Small Government vs. Big Government & Patriotism vs. Individualism

[MrMacphisto]

One thing I've never quite been able to understand is the current divide that seems to be occurring within the Republican party. There seem to be two very vocal components within this party that are moving in opposite directions. One group is commonly known as the Religious Right. They focus mostly on Christianity and what they refer to as "Christian morals." Socially, they are very conservative, but many of them seem to lean in a more moderate economic direction. The other component is what I refer to as the Corporate Conservatives. They are the business-minded conservatives that are very conservative economically (or Classically Liberal - in economic terms), but they often are more socially moderate.

What interests me in the differences between these two groups is that a strange paradox seems to have developed. Republicans were once known as isolationist and supportive of smaller government. Nowadays, it would seem that they are more inclined to support global intervention and larger government: two views that are usually associated with the Democratic party. The reasons behind this change in philosophy are varied, but I can't help wondering how such a paradox is maintained. Adding to this change in philosophy, there seems to be a change in attitude as well.

Given their previous preference for smaller government, Republicans likewise had a distrust for government intervention in personal, domestic, and foreign affairs. Now, it would seem that their preference for large government and more intervention has been accompanied by a strange kind of patriotism. Many conservatives still are vocal in their support of the freedom and individualism espoused by our founding fathers, but their pride in their country seems to have extended into their pride toward their government and military. Unfortunately, this seems to have caused a certain conformist attitude within the Republican party where "you're either with us, or against us." Even many moderates (both socially and economically) among the Republicans are starting to feel pressure to be more conservative with this upcoming election.

My questions for this thread are (which are aimed at both Americans and citizens outside the U.S. in this forum):

1. How and why did these vast changes occur within the Republican party?
2. Which side (the religious right and the corporate conservatives) of the Republican party do you think will eventually take more of a dominant role in the party's direction, and why will it be that side?
3. If you are a conservative or Republican, are you conservative both economically and socially, or just conservative in either economic issues or social issues? Which side (the religious right or the corporate conservatives) do you relate to better?
4. Do you prefer the federal government to take more of an intervening role in personal and domestic affairs, or should the government stay out of them?
5. Do you prefer the federal government to become more militarily involved in foreign countries, or should we be more isolationist?
6. Where do you draw the line between patriotism and the individualistic distrust of government? For example, how important is it to maintain the freedom of speech, while still maintaining pride in your culture?

[the_Baron]

i am a conservative in both social and economic terms.

i think that for many of the religious right, their only choice is to seek a voice in the republican party. social issues are their main concern. so you do in fact see a variety of positions in economic matters.

i think the economic conservatives will yield the most power within the party.

and i despise the intervention of the federal government in areas properly relegated to the states. our founding fathers are turning in their graves over the misuse of the general welfare clause.

[sushi854]

As someone who is neither socially or economically conservative, I won't be able to respond to all the questions, but I would like to offer my thoughts the current divide within the Republican Party. I think that it reflects a realignment trend in American politics in general, and is not limited to the Republican Party. The Democrats have their own factions, such as organized labor and the more socially liberal advocates within the party. These forces clash periodically, though arguably not to the same extent that religious conservative and more libertarian ideals seem to clash within the Republican Party.

If you look at the liberal/conservative spectrum as more two-dimensional, with separate measures for economic and social ideology, it seems that one's overall political ideology may fall into one of four basic categories. Someone who is conservative on both economic and social issues may fall into the "religious conservative" or "neoconservative" category. Someone who is economically conservative but socially liberal may fall into the "libertarian" or "classic liberal" category. Someone who is economically and socially liberal may fall into the "modern liberal" or "neoliberal" category. Someone who is economically liberal but socially conservative may be considered to be "populist" or even "socialist" in nature.

Based on this theory, it would make sense to have at least four major political parties in the U.S., but as it is, we only have two. Therefore, people must choose one or the other. The Democrats seem to have a general consensus on both social and economic issues, at least more so than the Republicans, who mainly agree on economic issues but may vary on social issues.

That said, the only explanation that I can offer as to the current nature of the Republican party is that the "classic liberal" ideology is losing ground to the more modern form of conservatism, while at the same time is absorbing some of the economically liberal but socially conservative ideology rejected by the Democratic party, which is moving to define itself as the "modern liberal" party.

[kyle]

Being a Christian pot smoking republican puts me in a small minority (Sounds contradicting but those are my demons and for another thread). I think it gives me an objective view of the political scene though.

1)You have non-religious logical thinkers who don't buy into the BS ideology of the democratic party



2)Economically-conservative, their ideology is more rational than those of the socio-conservatives.



3)I am econ-conservative but I struggle with some of the social issues. The war on drugs has failed and I look at abortion from two different perspectives. (A)If you don't want to get pregnant then don't- you shouldn't be allowed to kill your baby because you got f'ed up on Xanax or you thought you were in love or whatever BS reason a slut-bag might have. (B) I don't want the kid of a Xanax snorting slut bag who doesn't have a father to even exist. He's just going to (1) steal something (2) kill something (3) or raise more just like his mamma that will eventually lead to reason (1) or (2).
It seems harsh but I have no patience for people who only hurt society.


