Sunday, November 26, 2006

The Future of the Republican Party

Republicans are at a distinct disadvantage in winning majority numbers since a large part of their belief -- is that there should be less government and not more, while the pat Democrat answer to everything, is MORE government. So the success of a Republican platform is that government becomes a smaller part of our lives and intrusion -- rather than dictating every aspect of our lives.

That should be a fairly long-term trend -- not because government dictates that it be so, but because the new options far outstrip government’s ability to regulate them -- so that when they do, society has already moved on to further developments and discoveries.

In an age of abundant information, such traditional cultural/government institutions like libraries and schools have to reinvent themselves to remain relevant -- because what is foremost is the information, and not who controls it. That was the preoccupation in the past, in which everything was mainly a control issue. And that is largely how we still measure the success of political parties -- rather than by the people and their society, in and of itself, which is I think is the success of the Republican Party.

It’s a healthier culture than the preoccupation with who controls and dominates -- which is the prevailing culture and mindset of a previous century. That is even mostly what our schools and newspapers have been about -- status and hierarchy -- who is more important than the other, and not what are the facts of the situation regardless of what office such a person holds.

This cultural evolution seems to be inevitable no matter who is in power. The next step in the evolution of knowledge is trusting in one’s ability to think for oneself -- instead of a few doing the thinking for everyone else, and then telling them what to chant, and what is politically correct.

It should matter less and less what party is in power and more what ideas rule the day. It’s more than what the government or institutions declare that it is. I think it is not even necessary anymore to convert people to one’s point of view but more important and productive to find those who are already moving in the same direction towards a convergence of purpose.

Those who aren’t moving in that direction, have already determined their obsolescence. They’re not going to change no matter how long they live. In a previous time, that might have seemed quaint, if not admirable. But I think life in these times, is a measure of how it moves with the times, changes and challenges.

Ideologies fail because they don’t change with the times -- but demand that the times move towards their ideology. The best way to understand the political parties is not by what they believe -- but how they actually communicate that to one another, which has been the strength of Republicanism -- of every individual to do their own thinking, rather than cede that power to their leaders, and then repeat them as though they thought of it themselves.


At November 29, 2006 10:09 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

In some countries and systems, the party is even more powerful than the government -- because the government is the “professional” portion of community involvement while the party is much more because there are less restrictions on conduct. When money is the only motivation for doing anything, those purposes are skewed towards those ends -- rather than maintaining the larger goals of establishing “a more perfect society.” The larger purpose subsumes the smaller, and is the only consistently indefensible argument.

In any discussion, the limit is he who can go to the highest level of insight, while being distracted from doing so by the many petty issues and concerns of those who don’t want to go there -- revealing the obviousness of their motives and purposes.

So while winning elections is important, even more so is developing a viable, sustainable culture of alternative viewpoints that is more tolerated in the Republican party culture than in the so-called “Democratic” party culture that demands conformity to the predetermined “political correctness” handed down from the powers that be and are to be unquestioned. There is no real discussion from the predetermined “consensus," that they would like participants to believe, were determined by a “democratic” process.

But don’t be deceived by the words. The process is very telling -- and why I think that manner of communications are actually superior to what I have experienced in both the Democratic party as well as the counterculture alternatives -- which are even less open to discussion, and in fact, are more like cult religions requiring obedience and blind loyalty to their supreme gurus.

So while often vilified as the party of the rich -- it is not the party of the materially rich, but the richness of independence and freedom. The two “richest” people in the world, are avowed “Democrats” -- as are most of the elitists of the world; that is the irony of the situation. They are understandably the fiercest defenders of the status quo -- which is to maintain the illusion of the legitimacy of their being at the top of the social pyramid.

Republicans are less prone to the star-system, and therefore more egalitarian. They believe each vote should be cast as one vote -- and not as a collective, organized effort to distort the outcome of free and independent judgments -- through coercion, intimidation, manipulation, and undue peer pressure, which is a source of pride for them, as well of the source of their anxieties and insecurities because that consent was secured in that way.

