How is the GOP like the Democrats?
by David Benzion · 10/03/2006 2:35 pmKSEV talk-show host Edd Hendee has a project he is working on, and could use a little help from LST readers in brainstorming this question–
How is the National Republican Party–i.e., GOP elected officials in Washington D.C.– like the Democrats and Democratic party that conservatives are always complaining about?
Obvious examples would be things like “Democrats always want to increase the size of government; since capturing the House in 1994, government has grown under Republican-rule by ‘x’ percent.”
Your thoughts are eagerly awaited in comments; purpose to become clear in the near future.
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
34 Responses to “How is the GOP like the Democrats?”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
They all lie! The democrats just do it better that’s all.
I’m sympathetic; but be specific. The goal here is to create a specific list of things D.C. Republicans (either individually or as a group) have done that conservatives typically attribute to Democrats/liberals.
Okay, the Foley case is a prime example of Hypocrisy…he championed childrens safety issues, and now he’s disgraced, and basically nullified the issue he sponsored.
Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress passed the Medicare prescription drug program, a huge entitlement program.
Republicans spend like Democrats:
Medicare prescription drug plan
The Republicans, just like the DemocRATS are afraid to fix Social Security. The Dems don’t want it fixed because they want everyone to be dependant on them. The Publicans want to fix it, but will not do it if it means they may lose the next election. No one has balls enough to do anything.
Once in power, the Republicans did like the Democrats, they tried to buy votes either in “pork barrel” spending or entitlements (like FEMA spending past their immediate obligations). Afraid to stand on principles.
The Republicans tried to get the Hispanic vote by ignoring the border issue.
Too many “rinos”. Those who wanted in, pretended to act like Republicans, thereby diluting the Republican conservative base which in turn stopped some of the Republican agenda.
Need another “Contract With America” but this time stick to it. I remember a lot of the items were “we tried” but couldn’t get it done.
Neither are doing much (or anything) to curtail all of these ridiculous earmarks. Pork is a fine delicacy enjoyed by both donkeys and elephants.
A true conservative would limit the power of the federal government to those items specifically obligated to the fed by the constitution. However, recent conservatives have acted more like democrats want to ever expand the power of the fed to every part of our lives.
A true conservative would trust that the people know better than the government and limit government interference whenever practical, however lately some republicans appear to want to control our lives from cradle to the grave.
the 1 item everyone in D.C. and everywhere else that everyone should want is border security and both partys have been grossly neglegent on this item. This one I do not understand as a moajority of VOTERS are in favor of this.
They are the same because they are all politicians. Worse yet, they are career politicians who’s very living depends on getting re-elected. They let themselves become beholden to campaign contributors and not constituents. Politics is politics. No matter what side of the aisle you claim, they’re all just politicians.
They both ignore the Constitution when it is in their “best” interest.
When the Repubs do it, Limbaugh and Buckley and the NR croud cheers.
That is why quit my NR subscription (after 10+ years) and quit listening to Rush and quit the GOP 6+ years ago.
Both Repubs and Demos want the SCOTUS to rely on staris decisis, even though, the Constitution is explicit that it is the “supreme law of the land.” [supreme law on only the issues delegated to the Central government in Article 1, section 8]
Previous decisions are NOT law to be used in deciding cases.
Any and all judges in the SCOTUS that rely have relied on even one previous decision ought to be impeached.
POTUS of both parties have used Executive Orders to establish laws.
Both parties have unconstitutionally delegated Congressional authorities to POTUS. The Constitution nowhere allows the Congress to delegate tis authorities to another entity.
This applies to both parties support for the Federal Reserve and fiat money.
They’re NOT alike, in spite of the “hold-your-nose-and-vote” approach that the Reps have needed to take lately. Just think Kerry, Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy, Clinton (he), Clinton (she), and a host of others. The Reps have nothing like that at all. AND, their main quasi-conservative ideology has at least a big toe in contact with the real world.
Will someone please tell Ed Hendee that there are no differences between the two. Difference exists only during election campaign.
#14 see my #11
The Republicans of the 2000s are the Democrats of the 1940s.
Too many KSEV listeners fall under the 1940s Democrats definition. And many times I hear so called “conservative” talk show hosts articulate Constitutional positions that put them in the 1940s Democrat camp.
Democrats: Speeding towards national socialism at 75MPH
Republicans: Speeding towards national socialism at 55MPH
Both will end up in the same place.
The Nafta Superhighway and whatever the treaty with Mexico about American Social Security is called. Like Clinton trying to take over Medical care, the Repubs are hiding their deal from the people.
The border. Different motivations, same result. Illegal immigration continues unchecked.
Border
Spending
ear marks/pork barrell
prescription drug program
Social Security
Bush campaigned as a free-trader.
Shortly after taking office, he signed huge steel tarriffs into law.
Republicans claim to be in favor of law and order. Except immigration laws (weren’t there only about 3 corporations cited for hiring illegals during the 1st 6 years of his administration?)
More later.
New entitlements: the Medicare drug benefit, and social security for illegals who return to Mexico.
McCain-Feingold: who’da thought they’d vote to restrict free speech?
Government regulation: Sarbannes-Oxley!!!!!
(According to the Financial Executives International (FEI), in a survey of 217 companies with average revenue above $5 billion, the cost of compliance was an average of $4.36 million.)
When Republicans act like Democrats they (we) lose
You, people. Study history and you will realize that the GOP is returning to its roots: central banking (in today’s case support of the current system), fiat money, tariffs, government largesse, centralization/nationalizing of the union (instead of the true union of sovereign States), ….
