THE SAGE FROM SOUTH CENTRAL
GOP: The way forward
Larry Elder urges Republicans to take constitutional restrictions seriously

Posted: May 14, 2009
1:00 am Eastern



By Larry Elder


"Republicans, act more like Democrats!"
Actually, former Secretary of State Colin Powell put it somewhat differently when he offered his prescription to extricate the GOP from its "deep trouble."

Powell insists that Republicans must accept that the country has changed. "Americans do want to pay taxes for services," he said. "Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less." In other words, Republicans simply need to surrender to President Obama and the Democrats' outrageous and radical push/pull for more government in, well, everything. Or, as former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean snappily puts it, "I think we've had quite enough capitalism in the last eight years, and I think we need some regulation now."

Many, if not most, Americans do want a welfare state. Certainly, Americans rail against excessive government spending, but try asking, "OK, where would you like to cut?" Health care? Well, no. Education? No, not that. Aid to the poor? No. Social Security? Uh-uh. Disaster relief for those hard hit by floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, broken levees? No, too harsh. Unemployment benefits for those out of work during this severe recession? No, lacks compassion.

The problem is that Republicans have already been acting like Democrats – and for a long, long time. In 2000, they nominated then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush. He promised to serve as the education president and signed into law No Child Left Behind, which further injected the feds into a state matter. He promised and delivered a prescription bill for seniors, which expanded Medicare by the largest amount since the program's inception. His dad, former President George Herbert Walker Bush, signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Act, a hideous intrusion into the private sector rationalized by compassion. On the 10th anniversary of the ADA, George W. praised his dad's program.

Whatever happened to states rights, limited government and natural law? Find out in Judge Napolitano's "The Constitution in Exile"

Let's go back further. Republicans initially resisted – and quite fiercely – the New Deal programs passed during the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration. And the Supreme Court, at least initially, declared many of Roosevelt's expansionary programs unconstitutional.

After Roosevelt's first win, in 1932, Republicans failed to recapture the White House until 1952. That year, a major GOP contender for the nomination, the "fiscally conservative" Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio, promised to undo parts of the New Deal. But even he accepted Social Security and public housing for the poor. The "moderate" GOP contender and eventual winner, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, not only accepted the New Deal but also used tax dollars – purportedly for national security – to construct the interstate highway system.

Former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie recently said that under the George W. Bush administration, spending got out of control. We hear this refrain constantly: Republicans spent too much; Republicans let spending get out of control; we need to return to fiscal responsibility.

But if, in fact, Bush erred in signing and the Republicans in Congress wrongly voted for the No Child Left Behind Act, shouldn't Republicans condemn it, repent and vote for its repeal?


But if, in fact, Bush erred in signing and the Republicans in Congress wrongly voted for the prescription bill for seniors, shouldn't Republicans condemn it, repent and vote for its repeal?

But if, in fact, Bush erred in signing and the Republicans in Congress wrongly voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, shouldn't Republicans condemn it, repent and vote for its repeal?

Americans like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And President Obama won the election, in part, by calling it a "matter of neighborliness" to tax A for the benefit of B. That this creeping socialism defies the Constitution and weakens economic growth is of little consequence to many Americans.

Republicans can regain the White House by standing on principles – and explaining their purpose and utility. The party needs candidates unafraid to convince the American people that the Founding Fathers designed the Constitution as a contract that restricts the federal government to a handful of important services, not least of which is national security. Republicans need to show how Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid – to say nothing of the various entitlement programs advocated by the current administration – will bankrupt the country. Republicans must make the case, however difficult and unpopular, for private savings accounts, a free-market-based approach to health care and private charity for the needy.

Powell says the country has changed. If so, does that mean Republicans should simply stand by and accept it, offering only minor modifications? Or should Republicans summon the courage to explain how and why this "change" threatens no less than the very existence of the republic?

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

Probably the most difficult thing for liberal to understand is the difference between a conservative and a Republican. To most of them, it's one in the same. I've said it many times, Bush was hardly a conservative. Most of the voting public doesn't take the time to follow politics closely enough so they just vote for whatever their political affiliation tells them to, not realizing in many ways, they've become almost indistinguishable. Seems the only difference these days is HOW MUCH MONEY they choose to prop up big government and social programs with. Pisses me off.

__________________
“Under my plan of a Cap and Trade system, electricity rates would NECESSARILY SKYROCKET.” -BARACK OBAMA

I totally agree with you Mcgician.

I've continually tried to point the differences out here in the forum, and yet, the libbies just don't get it.

Med, for example, continues to trash anyone who speaks out in favor of economic and political liberty and calls us "right wing" and "Nazis." Why can't they see that what they refer to as right wing and Nazis are nothing more than a rival gang (statist Republicans) that want to strong arm them (Democrats) for the same territory?

Both the statist Democrats and the statist Republicans are on the left side of the political spectrum; the Democrats residing further to the left than the Republicans.

On the right side of the political spectrum are the classical liberals in the Jeffersonian sense. This is where Libertarians reside. This is where folks believing in free minds, free markets, a limited central government with power residing in the states and individual liberty reside.

Vi

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

Right on Vi, we can certainly agree on that!! +rep

__________________
It is far easier to ignorantly control others than it is to wisely control yourself.

One thing remains abundantly clear to me but seems completely beyond most the people I talk to, most likely because it's a hard fact to swallow
We do not live in a democratic society
We do not live in a socialist society

We in fact live in a capitalist society, which can not allow a true democracy or socialist system to exist within it.
It's really very simple, there's a old saying that just about covers it
money talks bullshit walks...

__________________
...flowering.

Thanks, man. I enjoy rapping with you here in the forum.

Vi

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

I would say your definition of Capitalism is wrong.
We have a system of Modern Mercantilism And Government Rent seeking, IMO.

That may be true, and no doubt there is credit to your Modern Mercantilism idea. At the end of the day though, where the money is at is all that matters, if this was simply decided by trade and commerce I would agree with you outright. The truth of the matter though is there is a power base that come recession or abundance has the money, and with it the influence and power. This gives rise to a unrealistic amount of influence going to those people/families. In the end it's the money itself that really decides who has the most influence and that's basically why I say democracy; true democracy can not exist within this system.
Then again it's very likely that true democracy is little more than a pipe dream in a system this old. We've technologically surpassed the need for a house or representatives messages aren't delivered on horseback anymore. It made sense in the beginning but now the concept is very dated and on the verge of completely obsolete.

__________________
...flowering.

We aren't supposed to be a Democracy, our government is called a Republic, a nation under laws. No Democracy has ever survived very long.

To simplify Mystiks last post...Remember the Golden Rule, He who has the Gold makes the Rules.

__________________
It is far easier to ignorantly control others than it is to wisely control yourself.

lol, true enough

__________________
...flowering.