Republicans

[t1tdave]

I've had some thoughts about politics lately, mainly about the Republican party, that I want to get "on paper," mainly for my own use, although (serious) counterarguments and reported flaws in my reasoning are always extremely welcome. It's long. To make it easier for everybody to avoid entry into a political discussion (always a dicey

Comments

[warriorinside]

The way I see it, the only difference between the two major parties is what they choose to stick their noses in my business about. I fall closest to libertarianism - he governs best who governs least. (This is why Obama absolutely terrifies me - he seems to be in love with government control of everything, and I've contracted for the government long enough to see exactly where this is headed.)

I think that the GOP needs to go back to what it used to stand for - the concept of limited government. Most people can manage their affairs on their own if they're not behaving like little spoiled children and expecting Mommy Welfare to hand everything to them. I get the growing sense that a lot of people are uncomfortable with just how much government interference there really is, and Obama's blatant moves on GM and the banking industry is accelerating that. Someone who can stand up and say "get the government out of your wallets, your bedrooms, and your cars" and follow through on that would probably go over really well with the people - and really poorly with the politicians whose primary interest is in getting into power and staying there forever.

And that, right there, is the reason I think that this country is headed for a revolt. Acceptable opinion is being limited to a very narrow range, through public ridicule and twisting of ideas, and anyone who disagrees finds themselves character-assassinated by those in power. And those in power are interested in consolidating their power and staying there more than they're interested in actually serving the people, so this sort of thing is allowed to continue.

Our politicians are too complacent. We are too complacent. And we're going to find ourselves in a dictatorship if we don't watch it.

[t1tdave]

I love libertarianism as an outlook. As a party, the Libertarians I know sometimes end up reaching conclusions (such as, the government should be barred from owning and operating parks, since a free market would manage them better) I cannot agree with.

As for a revolt or a dictatorship: I think we do need to keep our eye on what's going on, and to speak out when it goes too far, but I am comforted by history: we've wandered this far, and much farther, away from the path of personal liberty and freedom before, and we've come back. It comes and goes in phases. That doesn't mean that this time it might be worse, but it does give hope that it won't come to bloodshed.

[warriorinside]

Fair enough. I'm curious, though - when did we wander off further than having the government stage a semi-hostile takeover of private corporations?

[t1tdave]

It depends on how you measure things. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were started by the federal government, so taking them over is more like taking over the Post Office than taking over FedEx. They've bailed out (and basically controlled) railroads before, and they held strict control over the utilites when they were monopolies. The big change here is not the control over a semi-private corporation as much as it is their funding, I think.

[t1tdave]

In a more general sense: In the Civil War we suspended habeus corpus and threw people in prison without charge. Near the start of the century, we forcibly sterilized "undesirables," mostly mentally handicapped and minorities, as part of a state-funded eugenics program. In World War II we rounded up the Japanese and stuffed them in camps. In the era of McCarthyism Hollywood and the Federal Government basically colluded to deny people livelihood based on perceived connection to a political party. We do this stupid stuff when we get scared.