While I'm not excusing the Bush Administration, you are quick to forget the inaction of then Democratic Gov. Blanco and that sleazoid New Orleans mayor (I can't recall his name). There was plenty of blame to spread around. Also, the "citizens" of New Orleans showed the city shouldn't even exist anymore considering their spineless handout fever. The bulk of them didn't even bother to stick around to rebuild like the tornado victims of the Midwest.
Those specifics are irrelevant to the issue at hand. At its core the federal government is ultimately responsible for the safety and security of citizens of the U.S.A. when all else fails. (now, a bunch of ron paulistas would dispute this citing posse comitatus and all sorts of 18th c. precedent - not interested in that because that's not the way things ARE or have been presently). It's in the preamble to the Constitution in fact. When all else fails, it's up to the highest authority (which has the most resources at its disposal) to prevent its territory from descending into a third world post-apocalyptic wasteland, regardless of who is at fault or blame. Those are basic expectations that I have of the federal government. It's not an unreasonable one at all. And the fact is, not only did the federal government fail to prevent this situation - it basically failed to even try. It crystallized the issue with movement conservativism as a governmental strategy rather than a political one. A credo of "less government, less government" simply doesn't work after government has already been removed from the equation in a situation that will simply not be solved in an acceptable way otherwise.
Sam, I'm struggling to interpret your argument, but you know I am not a member of the board's reigning intelligensia. However, some of your points struck me oddly. For example, I don't know how anyone (except God Almighty) could prevent a hurricane. That said, I do acknowledge the keen failure of FEMA, i.e. not providing aid when and where needed and then wasting resources on huge boondoggles like buying dilapidated mobile homes, keeping flatbeds idling at enormous cost (and most carriers were never reimbursed BTW), etc. However, after the perfect storms known as Katrina and Rita, there were perfect storms of political and civil corruption on a scale imaginable only in a place like New Orleans. Unfortunately, the storms victims acted like they were from a Third World country and thereby greatly mitigated the sympathy that was their due. As for this point: The point among republican theorists is not that they abandoned th party's core - the problem is that there was no core. The ideals were a means to an end but not an end in themselves. The Republican Party's core values were abandoned by the Republicans who gained power. With power came corruption, and the more power they got the greater the corruption. Extreme liberals who do not champion rank and file Democratic Party values IMO are destined to make the same mistake under the adage "absolute power corrupts absolutely." However, make no mistake, the Democratic Party will be the 800-pound gorilla for the next four years -- maybe eight. We shall see if they act like the gorilla (as I think they will) or responsible legislators (which will lead to a long tenure).
I don't care whether or not they were due sympathy - the social contract and the constitution of the U.S. are not conditional upon sympathy as far as basic responsibilities of the government go. That's why we have a government. The premise that you still aren't getting is that there were no true core values to abandon. The absence of government and the abolition of existing structures isn't a value, it's a tactical move and a rallying cry. But once it occurs, which it did - then what? Conservatives didn't appear to have a common value set in their coalition, and even worse, were without solutions when the magic of the market failed to produce a solution like they thought it would in many cases. Further, the half-hearted excuse of "excessive pork barrel spending" offered by the old-school cons doesn't come close to explaining why the conservative do-nothing government ideal failed in Iraq and New Orleans as well as a number of other places. Ted Stevens' bridge to nowhere has no bearing on the abdication of responsibility in NO or the absurd expectation that Iraq would magically turn into an Ayn Randian objectivist paradise once liberated.
Sam, having toiled among the GOP's core group, I believe your premise to be flawed. You are claiming the GOP wants no government or the absence of government. However, that is not true -- the GOP core just wants less government and less intrusive government as well as fiscal responsibility (as opposed to absence of spending).
You are just playing games now with words for lack of anything else to say - it's sort of emblematic of the whole problem. But very well - fine let's take your phrasing. The point is that "less government" is a nice mantra but it is fundamentally not a value in an of itself, and in practice it has had high profile failures in the last 8 years. Again, this is not MY argument, though I do agree with it to an extent - it's an argument among conservative ideologues within the movement. If you're in a movement, and your argument is to move, and you've moved, where do you go? They don't know.
i'm not anti stream lining government programs. welfare reform was a good thing, its probably this government's greatest achievement of the last 20 years. but beyond that, there was no real plan for making government more efficient. it was just rhetoric and anger. for example, has there ever been a legitimate attempt by republicans to overhaul the IRS. To reform the tax code, or do they just spend time cutting taxes here and there? I guess GWB took his shot at SS, but again, this is something that the GOP failed to realize that this is a government program that people actually like.
This is an excellent observation. Core Republicans want the IRS overhauled -- and keelhauled where applicable. The power elite of the party, just like the power elite of the Democratic party, have no real interest in playing a hardball game with such a powerful entity. But the core does.
This scares me a lot and Obama has to make the sale he will lead a responsible government given the Dems will be dominant. On overhauling the IRS, I question the sincerity of the GOP. The so-called "core group" that supposedly wants to accomplish something must be very small in number, to the extent they really are NOT the "core group" because the so-called "core group" doesn't have a big influence on the "party elite". If they get blown out in November, every brand of Republican will have an explanation for why the party strayed from their particular principles.
Then why on earth have the last three GOP presidents done the exact opposite? Either it not really what the core wants, or the core does not really care about those issues in reality. I'd wager it's a combination of both. And it's damn irritating.
Mostly because the GOP didn't really run on conservatism. They ran on a coalition of traditional conservatives, Christians who want to ban Abortion and keep Gay Marriage banned, and corporatists that benefit from defense spending and imperialistic control. These groups are often at odds. Traditional conservatives may generally oppose gay marriage and abortion, but that's rarely their biggest issue and certainly not worthy of a Constitutional amendment. Those same Christians buy into the Progressive guilt that promotes government control of charity (although they want the government out of schools, which is an interesting paradox to me). Conservatives and corporatists are at odds on all sorts of issues from foreign policy to regulation to real tax reform. One of the few things that this coalition can agree on is lowering taxes, so that's virtually the only thing that can be done.
Rhad, you might be right. Mike Huckabee, like Forbes, wanted to simplify tax laws and reduce the IRS forms to a postcard. Pols that want to do this don't get elected, so that gives some validity to your point.
thumbs: The GOP wants "less intrusive government?" You're kidding, right? Or surely you meant to say less intrusive government for corporations, right? To borrow a line from The West Wing, Republicans want to shrink the government so that it's small enough to fit in our bedrooms. And that's not to even mention the Patriot Act with all of its intrusions or illegal warrantless wiretapping of American citizens.
Batman! How are you? We are exploring Republican core principles -- not the way the Bush administration "implemented" them. If you ask the average Republican voter, few will tell you they want to protect large corporations. They would tell you they want relief from an ever-growing government and its costs. Few will tell you they agreed with the "drunken sailor" spending of the current administration. Most would tell you they agree with eviscerating the IRS.
I'm swell thumbs, thanks. How are you? I understand what Republican core principles used to be, but given the fact that Bush has led the party for eight years and McCain is set to lead it now (with every indication of following Bush's lead on everything you mentioned), how relevant is the question of past principles? The GOP used to be the party that led on equal rights (or at least more equal rights) for minorities too, but it would be hardly fair to ascribe that advantage to them now. The GOP also used to take the lead on a humble approach to foreign policy, i.e. anti-nation building. And they used to enjoy an advantage on favoring a balanced budget and decreasing the federal deficit, but they ceded those advantages more than 15 years ago. The Republican party is no longer the party of less intrusive gov't, small gov't or a "conservative" foreign policy. The title of this thread is "The Fall of Conservatism." I think that's pretty appropriate. The GOP doesn't even know what it stands for anymore other than beating Democrats.
Understatements of the year - and the 100% honest truth as to why the GOP is a pathetic shell of a party about to recieve a voted upon kick in the nuts. We've talked about this before weslinder. If the GOP actually ran on *gasp* real conservatism instead of drunken sailor spending and grotesquely hypocritical morality platforms, I'd be their number one fan. Instead, it's the corporate version of the democratic party, happily spending trillions on unnessecary wars and defense to make the MIC filthy rich, subsidizing and lowering regulations for multiple industries, and generally bending over backward for corporate interests. Faced between that kind of taxpayer-funded tomfoolery and the corrupt wastefulness of welfare - sorry, but I'd rather make a sad attempt to help poor people than line some business's pockets with my own damn money. With respect to moral platforms - I'd rather chug drano through a beer bong than support any party that plays that fake pandering tune. Interesting history lesson: Federal involvement in disaster relief was the result of the 1927 Mississippi flood that quite literally demolished the entire midwest. Since then, the ball has been rolling and it's been near impossible to stop. While I agree that some of this federal policy is unnecesary, large scale disasters too large for state's to handle should be addressed by the feds.
Wow!! Did you watch TV? How can you compare this to the tornadoes in the Midwest? Wow!! All of them together are not 1/10 of the destruction of Katrina. spineless handout fever. Oh, excuse me. I forgot you are a conservative, perhaps allegedly of the George Bush."compassionate" type.
