The Republican Crisis

[AntiochusIII]

Now, for a late-night exercise in the art of internet post-study, we shall together examine this first post, shall we?

And bear with the sarcasm, please.

The election season has long since begun, and it shall lead right up to the huge season in 2008. Everything is up for grabs, but the dynamics of the current political atmosphere are striking in so far as polarity, special interests, and power-hunger have gripped both parties.

A most unsuspecting of beginnings. We see here the scene far too common in the history of humanity.

Speaking as a staunch constitutional conservative I see a truly unique crisis for the Republican Party. Observe:

And he proposes his thesis. Of course, we are left to wonder what does he mean, exactly, by "Constitutional Conservative?" Is he talking about adhering to the interpretation of the day, the oldest interpretation (how, exactly, would anyone know that?), the interpretation of his preference, and hence the right one, or the interpretation as strict as possible to the words written, of course having a hard time at every vague point? We may never know.

The Democrats have always been fractured due to their policy of serving anyone and everyone at once. The only voice of unity in the Democrat party talking points have been: (a) “Republicans are evil” and (b) “we, the Dems, are more socially permissive than the Christian GOP”. This is nothing new. What IS new is that many Americans do not want a socialist system in America. Americans are rightly fearful of expanded government power, no matter who holds it. Americans do not want to give anyone a free ride, and expect each individual to rightfully earn their place in this world, unless of course they are crippled. Hence, the “compassion” in modern conservatism.

First claim: the Democrats have a policy of serving everyone and anyone. Of course, it does not recognize the fact that poor President Johnson signed away the racist South with his Civil Rights bill, which sadly did not serve everyone, really, those poor segregationists.

Second claim: they like to say Republicans are evil. Indeed they are. Like all of those who wants power over others. Of course, we understand his point here and we're just playing around.

Third claim: they like to think they are more socially permissive than the Christian GOP. Of course, their propaganda does say that, except for the Christian part. They're not foolish enough to touch the sensitive religious button.

Fourth claim, Americans, told here in a singular-plural perspective (ahem, generalized), hates socialists, which is of course a bad word, and ties it with expanded government power. Because only those who sit at the Left of one old French council was responsible for an Orwellian state.

Fifth claim, that modern conservatism how adds compassion into it. Nice. Though we must wonder why this particular poster choose to take up a banner of the 2000 election event which he apparently hates, and really means nothing.

The Republican Party has been given a once-in-a-generation chance of uniting this country under their core principles of smaller government, stronger national security, and conservative social policy. So, in this new climate of populist conservatism, what has the Republican Party done?

He provides the Republican party with some "core principles" they must uphold. Poor man, he forgot the Party is an evolving entity whose birth involves an issue long past (slavery) and through its evolvements become an institution with the sole intention of serving itself. Its own power, how Machiavellian, is its raison d'etre. Just like its supposed very opposite. The ends are the same=power. The differing means? Whore a different group.

They have squandered it by abandoning their principles and becoming whores to power.
• No Child Left Behind was a MASSIVE enlargement of federal power over state governments.
• The NSA wiretaps were outrageous because their already existed secret judicial oversight- why sidestep it and expand federal executive power? The official line from AG Gonzalez was that obtaining a warrant was “too much work”.
• A marriage amendment: NOW? And why at the federal level? This is a state issue; what works for Alabama might not work for California.
• Illegal Immigration- The Republican controlled Senate has passed a bill granting amnesty to all illegals with the enthusiastic endoresement of the President. (One of the 1993 world trade center bombers was a 1986 amnesty recipient, BTW. How's that for national security?)
• Pork Barrel spending by the federal legislature that I could never have dreamed of. The $30 million Alaskan bridge to nowhere is a prime example of feeding at the trough.
• The propping up of the oil industry has compromised our national security to terrorist states like Iran. An energy independence initiative would promote domestic innovation while providing us with unimaginable foreign policy capability.

Prelude: they don't have principles, as far as we are concerned.

The points: of NCLB, the poster seem concerned that the Federal power is expanding beyond the proclaimed "principles." Of course, we must remember that Eisenhower's only true support for the Civil Rights (that damn hippy rally) cause was forced by an entirely different interest, the Federal authority over the local. And Eicke was a member of the Republican Party. Of NSA, we must agree. Of the glorious "omg fags" Amendment, he seemed sadly more concerned over the federal exerting its power over the local than the fact that individuals are being denied ability to act in non-harmful behaviors, but we shall reserve our judgement on that. On immigration, he proposes a case that does not really ties into the issue, though his concern is based on the presumably "wrong solution" being given. It is entirely another topic. On pork barrel, well, power as an end, they are using all possible means in this best of all possible worlds. On the oil industry, he expresses a sentiment of national pride combined with a yearning for independence. Good for him.

