Why Can't Republicans Govern?

[Canceled.LTroll.28]

What a drama queen.

 

[Minister of Truth]

What a drama queen.

All the drama queens I've ever known either were awesome in bed or were said to be. Surely you aren't saying something about your idolization of Yurt there???

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Though lyest through thine teeth! Scope = power, btw...

No, you don't understand the concept of limiting the authority of government versus arguing what the scope, that is the range and area of governments functions, should be. Our founding fathers placed some limits on the scope of government via the balance of power within the three branches of government and through limits in the constitution but our founding fathers were also aware that times and the peoples needs change and that ultimately it was the people who were sovereign and that it was they the people, via the democratic process, that determine what the scope of our government should be. Conservatives have all to often been on the wrong side of history in our nation because they have opposed this aspect of the democratic process.

You brought up the Founding Fathers so let's be clear about something. Our nation was born liberal. We fought our war against Great Britain and the conservatism that flourished there. In Europe a conservative was someone who defended the traditions of the monarchy, who justified the privileges of the nobility and who welcomed the state affiliated intervention of the clergy in politics. Our founding fathers decided upon having an elected President, outlawed the granting of titles of nobility and separated Church from State.

Obviously our founding fathers distrusted centralized authority. Conservative political philosophy may not come easy to Americans but a fear of centralized power and an unwillingness to pay heavy taxes does. Not only that but beneath the broad liberalism embodied by the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution is an often unexamined conservatism that challenges the very principles of what our country has become but that doesn't change the fact that conservatives have always been the odd man out in America's liberal political culture.

Although often well organized American conservatives have never been very unified. From the conservative defenders of New England Federalism which wanted to improve Americas economic prospects by retaining an aristocratic sense that only social superiors should control the government. To conservative Christians who wanted our nation based upon timeless Christian principles, until they ran up against our founding fathers and dissenting protestantism. To the southern conservatives who defended the rights of slave holder first and argued that our country was a compact between States and not a unified society. A conservative notion that lives on to this day, with mostly southern conservatives, who oppose using national authority to promote equal rights for all.

So while representing different geographical regions of this country and disparate economic interest this litany of lost causes demonstrates how American conservatives have been united only by their irrelevance in the face of history.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Our founding fathers placed some limits on the scope of government via the balance of power within the three branches of government and through limits in the constitution but our founding fathers were also aware that times and the peoples needs change and that ultimately it was the people who were sovereign and that it was they the people, via the democratic process, that determine what the scope of our government should be.

this is patently false and nothing more than the stated intent of modern day liberals attempting to brainwash the youth of our country in order to actually bring that about.

the constitution was not meant to be changed except through one very specific process and that is amending the constitution. no other 'changes' were to be allowed.

 

[Canceled1]

The main reason, which I feel is obvious, is that the Republican party has been co-opted by far right conservatives. So what is wrong with that, I here you ask? Well it's because time and again right wing conservatives have proven both incapable and incompetent at governing.

The last few years it has actually been quite funny listening to the talking right wing heads, on right wing media, trying to salvage the disaster that was conservative rule under the Bush administration and Republican lead congress during his administration, by blaming right wing politicians from not adhering to right wing convictions. You hear the libertarian wing of the conservative coalition piss and moan that under Republican control that government has not shrunk, as conservatives proscribe, but that it has grown. You hear conservatives bemoan that Republican outsiders, in DC, have become... well... insiders. You hear the ideologues complain about the Republican caring and feeding of the K Street Beast. Teabaggers complaining about increased government involvement in our lives and the Paleocons who blame the Neocons for the debacle that is Iraq.

My question for them is "What the hell did you expect?"

These complaints from the modern conservative movement are indicative of how truely desperate the conservative movement has become. That is, in order to save the movement a conservative President, whose administration was a failure, and the even more conservative Republican members of congress whom enabled him, must be repudiated by the right in order for "Genuine Conservatism" to survive. The point of these conservative talking heads is that the failures of Bush and his Republican congressional allies is that they borrowed the big government and foreign policy idealism from the left. That by the standards of the modern conservative movement the ideals of Woodrow Wilson and John Maynard Keynes have always been flawed and that George W. Bush and Tom DeLay only proved it once again (Irony intended). It is this irrational rational which also explains the rise of the Teabagger conservative movement and their darling Sarah Palin.

