Discussion of the Republican Party

Vagabond, regarding the 10th Amendment, do you know of any Court cases in which federal laws were overturned on that basis? I don't, but you're the poly sci major.

The federal government aggregating all power to itself and reducing the states to nothing would be legal according to the Constitution. I don't think, though, that it would be politically possible. Maybe I should have clarified that.

Two Steps Forward: Much of your commentary on prevailing attitudes in America is undeniably true, but as far as the primary focus of American government I think my point holds. The continuance or escalation of the Vietnam war was never the primary focus of any US Administration, but a political/psychological "necessity" (as percieved at least) which more than anything else was a thorn in the side of LBJ's social agenda.

While the American public is quite ho-hum about war or the opposition to it these days, the agenda of our government has focused quite a bit on foreign affairs, usually through covert action, force, or the threat of force. The Republicans in congress are starting to change tune because there won't be any coat-tails to ride in 2006 or 2008 and many of the people have had it with the wars, if granted in a rather lackluster fashion, but that hardly negates the fact that we've invaded two nations, quite possibly made forrays into another (Syria), Threatened the bejesus out of North Korea, Iran, and Syria, backed an attempted coup in Venezuela (giving this administration the benefit of the doubt over Ukraine and support for "NGOs" in Belarus).

That's not even to mention domestic actions for national security such as the Patriot Act and the Facististi (or DoHS if you prefer). It is hardly deniable that whatever social attitudes may be, the actual political agendas which have dominated government and recent elections, and formed the major bone of contention between the parties, have been foreing policy/national oriented.

Though I expect such actions to continue, I expect a Vietnamesque shift wherein these become an elephant in the living room and social or economic concerns again become dominant in the near future.

As for laws overturned by the 10th Amendment, I have already named the 1933 Agriculture Adjustment Act, which was stricken down in US v. Butler despite the courts finding of broad powers of taxation.

It is precisely the 10th amendment which cements the fact that our government is one of enumerated and limited powers. Without the 10th Amendment, there would be room to argue for even broader implied powers. While the comma between the power to tax and the power to pay debts theoretically grants unlimited ability to tax, the 10th Amendment limits the power to appropriate that money regardless of that much-ruled-upon comma, and thus was crucial to the Butler ruling.

Bringing this back to the discussion of the Republican party for a moment, I believe there is very little room to deny that both parties have obviously sought to overstep the bounds of federal authority at times. As I have said, they're what we've got for the moment and at a given time one or the other will generally be the lesser evil and the more workable option for government; I believe that for a time the Republican party has been in that position, but that we are in the midst of some change and at the moment neither party is proving to be particularly favorable to citizens like myself who agree that the government which governs best is that which governs least (and were it possible, though I do not believe it to be since Anarchy immediately must give way to smaller spheres of government- often tyrany, I would embrace Thoreau's extention that "that government governs best which governs not at all").

Eventually we can only hope that a new party will arise for conservatives which deserves that name; one which meets the current need for government intervention as perfectly as possible, without straying excessively from that with wars or social programs which are unnecessary or fruitless to the common man.

For the sake of asserting that this is not an abstract historical debate let me state my thesis as clearly as possible in closing: The Republican Party has serious problems at the moment, but I do believe the Democrats can then be embraced by default.

Vagabond:

What I was getting at by going into so much detail about prevailing social attitudes was the collective mindset of the country, which sets the boundaries of what the government can get away with. If the Bush administration has pushed beyond those boundaries, capitalizing on the brief surge of anger following 9/11 -- and I think it has -- then this indicates national security is not as hot an issue today as it was in my youth. It may of course be a very hot issue within the administration, but that is not an indicator of a political sea change. It just contributes to Bush's current low poll numbers.

If I understand the ruling that struck down the AAA, it was not based on the 10th Amendment but on the prohibition against nonuniform taxation. The Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to tax one group (the processors) in order to pay another (the farmers). The 1938 AAA, which lacked the processor tax and funded the law out of general revenues, passed Court muster.

