Are Republicans still a National Party?

[BrotherWu]

Originally Posted by Tenks

Wait, what? Explain. How the hell did they nurture them? By insulting their intelligence and saying that they can't live without a massive government shadow over them? By making large and obviously false promises about how great things are going to be with this massive government and failing to provide these promises?

Blacks and Lats vote democrat because they are uninformed sheep. The democratic party is not about the 'little guy' its about the 'massive fucking government' and insulting the populations intelligence thinking we don't know how to run our own lives.

This.

Personally, as a fiscally conservative, libertarian-leaning person, I hope that the Repubs do go down, except for a few good ones. I hope it will pave the way for allies of the Constitution to begin tearing apart big government and moderating the bible thumpers.

[Mist]

People who seek office generally seek power. The idea that you can somehow elect a weaker government is yet another logical black hole in the conservative governing philosophy.

[Xantium]

Concurrence friend Mist, It's hard to run and win on a "guvmint is bad" platform when for the last 8 years you were the government.

[Tenks]

Originally Posted by Xantium

Concurrence friend Mist, It's hard to run and win on a "guvmint is bad" platform when for the last 8 years you were the government.

Its pretty easy to win with this stance if you actually voted against things that passed and made the government worse. I would hope to think there are a few people getting into office that really do care but I'm not quite that stupid. I'm fully aware people get elected because they can make a shitload of cash, be sort of famous and wield incredible power.

[I'm Rich Bitch]

Originally Posted by Dr. Funkenstein

Obama won because he's cute, he talks good, and he isn't Bush.

Really? Doesn't your description apply to John Edwards?

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Sorry...I forgot to say that Obama's lack of experience or accomplishment (aside from writing a book about himself) and wide open non-specific proclamations make him a blank slate that everyone can project their perfect politician on to. He's also a much better public speaker than John Edwards and doesn't have the "Ambulance chaser" past.

Obama also hasn't been publicly outed for cheating on his wife, yet...which kills the whole "cute" thing.

So to revise, I'll go with:

"Obama won because he's cute, he talks good, he had yet to accomplish anything good or bad (he won his Senate seat because his rival dropped out after it was revealed he took his wife to a swingers club several years prior, which was leaked from divorce papers during the campaign), and he ain't Bush."

[Frieza_Prexus]

We've been through this once before, but I suppose having another go at it wouldn't hurt.

First, to anyone reading this thread, or more specifically my post and the one's I'm about to address, I would advise you to read the following posts by myself and the ones that I reference. In these posts I outline and define very specifically how I see big government. I give the reasons why I feel it is immoral in many circumstances, and I show why I believe it can only hurt in the long run.

http://www.fohguild.org/forums/gener...ml#post1242019

http://www.fohguild.org/forums/gener...ml#post1242145

http://www.fohguild.org/forums/gener...ml#post1242275

Originally Posted by Sharmai

Sigh.. I'm tired of hearing about the stereotypical small government republicans vs big government democrats. How about Efficient government? As large as it needs to be to do whatever job deemed necessary but the people as efficiently as possible?

Sharmai, I'm sure you're intimately familiar with the posts I linked above since you were so involved with them so I will not rehash exactly why large government and efficient government are in most circumstances polar opposites.

Instead, I will focus on the dangers of central planning and efficiency in government. Efficiency in government is typically a neutral issue. Efficiency is often very good, but the problem surfaces when you begin to define "efficient at what?" If by efficient you mean preserving my rights then that is very good. If by efficient you mean unfairly exercising force upon part or all of the population then that is very bad.

Now the second part of my statement appears biased and loaded, but let's think about it. If your sole criterion for the purpose of the government is doing what "the people" deem necessary in an efficient manner, then you're in for a world of trouble. At one point "the people" had slaves and killed natives by the thousands. Would it be morally permissible to be efficient at that activity should the people deem it necessary? You can quickly see the slippery slope that develops when you define the role of government as the will of the people.

Instead, the government should be focused exclusively on providing protection for liberty. It should enforce voluntary agreement and it should protect personal rights and property. Any program or law that does not relate directly back to the above is, in my opinion, likely dangerous and not worth having.

Originally Posted by Sharmai

If that meant that the government owned car dealerships because it was across the board determined to be better then so be it. And if it turned out that that's a horribly bad idea and car dealerships should be owned by the people for better competition, prices, availability, etc. then so be it.

Now we may be reaching a common ground. It appears by this statement that you favor scientific government. Meaning that whatever benefits the most people should be used. If you continue this line of thinking and research you'll find that there is another component to prosperous government: respect for freedom and private property, and strong moral laws that bind the government from harming people. That is the inevitable conclusion to scientific government whose goal is to maximize prosperity and freedom. You will find that there is no reasonable and normal circumstance that requires government intervention as the first part of the quote suggests it might.

Scientific government as I defined it, and socialistic programs/intervention in normal circumstances are utterly incompatible.

While you may be tired of people who cry for smaller government, I cannot have enough of it. Every voice I hear that speaks articulately and plainly about the dangers of "big" government gives me strength and it gives me hope.