So as a conservative in a conservative nation, surrounded by fellow conservatives, what am I to do? My party has betrayed me. This is the current crisis of the Republican Party.

Conservative...what does he mean by saying that? Of course, he also claims that his nation is conservative, too, whatever that means, leaving about quite a large chunk of people out who do not believe themselves conservative, implying that they probably aren't of his group, his nation, whatever. But we shall assume it is unintentional. And disturbingly he seemed to identify himself with a particular political party as if it is, say, my [substituted]"Nation", "Country", "Family", "Group"[/substituted]. From what this one remembers the extreme loyalty to a group because of an ideology that group does not uphold is rather futile.

I cannot, in good conscience, vote for Republicans this season or for the big one in 2008. This would give notice to all in the GOP that they have a "free pass" and that I approve of their betrayal.

Of the frogs and their hated lords. We shall mourn with him, though admittedly he is being naive with "betrayal." Promises from those in power for those without power usually got "betrayed."

Nor can I vote for the Democrats. They are even more destructive to America than the Republicans, given their hatred of our troops, sympathy for Al Qaida and Zarqawi, socialist squishy give-money-to-lazy-crack-whores policy, true federal power hunger, and Dean-scream liberal zeal. After all, it was Carter who was responsible for Iran-Contra, trading weapons for hostages. It was Clinton who allowed North Korea to develop nukes behind the back of the UN. It was Clinton who ran from Somalia like a tail tugged Chihuahua. It's Murtha, Pelosi, and Dean who all scream that our troops commit atrocities and that we should run from the middle east and hide from AQ. It was liberal constitutional interpretation by a left-leaning judiciary that has eliminated private property rights and eliminated state sovereignty. The Democratic Party has decided that the return to power is more important than the security of this nation. There is blood in the water and the Democrats are in a political feeding frenzy.

Congratulations must be with him for a rant targeted at Republicans (The Right Side) to be more vicious against the Democrats (The Wrong Side) because they are evil and evil and evil and commie b. they are. And liberal too, damn them.

We are left to wonder what definition of liberal he is using, since the Party, like its righteous counterpart, does not uphold any particular ideology except when it serves their self-interested end: virtù, or power.

The Republicans offer us conservatives their policy betrayal. But it is the Democrats that offer us destruction.

Ditto. Because his "side" betray him, he expresses a hatred of the "other side."

So what is a lowly conservative champion like me to do? My party has abandoned me. I cannot vote for the GOP because they would grow more bloated with self-deluded false confidence. And I can't stay home because the Democrats would cause irreversible damage to America, both at home and abroad.

Once again, he proclaims himself a conservative, but fails to provide his definition of the term which, by its very nature, is very flexible and very regional. Alas, we are left to wonder and take upon the most available stereotype of his self-identified term. And we must congratulate his success in delivering the pathos: "my friends betray me, but I still hate my enemies, greatly, deeply, gravely!"

It is indeed a crisis for the average American patriot conservative.

And, in his brilliant conclusion, he manages to repeat the thesis, the theme, and even adds into this little sentence a call for pride, patriotism, the greater National entity, the nostalgic picture of unity, Nation, and everything good ever professed in the propaganda for that cause, enhancing the echo of his lament, professing his loyalty, and confirm his righteousness, his ethos, to the audience. And that will serve as his warrant, for this poor reader finds no other.

*applauds*

[Kralizec]

I've said it before, and I'll do it again now: the USA needs more parties. Last time I checked, there's only one independent representative in Congress. Pathetic? I thought so. People need to stop thinking in the demo/publican only box, and recognise that there is room, need for a third (and a fourth) political party. Aside from that 2 parties can't possibly represent the political spectrum consistenly, it doesn't make for a healthy debating culture.
This is the cause of your dillema, DA: you're conservative, but there's no conservative party you can in good conscience vote for. A good political system allows not only competition between left and right, but also between right and right and between left and left. It's obvious that internal party elections can't cater for that. Without competition, the one party with the monopoly on right or left is bound to give itself over to corruption, incompetence and demagogy.