For me, the scope of government authority isn't the main question. I prefer to ask, Whose interests is government serving? At the moment, I see it serving the interests of corporate America and the very rich, at the expense of everyone else. It's not so much that government is too strong, as that it's doing the wrong things. And not doing the right ones. This is leading the country over a cliff, as it did in the 1930s, and I sincerely hope this time we reverse course without having to go through as much suffering.

That does put me in the same place as you w/r/t the two parties, which are both quite disappointing. But it's an agreement as to conclusions coming from highly divergent premises.

Ah, Thoreau. Prophet generation idealistic Transcendentalist pie-in-the-sky booby. Have to admire his courage and dedication in going to jail over the Mexican War. Also his eloquence. But no, I don't agree with him that the government governs best that governs least. And the only way we can have a government that governs not at all is to return to a foraging/hunting economy. Like it or not, civilization is an artificial lifestyle requiring all sorts of artificial measures to sustain it, including government.

Actually, though, I believe Thoreau may have understood this; he had little use for civilization itself.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
It may of course be a very hot issue within the administration, but that is not an indicator of a political sea change. It just contributes to Bush's current low poll numbers.

Unless it continues to dominate elections. If after the political row over Iraq settles, Republican voters are still willing and able to put in an administration that takes a hard line on Iran or Syria, then what? Depending on the answer, we may not be so much in the midst of a new focus as in the midst of a shift away from a fairly short lived one, but I guess only time will clarify that.

If I understand the ruling that struck down the AAA, it was not based on the 10th Amendment but on the prohibition against nonuniform taxation.

I see a lot of re-reading in my future. I'll try to get back to you with a direct quote.

I already know you're right about a 1938 version of the AAA making it through the court, but it looks like I'll have to read the two decisions in full to see if the summary I found was accurate.

For me, the scope of government authority isn't the main question. I prefer to ask, Whose interests is government serving?

Fair enough, but I see the constitution, when properly interpreted, as a possible guide for limitations which will prevent the government from serving unjust interests at excessive detriment to the citizenry.

It's not so much that government is too strong, as that it's doing the wrong things. And not doing the right ones.

Granted, but given that no government to my knowledge has ever gone long without sometimes doing wrong things and not right ones, it still seems important to limit that ability to the extent that it does not deprive the government of the ability to do right things that the citizens could not accomplish without government.

For example, I would certainly not want to trust the government with the power to establish a state religion, even if it were possible to do good things with that, because too many bad things are also possible and presumably any spiritual or civil benefits which might be proposed could be just as easily achieved without government force.

That does put me in the same place as you w/r/t the two parties, which are both quite disappointing. But it's an agreement as to conclusions coming from highly divergent premises.

And the only way we can have a government that governs not at all is to return to a foraging/hunting economy.

Not even then, hence my reservation that it is not possible. I already believe that force or the threat of force basically governs all human affairs, but in anarchy that force is almost unfailingly violent and arbitrary. If we went back to a hunting/foraging economy some tyrant would just club his neighbors on the head for possession of a slain deer- that's about as tyrannical as it gets.
The only way not to have rule is not to have conflict, and the only sure way not to have conflict is not to have human interaction. My conviction remains however that the ideal government would not require force of any kind, although i realize that this would require a collectivist mindset which simply is not possible for humans, and which I do not anticipate will ever develop.

Actually, though, I believe Thoreau may have understood this; he had little use for civilization itself.

Exactly.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
If after the political row over Iraq settles, Republican voters are still willing and able to put in an administration that takes a hard line on Iran or Syria, then what?

Then I'll be proven wrong, of course! But I don't believe that will happen. We can watch the Congressional elections next year for an indicator.

Fair enough, but I see the constitution, when properly interpreted, as a possible guide for limitations which will prevent the government from serving unjust interests at excessive detriment to the citizenry.

Well the problem is in that "when properly interpreted" business. If the document is so readily misinterpreted (in your view), doesn't that imply that it is open to various interpretations?

There's a tendency in this country to regard the Constitution as if it were Holy Writ. It's not, it's just the law of the land, and exploring the historical process by which it came to be can serve to de-mystify it.

Who drafted the Constitution? The main shapers were Madison and Hamilton. The Convention, consisting of delegates from the states, approved the final version. Almost all of these delegates, and certainly both of the main shapers, were defenders of privilege and wealth.

Why was a new Constitution seen as needed? Because the government of the Articles of Confederation was unable to provide governing functions that were seen as needed. Some of those "needed" functions included the protection of the privilege of the wealthy against movements to democratize wealth, which were on at that time. Others included the ability of the U.S. to present a unified foreign policy and to reliably defend the borders, so overall I'd agree a new government was needed, but with the rich and privileged driving the process, we should expect the product to serve their interests before any others.

And that's also the context of the ratification debate. Most everyone involved in the debate on both sides agreed that some changes were needed, that the old system wasn't working. But the anti-federalists were suspicious about the new document because of who was pushing it, and because of suspicions that they were to be subjected to the rule of an American aristocracy just as bad as the British one they had recently gotten rid of -- or even worse, because the home-grown aristocrats were here, not over there.

There was a lot of class antagonism involved in the American Revolution. Four groups were involved: the titled British nobility that controlled the British government, the American commercial magnates concentrated mainly in the northern colonies, the American slaveowning planters concentrated mainly in the south, and the rest of America's free population. Plus the Indians, of course. What made the Revolution possible is that all of those American groups became sufficiently united against the British elite that a bare majority of Americans came to want independence. But that doesn't mean they had common interests overall. And once independence had been achieved, the fractures began to show.

Where I'm going with this is that the Constitution, being designed in part to protect privilege, can't be relied upon as a protection against privilege, no matter how it's interpreted.

Granted, but given that no government to my knowledge has ever gone long without sometimes doing wrong things and not right ones, it still seems important to limit that ability to the extent that it does not deprive the government of the ability to do right things that the citizens could not accomplish without government.

I would agree that government is a potential threat to liberty. I would agree that safeguards are necessary to prevent the potential from becoming actual. But I would not agree that we should think of this in terms of limiting the scope or power of government, weakening it as much as practical given the needs we see for its services.

Rather, I see the dangers as specific types of action, not the scale of the action, and the safeguards as of three kinds: division of power, with checks and balances to prevent any one person or group of people within the government from gaining too much power; public accountability, with all government officials subject to democratic approval; and specific constitutional guarantees of rights in the form of actions the state is forbidden to take.

At present, all three of these have become somewhat eroded. Our post-WWII imperial stance has enhanced the presidency at the expense of Congress. Our system of campaign financing, amounting to legalized bribery, together with corporate control of the news media, have compromised public accountability. And in the post-9/11 hysteria, civil liberties were legally compromised. That last, I believe, is passing and will be corrected in short order, but the other two need serious action.

I already believe that force or the threat of force basically governs all human affairs, but in anarchy that force is almost unfailingly violent and arbitrary. If we went back to a hunting/foraging economy some tyrant would just club his neighbors on the head for possession of a slain deer- that's about as tyrannical as it gets.

That's actually not how it worked, but I see where we're cross-wiring here. You're defining government in terms of force or the threat of force. I'm defining it in a more formal way, as an organized, official authority over society.

Foraging/hunting bands did have a lot of internal violence but they also tended to share food and other basic goods communally. They had to in order to survive. Private capital property is an invention of civilization. So is formal government. They were small enough that a formal structure of law and government wasn't required. The whole band could make decisions together. No tyrant could rule the band by force and threats, because no one individual could survive without the cooperation of the rest. Even today, a tyrant has to have a part of the population follow him willingly, or he has no power at all.

This way of living is "natural" to us, in that it's how our ancestors lived when we first evolved as a species, and the way humans lived for between a hundred thousand and two hundred thousand years. By comparison, civilized life has been brief. There's a tendency to yearn for a return to such a life, with everything shared in common, no government, no organized religion. The Garden of Eden represents this. It was behind the idealism not only of Thoreau but even of Marx, whose conception of the ultimate stage of history (true communism) incorporates elements of it. The environmental movement is partially driven by it (although it's also driven by science and common sense).

But we can't return to the Garden. From the moment the first furrow was plowed, that way of life was doomed.