These ideals fill me with real hope for real change. Not the nebulous concept that has been sold to us as of late, but hope for a truly and demonstrably better future.

[Tenks]

Holy crap a well constructed post on FOH. I must have clicked a different bookmark.

[Torvon]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus

good stuff

I concur. I also find it funny that everyone is saying the Republican party is going to die; as if this has never happened before. For the most part this is how American Politics is set up as a two party system. One party keeps control of the government just long enough to lose the trust of the majority of the people and then control goes to the other party. It has been like that for a long, long time. Of course the Republicans have to make some changes, but in the end the election came down to the fact that the majority of Americans hated Bush and weren't satisfied with their government. Conveniently the Messiah was running for office on the other ticket and (as has been previously mentioned) his great speeches and lack of experience allowed everyone to see in him exactly what they wanted. "Change" was a very good slogan for Obama, because he never defined change other than "not what we have right now." Therefore everyone was able to say well I'm not happy and if everything changes I'll be happy so I'm voting for Obama.

I would be extremely surprised if Obama doesn't win in 2012, but when 2016 rolls around I think it will be another close election as usual. Personally I don't think either of the parties will ever wipe the other one out completely. It is human nature to be critical, and not constructively. People will always see the bad in the government over the good; for both Democrats and Republicans. If the majority of the people are happy with the government, give it a few years.

The two party system is flawed in so many ways, unfortunately all of the alternatives have more flaws than it does.

DISCLAIMER: If Sarah Palin turns out to be the new "leader" of the Republican party everything I wrote above is incorrect and the Republicans will die.

[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by Tenks

Blacks and Lats vote democrat because they are uninformed sheep.

Originally Posted by Tenks

I don't know if the blacks and lats really want the government to give them handouts because they fucked up their own lives or if they just don't know what the (vintage) republican party is all about.

What would we call posts like these?

Originally Posted by Tenks

Awesome! More sweeping generic statements with no backup! My favorite part of FoH General!

Oh right.

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus

Obvious Stuff...for the most part

The second part of your post I agree with. There was however one part that I feel is a bit silly. You may want to frame your argument a little differently to get the point across.

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus

At one point "the people" had slaves and killed natives by the thousands. Would it be morally permissible to be efficient at that activity should the people deem it necessary? You can quickly see the slippery slope that develops when you define the role of government as the will of the people.

The people did not own slaves because it was the "will of the people" and thus the government allowed it to happen against their judgment, they owned slaves because it was socially acceptable at the time to do so. What you are trying to infer is that if we allow the government to become the, "will of the people", bad things like slavery will occur. I'm sure you can see the fallacy there.

If the "will of the people" is to eat human babies for breakfast, the socially acceptable norm at the time would be, gasp, eating human babies for breakfast. Changing a social pattern is much different from efficient government action.

[Mistii]

The same reason that Ron Paul was ridiculed and laughed at by the "mainstream" GOP candidates is the same reason they were beaten in 06 and trounced even further by Obama.

Small government conservatives need to take a long, hard look at themselves and figure out whether fiscal conservatism is more important than social conservatism.

If only there was a socially left, fiscally right wing party that could compete in the general elections.

[CnCGOD]

Originally Posted by Mistii

The same reason that Ron Paul was ridiculed and laughed at by the "mainstream" GOP candidates is the same reason they were beaten in 06 and trounced even further by Obama.

Small government conservatives need to take a long, hard look at themselves and figure out whether fiscal conservatism is more important than social conservatism.

If only there was a socially left, fiscally right wing party that could compete in the general elections.

The RNC has the potential to be Socially Moderate, fiscally right wing. But right now its Socially conservative and fiscally FUBAR.

[Regime]

Originally Posted by Tenks

Personally I would be offended if the government thought my life sucked so badly that the rich people should take care of me. I guess others have far less pride than I do.

Not the Hamilton fan are we?

[Frieza_Prexus]

Screamfeeder,

Maybe it wasn't the best way to word it, but I was being intentionally heavy with that example. One thing that you'll see whenever I post (especially in the posts I linked above) is that I believe in absolute universal moral laws that do not depend upon what is socially acceptable.

My point is that the "will of the people(WotP)" and protecting personal rights are often at odds. Under the WotP definition of governance these types of bad things can happen. If the role of the government were specifically limited to protecting the natural laws that I believe in, those types of things would not happen despite any "social norms."

When government is defined as WotP, bad things will happen. Efficiency is especially relevant here because what if the WotP is genocide? If I were on the firing line I wouldn't want the government to be very good at it. This is a very important reason as to why the US government was specifically engineered to be inefficient and slow. In cases like that where the tyranny of the majority would violate the minority.

At the very least, inefficiency in that regard makes it more difficult. But as I said earlier, efficiency is often a neutral point. What really matters is how you define the role of government.

[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus

Reply...

Oh don't misunderstand me, I get what you are saying(and for the most part agree with it). I just said it could be worded better.