Conservatives now have done a pretty good job of bullshitting themselves as to the truth of these claims but a time comes when one has to come to the conclusion that if the political leaders of a political party consistently depart in disastrous ways with that party's underlying political ideology there comes a point where one must stop blaming the political leaders but must start questioning the political ideology. That time has certainly come with the modern conservative movement.

The modern conservative movement is first and foremost about shrinking the size and reach of the federal government. This mission, to be clear, is an ideological one. It does not emerge out of any attempt to resolve any real world problems, such as, managing deficits, defending our nation, finding revenue to pay for entitlement programs, repairing our crumbling infrastructure, providing adequate access to health care, etc,.

The problem with that ideology, that is, the flawed premise it is based upon, is that once in office, like all politicians, conservatives find themselves under constant pressure by constituents to use government to improve their lives. This puts modern conservatives into the awkward position of managing government agencies whose missions, indeed their very existence, they believe to be illegitimate. In other words, the modern conservative movement is a walking contradiction (if not a glaring hypocrisy). Unable to shrink government but unwilling to improve it, conservatives attempt to split the difference, expanding government for political gain, but always in ways that validate their disregard for the very thing they are expanding. The end result is not just bigger government, but more incompetent government.

"So what is wrong with that, I here you ask?"

Herein lies the problem. You hear your own thoughts and then commit them to type.

Thank you Senator Hoople. You can now join Obama, Pelosi, and Reid in the corner. Just wiggle in around the teleprompter.

 

[cawacko]

Seems like the more interesting question/discussion might be why the Democratic Party which is more a supporter of the government and its abilities can't govern?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

this is patently false and nothing more than the stated intent of modern day liberals attempting to brainwash the youth of our country in order to actually bring that about.

the constitution was not meant to be changed except through one very specific process and that is amending the constitution. no other 'changes' were to be allowed.

See Watermark? This is exactly what I"m talking about. This is a perfect example of conservatives opposing democracy and the sovereignty of the people to determine how they should be governed. This is an excellent example of why conservatives end up on the wrong side of history and why they, ultimately, prove inept at governing.

We have to give credit to STY, at least he attempts to make a point. You notice that none of the other conservatives posting have even attempted to refute the truths that we've discussed, though for obvious reason. They're left with their ad homs I guess.

 

[Good Luck]

The base error in the original treatise is calling the Bush administration "conservative" and the accusation that conservatives are not being consistent when they criticize Bush and Co. as not conforming to conservative ideology. The FACT is Bush & Co. did NOT follow conservative principles. From the abuse of C in C authority to start an unneeded war, to subverting constitutional protections via FISA, Patriot Act, and signing statements, to the Pill Bill, NCLB, and other examples of out of control federal spending, etc. etc. etc, the Bush administration and a significant portion of republican congress gave but minimal lip service to conservatism while working hard to increase the strength and role of federal government in our every day lives - actions which were completely antithetical to modern conservative ideology.

There is nothing "desperate" about the modern conservative movement turning away from the republican party as a whole, except the realization that the party who once at least somewhat represented the ideals of conservatism (ie: classical liberalism, which bears little resemblance to modern liberalism) does so no longer, thus leaving us without any organized representation in our governments. For conservatives to move away from the party that is, in all essence, betraying their constituency is both natural and proper, just as it would be natural and proper for modern liberals to move away from the democratic party if they were to start betraying the principles of modern liberalism. (Which, I anticipate will happen when they finally realize over the next few years that the democratic party is every bit as much in the pockets of "too big to fail" business as are the republicans.)

In short, your criticism of modern conservatism as a reason for Republicans screwing the pooch is pure BS. Republicans fucked up under Bush Jr. because they BETRAYED the principles they were elected for and chose rather to increase federal authority over the people, subvert state authority, while simultaneously continuing the long term, bi-partisan trend of increasing the economic and political power of over-sized corporate conglomerates via corporate welfare and favoritist legislation.