Republican party?I'm a republican with no party.The republicans are now neocons and as far as I'm concerned the con part doesn't stand for conservitive.The neocons want to get rid of the constitution so they can rule the roost however they want,laws donot apply to them.The democrats on the other hand want to give everything we have to anyone except us.So they also want rid of that pesky constitution.The corporate media meanwhile lulls us into complacency with thier news concentrated on Paris,Brittney,or whoever they can use to sluff time so they can ignore actually reporting news.The worst of it is while the media reports on the vast differences between the partys when it comes right down to it they colude. ex.Bush commits the crime,Pelosi protects him.That's a real difference huh?In esence,I do not believe there are political partys anymore.The terms democrat or republican are nothing more than an attempt to try and show the people that thier different when actually they are all after the same thing.The destruction of the constitution so they can divide this country up between themselves for fun and profit.

There is a very strong libertarian/small-government trend in the GOP. In fact, the US is about the only country left on the planet that identifies "conservative" with small government/libertarianism. I am conservative, but in the statist-big government-European-conservative mold, such as Sarkosy/Merkel. As I said in another thread, libertarianism was a great, progressive idea for frontier cultures like the US and Australia in the 19th century. We are no longer on the frontier. We have massive urban/suburban populations, and like it or not, these populations actually want government in their lives. The US needs a big government conservative movement that will address the nation's needs in a fiscally responsible way to oppose both the whacko Democratic party and the libertarians, who want America to be a 19th century theme park.

You are dupes. The Republican party is the party of traditional American values and a strong Constitution. It is the only party that can stand up to those communist scumbags in the Democratic party.

There has been a concerted effort by elements of the Democratic party to split the Republican party and they have been successful. Their tactic, get the morons who call themselves "Conservatives" to rebel and split the Republican party and so usher in the communists.

You "Conservatives" truly are morons. You played right into the hands of the Democrats. Are you happy with your work?

You were duped by Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, and Billy (The Cincinnati Steamer) Cunningham. If you look at their rhetoric from 2007 and 2008 you will see that they did everything they could to support Obama over Clinton and Obama over McCain. Just the content of one show in the 2008 time period would show you how much these "Giants of Conservatism" worked for Obama.

But can you blame them, they are in it for money and Obama had tons of it and he didn't have to show where he got it and who he gave it to.

You "Conservatives" are morons. At least the Democrats in charge are intelligent.

So you Conservatives have no right to bitch about the Democrats, you put them in power. You made this happen. There is no other recourse now, to save the country and save the US Constitution we need a violent armed revolution.
So, can you dumb ass conservatives at least shoot straight?

Here's something I've been thinking about since last night.

The Gulf oil spill could actually go a long way to hurt the Republicans and conservatives.

First of all, they've always been in bed with big business especially big oil companies. It can be seen to some that according to many conservatives big business can do no wrong.

Plus, the oil spill will never be cleaned up fully and will continue to have environmental impacts for years to come. It has already hurt the fishing industry and has put many people out of work by closing them down. Only the biggest companies will survive, as one example. Even they may be closed down in the future, but only time will tell.

Plus the oil spill will have other harmful effects on people.

So the question could be why didn't they do anything to fix the spill sooner? And of course, there won't be any palatable answer to that. That will result in many dissatisfied people.

I am for smaller government and the preservation of American values, so I am, in some cases, a Republican. Unlike Neocons, however, I am a pagan (I despise many Judeo-Christian teachings) and I do not support Israel. If I had to label myself anything, I would carry the title of a National Socialists, only because I feel this ideology respects our culture and our European roots. You may call me a monster or a Nazi, but I do not care.

Corporate Fat Cats are all Republicans? Thats an interesting premise. I'd like to see if that can be backed up by statistics. Although, I guess a real good case could be made that Democrats are now the party of Big Government in collusion with Big Business. Just ask Goldman Sachs and BP Oil.

Originally posted by Flidais
You are dupes. The Republican party is the party of traditional American values and a strong Constitution. It is the only party that can stand up to those communist scumbags in the Democratic party.

There has been a concerted effort by elements of the Democratic party to split the Republican party and they have been successful. Their tactic, get the morons who call themselves "Conservatives" to rebel and split the Republican party and so usher in the communists.

You "Conservatives" truly are morons. You played right into the hands of the Democrats. Are you happy with your work?

You were duped by Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, and Billy (The Cincinnati Steamer) Cunningham. If you look at their rhetoric from 2007 and 2008 you will see that they did everything they could to support Obama over Clinton and Obama over McCain. Just the content of one show in the 2008 time period would show you how much these "Giants of Conservatism" worked for Obama.

But can you blame them, they are in it for money and Obama had tons of it and he didn't have to show where he got it and who he gave it to.

You "Conservatives" are morons. At least the Democrats in charge are intelligent.

So you Conservatives have no right to bitch about the Democrats, you put them in power. You made this happen. There is no other recourse now, to save the country and save the US Constitution we need a violent armed revolution.
So, can you dumb ass conservatives at least shoot straight?

No, Im sorry I've been a follower of Beck and he was the one who has made the most sense to me. He has taken on Soros in a big way. It was the nutbags on the left who were so busy slobbering over Obama. Remember the famous Matthews tingle up the leg comment? It was this slobbering that turned me to watch Fox news exclusively, as this slobbering over a Marxist community organizer was just too nauseating to watch. Please convince me a clip of Beck promoting Obama.

In my opinion Republicans are the same as Democrats.

Originally posted by mikejohnson2006
In my opinion Republicans are the same as Democrats.

The Republican-Democrat Party was created by Thomas Jefferson circa 178-something.

Abraham Lincoln ran as a Republican-Democrat for his truncated second term of office.

reply to post by The Vagabond


I think you can simplify the political system today down to this; people tend to look after their own interests first, money buys influence, which in turn wields power. So the people with the most money tend to wield the most political power. It doesn't really matter to the people buying politicians which party they belong to as long as they are bought . I think what we have now is more like ONE party that's bought and paid for claiming to be two, to give the masses the illusion of choice and participation when in fact they have neither. There is NO way the average paycheck to paycheck American has ANY voice or participation in today's government. We are given a list of politicians we can pick, all of which will pursue the instructions of the OWNERS of the country, NOT the common people. That's why the country continues to slide towards gross economic disparity no matter who is in office. Until we take money out of politics, nothing will change. Therein lies the problem, the people who have the ability to do that are those very same bought and paid for politicians. And they never will Because their owners won't ever allow it.

mikejohnson2006
In my opinion Republicans are the same as Democrats.

Tend to agree with Mike Johnson here. The Republican party has become Democrat Lite. They are the other half of a Hegelian Dialectic to quietly and secretly steer the American People gradually and subtly to the left..towards progressivism....towards Marxism/Socialism.
The tell tale give away of the Republican party being a phony was when many of them were to speak out against the Tea Party. They, like the Democrats, are threatened by this movement. I am not a Tea Party person..but I did note this about the Republican Party..they were no different than the Democrats when it came to the Tea Party.


It helps that many Americans today have mostly a television and movie education in emotions..it makes it more difficult to detect this going on right in front of them.

Though I am very conservative...
I don't trust the Republicans any more than the Democrats. I also know that there are stories and issues that the fabled Fox News will not cover. I believe this is one reason Beck Separated from them.


Orangetom

In the interest of demonstrating how phony is the Republican political party I am going to pose a question here and some links to thinking and thinking processes. Also to show how thorough and complete has become the propaganda in the minds and souls of the American people to prevent independent thinking on this topic.


The topic line I use to demonstrate Republican part phoniness and that they are really Democrat Lite is the business currently going on with this administration of "Equal Pay for Equal Work."


Observe what happens in this video made many many years ago by Dr Warren Farrell on this very topic..of why men earn more monies.
Scroll up to minute 25:24 through 28:00 to see Dr Farrell ask the question..

www.youtube.com...

If women are paid less for the same work as men and have been doing so for many many many years now....why would anyone ever want to hire a man??




