"The proposals coming out of Washington are virtually all big government proposals, providing services to sectors of the public that ought to be provided privately. Even those who call themselves small government conservatives generally submit such proposals, due to a flawed notion of pragmatism. Of course this means whenever a proposal is passed by conservatives, it is almost certain to be a big government proposal. The opposing conservative views in Washington are not “big government” vs “small government.” It's “big government” vs “even bigger government”. The very philosophy beneath American government has shifted such that “The Government Program” is automatically viewed as the solution to our nation’s ills. Bush’s social security plan is just a very slight modification of an “even bigger government program.” His “no child left behind” act is just one of a very long list of modifications to “even bigger government” programs. His prescription drug program – big government. America’s restrictions on drugs, whether Crystal Meth, cocaine, crack or medicines from Canada – big government. Education – big government. Land ownership – big government. Farm subsidies – big government. EPA – big government. The constant push, even from some so-called “conservatives,” to get involved in foreign treaties, including Kyoto,"
Ah! I see realization dawning in you, Pilchie!
"federalized abortion,"
True, a federal preemption of what had traditionally been regarded as a matter for the States and localities... whether a Constitutional basis for an individual's right to privacy, or 'control over their own body' can be found is debatable. (I, for one, believe there should be a Constitutional amendment establishing a right to privacy... but that is beside the point. IMO, the cited Constitional basis for ROE is very weak.)
Absent a federal definition of the starting point for citizenship or legal 'personhood' --- which, to my knowledge has never been legislatively established --- then the constitutional presumption is that such definitions are matters for the States to establish.
"federalized sodomite marriage and federalized civil unions"
I believe you are reading tea leaves in some sort of alternate reality on this one. To my knowledge there is *no* federal law establishing either... in fact, the one piece of relevant federal legislation (the 'Defense of Marriage Act') specificly BANS all federal recognition of non-heterosexual pairings.
"are all philosophically supported by fundamentally big government philosophy."
"If the split between big government and small government “conservatives” were even, as you say, there would be a prominent civil war going on in Washington because small government conservatives simply would not even debate the big government conservatives on the current terms."
LOL!!!!!!
I never said the two sides were equally matched! (In fact, whatever true small government proponents there may still be in Washington are pitifully few these days... in no position to mount any but delaying actions, or win any but small victories against the massed forces of the Big Government crowd.)
[(PS --- I notice you railing against *just one* federal department, the Education Department…still, as federal bureaucracies go, it's hardly the most bloated in an absolute sense, nor in the amount of pork it shovels out.)]
"But, of course, as you libertarians constantly focus on how much money a federal bureaucracy consumes, you fail to focus at least as much on how anti-freedom and personally invasive the bureaucracy is."
Oh contraire, mon frere!!!!!!!
Money is REAL. Deficit spending, fiat currency debasement are REAL, and serve to feed and enable the continuous growth or the bureaucracy and it's intrusiveness. Loss of individual freedom is ALSO REAL, and is concommitant with the growth of the bureaucracy --- they are inextricably linked. Was that not the Gingrichian cry: 'starve the beast'?
I find that the Libertarian Party, and the many Libertarian commenters upon our current ethos, are some of the FEW who consistently speak out against the continuous growth of the governmental bureaucracies, the fiscal imprudence, and the constant backdrop that the diminution of our individual rights has become in this era of increasing Authoritarianism.
If you know of a political movement that betters their record in these areas, I'd like to hear of it.
"As all real conservatives know, the amount of money spent by a federal organ is not the only issue of importance."
True, but it ENABLES all the other governmental ills.
"The matter is more complex than mere money. Money is critical, but not more critical than freedom. The size and invasiveness of government are critical issues, the latter more than the former."
True, but the continuous growth of government, and the fiscal chicanery that feeds it, ENABLES all the other governmental ills.
[Either way (Dems or Reps in power): the spending always goes up, and the size of the federal bureaucracy always increases, because the new spending always outweighs whatever measly cuts are enacted.....]
"And none of this would change in the least should the Libertarians ever gain real power. They consist of the same ol’ dweebs we see in the GOP and the Democrat parties."
Ah... a CYNIC! :) (Never-the-less, you will have only suppositions and pre-judgements, no hard facts, to establish this sweeping claim of yours... until and unless the Libertarians --- or some other reform grouping --- ever get their day in the sun to have the opportunity to establish the strength of their convictions....)
[Most pols (of any stripe) have no great desire to do more then *preach* about small government and fiscal parsimony... Incumbents prefer to shovel-out government favors for their constituents, for their 'base'... at least, as long as the markets and the economy will allow them to persist in such short-sighted foolishness.]
"They are just playing by the rules. Bush is doing likewise. I can’t really fault him or any of these folks. The problem is not with Washington. It is with folks who call themselves “liberals”, “Libertarian” and “conservative” but who in reality are just rank leftists."
LOL!!!!!!! Surely you aren't arguing that there are no *no* major differences in philosophy of government AT ALL among these three?????????
If you ARE making that rather startling and counter-intuitive claim... I'd like to ask you: OK, so WHO ARE THE WHITE HATS, in your view?
['Something for nothing' is ALWAYS popular, 'free lunches' are ALWAYS the main dish for incumbents in Washington --- until the crunch comes.]
"We are not, contrary to popular belief, in a conservative spell."
No KIDDING! (Aside from a certain bent towards a renewal of social conservatism that is... certainly no fiscal conservatism is in view, no factions clamoring to conserve our constitutional liberties are at the front of the stage....)
[As far as the other policy split amongst 'conservatives', the Authoritarian / Libertarian divide... it has been with us since the very founding of our Republic (just re-read some of the Hamilton / Jefferson debates), so I see no reason for it to ever go away, nor to ever be resolved in favor of either side.]
"No. I think you mischaracterize the debate here. Both Hamilton and Jefferson were philosophical libertarians."
Except that Hamilton favored a strong central government... even favored a Constitutional Monarchy for America... and Jefferson did not.
[Short of America falling into a 100% Totalitarian nightmare, or a 'Libertarian paradise' of limited government and individual responsibilities... neither of which seems the main chance.]
"As far as I am concerned, none of this matters at all. Pragmatism allows us to more efficiently endure present undesirable and temporary circumstances; but it should never be an excuse to lay aside our vision simply because we think others too myopic to ever see what we see."
Er... exactly WHAT IS your governmental vision for our society????? Can you put a name to it? A set of principles? A creed?
[LOL!!!!! All I can say is, 'vultures' gotta eat too!]
"Of course, but that is not the issue here. The issue is that you are what you eat."
My point was that everything evolves, everything changes (most especially societies). Political Parties rise, and then fall (thus my point that we are not all 'Whigs' today).
Do not deride a new political grouping gaining strength by 'feeding' off of the 'corpses' of faded behemoths that came before it, merely because it hastens change. (Judge it by it's deeds and principles --- the same as you would any other.)
IMO, the old guard (Dems and Reps and the Supreme Courts appointed by them) have raised HIGH BARRIERS to political change, the same as trade unions in the middle ages or professional organizations have, to protect their own vested interests and resist challenges... to stiffle a vibrant democracy.
Things such as the bans on 'fusion voting', restrictions on ballot access, and gerrymandering make it EVER SO DIFFICULT for new Parties, with emerging ideas, to gain strength enough to challenge the faded emminences of the Donkey and the Elephant.
Perhaps, with a few basic structural reforms, your cynicism would no longer be appropriate.... |