4)Stay away and let me live. If I smoke a little pot big deal. I should not have to be humiliated and fined when I was not putting anyone else in jeopardy. Some of the most dangerous and addictive stuff is controlled anyway (Xanax, codine, valuim). It's a problem we have as a society and there's no good answer to it.

Also, give me my social security money. I'm perfectly capable of investing it myself. Maybe take some of the money from drug counselors (worthless profession if there ever was one) and let's teach people about economics, finance, and entrepreneurship.



5)I look at russia and israel. People hate us. They hate our culture. There is a real terrorist threat and if you don't think so kiss my ass. We have to trust the government here. Throw your cynicism out the window. Not everyone's goal is to become a power monger. Ask yourself do the means justify the ends when browsing one of these iraq conspiracy theories. I assume those in control think rationally and logically. If we have to bomb a residential village to kill a terrorist leader then do it. I can handle a little collateral damage all day long. It's the way of war and it's always been this way- people die. Screw the neo-pacifists PETA loving freaks. If we have to kill somebody to protect ourselves do it.

Same thing with resources. If we feel we need a military presence to secure a resource then do it. Do people need a wake-up call about oil? Our economy is driven by oil. If we did go to iraq to secure a presence and maybe make Iran poop themselves then good. If it concerns a long-term plan with american wellness in mind then do it.



6)Freedom of speech is important. But if you have a situation like Skokie, Illinois then screw it. That's too much freedom. Someone needs to be there drawing the line and say

[Haltickling]

There's a theory in political science which describes the evolution of parties, I don't recall its name now. It states that all successful parties tend to become more and more similar over time, until their aims are almost indistinguishable from their opponent's. Usually at that stage, fractions of those parties will split off the mainstream party line and form their own party. This sometimes leads to a decline of the "old" successful party, and to the rise of the new one. The longer they are in the political spotlight, the more similar they'll become again; return to "Start". Of course, this evolutionary process doesn't happen overnight, it takes decades.

I don't know how much of it applies to a two-party-system like the US, but it seems to me that there's enough explosive material within the current Republicans to form two separate parties. If Bush wins, the neocons will grow, but if Kerry wins, the GOP might be in for a split.

***

kyle's post is much too cynical to respond to seriously, so I'll skip his pot-affected attitude. Just that much: Would you think the "collateral damage" equally negligible if it happened to your neighborhood or beloved ones?

[kyle]

I live in the U-S-A so i don't expect any bombings anytime soon. Innocent people die in war Hal. It has happend since the beginning of humanity. Accept things for what they are and get your head out of the clouds. fairy :D

[sushi854]

We all know what Jesus had to say about Xanax-snorting slut-bags and fairies...

[kyle]

Thanks sushi. I need to be put in check every now and then.

[ShadowTklr]

Originally posted by kyle
Being a Christian pot smoking republican puts me in a small minority (Sounds contradicting but those are my demons and for another thread). I think it gives me an objective view of the political scene though.

1)You have non-religious logical thinkers who don't buy into the BS ideology of the democratic party



2)Economically-conservative, their ideology is more rational than those of the socio-conservatives.



3)I am econ-conservative but I struggle with some of the social issues. The war on drugs has failed and I look at abortion from two different perspectives. (A)If you don't want to get pregnant then don't- you shouldn't be allowed to kill your baby because you got f'ed up on Xanax or you thought you were in love or whatever BS reason a slut-bag might have. (B) I don't want the kid of a Xanax snorting slut bag who doesn't have a father to even exist. He's just going to (1) steal something (2) kill something (3) or raise more just like his mamma that will eventually lead to reason (1) or (2).
It seems harsh but I have no patience for people who only hurt society.


4)Stay away and let me live. If I smoke a little pot big deal. I should not have to be humiliated and fined when I was not putting anyone else in jeopardy. Some of the most dangerous and addictive stuff is controlled anyway (Xanax, codine, valuim). It's a problem we have as a society and there's no good answer to it.

Also, give me my social security money. I'm perfectly capable of investing it myself. Maybe take some of the money from drug counselors (worthless profession if there ever was one) and let's teach people about economics, finance, and entrepreneurship.



5)I look at russia and israel. People hate us. They hate our culture. There is a real terrorist threat and if you don't think so kiss my ass. We have to trust the government here. Throw your cynicism out the window. Not everyone's goal is to become a power monger. Ask yourself do the means justify the ends when browsing one of these iraq conspiracy theories. I assume those in control think rationally and logically. If we have to bomb a residential village to kill a terrorist leader then do it. I can handle a little collateral damage all day long. It's the way of war and it's always been this way- people die. Screw the neo-pacifists PETA loving freaks. If we have to kill somebody to protect ourselves do it.

Same thing with resources. If we feel we need a military presence to secure a resource then do it. Do people need a wake-up call about oil? Our economy is driven by oil. If we did go to iraq to secure a presence and maybe make Iran poop themselves then good. If it concerns a long-term plan with american wellness in mind then do it.



6)Freedom of speech is important. But if you have a situation like Skokie, Illinois then screw it. That's too much freedom. Someone needs to be there drawing the line and say


Yeah. You smoke pot {WINK} Just between you and me, I recommend you cut down on the crack, and start snorting cocaine instead. It's bound to give you a more compassionate outlook on life. :blaugh: