Thread: The GOP Should Dump the Neocons

The founders envisioned a federal government constitutionally limited to defending our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For that to happen, we must have at least one political party that strongly advocates limiting the power of government. For much of the 19th century, that party was the Democrats. For the early part of the 20th century and from the early 1960s through 1988, that party was the Republicans.

Today, it is difficult to find noninterventionists in either party.

The Democrats demonstrate a disdain for capitalism, free trade and the validity of contracts. They cheer the restriction of certain types of speech on campus and in federal law, and think nation-building is our moral obligation, even when there is no discernible U.S. interest involved. Lately, the Democrats have been popularly associated with principled opposition to waging war in far-flung corners of the globe. But evidence on the ground today tells a somewhat different tale.

here is an insidious philosophy underlying this acceptance of the 'natural' growth of statism.

As for the GOP, it has outwardly abandoned the limited-government principles of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Little other evidence is needed than the Medicare prescription drug benefit -- with its $13-trillion unfunded liability -- passed with a strong-arm campaign by the Bush White House and a Republican congressional majority.

What happened to the Republicans? Well, the two Bush presidencies didn't help. Neither did the supply-side movement, focused on tax cuts and economic growth. Supporters of those ideas didn't talk about spending cuts, much less the proper role of government. They had the effect of replacing "liberty" as the motivating force behind the GOP with "growth," a somewhat less-inspiring ideal.

But perhaps most pernicious has been the role played by the neoconservatives. The late William F. Buckley used his conservative flagship publication, National Review, to make anti-communism the litmus test for joining the conservative movement. Dealing with the Soviets during the Cold War was clearly an important task, but it should not have opened the door of the limited-government movement to the neoconservatives, who are now -- and always have been -- advocates of big government. With the neocon foot in the policymaking door after the Cold War ended, the drumbeat for war in Iraq began in earnest a decade before 9/11.

It is important to realize that neocons are not just nation-building, America-first advocates. They like big government across the board. No Child Left Behind, the thinly disguised effort to nationalize education in America, was principally a neocon initiative. Consider this comment from the late Irving Kristol, self-described "godfather" of the neoconservative movement: "Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable." Indeed.

There is an insidious philosophy underlying this acceptance of the "natural" growth of statism. Neoconservative columnist David Brooks wrote in the late 1990s that we need "a vigorous One Nation Conservatism that will connect a revived sense of citizenship with the long-standing national greatness Americans hold dear." In another essay, he wrote: "Ultimately, American purpose can find its voice only in Washington. ... Individual ambition and willpower are channeled into the cause of national greatness. And by making the nation great, individuals are able to join their narrow concerns to a larger national project." A frightening worldview.


Which brings us to the war in Afghanistan. The neocons are predictably enthused about the prospect of a prolonged U.S. occupation there. A dozen or so of them recently sent a letter to President Obama urging him to up the ante. Astonishingly, the president who was elected as the antiwar left's protest candidate appears poised to take the neocons' advice and commit tens of thousands more troops to a conflict in which immediate U.S. interests are unclear at best.

Meanwhile, Obama's domestic agenda is in shambles. Americans are outraged at the prospect of trillion-dollar deficits, auto bailouts and the subsidies to irresponsible bankers. And they don't want socialized medicine.

The "tea parties" and town hall meetings are essentially libertarian. There is no conservative policy agenda -- only a demand that the government stop trying to run our lives.

Republicans should take this opportunity to return to their traditional noninterventionist roots and throw their neoconservative wing under the bus. The Republicans have a chance at this moment to reclaim the mantle of the party of nonintervention -- in your healthcare, in your wallet and in the affairs of other nations.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10935

That is the whole idea behind the teaparty movement! Dump the RINO, Neo-cons! It will be all uphill, as the Retardicans want NEO-CONS. But we should be able to muster at least 10-15% Patriots! Republicans will LOOSE alot of races if they are split!

I am only going to vote for candidates that are and/or were against Amnesty, against Cap and Trade, against the Stimulus bill, against the bank bails outs and against the Czars, etc.

Personally, I have watched C-span and kept up with current events and have seen that the majority of Republicans have been fighting for us so I am not going to reward their loyalty to us be voting libertarian.

The so-called "Retardicans" ( as Arizonablues called them) are the party that is and/or has been fighting with all they have to stop the "Democraps" from enacting Amnesty, Communist Health care and a complete take-over of our democracy. Something to consider.

If the tea-parties are all about promoting an Independent party, rather than fighting for freedom and fair representation then I am not going to involve myself with them.

ELE, I think the majority of tea party folks are mostly stating how disgusted they are will both parties. I hit the ceiling when Papa Bush did his best to announce the New World Order, Clinton signed NAFTA, GWB did nothing for six years about securing the borders after 9/11, and now the Chicago gang is strong-arming legislation that American people oppose and our legislators have had no time to read.
Party loyalty does not matter as much as American people talking to their employees.

I believe both parties need major revamping. Both are driven by legal bribery (lobby money) and special interest groups. The Democratic Party has been hijcacked by the far left, the Republican Party was returned via Papa Bush and Jr. to the elitists. Neither party represents its constituent base worth a flip. Toss in a corrupt, inept, biased media that fails totally in its responsibilities to report NEWS instead of propaganda, and to investigate government corruption and incompetence, and the result is the mess we are facing today.

I think the key to fixing this, or at least starting it in the right direction, is to continue what has already been happening: regular citizens,who are fed up,holding their representatives accountable by monitoring their performance and assailing them at town halls, tea parties, calling their offices, sending e-mails and faxes and making sure that they know that WE know, and they cannot put one over on us any longer.

ELE, having read many of your posts, it has been readily apparent that one not dare question your convictions or conservitism.

With that said, I hope that you can understand that many people wish for more from their party, the party that espouses conservitism while on campaign, yet sets aside their "talk" after the campaign. Some that are conservitive wish not even to identify themselves with a party at all, having felt they have been burnt by the parties too many times.

Asfore myself I wish for more. Some dignity, some honesty, some dedication to party ideals. To stand up unashamed of the conservitive values that they ran their campaigns on.

I will continue to kick my party hard and long until they walk the talk. I want more than the same old crap that they have dished out for decades that I am aware of. After three decades of having not missed a vote, many letters, e-mails, and phone calls, and participation, one starts to think they deserve to get what they were sold.

I welcome the competition, if they can kick my party harder and swifter than myself, than they can have at it, afterall, my party will either get tougher and smarter, or they will go the way of the Dodo bird.

Do we deserve less?

It think the main thing people should look for in a candidate is do they believe in something? I mean REALLY BELIEVE in something and stand up for it, matter how unpopular it may be in within your party at times. Also, what do they believe the role of government should be? There were many Republicans toward the end of the Bush administration who voted for the first bank bailouts, remember? They didn't have any core beliefs. It was only until Obama came into office that they were suddenly against it! Same thing for Liberal Americans. Where is the anti-war movement? They were out in force during the Bush administration but now that Obama is in it completely stopped! So basically, they had no core principles or the spine to stand up for them once one of their own got into office.

As for incumbents, I judge them by their actions not by what they say now. As someone who has supported Ron Paul, he taught me that if a candidate has a belief in something.. he will remain consistent and not waver in his/her decisions. That's when you know you have a person who has principles and if they use the constitution as their guide, they will never sit on the fence and waver, or line up with their party just because it's the "thing to do." Loyalty to your beliefs, the constitution and the people will be my criteria when looking for candidates.