 

[Good Luck]

Well, as % of the GDP, the federal government hasn't actually grown significantly since the 50's (although that may change as the baby boomers come in to ruin everything). State and local governments have grown rather dramatically, though.

Since the 50's follows the largest growth of federal authority and federal program spending in U.S. history, that comparison is not valid. Also it is specifically restrained to a narrow economic comparison (spending v. GDP) and leaves out expansion of federal authority.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Notes to Mott:

The vast majority of Founders (conservatives) were fixated on the English Constitution and their rights thereunder. Only a few radicals like Paine made a big deal about the evils of monarchy. The worst of the Founders made appeals to the goodness of the people, such as Jefferson and Madison, although even they lived at a time when they were influenced by philosophy to see the people as a tyrannical force, and thus the necessity of a constitutional republic.

New England's Federalists ran the government far more effectively than the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans. Washington gave the government legitimacy, Hamilton got us out of the postwar recession, and Adams built up a defensive navy and demonstated the need to stay out of foreign incidents. America grew by leaps and bounds under the Federalists, and once gone, the Marshall Court.

The worst things to happen to America back then were the rise of liberal populism and Jacksonian Democracy. These things have lingered ever since, promoting ignorance, weak economic theory, appeals to the uneducated masses for horribly misguided initiatives, the use of immigrants and the poor for political capital. All of these things constitute everyday liberalism in America.

 

[Good Luck]

No, you don't understand the concept of limiting the authority of government versus arguing what the scope, that is the range and area of governments functions, should be. Our founding fathers placed some limits on the scope of government via the balance of power within the three branches of government and through limits in the constitution but our founding fathers were also aware that times and the peoples needs change and that ultimately it was the people who were sovereign and that it was they the people, via the democratic process, that determine what the scope of our government should be. Conservatives have all to often been on the wrong side of history in our nation because they have opposed this aspect of the democratic process.

Dead assed wrong - which is a prime example of why modern liberalism bears little resemblance to the classical conservatism of the founders. First, how can the "range and area of governments' functions" function without corresponding authority? Your attempt to separate the two is an exercise in trying to baffle with bullshit. Second, the founders placed limits on the powers (ie: authority and scope) of the federal government to keep the government from being given too much power by the democratic process. They did not WANT democracy to rule. They built a government designed to diffuse authority (two actually, but the first tried to use too much diffusion of authority) which use the democratic process to assure final political authority resides in the people. But they LIMITED what the democratic process is allowed to do. For an obvious example, they wrote the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights to make sure that a majority of voters could not someday permanently remove the voice of the (political) minority. Each and every one of the BOR was focused on assuring that no matter WHAT the democratic process decides, certain rights will always be sacrosanct. Mistrust of democracy is also why they made it deliberately difficult to change the Constitution, while allowing for changes to be made as necessary. The founders mistrusted democracy (mob rule) every bit as much as they mistrusted any other type of strong central authority. When it comes to democracy itself, they mistrusted strong central authority BECAUSE of the vagaries of democracy.

Our nation was born liberal. We fought our war against Great Britain and the conservatism that flourished there. In Europe a conservative was someone who defended the traditions of the monarchy, who justified the privileges of the nobility and who welcomed the state affiliated intervention of the clergy in politics. Our founding fathers decided upon having an elected President, outlawed the granting of titles of nobility and separated Church from State.

Correct. Where you err is in the assumption that modern conservatism has any desire to return to a nobility based society, or that the philosophy of modern liberalism - especially their economic views - resembles the liberalism of the founders. Modern liberals (who are in truth progressive socialists) have corrupted the very term of liberalism.

Obviously our founding fathers distrusted centralized authority.

