On Leaving The Republicn Party

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Paul Revere, May 8, 2007.

  1. Paul Revere
    Offline

    Paul Revere Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    374
    Thanks Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville, PA.
    Ratings:
    +25
    The Article below reminded me of discussions I have read between RSR and others on other forums.

    Having once been a Republican and left, I am not a Democrat.

    RSR seems to think that there are only Republicans and Democrats, conservative and libs. Anybody that dares disagree with RSR, then becomes a lib.

    I refere you to this quote from the article, "many folks believe that if you abandon one party, you must necessarily take up common cause with the other one. Yet if a restaurant gives you a choice between eating food laced with rat poison or with arsenic, you might want to eat somewhere else..........."

    A pox on both their parties
    I'm leaving the GOP, but not for the Democrats
    By STEVEN GREENHUT

    Senior editorial writer and columnist
    Last weekend, I announced my not-so-Earth-shattering decision to leave the Republican Party. In the era of George W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger, I simply have had enough. While I've been pleased by the correspondence I've received, most of it from other disaffected Republicans who are sick of the party's abandonment of its stated "liberty" principles, I've left some readers confused about where my allegiances now lie.

    Here's my chance to elaborate a little further.

    The country has devolved so much into a two-party system that many folks believe that if you abandon one party, you must necessarily take up common cause with the other one. Yet if a restaurant gives you a choice between eating food laced with rat poison or with arsenic, you might want to eat somewhere else, even if it's a long drive until the next rest stop and even if the new restaurant hasn't gotten great reviews.

    So ... no, I have not become a Democrat. I haven't criticized Democrats too much in recent months, mainly because it's so pointless.

    Let me reiterate the obvious reasons why I will not return to the party of my youth. It's long been clear to believers in free markets and limited government that the Democratic Party is committed mostly to European-style socialism. Ever fearful of the free market and hostile to the free choices individuals would make if left on their own (with the sole exception being what they call "reproductive freedom"), the Democrats ceaselessly advocate for more government control of the economy, more far-reaching cradle-to-grave social programs – never mind that such programs can't sustain themselves over the long term, and that government "services" are notoriously wretched compared with those offered by market-based companies in a competitive environment.

    Listen to the Democratic presidential candidates argue over who proposes the most gigantic government-controlled health care system, with only one candidate (John Edwards) honest enough to admit such a scheme will require massive tax increases. Being a Democratic candidate means that good intentions are more important than rigorous analysis. The party expresses one constant concern: how to get "greedy" working stiffs to shift more of their income to the government sector. As that sector has gotten bigger, with more than half of all Americans receiving support from government or working directly for some agency, it's become easier to call for more government.

    This "we know best" attitude also results in the party's constant embrace of the Nanny State – the term applied to the endless laundry list of petty rules involving even our most personal choices. Because bans on, say, smoking at beaches or driving without seat belts or spanking children are for our "own good," a lot of folks forget that if you pass the above-mentioned rules, then you need lots of cops to arrest smokers, lots of jails in which to put non-seatbelt-wearers and lots of foster homes in which to put the spanked kids rescued from their "abusive" parents. The Nanny State squelches freedom.

    I'm convinced that if many Dems had their way, there would be virtually no area of life beyond their prying eyes, no source of income beyond their prying hands (hence their hostility to property rights), no place where we could retreat to get away from their unceasing desire to regulate us, tax us, prod us, improve us, instruct us, educate us and control us. And, of course, there's nothing Dems love more than a good moral crusade (i.e., global warming) to bludgeon the rest of us into giving them more money and power.

    That's why I stuck so long with the Republican Party, seeing it as – in a two-party system – the only counterbalance to the above-outlined lunacy. But the GOP has become just like the Democrats in pandering to special interest groups, advocating for large government, supporting new entitlements and social programs. Sure, Republican socialism goes only two-thirds as far as Democratic socialism. And, sure, Republicans are half-hearted about the new wasteful domestic programs they propose. But Republicans have their own agenda that truly excites them. It's even more expensive than the Democratic agenda, in terms of dollars and liberty.

    Republicans seem to unite on one thing: support for war. Whenever America attacks a nation – an increasingly common phenomenon, under either party's watch – Republicans are in the front row, cheering. Never mind that the founders opposed a foreign policy devoted to slaying foreign dragons.

    Republicans are the more zealous of the two parties about building up a security state with unbridled abilities to monitor and arrest people. Republicans, despite their blather about limited government, are unyielding in their support for government police agencies at all levels. They seem genuinely unconcerned about police abuses, government secrecy (unless practiced by a Democratic administration) and due process. To them, those are silly fixations of liberal judges. Republicans are so enamored of the "war on drugs" that they mostly oppose even the most modest reforms – i.e., allowing sick people to smoke medical marijuana, allowing farmers to grow industrial hemp, focusing on treatment of drug-using offenders rather than hard prison time.

    Many Republicans take an excessively punitive approach to life. They embrace the idea that everyone in prison is a hardened criminal, and continually pass new laws to ratchet up penalties for every offense imaginable. Hey, I'm all for keeping the really bad guys locked up, but the pendulum has swung too far in the "throw away the key" direction. Yet Republicans view any mention of injustices in our criminal justice system as tantamount to being "pro-criminal," and they seem perfectly happy just building more prisons to deal with the problem.

    At the local level, by the way, Republican politicians have been just as hostile to property rights as Democrats as they seek to control everything that goes on within "their" city.

