The End of the American Republic?
January 20th, 2008 at 08:00pm Leo Pusateri
“The American Republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.” -Alexis De Tocqueville
Politicians, especially since FDR, have long known that they can bribe the people with their own money. But since FDR, a healthy majority of the American people couldn’t be bought. They loved freedom, less government, and a secure nation more than the baubles and breadcumbs that may have flowed from Washington, D.C.
The nation, on the whole, was a conservative nation.
Nothing illustrated this more than the wholesale acceptance of Ronald Wilson Reagan in the 1980s, and of his legacy as borne in the Contract with America that launched the Republican Congressional revolution of 1994.
And nothing spelled out the repudiation of the conservative principles on which this nation was founded than the third place finish of Fred Thompson in South Carolina.
On point after point, from immigration, to national security, to taxes and to life itself, Fred Thompson mirrored the conservative ideals that, when put to practice, have been proven to be so effective in governing our nation since the penning of the Federalist Papers.
If there was anywhere in this nation where it couldn’t have been more clear, it would have been in South Carolina; traditionally a bastion of clear thinking, small government conservatives.
Yet John McCain, in every sense an opportunistic political populist with a liberal voting record as long as the Mississippi, ran the table.
Newt Gingrich caught a lot of flack when he proclaimed that Reaganesque conservatism was in its death throes, and that politicians needed to embrace a more “centrist” approach.
He was right in the sense that South Carolina is current living proof that Reaganesque conservatism is, if anything, on life support.
Maybe Rush Limbaugh was right last week when he said that it took a Jimmy Carter to give us Ronaldus Magnus.
Perhaps 2012 will be the year of Fred… if the liberals haven’t run us into the ground by then.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008
18 Comments
1. Power | January 20th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Are you serious? America isn’t on life support, Fred Thompson is. I’ve met potted plants that show more vigor than Fred. I don’t care what his policies are, if he isn’t going to show some life nobody will vote for him.
2. Thrower | January 20th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Clear thinking South Carolina as the savior of the United States? Please! South Carolina led the way to what was nearly the destruction of the U.S. The only certainty about 21st century South Carolina is that it will go Republican no matter how bad the candidate.
I’m discouraged about the state of America too, but South Carolina and Fred Thompson are two of the last places I will look for answers.
3. Diana Powe | January 20th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Peggy Noonan, former special assistant to President Reagan and current Wall Street Journal writer, on the GOP today:
4. Kahn | January 20th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Power, well actually think about that phrase you used. “Life Support”
I tried to build a list here of government entitlement programs. Social Security, VA benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, subsidized education and housing programs, Farm aid…
I gave up. There are too many to count. “Life support”, your phrase. Interesting. Maybe it should be called “Lifestyle Support”?
5. Mark Noonan | January 20th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Diana,
Ms. Noonan (no known relation) has a good point, but only a partial point. It is true that some decisions by President Bush drove wedges into the conservative coalition, but I also think that some wedges need to be driven - a conservatism just about military strength and wildfire capitalism is a conservatism not just doomed, but doomed to eventually turn into liberalism. Conservatism requires what conservatism has always been about since Burke first enunciated it more than 200 years ago - a defense of the eternal verities against the moral innovations of modern times.
President Bush laid down several markers in his Administration, especially post-2004. Ms. Noonan started to be a strong critic of President Bush right after his second innaugural - because President Bush laid out a distinctly moral foreign and military policy for the United States. A foreign and military policy growing right out of the eternal moral truths which we must as a nation fight for, or be entirely unworthy of surviving. This upset a lot of so-called conservatives, because for them conservatism was about merely getting government out of the way of making money and/or about our ability to swiftly destroy anyone who crossed our path in the world.
My affinity for Fred Thompson - the reason I voted for him this past Saturday - is because he embodies real conservatism; which is primarily about moral issues, and only secondarily concerned with relatively trivial issues as annual GDP growth or our ability to blow an enemy all to heck. I am not, however, as pessimistic as Leo - where McCain gets it wrong is in the more trivial aspects; economics and environmentalism…where he gets it right is in the most crucial area, the area of life. So, while McCain will never be my favorite politician, he’ll still get my enthusiastic support should he secure the nomination (though, of course, I’d be more enthused about Romney, and far more enthused about Thompson).
If we GOPers do lose in November, then we will have deserved ir richly - some will say we lost because of President Bush’s moral policies. Perhaps that will be the case, but better to lose on that than win on anything else. Others will understand the truth - if we lose, it will be because we failed to offer a compelling reason for supporting us. If we’re just about money, Democrats can promise money. If we’re just about killing enemies, Democrats can promise to kill enemies. We have to be about something more than that, if we wish to win - we have to be about rising high to the grand challenges of the modern era…not the petty challenges of increasing GDP by one percentage point, or providing a universal health insurance scam …. err plan … for the American people.
If we lose, some will stomp off in frustration…and probably stomp off to join the Democratic party they are actually far more in tune with than they realise (it is only a matter of semantics as to whether Democrats will favor the money makers - they actually have a warm place in their heart for rampant capitalists, as long as they donate to the right causes/people). Those of us who remain will inherit a, perhaps, smaller party, but a party better able to articulate a compelling vision - and when the Democrats make a mess of things (it is inevitible - they don’t know what they’re doing or why they are doing it, and they are corrupt to the core), we’ll be positioned to come back, but without having to compromise away core principles just to keep a semi-conservative malcontent on board.
6. Diana Powe | January 20th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Kahn,
Feel free to tell your over-65 friends that you want to eliminate Social Security and Medicare, the two largest segments of the federal budget ahead of the Department of Defense, if that’s what you’re saying. In fact, good luck with that.
7. js | January 20th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
I didnt see where Kahn said anything about eliminating Social Security Diana.
Why do you lie like that?
8. Christian Wright | January 20th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
You voted for Fred “Flintstone” Thompson?
You know, he would do the less harm.
Rudy is pro-dictaorship.
Huck is Christian Taliban.
Mitt is pro-facsist.
McCain wants us to stay in Iraq for 100 years.
Thompson just wants a steady paycheck. I was going to make fun of your pick, but he is the least worse of the litter.
9. John Mccain » The E&hellip | January 20th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
[…] Extreme Mortman - Just When You Thought it Was Safe to Take Politics Seriously Again wrote an interesting post today on The End of the American Republic?Here’s a quick excerptYet John McCain, in every sense an opportunistic political populist with a liberal voting record as long as the Mississippi, ran the table. […]
10. Rana Quijotesca | January 21st, 2008 at 2:42 am
my candidate lost… AMERICA IS DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!!!
heh… ain’t that special…
11. TiredofLibBullShit | January 21st, 2008 at 5:58 am
“The American Republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.” -Alexis De Tocqueville
This also applies to taxes. Once a majority of the population pays little or no taxes and soaks the minority who pays the vast majority of the same taxes, this will result in the same outcome.
Now some data from the CBO (extracted from a graph that compared taxpayers from 1979 to present):
In 1979, the BOTTOM 80% paid roughly 44% of all federal taxes, while the top 1% paid 15%.
In 1989, the figures were 40% to 19%.
In 1999, the figures were 35% to 25%.
In 2006, the figures were 31% to 28%.
Basically, the trend there is so obvious that even Democrat voters should be able to see what is going on. The share of federal taxes paid by the evil rich is constantly going up, while the share paid by the bottom 80% is on a steady downward trend. Bear in mind that this data shows a percentage of ALL federal taxes, not just income taxes.
Now … some bullet points for you to consider:
The richest 1% of households in the U.S. are now paying a record 27.6% of all federal taxes and a record of 38.8% of all federal income taxes.
The richest 1% of households only earn about 17% of all income.
The top 1.1 million households (the evil rich) pay a greater share of the income tax burden than the bottom 90 million households combined.
The chart and the report from the CBO shows that the nation’s tax burden has been shifting away from typical Americans to the wealthiest households since the early 1980s.
