Why Can't Republicans Govern?

[Good Luck]

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?

And once again the liberal idiot tries to make his points by lying. Not once did I disparage the democratic PROCESS. What I denigrate is the populist idea that DEMOCRACY, without protections of the political minority, can result in long term liberty. Of course, it is also noteworthy that the individual IGNORES the quotes against democracy given by the VERY MEN who created our REPUBLIC. A second lie, in which he then states the founders had no wish to discredit democracy.

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

I don't know about anyone else, but it seems to me James Madison, the acknowledged "Father of the Constitution", definitively accepted as one of the primary Founders of our Republic, made rather DISCREDITING statements about democracy as a government. Other founders did, too, posted previously.

Anyone can support their argument when they LIE about their opposition, LIE about the historical context from which their argument is taken, and LIE about the intent of their philosophy. But that is the way of modern liberals. Their philosophy cannot be supported except through deliberate disinformation.

 

[Minister of Truth]

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?

Quit trolling. You are not truly less aware of what an un-American farce democracy is than the Founders.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

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.

My government is destroying my rights. They're making coporations equal to people and shirking their duty to protect my labor market rights as a citizen, aka, they won't even enforce the border.

We're being reduced to wage slaves just like any other IMF victim.

Rights can be removed when markets are sculpted according to fascist eugenics desires as well. Take your "constitutional purity" and shove it, nazi.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

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.

That fear of the people is your elitism. The government should react to the people. All this freedom talk is just to stop good patriots from rising against the perverse corporatist globalist destruction of their lives perpetrated by neocon sellouts like you.

Liberty can be taken by the private sector, not merely by government. When all our jobs are sent overseas and we're told to just suck it up, that is a real destruction of our freedoms.
Freedom is money, regardless of your stupidity.

Modern conservatives are for the federal reserve system. I never see you backing me up on that issue. Until that is fixed, the whole idea of letting markets decide is just a fucked idiot notion. By the way, it's assinine to believe that fiat currency isnt an elitist notion.

 

[zoombwaz]

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.

It's really quite simple. You can't expect competent, honest governance from people whose base political philosophy is "Government isn't the solution. Government is the problem." They can't allow themselves to govern competently, even in the unlikely event they actually gave a shit about the needs of the voter, because to do so would show what a bald-faced lie their anti-government philosophy truly is. God forbid a regulatory agency actually fulfill its mission. No, the best-case scenario one can expect in governance by an anti-government politician or appointee is benign neglect and apathy, with performance descending from there through malice and deliberate sabotage of the oversight function of government and finally to the massive corruption, malfeasance and outright fraud of the Reagan administration and the complete incompetence and lawlessness of the last Bush administration. Look at what the pro-government Democrats gave us: Social Security, the SEC, the 40 hour work week and overtime pay, the minimum wage, child labor laws, Medicare, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and a stable banking system through Glass-Steagall (aka the Banking Act of 1933), which created the FDIC and prohibited any single entity from doing business in more than one of commercial banking, investment banking and insurance. A Democratic President pulled the country out of the Great Depression (contrary to the revisionist claims that WWII actually did the job). The jury is still out on Health Care Reform.

The Republicans (and the Dixiecrats, who later became the Republicans they always were at heart) opposed all of these, and fought bitterly against Social Security and the Minimum Wage, both of which they tried to destroy in the last 20 years, the Minimum Wage under the elder Bush, and Social Security under the Shrub. No, they weren't trying to save SS from impending financial doom. That's easy, if congress ever grew the balls to do it: remove the $106,000 cap on taxable earnings, and make the wealthy pay their fair share with the kind of flat tax they always claim to support. Privatizing SS was meant to destroy it, while pumping much-needed cash into the Ponzi schemes being perpetrated by the banking industry after the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Yes, the GOP fought against child labor laws as an over-reach of the government (sound familiar?)