I have been posing the same question in the last couple of weeks to people with whom I come into contact with some startling results.
They get this dumb look on their face..male and female both..indicating to me how totally effective in misdirection and deception has been the feminists propaganda on this topic that most accept it without thinking it through.

Now for votes the current administration is taking up the same dogma and mantras and thinking no one will catch on to it and aske the question before the mid term elections. They are probably correct.

Here I posted what happened in a thread in the Relationship boards on "False Feminism."

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This false feminist doctrine and dogma is so effective almost no one catches it.


Now if the Republicans are not asking the same question of their people..and the public..they are in the corner with the Democrats..hence Democrat Lite. They are phony conservatives.

If the so called..Conservative media and talking heads are not asking the same question..including the famous Rush Limbaugh..they too are phony conservatives.

You dont have to be a genius or rocket scientist to realize this..just think it through.

What you have going on in this nation is two phony political parties who function as corridors to steer the public in a direction which is consantly to the left...slowly sometimes but others very very fast.
But they must look on the surface to be in competition with each other..but behind the scenes they are both leaving the public ignorant of what is really going on. They are both predators on the public..deceivers and misleaders...propagandists.

I put no more stock in the Republicans than I do the Democrats.

Hope this helps some of you to get your heads out of the clouds as concerns the so called Two Party system here in America.


Thanks,
Orangetom

a reply to: The Vagabond

I've tended to think about government not in general terms like "big government" or "small government", as those terms are relatively meaningless.

What government focuses on and does is important.

how flexible and responsive government is, is important.


Personally I think the government could shrink a bit, however, what previously was devoted to make-work for defense contractors, or domestic spying operations, or having a large standing army, should be re-directed into federal infrastructure programs, single-payer healthcare, etc.

The Republican party has demonstrated clearly to those who can still think...that they are only Democrat Lite.

A part of a Hegelian Dialectic with the public in the middle being hammered by two phony political parties hell bent on steering the public down the chute to being picked and plucked again.

Many in America are thinking of ways around both political parties...and quietly talking amongst themselves.
They are beginning to recognize what I am describing about the two party system but haven't quite figured out what to do about it.

One of the first things that needs to be done is neuter the media...for they are in on the Hegelian hoax.

Orangetom

This seems to drag out. Some opening shoots. I grew up under Governor Nelson Rockefeller, in hind sight he did bungle a few things, like Attica. President Eisenhower was definitely good for the country. He kept the tax rate at a high level to continue paying down the debts of World War II and Korea, and invest in the military and the economy, like the infrastructure. The economy grew slowly, but everyone benefited. The suburbs, two car families, vacations to distant places, and much else came from that period. President Kennedy made the mistake of cutting the tax rates, setting the stage for government running a deficit.
The Republican Party lost me under Ronnie Raygun. The Dixiecrats turned into the Dixiecans, and over the decades made the party into the Teapublican Party. Should have seen it coming, from the "conservatives" forcing President Ford to drop Vice President Rockefeller. Then, as was the case with President George H. Bush, damned the Republican candidate, a sitting president, with faint praise.
The present policies accepted by a wishy washy President Clinton, and doubled down by President Baby Bush are a disaster. Corporations that manufactured high quality products became chips in high stakes games. Take Boeing builder of the B 52, which promises to celebrate its hundred birthday while still in active military service. Then, compare it to Boeing's latest offers, a flying disaster waiting to happen. While the CEO walks away with salaries unimaginable in the 50's. Which brings me to another thought. Big mistake to stop funding research and development of military industries. Since then, the quality and innovation of those industries have declined, and their research budgets cut to improve stock market value. The military is a different subject. First they come up with the fiasco of camouflage. Should have left the cotton sattin in green, with camo issued for combat. Navy could do without that silly naval camo, cotton shirts and dungarees had a reason for being the preferred clothing issue for sailors. Then, to replace a vehicle, the M 151 Jeep, they bought the Hummer. First read in a military publication in the 80's, and knew it would be a hummer of a vehicle, meaning over weight, over sized, and overly expensive. Hail, the military industrial complex sucking down money without producing much useful for National Defense.
Enough for a first time.