No fucking shit. Where your ideology falls off the tracks, however, is in analyzing WHY they mistrusted centralized authority. They did not mistrust central authority merely defined by the aristocracies of Europe. They mistrusted ALL types of strong centralized authority because they knew that centralized authority is most easily corrupted turned into tyranny. It is very difficult to establish tyranny when working with a deliberately diffuse governmental authority. That is why the rights and authority of state governments was a significant focus of the balance of powers in the Constitution, a balance which they attempted to soliddify with the 10th Amendment. Too many focus only on the balance between the branches of federal government and forget there was also designed a balance between federal and state authority. When the founders wrote the Constitution they had already won their liberty from European rule. They knew they had the opportunity and means to create a democracy - and turned it down in favor of a republic, first with a weak (too weak) federal government, then with a much stronger federal government, but one which was deliberately and significantly limited - and then immediately added to those limits via the Bill of Rights. The Constitution was written because they mistrusted democracy in strong central authority as a means of governing every bit as much as any other form of centralized authority.

Conservative political philosophy may not come easy to Americans but a fear of centralized power and an unwillingness to pay heavy taxes does. Not only that but beneath the broad liberalism embodied by the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution is an often unexamined conservatism that challenges the very principles of what our country has become but that doesn't change the fact that conservatives have always been the odd man out in America's liberal political culture.

Again, dead assed wrong - because you insist on mis-defining the philosophy of modern conservatism in the United States. Conservatism itself is invariably held by the majority in almost any society - damned few people like change unless what they want to change is affecting them negatively. The majority of people in the U.S. get along fine in spite of who is in congress or the WH, and as such view any and all proposed changes from either party with a jaundiced eye. You are right in a couple things: the constitution, while created in a classical liberal environment, is actually conservative in nature: written specifically to CONSERVE the liberties they had just fought for; and those principles of conservatism do, indeed, directly challenge many of the aspects this nation has become in allowing more and more direct federal authority over items were intended to be limited to the states.

Although often well organized American conservatives have never been very unified. From the conservative defenders of New England Federalism which wanted to improve Americas economic prospects by retaining an aristocratic sense that only social superiors should control the government.

And once again you use classic 18th century European conservatism as an example and try to imply it is a part of modern American conservatism. Either you are (deliberately) ignorant, or an outright liar whose only bent is demonization of your political opposition.

To conservative Christians who wanted our nation based upon timeless Christian principles, until they ran up against our founding fathers and dissenting protestantism.

And again, a claim based on pure ignorance. The conservative Christian movement got its start when modern liberalism took on a decided anti-religion bent which suddenly started defining previously accepted actions as "establishment of religion". (Some aspects were correct, as REQUIRED prayer in public schools - which did sometimes happen - was wrong. But the action of forbidding ALL aspects of prayer or any other type of religious expression within a public school is equally wrong.) They have, over the years invented more and more barriers to the free expression of religion (the phrase they deliberately ignore in the first amendment), and expressed more and more objections to free expression of religion in any venue except hidden behind closed doors. They even use ridicule of any public official who admits they pray for guidance, sometimes with the added lie that "talking with God" implies God answers back in a Moses type relationship. When one faction tries to make religion something to be ashamed of, then of course the religious are going to push back. There is little difference between a state religion of any particular flavor, and state sponsored secularism which has quite literally expressed the demand that people disregard their religion when voting.

To the southern conservatives who defended the rights of slave holder first and argued that our country was a compact between States and not a unified society. A conservative notion that lives on to this day, with mostly southern conservatives, who oppose using national authority to promote equal rights for all.

Yea, well no generalized political philosophy gets it right all the time. Though even here you overly generalize in assuming all objections to federal authority in the matter of social equality have to do with the acceptance of federal authority itself. It does not - most objections in that area of issues are focused on how that authority is expressed (ie: race based programs, affirmative action, etc.)

So while representing different geographical regions of this country and disparate economic interest this litany of lost causes demonstrates how American conservatives have been united only by their irrelevance in the face of history.

And you end with a pathetic statement implying some kind of philosophical superiority inherent in modern liberals. If nothing else, conservatism is a much needed force just to keep modern liberalism from running completely amok.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

See Watermark? This is exactly what I"m talking about. This is a perfect example of conservatives opposing democracy and the sovereignty of the people to determine how they should be governed. This is an excellent example of why conservatives end up on the wrong side of history and why they, ultimately, prove inept at governing.

