Jack Wakeland

McCain's Altruist Conversion

52 posts in this topic

Why did they vote for these things, then? Most of these passed when the GOP controlled Congress.

I've been interested in exactly the same question, so I've been reading a few Republican news sources/blogs, and they asking themselves exactly this question, and are blaming themselves for the the Democratic takeover of Congress. "Return to our Conservative principles" is the ideological slogan of this election season, which they inevitably interpret as stronger social stances, a small government and much privatization.

If "stronger social stances" means a return to their obsession with abortion and control over our sex lives, then how exactly is a GOP "return to the core" an improvement?

As Brad has pointed out, conservatives do a bad job actually delivering small government. "Privatization" usually winds up being a transfer from a government monopoly to a privately-held monopoly protected by the government.

From an economic perspective, the GOP did best most recently from 1995-2001 when it was the counterbalance in Congress to Clinton's presidency. Bush has been so ineffective of late that it's difficult to draw many conclusions as to how a GOP president works with a Democratic congress (Reagan handled it moderately well, Bush I less so). Not that the Clinton-Gingrich/Hastert era was a panacea. Consider Claire Wolf's analysis of the many governmental intrusions buried within Kennedy-Kassebaum and other "compromise" litigation passed in that era.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
And don't be too quick to assume the "social force" here is all on the side of the left--because intrincist-altruist philosophy is much closer morally to the christian conservatives than to the more secular liberals.

Whether you think that environmentalism is closer morally to the Christian conservatives doesn't matter, because it's the left which has claimed ownership of the issue. Question: is it politicians on the left or right who are supportive of more oil drilling and exploration? Is it the Democrats or Republicans who have been obnoxiously yelling that "the debate is over" on global warming?

I will be the last the claim that the Republicans have some unified, principled opposition to environmentalism. McCain is possibly the worst person in the party to have been nominated, because he is a strong global warming advocate. However, if the question is where are these ideas coming from and where are they strongest and have the most support, it's a no brainer. We're safer with the Republicans.

So whereas the Democrat's full-on socialized program could (again) be defeated in its entirety, the McCain people will inevitably deliver another 25 units or more of socialized medicine, and of course will have no trouble getting it passed because the democrats will be more than happy to support at least partial additional socialization.

I said the same thing a year ago, but it is quite a gamble. The Republicans stopped "Billary" in the previous attempt to nationalize the healthcare industry, but by your own admission they are not now as opposed to the idea as they once were. And even if a case could be made that the Republicans would could deadlock the issue, this does not makeup for the other concerns.

Third, on Islamism, it is important to be fair about this. Obama (and if I recall, Biden) made a very strong, explicit claim about the need to fight the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan AND Pakistan (and wherever else they arise.) This is a policy we can agree with and support.

What "policy"? What has he said exactly that "we can agree with and support"?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites