Comments on: Save the GOP? Why? http://donklephant.com/2007/08/31/save-the-gop-why/ Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable. Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:41:00 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Pete Abel http://donklephant.com/2007/08/31/save-the-gop-why/comment-page-1/#comment-381976 Pete Abel Sat, 08 Sep 2007 13:14:43 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2007/08/31/save-the-gop-why/#comment-381976 Jim S - Reagan united the country when the country needed to be united. He contributed to the downfall of the USSR. I think he did enough. Jim S – Reagan united the country when the country needed to be united. He contributed to the downfall of the USSR. I think he did enough.

]]> By: Jim S http://donklephant.com/2007/08/31/save-the-gop-why/comment-page-1/#comment-381531 Jim S Sat, 01 Sep 2007 00:35:34 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2007/08/31/save-the-gop-why/#comment-381531 Jimmy, like most modern "conservatives", refuses to recognize the difference between minorities having rights and majorities wanting to crush those rights. Jimmy, like most modern “conservatives”, refuses to recognize the difference between minorities having rights and majorities wanting to crush those rights.

]]> By: Jim S http://donklephant.com/2007/08/31/save-the-gop-why/comment-page-1/#comment-381530 Jim S Sat, 01 Sep 2007 00:32:18 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2007/08/31/save-the-gop-why/#comment-381530 Pete, You included Reagan in that list of Presidencies to be admired, though. And he was never about helping the downtrodden. Pete,

You included Reagan in that list of Presidencies to be admired, though. And he was never about helping the downtrodden.

]]> By: Pete Abel http://donklephant.com/2007/08/31/save-the-gop-why/comment-page-1/#comment-381515 Pete Abel Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:32:31 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2007/08/31/save-the-gop-why/#comment-381515 Sleipner - Lincoln, Danforth, Ramstad, etc. There are multiple Republican leaders who have worked and are working to help the "downtrodden and disadvantaged." And for Schwarzenegger, whatever his motivation, he "got it" and adjusted. Can't say the same for GWB. Sleipner – Lincoln, Danforth, Ramstad, etc. There are multiple Republican leaders who have worked and are working to help the “downtrodden and disadvantaged.” And for Schwarzenegger, whatever his motivation, he “got it” and adjusted. Can’t say the same for GWB.

]]> By: sleipner http://donklephant.com/2007/08/31/save-the-gop-why/comment-page-1/#comment-381505 sleipner Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:35:16 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2007/08/31/save-the-gop-why/#comment-381505 Haha...good one, Pete. The Republicans, the party of the downtrodden and disadvantaged? Maybe, if you're talking about moving as many people as possible into that category and keeping them there... Schwarzenegger tried to be a true Washington corporate lobbyist-owned Republican but then he found his support eroding out from underneath him in progressive California. Only near the end of his first term when it looked like he might get the boot did he begin to try to compromise with progressive lawmakers, before that he was trying to be a west coast version of George Bush. Haha…good one, Pete. The Republicans, the party of the downtrodden and disadvantaged? Maybe, if you’re talking about moving as many people as possible into that category and keeping them there…

Schwarzenegger tried to be a true Washington corporate lobbyist-owned Republican but then he found his support eroding out from underneath him in progressive California. Only near the end of his first term when it looked like he might get the boot did he begin to try to compromise with progressive lawmakers, before that he was trying to be a west coast version of George Bush.

]]> By: Pete Abel http://donklephant.com/2007/08/31/save-the-gop-why/comment-page-1/#comment-381501 Pete Abel Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:58:44 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2007/08/31/save-the-gop-why/#comment-381501 Becky -- Thanks for the comment. I respect it, although (as you might suspect) I disagree. I am definitely a pro-market Republican, but I think the Party has often stood for much more than that, supporting the downtrodden, the disadvantaged, and yes even the middle-class ... and it can once again. My contemporary role model in this regard: Gov. Schwarzenegger. Becky — Thanks for the comment. I respect it, although (as you might suspect) I disagree. I am definitely a pro-market Republican, but I think the Party has often stood for much more than that, supporting the downtrodden, the disadvantaged, and yes even the middle-class … and it can once again. My contemporary role model in this regard: Gov. Schwarzenegger.