We have to give credit to STY, at least he attempts to make a point. You notice that none of the other conservatives posting have even attempted to refute the truths that we've discussed, though for obvious reason. They're left with their ad homs I guess.

it has absolutely shit to do with democracy. the USA was founded upon those documents. Legal documents that do not change except through the process defined within them. anything other than that process has nothing to do with democracy, it's called mobacracy.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

When it comes to democracy itself, they mistrusted strong central authority BECAUSE of the vagaries of democracy.

Wow. You neocons have twisted even our constitution to a force for elitism that king george would have been proud of.

 

[Good Luck]

Wow. You neocons have twisted even our constitution to a force for elitism that king george would have been proud of.

No, you stupid fucking twit. They wrote the Constitution to prevent democratic rule from doing things like removing peoples' rights. If you do not think there are enough people who would vote away your rights, if they could, because they disagree with how you use them, you need to quit with the drugs and face reality. They understood what today's liberal morons cannot seem to grasp: it is easier for a society to lose their liberties to themselves than to any outside force. Constitutional republicanism allows the democratic process to work while safeguarding liberty by limiting the government to specified powers. There is nothing "elitist" about that.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Wow. You neocons have twisted even our constitution to a force for elitism that king george would have been proud of.

don't be the sheeple that king george bred and raised for his tyranny.

 

[Good Luck]

it has absolutely shit to do with democracy. the USA was founded upon those documents. Legal documents that do not change except through the process defined within them. anything other than that process has nothing to do with democracy, it's called mobacracy.

Actually it has everything to do with democracy. They turned down democracy in favor of a republic because they mistrusted pure, unfettered democracy.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Benjamin Franklin

Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
John Adams

Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.
James Madison

Democracy was the right of the people to choose their own tyrant.
James Madison

The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.
Fisher Ames

Modern liberals ignore this basic fact and use the "we are a democracy" fallacy to make changes they cannot make within the framework that established our form of government. And in doing so, they prove why the founders chose to form a republic over a democracy.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

don't be the sheeple that king george bred and raised for his tyranny.

Our entire government has become so corrupt that believing there is a shred of constitutionality left in it laughable.

Being afraid of the people's will is textbook elitism. The people's will is not socialism. This bullshitted interpretation of populism is what you libertarian/conservatives believe in fully now. With the advent of the totalitarian money system (fiat currency, federal reserve act, etc), it became clear that the path to totalitarianism would be under the guise of "free markets" and 'capitalism'. Absorb these truths; rethink your operational paradigm.

Sheeple also idiotically believe that corporations are morally pure.

bam.

let's go!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The base error in the original treatise is calling the Bush administration "conservative" and the accusation that conservatives are not being consistent when they criticize Bush and Co. as not conforming to conservative ideology. The FACT is Bush & Co. did NOT follow conservative principles. From the abuse of C in C authority to start an unneeded war, to subverting constitutional protections via FISA, Patriot Act, and signing statements, to the Pill Bill, NCLB, and other examples of out of control federal spending, etc. etc. etc, the Bush administration and a significant portion of republican congress gave but minimal lip service to conservatism while working hard to increase the strength and role of federal government in our every day lives - actions which were completely antithetical to modern conservative ideology.

There is nothing "desperate" about the modern conservative movement turning away from the republican party as a whole, except the realization that the party who once at least somewhat represented the ideals of conservatism (ie: classical liberalism, which bears little resemblance to modern liberalism) does so no longer, thus leaving us without any organized representation in our governments. For conservatives to move away from the party that is, in all essence, betraying their constituency is both natural and proper, just as it would be natural and proper for modern liberals to move away from the democratic party if they were to start betraying the principles of modern liberalism. (Which, I anticipate will happen when they finally realize over the next few years that the democratic party is every bit as much in the pockets of "too big to fail" business as are the republicans.)

In short, your criticism of modern conservatism as a reason for Republicans screwing the pooch is pure BS. Republicans fucked up under Bush Jr. because they BETRAYED the principles they were elected for and chose rather to increase federal authority over the people, subvert state authority, while simultaneously continuing the long term, bi-partisan trend of increasing the economic and political power of over-sized corporate conglomerates via corporate welfare and favoritist legislation.

