Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel23
check this out Kane from LewRockwell.com
---
Ron Paul: Mr. Republican
A relentless theme in the commentary on Ron Paul is that he is not really a Republican, mainly because he dissents from the party on foreign policy. People now associate the Republican Party with crazed war-mongering, massive military spending, and relentless conflict-seeking, to the point even of a messianic global crusade on behalf of American imperial control.
This is madness, and Ron Paul does dissent. But is he really departing from Republican tradition? In the 1990s, the GOP opposed Clinton's wars in Somalia and Serbia. It denounced nation building as an extension of the domestic planning state. But those were short-lived moments. The party reverted to its war-mongering self after Bush came to power.
So for a genuinely non-interventionist policy within the Republican Party we need to go back further to the last of the great statesmen of mid-20th century America: Senator Robert Taft of Ohio, also known as Mr. Republican. His 1951 book A Foreign Policy for Americans was a huge seller and exercised vast influence.
MORE:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/...epublican.html |
It is an interesting read but I always say that politcal parties and their members morph their values to suit their current needs. If we had gone into Iraq, got rid of Saddam and gotten out in under a year and everything went according to plan do you think the democrats would be carrying such an anti-war position? Right now the anti-war stance suits them so they wear it. Did the republicans oppose Clinton in Somalia and Serbia because they were opposed to what it stood for, or were they just anti-Clinton. They hated Clinton and pretty much took any position opposite of him. These are the same people that a few years later were talking about how it is our duty to free people stuck under the thumb of evil dictators. How can it be that this is true now, but not then?
The republicans of old stood for less government, fiscal responsibility, more personal freedom and more rights for state and local governments. But that floor stopped winning them elections so the morphed in the conservative party, seduced the religious right and changed into the tough talking john wayne bible thumping party. It worked, they got power and now they are what they used to hate - that is they bloat the government, overspend and are shitting on states rights. Along the way the democrats went from being fighters and people that stood up for their rights and demanded to be heard to being spineless pussies. They are now changing because they see the way to winning elections is to be strong and talk tough. Promise security, not change that is what people want so that is what the democrats are trying to sell - they have changed who they are (or at least who they want us to believe they are) in order to win elections again.
In the end I think most parties end up pretty much being what the other one isn't until they get into power and they they show their true colors. Any party left in power too long gets bloated, goes against its own values and ideals and a ultimately feeds on itself. I don't think that will change any time soon. If the dems win the white house next year they will control everything for probably 4-6 more years. I bet in that time we see them show their true colors and the repubs morph into a different form in order to beat them.
The other day a friend and I were talking about this and I said, "You know the party in power is that girl you have been dating for a while. You are used to her, it is easy and you understand each other, but it is getting old and there are thinks that annoy you. The party out of power is that new girl you work with and think is hot. They want to be the grass that is greener on the other side of the fence so you jump over and give them a try."