Look at what the anti-government GOP has given us: repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999, an orgy of deregulation during the Clinton administration (for which we are still paying...thanks loads, Bill) and tax cuts for the rich in the 1920's and 2000's, which led not to the promised increased investment in the economy, but to sleazy speculation which led in the first case, to the Great Depression and in the second to the worst recession since the Depression, and a financial crisis which almost brought down the world economy this time, and did bring it down in the 1930's. What else did the GOP give us? I mean besides Watergate, Iran Contra, 9/11, the shredding of the Bill of Rights, illegal wiretapping of American citizens, and the illegal invasion of Iraq? Medicare Part D, which was a gift to Big Pharma.

 

[Minister of Truth]

And I ask the question again: Why were the Founders able to govern effectively?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

And I ask the question again: Why were the Founders able to govern effectively?

they weren't globalists.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It's really quite simple. You can't expect competent, honest governance from people whose base political philosophy is "Government isn't the solution. Government is the problem." They can't allow themselves to govern competently, even in the unlikely event they actually gave a shit about the needs of the voter, because to do so would show what a bald-faced lie their anti-government philosophy truly is. God forbid a regulatory agency actually fulfill its mission. No, the best-case scenario one can expect in governance by an anti-government politician or appointee is benign neglect and apathy, with performance descending from there through malice and deliberate sabotage of the oversight function of government and finally to the massive corruption, malfeasance and outright fraud of the Reagan administration and the complete incompetence and lawlessness of the last Bush administration. Look at what the pro-government Democrats gave us: Social Security, the SEC, the 40 hour work week and overtime pay, the minimum wage, child labor laws, Medicare, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and a stable banking system through Glass-Steagall (aka the Banking Act of 1933), which created the FDIC and prohibited any single entity from doing business in more than one of commercial banking, investment banking and insurance. A Democratic President pulled the country out of the Great Depression (contrary to the revisionist claims that WWII actually did the job). The jury is still out on Health Care Reform.

The Republicans (and the Dixiecrats, who later became the Republicans they always were at heart) opposed all of these, and fought bitterly against Social Security and the Minimum Wage, both of which they tried to destroy in the last 20 years, the Minimum Wage under the elder Bush, and Social Security under the Shrub. No, they weren't trying to save SS from impending financial doom. That's easy, if congress ever grew the balls to do it: remove the $106,000 cap on taxable earnings, and make the wealthy pay their fair share with the kind of flat tax they always claim to support. Privatizing SS was meant to destroy it, while pumping much-needed cash into the Ponzi schemes being perpetrated by the banking industry after the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Yes, the GOP fought against child labor laws as an over-reach of the government (sound familiar?)

Look at what the anti-government GOP has given us: repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999, an orgy of deregulation during the Clinton administration (for which we are still paying...thanks loads, Bill) and tax cuts for the rich in the 1920's and 2000's, which led not to the promised increased investment in the economy, but to sleazy speculation which led in the first case, to the Great Depression and in the second to the worst recession since the Depression, and a financial crisis which almost brought down the world economy this time, and did bring it down in the 1930's. What else did the GOP give us? I mean besides Watergate, Iran Contra, 9/11, the shredding of the Bill of Rights, illegal wiretapping of American citizens, and the illegal invasion of Iraq? Medicare Part D, which was a gift to Big Pharma.

So you're essentially agreeing with my factual observation that leaders of the modern conservative movement, when elected to office, split the difference by bowing to public pressure from their constituents to provide government services that can improve their lives only to manage them ineptly so as to prove their self-fulfilling prophecy that government can't be trusted to run government programs effectively with the end result that with modern conservatives we get not only more government but more bad government.

The strongest evidence of that fact is that the biggest increases in the size and scope of our government in the last 50 years has occurred under the conservative Presidents, Nixon, Reagan and Bush Jr. It also should be noted that the worst abuses of government power, during that same time, occurred under the same administrations.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

And I ask the question again: Why were the Founders able to govern effectively?

It's a rhetorical question. Why should we answer it? The answer is obvious.