Therefore, an unwieldy system of control mechanisms need to be in place to secure that “discipline,” which they are likely regard as the need for increasingly more “administrators,” beyond those needed to actually perform the function. The most notable of these are the bureaucracies of the “education” (indoctrination) system. In a supposedly democratic and egalitarian society, they will be the most adamant that rigid socioeconomic hierarchies and order must be maintained above all else. Most of them won’t know why but theirs is not to question why, but to do or die.

At November 29, 2006 10:29 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

November 29, 2006
A Defeatist Strategy
By Bob Weir

The Democrats have an interesting method of turning events into self-fulfilling prophesies. They say they're for the troops, but against the war (after they were for it). Then, they proceed to endanger the lives of the troops by condemning the war, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy, emboldening further action and convincing them to hold out for eventual retreat. The tactic they use has been to criticize "the way the war is being handled" as they start a propaganda campaign to convince the American public that the war was a mistake.

While they continuously bash the Commander in Chief at home, the enemy on the battlefield becomes more emboldened, with the ultimate result being that more US soldiers and many more civilians are killed, and the war begins to seem like an exercise in futility. As more troops become casualties and the enemy appears to be gaining ground, the Democrats blame the President for a "failed policy." The fact is, the policy may have been sound, but it was doomed to failure when a vocal minority in this country took to the airwaves with a steady antiwar chant that could be heard and seen around the world. How could Democrats claim to be for the troops while at the same time engaging in actions that were increasing the body count? The answer lies somewhere in the radical ideology of the liberal wing of the party.

First of all, to say you are antiwar is to make you appear as a decent person, one who is considerate of his fellow man. After all, who is for war? Every sane person would agree that war is the lowest and most destructive form of human endeavor. However, just because you deplore something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Law-abiding people deplore criminal activity, but they are intelligent enough to have locks on their doors and alarm systems to protect against intruders.

Similarly, you can detest war while simultaneously recognizing that there are times when it is inevitable. We've often heard about President Clinton's lack of aggressive action toward the terrorists who struck at US interests around the world, including the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Perhaps if he had stopped womanizing for a few days he could have concentrated on national security and saved 3000 lives on 9/11. President Bush saw a future threat coming from Iraq and took steps to neutralize it. He also initiated the Patriot Act, another move that has been vilified by Democrats, even though it has protected the country and prevented another attack.

This obnoxious tactic of constantly carping about an issue, causing it to become unworkable, and then saying it doesn't work, is also on display in the capital punishment debate. Ideologues will tell us the death penalty doesn't work, while doing everything in their power to see to it that it fails. Murderers sit on Death Row for an average of 14 years because of a liberal justice system that allows them appeal after appeal. Most die of old age before they ever pay for their crimes. If convicted murderers were taken directly from the courtroom to the gas chamber, it would suddenly become a better deterrent for the next person with homicide on the mind. But, as in the war debate, abolutists will throw every obstacle in the path of the death penalty debate, cause it to appear ineffective and then say it doesn't work.

Thanks to these bleeding hearts, those who have been victimized by criminals become victims again when they sit through trial and appeal after appeal, with no hope of receiving justice for the pain inflicted upon them and their families. Then, in the rare occasion, when a cold-blooded killer is finally about to pay with his/her life, the handwringers are sure to be standing outside the prison decrying the "savagery of state-sponsored execution." I suppose, in their minds, execution is okay if it's not performed by the state, but by the psychopaths prowling around in search of innocent victims.

With people like this to deal with, we can never win a war on terrorism or a war on crime. Just as the criminals know they will have defenders when they get caught, the terrorists know they will have defenders when they pose a threat to our country. It's often been said that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged; but for how long? America was savagely mugged on 9/11 and everyone was united in an effort to keep it from reoccurring. That was before the Democrats decided it would be a good issue to run against this year. What happens next is anyone's guess.

Bob Weir is a former detective sergeant in the New York City Police Department. He is the excutive editor of The News Connection in Highland Village, Texas.


Post a Comment

<< Home