]]> By: Jimmy the Dhimmi http://donklephant.com/2007/08/31/save-the-gop-why/comment-page-1/#comment-381500 Jimmy the Dhimmi Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:55:12 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2007/08/31/save-the-gop-why/#comment-381500 I think the relationship between social conservatives and economic libertarians is more nuanced. There are huge numbers of people in this country who believe an unborn foetus has moral value equivalent to an infant child, and that government recognition of marraige should be defined democratically. These people deserve political representation. Socialists also tend to be pro-choice, and believe in judicial activism when it comes to marraige, so one could say the Democrats have been hijacked by social liberals if you want, since the same dichotomy exists on that side of the isle, albeit in reverse. My theory is that the left/right divide in this country reflects a more basic, almost psychological aspect of human nature. There are people who uphold liberty over equality; moral justice over social justice - these people are considered "conservatives," the opposite are "liberals." Liberty, individualism, and moralism are related at the core, as are equality, socialism, and material determinism. But thats a topic for another thread. I think the relationship between social conservatives and economic libertarians is more nuanced. There are huge numbers of people in this country who believe an unborn foetus has moral value equivalent to an infant child, and that government recognition of marraige should be defined democratically. These people deserve political representation.

Socialists also tend to be pro-choice, and believe in judicial activism when it comes to marraige, so one could say the Democrats have been hijacked by social liberals if you want, since the same dichotomy exists on that side of the isle, albeit in reverse.

My theory is that the left/right divide in this country reflects a more basic, almost psychological aspect of human nature. There are people who uphold liberty over equality; moral justice over social justice – these people are considered “conservatives,” the opposite are “liberals.” Liberty, individualism, and moralism are related at the core, as are equality, socialism, and material determinism. But thats a topic for another thread.

]]> By: Becky http://donklephant.com/2007/08/31/save-the-gop-why/comment-page-1/#comment-381499 Becky Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:14:51 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2007/08/31/save-the-gop-why/#comment-381499 Today I wrote a post about some comments Republican strategist Michelle Laxal made on the Larry Craig thing, urging the party to throw out the social conservatives who have hijacked the party. I applauded her remarks and was happy to see them. And that was the gist of my article today. But as I have mentioned before, that is not really possible. The Republican Party was never really founded on those principles. Their primary agenda has the the partnership of federalism with big money. They believe in limited government when it applies to regulating big business. Limited taxation that saves the average taxpayer $600 a year and is a windfall for Big Oil. And the assistance of federalism to facilitate those interests. Nothing has ever really changed. There have only brief periods of something approaching libertarianism, most notably the Goldwater Revolution in the mid-1960s. The current embrace of social conservatives, is just a convenient political colalition alliance. The primary constituency has never changed, and never will. ~Becky Today I wrote a post about some comments Republican strategist Michelle Laxal made on the Larry Craig thing, urging the party to throw out the social conservatives who have hijacked the party.

I applauded her remarks and was happy to see them. And that was the gist of my article today.

But as I have mentioned before, that is not really possible. The Republican Party was never really founded on those principles. Their primary agenda has the the partnership of federalism with big money. They believe in limited government when it applies to regulating big business. Limited taxation that saves the average taxpayer $600 a year and is a windfall for Big Oil. And the assistance of federalism to facilitate those interests.

Nothing has ever really changed. There have only brief periods of something approaching libertarianism, most notably the Goldwater Revolution in the mid-1960s.

The current embrace of social conservatives, is just a convenient political colalition alliance. The primary constituency has never changed, and never will.

~Becky

]]> By: Tom http://donklephant.com/2007/08/31/save-the-gop-why/comment-page-1/#comment-381498 Tom Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:09:13 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2007/08/31/save-the-gop-why/#comment-381498 If you're the party of small government, not sure if I'd choose Reagan as a good example to follow. For that matter, I'm not sure if Ike is that good an example; his "modern Republicanism" seemed awfully vague... If you’re the party of small government, not sure if I’d choose Reagan as a good example to follow. For that matter, I’m not sure if Ike is that good an example; his “modern Republicanism” seemed awfully vague…

]]>