 

[Minister of Truth]

It's a rhetorical question. Why should we answer it? The answer is obvious.

That's because there is no winning response to it. Which means you are being hacktacular or trollish in your arguments on the thread.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

That's because there is no winning response to it. Which means you are being hacktacular or trollish in your arguments on the thread.

Well I guess for you it's not a rhetorical question.....maybe you learned American History on some alternative dimension but the obvious answer to your question is "BECAUSE THEY INVENTED LIBERAL DEMOCRACY!"

 

[DamnYankee]

The main reason, which I feel is obvious, is that the Republican party has been co-opted by far right conservatives....

Actually Mott, the reason is that they haven't been. Even Reagan often came up with the least conservative option when he made a decision.

Established Republicans hate true Conservatives almost as much as Liberals do.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Well I guess for you it's not a rhetorical question.....maybe you learned American History on some alternative dimension but the obvious answer to your question is "BECAUSE THEY INVENTED LIBERAL DEMOCRACY!"

Actually, English philosophers such as Locke and Hooker invented it, but it is not an open invitation to government largesse, else our country would have failed long ago, such as during the early republic under the Founders.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Actually Mott, the reason is that they haven't been. Even Reagan often came up with the least conservative option when he made a decision.

Established Republicans hate true Conservatives almost as much as Liberals do.

Established Republicans kick the shit out of your beloved populists every day of the week. Its why the GOP is losing the principles it used to grasp firmly.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

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.

I actually like the Federalist's economic plans. But they opposed free trade, which is contrary to any sensible economic plan.

They eventually essentially evolved into the Republicans, which eventually shed everything good that they stood for, embraced populist sensationalism above cool reason, and became the monster we all know and love today.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Why don't you support me, Three? I'm definitely anything but a populist. *grins evilly*

 

[Minister of Truth]

Why don't you support me, Three? I'm definitely anything but a populist. *grins evilly*

LOLZ, communists do play the "we represent the people's voice" just as much as the populists do.

Regarding the Federalists, they only supported protectionist policies in a time when American industry was infant, and needed room to grow. For the reason of sound commercial policy, they also wanted to establish good relations with Britain, which was the world's leading economic power.

The highly rationalist, elitist attitude of the Federalist Party pretty much died with it. The Whigs used Jeffersonian, populist rhetoric all along, like log cabin campaigns, prolish campaign parties, and even the famous "King Andrew I" smear on Jackson. The GOP never really had a chance, despite its elitist NE contingent that continued on into the days of Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. Even Lincoln spoke in post-Federalist language, defending Jacksonian Democracy while spouting off about the greatness of the Republic and the Founders that created it.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Governmental systems based on Jacksonian democracy, like the ones we have in Mississippi and Alabama, have pretty much been a disaster.

It turns out that when you turn every office under the sun into an elected office, no one cares and they just elect by party.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Governmental systems based on Jacksonian democracy, like the ones we have in Mississippi and Alabama, have pretty much been a disaster.

It turns out that when you turn every office under the sun into an elected office, no one cares and they just elect by party.

Well, we did get screwed over in WA state when an LA city govt. washout named Dean Logan got appointed to Elections Commisioner in King County by Executive Ron Sims (now in the Obama administration in Housing and Urban Development) and proceeded to fuck-up the 2004 elections. The office had previously been elected, and Sims was forced to fire Logan when the overwhelming evidence of his total incompetence came to light. I heard that Logan moved back down to LA and got back in with that crowd, as I'm sure they don't need him more than ever.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Governmental systems based on Jacksonian democracy, like the ones we have in Mississippi and Alabama, have pretty much been a disaster.

It turns out that when you turn every office under the sun into an elected office, no one cares and they just elect by party.

That's just an excuse. The fact is, is that in a democracy you get the government you deserve. If the people elect a bunch of right wing conservatives who believe that most of the functions of government are illegitimate it should come as no surprise when they govern ineptly.