    There are great people in both parties, and some good ideas that come from members of those parties. But, in general, I'd say a pox on both houses.

    Now, for the answer to the question that most people have asked me: What party am I joining? Nothing wrong with registering as "Decline to State" and avoiding any new entangling alliances. But I'll hang around the GOP long enough to vote in the Republican primary for Rep. Ron Paul, the only consistent defender of freedom in Congress. Then I'll probably re-register as a big "L" Libertarian, if they don't mind having me. I've got some issues with the Libertarian Party – i.e., I wish it were more serious about fielding winnable candidates in local races, and it has sported some weird candidates on the ballot at times. But it's filled with good, albeit cantankerous folks who love freedom. So I should fit in pretty well.

    http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/columns/article_1681184.php
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    Really an excellent article. Sums up quite well how I feel about it myself. I don't know that I can say I've left the Republican party because I'm not sure I was ever in it. I've worked on a campaign or two and voted Republican for the few yrs I've been able to vote.

    And voting is really what it comes down to. Voting and fear. As a conservative I can tell you first hand that most Republicans aren't. But I and many others vote for them anyway because while we may not like many of the thigs they do, we fear the alternative (a liberal agenda) even more. Are voting system, especially for President, is truly screwed up. Look at the candidates so far. I can't help asking myslef, are these really my options so far? I can barely tell the difference between the dem and rep candidates let alone differences within the party. We need a system where it easier for non politicians to run for office.

    Maybe in '08 I will vote with my feet and not vote for anybody. People keep saying voting is a duty and you don't have the right to complain if you don't. The fact is, you do. That person is still your leader whether you voted for them or not. Who knows maybe if enough people didn't vote they would get the message.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  3. Dirt McGirt
    Offline

    Dirt McGirt Bad Mother****er

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,773
    Thanks Received:
    503
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +503
    :thup: :clap2:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,580
    Thanks Received:
    5,905
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,000
    Yup great plan.
     
  5. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    Whew...well said.

    The two parties we have provide great discouragement (at least to me) and neither gives me much hope or trust in politicians. I am not sure that not voting is the right thing to do because then, when all others refuse to vote, the one kook out there who does vote will get his candidate into power...we could end up with some very extreme administration (yes far worse than the current one!) . Voting, for me, has turned into an exercise in selecting the lesser of two evils.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  6. TeddyRoosevelt
    Offline

    TeddyRoosevelt Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    166
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +7
    I also voted mostly Republican prior to the Reagan years- but the party took the wrong direction, and now it's completely out of touch with mainstream America. Their support of the intolerant religious right is what scares me the most. I've always been an Independent, but vote mostly Democrat nowadays- they seem to be the more fiscally responsible party now.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Vintij
    Offline

    Vintij Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,040
    Thanks Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Anaheim, CA
    Ratings:
    +105
    Nice article.

    I agree, both partys are full of secrets and agendas and neither care about the american people.

    Democratic big government, is not the answer, but complete freedom of market needs to be checked once in awhile. Just look at the "Free" oil market. They know we are slaves to oil so they jack up the prices, thats a great example of how free market fails. If there was a public utilites company that sold gas for cars, I would gladly hand over my tax dollars to fund it.

    And also, europe is not a bad place to be emulating. Gun control is logical, murder rates are astronomically lower than ours, gas is lower, the value of a euro is at an alltime high, they are anti-war, pro-environment. Ofcourse they have there problems with horrible administrations but I see Europe as waaaaay ahead of america in terms of domestic and foreign policy. The only thing we have thats any better is, trade value.....and military.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. TeddyRoosevelt
    Offline

    TeddyRoosevelt Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    166
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +7
    just got back from 12 days in France and it was my impression that they don't hate Americans- just Bush. They know how to make that distinction. They didn't support his invasion of Iraq for a very good reason- it was wrong. They also seem to be very environmentally-conscious and think Bush is anti-environment. I can see why they rioted over Sarkozy- thinking he will be in bed with Bush and his failed policies.
     
  9. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    Not exactly what I have in mind. From what I have observed Europe is a lot of the reason the person didn't go to the dem party. There are some good things about it I suppose, but over all it is far too social. You have issues with high taxes, but we can't hold a canlde to Europe. Can you imagine over half your income going to taxes for social programs? In MN we are referred to as a nanny state, but Europe is the nanny continent.

    Gun control is the best example. We have been over it and over it time and again, but what it comes down to in ideology is what the author said. The left believes it know what best for you better than you do and you simply can't be trusted or left to make your own decisions where firearms are concerend. It is legislation that takes the approach of burning down a building to get a rid of the rats.
     
  10. Vintij
    Offline

    Vintij Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,040
    Thanks Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Anaheim, CA
    Ratings:
    +105
    But if legislation cant help civilians, and if the govenment does not know how to make better decisions than the civilians, how do you account for the huge gap between gun violence in europe and in America?

    You do it by statistics, and civilians usually dont care about numbers, but europe has statistic proof that less guns equal less gun violence. So why cant we take that advice? Because the government does not know what its doing? Well I would trust the government over 200 million people who currently own guns right now in america.

    Im not saying I want complete government controll like most liberals. What I am saying though, is that some things are just too dangerous to be left to regular civilians.

    Not that it matters because the gun lobby has a vote in America, and no anti-gun candidate will ever get elected. Therefore technically, america gets what america wants in terms of guns. And that equates more gun violence, any way you look at it.
     

Share This Page