It has been a tough thing this election cycle, especially with the beacon of light which was the Ron Paul movement, to admit defeat. Argument after argument I have engaged, especially with “conservatives” has been predicated on the hope that the new statist conservative movement is a fad, and that there is still a remnant of “old school” conservatives in the mainstream GOP. I think it is time to admit defeat. The Left died some time ago in this country, and now the Right has joined them in the grave.
It was once said that Left and Right in America looked something like this:
Right - Social and fiscal conservatives. Philosophically opposed to collectivism, big government and taxes. Fiscally responsible, favouring balanced budgets and looking to cut taxes and spending. Supporting civil rights. Promoting a moral society. Supporting private and family education. Seeing the family as the foundation of a moral society. Strong on defence but sceptical of empire and conflicts that could damage trade. Supporting immigration and freer borders.
Left - Social and Fiscal liberals. Generally favour collectivism to individualism. Bigger government but restrained by laws and free and fair elections. Fiscal investments in welfare, infrastructure and military. Supporting civil rights, especially privacy. Sceptical of police and military for uses other than peacekeeping and defence. Generally more states-rights.
In name, the major parties still would claim to hold to these principles. But when Mitt Romney argues that government-mandated healthcare is a “market solution” and Mike Huckabee claims that we need to “stop spending,” but should support increased NASA funding, farm subsidies and federal education spending - we clearly have double-speak of Orwellian proportions.
Bob Barr, former conservative congressman, currently running for president as a Libertarian, explains exactly when it was that conservatism died:
I remember the precise moment. I was elected to Congress in 1994 with the Republican Revolution, and four years later we were in one of the House Republican caucuses, just before the ‘98 election, and the leadership came in and said very clearly, “We’ve got an election coming up. Anybody here who has a problem in their district, sit down with Representative Kasich or Armey and tell them what you need to have in this year’s budget to win your election.” And they might as well have had a sign flashing in the background that said “business as usual.” We were no longer serious about reining in government. And now McCain goes out and talks about doing away with earmarks, and the public applauds. But in one year, you could simply freeze spending and save ten times as much. They want to give the appearance of tackling the issue, but not really. It’s part of the same shell game they use cycle after cycle.
The left and right as a valid barometer of political spectrum has now vanished. There is now little that distinguishes someone like John McCain from Barack Obama. Both are for continuing the war in Iraq. Both are gung-ho about possible expansion. Neither would fix the PATRIOT act. Neither would fix NCLB. Both seem to want increased border restrictions. Neither will cut spending. Both want statist solutions to global warming. Both are opposed to free markets. Neither of them support individual liberty. And it seems neither have read the constitution in a while.
Again, Barr speaks eloquently to the topic:
[The presidency is] the same establishment, the same power-hungry entity, whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat… Every administration that comes in takes the powers that it inherits from its predecessor as a floor, not a ceiling. So whether it’s McCain or Obama, they’ll inherit the powers of the Bush administration.
I propose that there is now only one spectrum that matters - it’s vertical rather than horizontal. Power and authority are on the top; freedom and liberty are on the bottom. The question is no longer whether an official considers himself left or right, but authoritarian or libertarian. Moderates should start ignoring the typical labels and buzzwords of each side and look at the substance of proposals to see whether they contribute to an authoritarian society, or a free and open one.
With today’s conservatives supporting all manners of interventions, from universal healthcare to military empire building, it’s time to face the facts. Stop appealing to Republicans with the old conservative arguments - you are arguing with a party of corpses.
You don’t mean the left is for state’s rights do you? I assume you mean more power for government in general, but it’s unclear.
The “traditional” left argued a strong state’s rights position. This has been completely abandoned recently, but even within the past 30 years, this was a common position coming from the left, particularly in the south.
Here is an interesting tidbit about state’s rights you may not have read about in the mainstream news. The other day the state of Oklahoma passed Joint House Resolution 1089 (92-3) to reassert it’s states rights under the Tenth Amendment. The resolution was authored by Charles Key, a Republican. It reads:
A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States over certain powers; serving notice to the
federal government to cease and desist certain
mandates; and directing distribution.
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States reads as follows:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.”; and
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal
power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the
United States and no more; and
WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means
that the federal government was created by the states specifically
to be an agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as
agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York
v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not
simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the
states; and
WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and
some now pending from the present administration and from Congress
may further violate the Constitution of the United States.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AND THE SENATE OF THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 51ST OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:
THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all
powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal
government by the Constitution of the United States.
THAT this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government,
as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates
that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated
powers.
THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President
of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the
Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state’s
legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the
Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.
But if I can stay more on topic, I think Noam Chomsky was right when he said that we don’t have a two party system, but a one party system with two factions. Its just that the factions are losing their distinctions.
I’d be more impressed with the Oklahoma resolution if they mentioned some specific acts and laws that they believe violate the state’s rights. I’d be even more surprised if Oklahoma actually tries to do anything about it.
Jew, I agree. They don’t directly address anything, possibly because that would have delayed or prevented the resolution’s passing. I don’t know.
But to shed a little more light on what prompted this resolution, it was partly because a federal judge blocked portions of Oklahoma’s immigration laws. The laws there are pretty hardcore and are aimed at getting rid of illegal immigrants. I would say this is mostly a labor thing. In Oklahoma, transporting or harboring an illegal alien is considered a criminal act. And businesses and contractors are equally liable to determine the legal eligibility of each employee. So Wal-Mart, for instance, can’t hire a company who hires “undocumented” workers and say that they didn’t know about it.
I think it is a shame that illegal aliens are becoming the nation’s scapegoats. I personally feel for them and understand that they are trying to make a better life for themselves and their families. They’ve been getting mixed messages from this country for a long time. In some states they are released from custody even after being apprehended for drunk driving, and its obvious that there is a demand for their labor. Some farmers would have to let their crops rot in the fields if it weren’t for illegal workers. That’s just a fact.
However, being somewhat familiar with the situation in Oklahoma, I understand why these vigilante Okies are up in arms. (I can say that because I’m from there.) Blue collar jobs whose wages were once protected by unions have been grossly affected by the neutering of union power and the influx of illegals. I know there are probably people on this blog that are ideologically opposed to unions, and I don’t have an opinion one way or another so… I’m just saying that these two things - the death of unions and illegal workers - have coincided, driving down wages. In fact, the Republicans killed the unions through Right-to-Work legislation. And now these same Republicans are feeling the heat from their constituents, and are thus now supposedly against illegal workers.