Saturday, November 30, 2013

Is It Too Late For the Republican Party To Save Itself?...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Food for thought. At least for those republicans that have retained the ability to think outside the box their party has sculpted for them or they created for themselves.

In recent decades, the Republicans have usually been the more nationalist of the two major parties. Whereas Democratic foreign policy experts have been more at home among global elites, and more enthusiastic about pursuing altruistic humanitarian goals, Republican experts have been less comfortable at conferences abroad, and more concerned about the safety of the American homeland and its traditional allies than about trying to improve the lot of the rest of the world. As one might expect, defense budgets have usually fared better under Republican than Democratic presidents.

The problem for Republicans is that there are various kinds of nationalism. There is, for instance, the aggressive Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld brand of nationalism, in which you proactively seek out enemies and destroy them, with relatively little concern for what the outside world thinks. Especially in a post-9/11 world, you can't take chances! This is a nationalism in which high defense budgets are encouraged, even as humanitarianism is de-emphasized. It is not that such nationalists are necessarily hardhearted. Rather, it is that they genuinely feel the world overall will be a more humane place with preponderant American power.

To one side of these Republican nationalists are Republican isolationists. Now isolationists are nationalists, too. They also believe that the most important thing in the world is a safe and secure American homeland. It is just that they feel this can be better achieved by staying out of foreign wars and other such entanglements, particularly in the Eastern Hemisphere. In their minds, American human and material treasure is simply too precious to be wasted abroad. Tried-and-true isolationists are actually rare in the Republican Party: just because you are against this or that military intervention certainly does not make you an isolationist. Rather, there are isolationist-trending Republicans of varying degrees who seek to do the minimum abroad, while concentrating on protecting and improving the homeland. They seek a perfectionism within the American continent only, with some concern for contiguous parts of the Western Hemisphere as well. The world overseas will just have to fend for itself.

Continue reading and enjoy the complete article...

Via: Memeorandum


  1. Well, I certainly wouldn't mind Japan and Germany picking up a little bit more of the tab/responsibility for their own damned defense, that's for sure.

  2. A comment from Will that I agree with!

    And, here is hoping that it is too late for the Republican Party to save itself.

    1. Always suspected you were down with one party rule wd/DS. Guess I was right eh?

    2. No, I wouldn't want the Dems to become complacent and think they could do as they pleased because they are the only game in town. I would like to see them challenged from the Left. Enough of the challenging from the extreme Right.

    3. So Mr. Sanders, what you are REALLY saying is you want one party rule. The further to the left (communist) the better.

      Got ya.So does any other thinking perso.

    4. The Dems don't need a challenge from the left, as they ARE the Left.

      RN said: "So Mr. Sanders, what you are REALLY saying is you want one party rule"

      Responding to you, not the Col.: personally, I'd love to see the conservatives be challenged by strong principled libertarians. I have to admit that I would not be fond of seeing the hard left around much more, as I feel that their main interest (protecting the power of the State and the privileges and wealth of those who rule) really has no legitimacy in a free society.

    5. The main interest of Libertarians is protecting the power of the wealthy and the privileges and wealth of those who rule (the wealthy)... so I'm opposed to more of them in government. Also, Progressives are to the Left of the rest of the Democratic Party. And the Progressives definitely need to challenge the rest of the Democrats, as they are currently largely ignored... even though they do the best job of speaking for the people.

    6. Stated as a true and loyal Progressive Mr. Sanders.

      Your characterization of Libertarians however is not correct. As you should realize if you have any real understanding of libertarianism.

      There are big L and smal l Libertarians as well For many (if not most) it is about individualism. choice, limited government (as in constitutional), opportunity, and reward based on contribution rather than protecting the wealthy For example, my pet peeve is government taxpayer subsidized corporate welfare.

    7. Very good, RN. Then I assume you are in favor of eliminating these subsidies which amount to about $6000 per family per year.

    8. Yes Jerry I am. I have been on record for a long time in opposition to subsidized corporate welfare. I am in agreement with you the items on the linked list should be eliminated.

  3. IMO, the GOP's problem is the fundamental religious social conservative segment. They have been
    strong supporters in primaries and the GOP ends up with some candidates too extreme for independents and some Republicans. T'will be interesting to see whether accommodations can be
    made, or whether that segment grows or fades.

  4. Good points BB Idaho. I have believed for some time the SoCons and the militarist element in the GOP would ultimately be the parties undoing.


RN USA is a No Judgement Zone (to steal from Planet Fitness), so please, NO JUDGEMENT of others. We reserve the right to delete any such posts immediately upon detection.

All views are welcome. As long as the comment is on topic (off topic will be deleted) and respectful of others.