As if on cue. See what I mean Watermark? See how he validated my premise of blaming the leader but not the ideology that I made in my original post? See how desperate they are that they try to distance themselves from their own political leaders because they weren't "ideologically pure" instead of recognizing their failures for what they were? You see their illogical rationalization that they must use that the most conservative government in the US in the last 100 years was an abysmal failure because it wasn't conservative enough! LOL

Isn't that a hoot, that they would throw their beloved leader they walked in lock step with under the bus but yet each time their right wing leaders prove to be so inept, as Bush was, they fail to ask themselves "So why did such a staunchly and ideologically conservative politician like Bush split the difference and why had he departed so disastrously with right wing ideological purity?" See how they would rather throw Bush under the bus then admit that maybe it's the conservative ideology that might be wrong?

How much more desperate can they get? With desperation like this Obama would have to fuck up by Bush like proportions not to get re-elected!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Actually it has everything to do with democracy. They turned down democracy in favor of a republic because they mistrusted pure, unfettered democracy.





Modern liberals ignore this basic fact and use the "we are a democracy" fallacy to make changes they cannot make within the framework that established our form of government. And in doing so, they prove why the founders chose to form a republic over a democracy.

Watermark see how he makes my point again with his hostility towards the democratic process? The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution was meant to protect the rights of the individuals against the tyranny of the majority but it was in no way our founding father intent to discredit democracy in our republic. Do you see how that validates the truth to my statement that conservatives have, through out our history, only been united by their historic irrelevance?

 

[Good Luck]

Our entire government has become so corrupt that believing there is a shred of constitutionality left in it laughable.

Being afraid of the people's will is textbook elitism. The people's will is not socialism. This bullshitted interpretation of populism is what you libertarian/conservatives believe in fully now. With the advent of the totalitarian money system (fiat currency, federal reserve act, etc), it became clear that the path to totalitarianism would be under the guise of "free markets" and 'capitalism'. Absorb these truths; rethink your operational paradigm.

Sheeple also idiotically believe that corporations are morally pure.

bam.

let's go!

Try learning the history and fate of every democracy in history. People can and do (witness the mandates of modern liberalism wanting to give more and more power to government) vote against liberty in favor of security. People also have a tendency to polarize around issues, extend the polarization into generalized philosophies who then contend for power. The end result of which is two power bases who, given the opportunity, use their power base to diminish the power base of their opposition until they eliminate the opposition. The result is tyranny.

The United States of America is a constitutional republic. We have a democratic process built into the republic, which is what translates popular authority to government - just as in a democracy. The difference is a constitutional republic is limited by the Constitution which created it. Liberty is protected by defining what government (whose membership is given authority through the will of the people - so your populism is protected) can and cannot do. IF the Constitution is observed as written, no government voted into power by the people has the authority to violate the rights of ANY of the people. Liberty is protected. But when open populism is used (unfettered democracy) in defiance of constitutional limits, THAT is when trouble develops and liberty is threatened.

Liberty needs to be protected, because if it is not it WILL be taken away. That is a basic truth no matter what type of government you start with. You cannot protect liberty if you allow people to vote for government without established limits in authority.

The things you complain about: the creation of the Federal Reserve which in turn creates fiat currency, which in turn creates an economic power base which is not beholden to the people, ALL those things are the direct result of politicians who used populist ideology (will of the peopple is more important that the Constitution) under the democratic party to gain power, and populist ideology to convince the people it was needed. Your claim that economic conservatism created the federal reserve in the name of free market capitalism is off the mark by about 180 degrees. HOW can creating a FEDERAL system for the expressed purpose of CONTROLLING the money supply be labeled FREE MARKET? Only by idiots trying to score points against a political philosophy they have demonstrated to know absolutely nothing about except what they read in anti-conservative blogs.

If you actually think modern conservatives SUPPORT the federal reserve system, then you are an idiot. If you think modern conservatives think corporate welfare (ie: too big to fail) is a good federal policy, then you are twice an idiot.

BTW: the federal reserve and all associated structures also happen to be outside the Constitutional powers of the federal government - not that those who created it and currently run it give a shit about Constitutional powers.