Once the Democrats have bought off the majority of the people (>50%) by paying little or no taxes, we are doomed to repeat the failures of socialism. In the Netherlands, the nanny state and womb to the tomb government involvement is in full bloom. Tax rates on all citizens is (last I looked) was 70-80% of all income ranges.
Our Republic will be gone and the Democrats will have solidified their power base and they will be hard to remove from that power position.
12. Leo Pusateri | January 21st, 2008 at 6:14 am
I agree, Mark. Fred, in his totality, embodies true conservatism. Conservatism is about morality; which doesn’t in any way, shape, manner nor form embody the dependence, dare I say, enslavement of citizens to government largesse.
When one bases government policy in part on a populist-driven disproven pack of lies (like global warming) that will necessarily result in ever-increasing burdens on a man’s ability to feed his family, I take great umbrage with that person’s decision-making capabilities, if not his true intentions.
That, to me, is economically dangerous policy, and reckless decision making.
When one doesn’t take seriously the need to protect our borders, in light of the tax burdens that such irresponsibility creates, then I take great umbrage with that person’s priorities, and his willingness to protect the integrity of our nation.
That again, is economically dangerous policy, and reckless decision making, devoid of conservative principles.
When the consequences are such that they increase the burdens on taxpayers to support their own families, McCain’s non-conservative mis-steps and poor judgments are by no means trivial issues.
I agree that we need to continue to be a beacon of freedom for the world, and to ensure that democracy and freedom thrives. There’s no argument there.
I agree that the sanctity of life needs to be protected in all its stages. There’s no argument there.
I agree that the neediest among us need to be helped; even Ronald Reagan saw the need for a safety net. But as Bob Dole once said, “It’s a safety net, not a hammock.”
Conservatism views compassion as helping people; but even more so towards creating an environment that will allow the human soul the dignity of helping himself.
13. Brian | January 21st, 2008 at 6:34 am
So let me see if I get this logic: McCain wins SC, so now we’re all doomed?
Oh, and someone with an ACU rating of 82% does NOT have a liberal record “as long as the Mississipi”. Stop exaggerating.
14. neocon | January 21st, 2008 at 8:56 am
May I remind everyone who currently has the most delegates?
Rudy Giuliani 1
Mike Huckabee 38
Duncan Hunter 1
John McCain 32
Ron Paul 4
Mitt Romney 59
Fred Thompson 5
Total 140
Romney will hopefully be the candidate and in the general election debates will show why Obama is the “junior” senator from Illinois and will clearly reveal Hillary’s duplicitous dishonesty. I can’t wait.
15. kjstrouble | January 21st, 2008 at 10:40 am
Diana,
My mother is 74, still works fulltime. She does medicare fraud reviews. She says part of the reason she is continuing to work full time is because she DOES NOT want to have to rely on medicare or social security. She sees the abuses that happen, and feels that private insurance is MUCH BETTER than medicare.
16. Faceplant | January 21st, 2008 at 2:10 pm
“Romney will hopefully be the candidate and in the general election debates will show why Obama is the “junior” senator from Illinois and will clearly reveal Hillary’s duplicitous dishonesty.”
LOL! Hillary’s duplicitous dishonesty is going to be pointed out by the fakest candidate in the race? Good luck with that.
17. Kahn | January 21st, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Diana wrote:
“Kahn, Feel free to tell your over-65 friends that you want to eliminate Social Security and Medicare, the two largest segments of the federal budget ahead of the Department of Defense, if that’s what you’re saying. In fact, good luck with that.
But Diana, why then did Democrats kill efforts to fix Social Security and then cheer about it during a State-of-the-Union” address? And why have they proposed no plan of their own in the YEARS since then?
But you do make an excellent point. Liberals accuse us of being fear mongers. But Democrats are the REAL fear mongers. Look at your own post and think about that.
18. Mark Noonan | January 22nd, 2008 at 1:24 am
Leo,
I see your point - and every time I contemplate “President McCain” I get a bit of a sinking feeling in the gut…but far better than Hillary or Obama, right?