From the Old Blog
The New Liberal Parties
A change is underway in the ideological structure of American politics. In the past, if you were a conservative, you had a home in the Republican Party; conversely if you believed in liberal interpretations of the constitution combined with a tax and spend mentality, you were more than welcome under the big tent of the Democratic Party.
This is no longer the case.
Some positions have completely switch parties.
There has been a polar shift in the ideological control of both parties.
The Republican Party has completely abandoned its notions of economic conservatism.
Sure they will cut taxes, but that isn’t all it takes to be a conservative.
The GOP is now the agent of evolutionary and revolutionary change on a global level.
With the Bush Doctrine of Regime Change fully in place, the force of America’s influence is one of democratic ideas proliferating the world over, for better or worse.
The great irony is the group that has been actively opposing the notion of spreading a form of democracy across the world is the Democratic Party.
Some within the Democratic Party’s ranks suggest that “some people can’t handle democracy, so why force it upon them?”
Besides being patently racist, it flies in the face of the Democratic ideals of JFK and FDR.
Their argument is based in a belief that we, as a nation, have no right to impose freedom on other peoples.
The begs the question “is freedom an imposition?”
America was founded on the belief that freedom was given to all mankind by the Creator.
The only way that freedom can be considered an imposition is if one considers the Creator to be an aggressor.
Now the religious right is pretty much out of hand, but this idea or an aggressor Creator would explain the constant attack on traditional values by the Democratic Party.
A Democratic Party that was built on the idea of progress and change, has become the stonewall not only for the expansion of democracy abroad, but for reform domestically also.
While the Republican Social Security plan is a farce to begin with, the concept of changing the status quo is there.
Falling on tradition has been a strategy attacked when used by Conservatives, now the other side is using it.
Just because the system has worked for sixties years, doesn’t mean its all ok.
Of course, the Democrats are not alone is their shift in ideology.
As far as liberal interpretations of the Constitution are concerned, the Patriot Act is a clear example of this.
The Patriot Act is the most blatant stretching of federal power since Lincoln suspended habius corpus.
The party that has opposed increases in federal involvement in almost every circumstance has created a new precedent for government interference.
With the Republicans in charge of Congress for 10 years, and the White House for the past four, we have seen the largest increase of federal spending since the Reagan Administration spent the Soviet Union into bankruptcy.
Blaming this current explosion of spending on the War on Terror, the GOP has apparently dismissed the idea that maybe the terrorists know a little bit about history and economics and maybe they are trying to spend us into bankruptcy as we did the Soviets.
Unfortunately, the Democrats are more than willing to approve this bloated budget for the hope that this new Liberal Republican Party will do the same when threre is a Democrat in the oval office.
What does all this add up to?
There is no longer a conservative and liberal party.
There are two liberal parties: one that expands government under the basis of national security and one that seeks to undermine national security while pushing a socialist agenda.
Neo-Cons are not Conservatives.
The term Neo-Con is the label given to the liberal wing of the Republican Party that panders to the Religious Right and that that threatens the liberal causes of the modern Democratic Party.
The more progressive aspects of the Republican Party are not entirely bad to true conservatives.
The spread of freedom is a good thing as it was when Reagan declared the Soviet Union an Evil Empire.
The danger lies in the abandonment of the principle of small government, from there its a not far until one party rule under two parties that are continually more liberal.