Tell me what you think about the chapters on Woodrow Wilson, Mussolini, & Hitler? I think less now of Teddy Roosevelt. Goldberg IMO was dragging JFK through the mud.
If memory serves, The USSR used to administer a test to kids in their ealrly teens to determinw whether they'd be a farmer or engineer... If that isn't Educational eugenics I don't know what is and by a far left political ideology.
What does that book tell you Dr. Jones? It tells me, "you goose stepping morons ought to try reading books instead of burning them."
There is no doubt W is a neocon. I like to tweak hardcore Republicans by saying W spends like a Tip O'Neill Democrat. It amazes me that paleoconservatives such as Rumsfeld & Cheney can tolerate W. Under Reagan, The GOP was fiscally conservative and socially moderate and was a Big tent party. Then, during the reign of Daddy Bush, social conservatives/religious right started exerting more influence. Now, The GOP IMO is socially conservative & narrowly fiscally moderate. They spend like crazy and have expanded the size of government yet its the belief in Supply side policy and the tax cuts that save them from being fiscal liberals.
Re: posts 41, 48, & 51. Social conservatives favor "traditional values". I'll agree with the fact they like less Gov't. Only because IMO, they'd rather have their church acting as advisor rather than the Gov't acting as a nanny. What bothers me about the GOP now is how they always trot out emotional wedge issues be it overturning Roe v Wade, Hatch's flag burning amendment, the fence on the southern border, etc... For awhile, I thought Goldwater was a kook. Yet, it was about the time Ralph Reed, Falwell, etc... starting getting more political that I migrated from being a Republican to a Libertarian. I believe Barry was smeared. In fact, I find it interesting how Ron Paul was marginalized as a nut during the primaries yet he is much closer to being a Libertarian then Bob Barr. Speaking of Barr, How can anyone who started the whole Clinton impeachment process on a morals charge truly be a Libertarian? Is the GOP so worried that they have to send an agent provocateur in?
I wouldn't put the blame entirely on the GOP. I look at it mainly as a big logrolling operation, and in truth it started well before W. Spending went up dramatically under Reagan as well, and I think the logic behind the spending increases with him and with the current government is pretty much the same. Logrolling, for those of you who don't know, is the political science term for trading pet projects. The typical line of thinking, especially in Libertarian circles, is that divided government causes spending to go down because the parties will block each other out. That's no hard and fast rule though. Under Reagan, you had a Republican President who was more concerned about beating the Commies than reigning in spending. To get the Democrats in Congress to go along with the beating the Commies plan, it was expedient to spend more on the things they wanted. I'd say 9/11 created similar conditions. Democratic support for the war has always been tenuous, and it's fairly obvious the Republicans simply agreed to hand over various prizes in order to secure support: increases in discretionary spending, a prescription drug bill, nationalizing and unionizing the vast, and fairly ridiculous airport security apparatus. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.
Because they saw him as a successful, charismatic, strong President. And so did a lot of people, so they use his platform to campaign on.
RR was a charismatic, hollywood guy who used to be a Democrat. He thumps SAT scores, which Denny attributes to left wing eugenics. Are neocons Democrats in disguise?
Well, under George Bush, spending has increased. The Republican party was supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility. George Bush also ran on a conservative platform of no nation building. So I think that's a valid argument. What Reagan and Bill Clinton had in common was they both wanted the line item veto to eliminate pork and wasteful spending, which I think is an excellent idea, even though Constitutional scholars will shudder at that idea. In my mind the only way to completely eliminate pork and wasteful government spending is to have a fiscally conservative President that has the line item veto with a sizable Republican majority, including a 60/40 majority in the Senate. That's just my opinion though.
He ridiculed typical failed Democratic programs. It was a thumb in the eye. Neocons. Neo. Conservative. New breed of "conservative." They talk about Reagan, but they don't walk his walk or talk his talk.
GHW Bush wasn't a conservative. He was a liberal republican. The only two republican presidents to start wars or get us into wars in the 21st and 20th centuries were the two Bushes. Vietnam = JFK and LBJ Korea = Truman WW II = FDR WW I = Wilson
Reagan converted but was no Neocon IMO. He was the original Reagan Democrat. lol. No progressive/neocon/socialist/? would have busted the Air Traffic Controllers union like he did. Further, he was against Big Government. He once said, "Government is the cause of not the solution to our problems."
Very good point. Its militarism that is one of the leading indicators of Fascism which Liberals/Progressives can become. FDR & Woodrow certainly qualify.
I wasn't clear. Reagan was a conservative. The others found Reagan like they found God. But they're not conservatvies.
I knew what you meant & was clarfying for others who may have been confused about Ronnie's Ideology. RR was a paleoconservative... I believe I recently used that term before.