Jaime
You libs should be pleased!
You are calling me a lib? ROFLMO
Under what rock do you live?
OK, Edd, here’s my laundry list:
1. Politicians on both sides work for the benefit of themselves and their own re-election first, and their party second, rather than for the benefit of the CITIZENS.
2. Both sides have a large number of members that are corrupt to their core.
3. Both sides are controlled–i.e. funded–by special interests that do not work for the benefit of the CITIZENS.
4. Both sides have gutted the Constitution: they have worked or are working towards:
a. No God.
b. No family.
c. No private property rights.
d. No check on the expansion of federal power.
e. No restraint on speech no matter how offensive and absurd.
f. No restraint on commercial speech.
g. No arms for citizens.
h. No prohibitions against government intrusion and searches and seizures.
i. No or limited power left to the states.
j. No security of the borders.
k. Failure of the public education system, which is necessary for a free and enlightened citizenry to make the Constitutional process work.
5. Both sides are or have failed to ensure maximum national security–i.e. its the Borders, stupid.
6. Both sides have provided more rights and privileges to illegal invaders than to the citizens, who are left to foot the bill.
a. public education
b. health care
c. voting–yes, illegal invaders are voting.
d. Congress listens to illegal invaders taking off work to demonstrate more than the taxpaying citizens that work to pay for the entire system.
7. Both sides are spending and indebting future generations into oblivion.
8. Both sides have grossly expanded the size of entitlement social, welfare programs.
9. Both sides have added to the culture that everyone has rights, but nobody has responsibilities. The basic tenet/contract that founds the premise of the government-citizenry compact.
#26 So much of your list represents so well the very things that make the Reps and Demos the same.
Where, oh wehere, in the uSA Constitution is given the Central government authority over so many of the items in your list?
And this one takes the cake: “Both sides have added to the culture that everyone has rights, but nobody has responsibilities.The basic tenet/contract that founds the premise of the government-citizenry compact.”
Rights pre-exist governments.
Government cannot make compacts with citizens because it is citizens (principals) that create agencies (government, in this case). Therefore, only citizens can create a compact. When did you enter a compact with your government?
#27 I agree that there are certain inalienable rights with which every human should be granted–as our Founders listed: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But saying such is fleeting because anyone can say they have any right they want, but it will avail them nothing without some mechanism to allow them to enforce such rights. Before government–whether familial, clan, tribe, etc.–there really were no rights because there was no way to enforce it. Maybe might makes right worked, but that’s just about it.
For us, the compact between government and the citizenry was entered in the Constitution–which was derived from predecessor compacts such as the Magna Carta.
In these compacts, the government recognizes that the citizens have certain rights, some of which the citizens give up or diminish. In return, the government is supposed to provide certain security–defend against invaders, punish murderers, etc. Conversely, the citizens, as part of the compact, are given responsibilities–e.g. pay certain amounts of taxes to support the government in its protection of the citizenry, obey the laws that are passed by those elected to represent them in government. The presumption is that the government will not act in a tyrannical fashion–note: probably a bad presumption–else, the citizenry can rise up and form a new government.
You and I did not explicitly enter a compact with the government, but we are a part of it by our continued citizenry. If you choose a different compact offered by a different nation, merely become a citizen in the nation whose compact you like better.
There is no compact with government. There cannot be a compact with governments.
Governments exists only because, if you believe, as you seem to, of a social compact. Individuals make a compact that creates a government.
No such thing as a compact with governments.
The Magna Carta were the people, the same people who were willing to grant ruling authority to the King, telling the King you only can go so far.
Neither party knows what “ILLEGAL”means?
Numbers 28 and 29; I think ya’ll are arguing the same point but not articulating it properly. Ya’ll are arguing Social Contract theory which simply stated is a “voluntary” agreement by individuals to form a government. This government is then required to work worthin the restraints placed on it by the agreement. If not, people have the right to form a new “contract.”
Ya’ll should read up on John Locke some before arguing.
Also, the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution correctly states the problem with Republicans and Dems in D.C; “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!”
#31 Thanks for well intended note.
Yes, I am well aware of Locke.
Now, you read up on Thomas Hobbes’ The Leviathan and get acquainted with agency. Do not get hung up on the early psychology and the de-miraclizing (is there such a word?) of Scripture. I disagree with him on the later point.
With Locke and Hobbes you will have a completed perspective.
Just my way of saying that #29 (that is, me) knows more than you give him credit. And that #29 in no ways is saying the same things as #28.
And you are absolutely correct when you say “agreement by individuals to form a government.” Since governments (organizations) do not exist until they have been created by, ta da, real people.
Now, why did you put voluntary in quotes?
Jamie, the quotes were simply for emphasis.
Also, I have read Hobbes and he seems a bit negative for my taste.
I also never questioned you or #28 and your individual intelligences.
My simple point at the end was Republicans and Dems in DC are similar in that they trample all over the 10th Amendment.
#33 Whiskey for us and water for our horses.
I do not think that Hobbes is negative. Before I actually read Hobbes I read others say that Hobbes is a promoter of dictatorships (or the all poerful State). All that Hobbes does is to show that agency exists because a principal creates it. That the agent can only do what it is stated that it can do. That agents tend to expand the limitations of the charter to be more efficient in accomplishing the delegated task. Therefore, beware of creating a agents and principals are always above agents.