheaded by the Republican party?

    Your mistake here is in suggesting that there is such a thing as a “societal advance” when in fact, what we are in need of is a paring down of society and a return to a functional system which doesn’t think exploding bureaucracy is an advancement.

    Lemme see here – seventeen percent want a total ban – that’s just over one out of six – and 30.4 percent want it only for rape, incest, and health of the mother. Um, Dave – 30.4 percent is not a ‘small percentage’.

    Glenn, it’s a minority and not even close to being a majority, so any assertion that Republicans are inevitably dominated by that minority is laughable.

    And I also want you to find a major first-world democracy that doesn’t have some form of social safety net like these – you know, a major first-world democracy run on libertarian principles?

    So because we are using a failed system we need to keep using and expanding that failed system? Isn’t that a definition of insanity?

    As for the social safety net, the problem is not that it exists, but that it is badly managed, inefficient and provides poor return on investment, primarily because it is run by the government. Remember that I’m a moderate libertarian. I accept the idea that government should do some things, including providing some social welfare services, but that should be done in a responsible way which leaves as much control as possible in the hands of citizens, rather than being used as a bureaucratic slush fund as it has been.

    unlike the Republicans, the Democrats don’t walk in lockstep. It’s repugnant to them – but it’s expected of you if you’re a Republican.

    Your ignorance of Republicans is staggering.

    Did the deficit balloon under Truman? Or Kennedy? Or Carter? It didn’t under Clinton…and if you’ll check, the deficit did NOT balloon under LBJ. Go back and check the numbers.

    The bills LBJ’s spending came due under Nizon. This is standard Democrat practice, to pass massive entitlements and then leave their successors holding the bag.

    And when it comes to FDR and Obama, they both had to implement a stimulus package.

    Had to? It was necessary to bankrupt the nation? Only if their goal is to expand the size and power of government at the expense of the people and their liberty.

    When Obama took office, we were bleeding 750,000 a month. Now, even though we’re not gaining, we’re not losing, either. The day before FDR took office, FIVE THOUSANDS BANKS FAILED. You see, Hoover had had over three years to deal with the Crash and the Depression, and his Treasury Secretary believed in austerity measures…and you see where it got them.

    Again, not true. Hoover spent billions on relief and social welfare programs. He spent $2.25 billion on relief programs and $500 million on bailouts for banks and businesses. That’s almost $3 billion in 2 years, compared to FDR’s spending of $32 billion on similar programs in 12 years. That’s almost exactly the same level of spending.

    Dave, has it ever occurred to you that Democrats DON’T want all government, all the time? What we DO want is a more effective government…which is what we DON’T get when a Republican gets into office and replaces all the regulators with industry lobbyists.

    Do you live in a dream world? Look at the Obama administration. Look at the labor union and business lobbyists. Twice as many as Bush had. Your argument here is farcical.

    The greater the population, the bigger the government must be. You might not like that, but that’s a fact of human society.

    So long as the increase in size is proportional to the increase in population I can accept that. But our government has ballooned as a percentage of budget and workforce and that’s a formula for disaster.

    Yeah, Reagan’s BRIEF foreign interventions…like that nearly two-year occupation in Lebanon?

    2 years and a few thousand troops. Hardly a long term occupation.

    Come to think of it, to exactly WHAT ‘nation-building’ and ‘long-term occupation’ by the Democrats do you refer, other than to Vietnam?

    Last I checked we still had troops in Europe, Japan and Korea.

    I’d really appreciate it if you didn’t use unfounded accusations like this, Dave. If you were wrong merely due to misunderstanding (like my assumptions about libertarianism), I could understand – but these “Democrat-style nation-building and long-term occupations” are accusations which as an historian you MUST know are false.

    Ask any historian and you’ll find they agree. There’s really no debate on the subject. I don’t like to vilify the Council on Foreing Relations, but go read a bit about its history and origins.

    Ah – the Republicans are protecting religion FROM the government? So why is it that my tax dollars should go towards helping promote a religion in which I do not believe?

    They shouldn’t. Tax dollars should not support any religious or political ideology. I might as well ask why my taxes go to teaching collectivism in our public schools.

    Dave, I very rarely cuss on line, but that’s such a load of crap. Where is your PROOF that the loyalty of Democrats is ‘increasingly to the institutions of the state’? As above, that’s an ephemeral statement based on absolutely NO factual information at all.

    Go look at the political affiliation of the members of our enormous and growing class of government bureaucrats. Look at the political affiliation of the huge union machines. Look at the political affiliation of our education bureaucrats. Look at the political leanings of our media statists. These are realities you can’t just wish away.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Philip Jose Farmer – great author. I read several of his books. He had…interesting ideas. At least he wasn’t as quite as kinky as Jack L. Chalker was, though.

    You clearly haven’t read Image of the Beast.

    Do you know that Jack Chalker used to dress up as a woman and pretend to be his own sister?

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    as Europe is concerned, at least we don’t have tens of thousands of respectable middle class citizens living in tent cities and cars as you do in the USA. If that is being an “abject failure”, I’ll take it over your “success” any time.

    Um, Chris. We don’t have middle class citizens living in tent cities. Where do you get these goofy ideas? Homelessness has increased only slightly since the economic crisis and most of our homeless remain the chronically homeless who are mostly mentally ill or homeless by choice.

    In France, on the other hand, the proles are still rioting and burning cars after three years, while the social unrest and violence spreads to other nations.

    Dave

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    Don’t waste your time, Dave. There’s so much revisionist history being spewed by both sides. It’s come to the point where it’s hard to see where the lies stop and the truth begins. People are so damned mesmerized by ideologies that they refuse to see the handwriting on the wall. We deserve everything that’s coming to us and I will be the first on the damn podium to say I told you so.

  • MChristoff

    As an employer, I can assure you that who ever you work for is taking out unemployement insurance out of each and every one of your pay checks. UNEMPLOYMENT is like social security. It belongs to the EMPLOYEE not the state! It is YOUR MONEY they want to deny you!

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Actually, McC, with the extensions of unemployment the amount being paid out far exceeds the amount collected from workers in unemployment tax and the difference is being made up out of general revenue on the backs of state taxpayers.

    Dave

  • John Wilson

    Meanwhile, everyone seems to believe that eventually the economy will turn upward and return to normal. But Why? Why would it? And why would the economy turn up without assistance?

%d bloggers like this: