Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Re: Not gloating - work to do!!


welcome to a2k, fedusa.

the conservative right has controlled congress since what, '94? the congress and the whitehouse since 2001.

it's all but 2005, shouldn't america have been back on the "straight path" a long time ago?

Welcome Federalist, now there are at least two Federalists in the world. Eventually the Federalist Party will be reborn and rise to reclaim its rightful place in American politics. Up with Washington, and down with that Jacobin Jefferson and all his heirs.

Well, DTOM......we should all offer our endless gratitude to Bill Clinton and the Dem's eight years, don'tcha think?

Thanks to them, Kosovo is no longer a threat to our country.

yeah! we should! 8 years of prosperity and relative peace. bill even recognized the danger of al qaida and tried to bomb osama's cave lovin' ass.

and thank's to their willingness to back the nato mission in kosovo, the ethnic cleansing was stopped.

look, jw. i do not have a problem with the u.s. stepping up to help countries or people that are in trouble and want & appreciate our help. if bush had said ( after we finished the whole job in afghanistan), "hey saddam's a murderous tyrant, let's all get together and get rid of him", maybe, just maybe, i would have supported it. why not? i supported gulf I.

but the administration bull$hitted everybody about the weapons of mass destruction. and continued to do so even after enough doubts were raised and reported that a responsible leadership would have stepped back and checked the intelligence again. neither saddam or iraq was going to vanish from the earth in the space of a few weeks, months whatever.

but that's not what they did.

Asherman and FederalistUSA:

Why is it that so many people who term themselves "Federalists" tend to lean towards the modern Republican Party? Off course, I realize that Democrats are technically the historical heirs to the Jeffersonian Republicans, and that the modern Republican Party finds their historical roots in some of the leftover Federalists (e.g. Daniel Webster and his crowd). However, aside from a historical coincidence, I doubt that the Democratic Party is the true heir to the agrarian, libertarian ideals of the Jeffersonians. At the same time, I find it hard to place Republicans close to a movement of urban elitists, all of whom favored centralization.

My best guess is that modern "federalists" identify with the concept of "federalism," as per the Constitutional doctrine typified by the now defunct National League of Cities v. Usery. Of course, this concept isn't a true descendent of historical Federalists of the Hamilton/Marshall kind. It is the antithesis of that movement. Marshall was no strict constructionist, and Hamilton certainly didn't favor the enlargement of state powers or the restriction of Federal powers. Then again, for all their rhetoric, it appears as if the Jeffersonians also didn't favor much of a reduction in the federal government. After all, Jefferson gave us the Louisiana Purchase.

Of the early presidents, I would say that the closest thing to a modern Republican is actually Andrew Jackson. Jackson (1) favored a reduction in the Federal government (by destroying the Bank of America); (2) found much of his support in the rural and southern populace; and (3) set himself against the northern, urban, academic elite. None of the Federalists even remotely fit this bill.

That said, modern Democrats are an even harder group to peg. As far as I can tell, there isn't much of a central theme to the Democratic Party. Back when they found their roots in populism, they better fit the bill of Jacksonians than Republicans of the previous era. Now it's quite unclear; the Democratic Party seems a bit lost.

<By the way, I ask this question without any sarcasm. I'm genuinely interested in the perceived ties between the modern "Right" and the Federalists of yesteryear.>

i agree with you sreppenwolf. i find it difficult to recognize either the republican or democratic parties of today as the parties that i grew up with.

which is why i left one, did not join the other and refuse to change my libertarian registration.

btw, i don't mean that i grew up with jefferson or jackson... i'm not that old...

While there is appeal to the Federalist philosophy, I pretty much consider myself a Jeffersonian Democrat; I'm pretty big on State's Rights, limited and clearly defined Federal authority, the preservation of rural life from the predations of urbanites, and individual liberty tempered with responsibility to the community. Sorry, Asherman - but I just never could get behind the Whig platform :wink:

ahh, now i see it.. timber. we are on very similar pages.

Oh, I know. And, believe it or not, so is Asherman. Not exactly the same paragraph on the same page, but real close together in the same chapter of the same book.

Yes, Timber knows me well.

I'm a registered Republican because it's values over the last decade or so most nearly parallel those of the Federalists. Pure Federalists? Nope, nor would I like a return to the Federalism that existed in 1795. The Founders had hoped for a government without partisan party politics. Washington tried to form a government of the best, most public spirited and skilled men available, regardless of their political philosophy. He got an obstructionist Jefferson at constant war with Hamilton. Adams and Hamilton hoped to maintain a government sans political parties by passage of the Sedition Act which required that anti-government publications be "true". Well, that went seriously wrong from the start and provided the ammunition that the Jeffersonians needed to build a strong opposition party. The Federalists of the late 18th century thought that they were above catering to public opinion, and with a little help from Hamilton, lost to the Jefferson and Burr in 1800.

Jefferson also envisioned a one party State governed by those who held his own philosophy of government, and it was just as arrogant and exclusionary as the prior Federalists had been. Jackson's schism from the Democratic-Republicans, it seems to me, was the beginning of the modern Democratic Party. The philosophy was individualistic, and favored State over Federal government. The remaining Federalists became allied with the Republican wing of the disintegrating Democratic-Republicans to form the Whigs. The Whigs favored a strong central government that aggressively undertook internal improvements. They were strong in the North and on the frontier. Lincoln was a Whig, and the first Republican President. The Democrats were strong for State's Rights, and non-interference of the Federal government in citizen affairs.

After the Civil War the Democratic Party was shattered at the national level, but retained an iron hold over the South. Both national parties had to find election by an appeal to the political center, and both Republican and Democratic Parties integrated many Jeffersonian principles into their planks. "The Government that governs least, governs best", was almost universally adopted. Jeffersonian antipathy toward maintaining an effective standing army became almost an article of faith in both parties. The Democratic Party appealed, as it had traditionally done, to the property-less poor, while the Republican Party found increasing strength among those of property and wealth (the traditional base of the Federalists). The Republican Party also benefited from decades of conservative opinions from the Supreme Court that favored wealth and property, though it strongly constrained Federal powers. Both Parties became ever more "populist" as the 19th century wore on, and in 1913 the XVII Amendment made the Senate much more responsive to popular feeling. Democrats regained national power thereafter, always appealing to the masses and opposing Federal power. That was the horn that gored poor old Herbert Hoover.

FDR, a Democrat, catered to the popular demand for Federal assistance to combat the Great Depression and Dust Bowl, by proposing a wide array of social programs most of which were un-Constitutional. FDR didn't necessarily want "Big Government", but he did want the sort of effective Federal government that the Federalists designed for. The only way to cater to the masses was to shift away from the traditional philosophy of the Jacksonian/Jeffersonians. The result was a large, central government that spent huge sums for social programs. The Republican Party, still favored strong central government but decried the expenditures and growth of government as it intruded into the lives of private citizens. The Democrats have become ever more attached to the idea that the Federal government should spend endlessly for social ideals, but dislikes generally the use of Federal attention to the military, foreign affairs, and the economy where it isn't clearly dedicated to transferring the wealth from those who have to the those who don't.

Over the last couple of hundred years the political philosophy of both Parties has evolved, sometimes shifted direction by almost 180 degrees. Both modern Parties contain elements of both Federalist and Jeffersonian philosophy. Both are perhaps more Jeffersonian than Federalist.

Here's what I'd like to see in a modern political party. A strong central Federal government that has as its highest priority those responsibilities clearly enumerated in the Constitution. That is, to maintain a strong, effective and credible military establishment to protect the nation, and extend back its diplomatic initiatives in the larger world. To maintain a sound currency, and encourage steady economic grown. Collection of taxes and revenues sufficient to provide full government services, and not a penny more. The Federal government should only with great reluctance become involved in the internal government of the individual States, and even more reluctant to interfere with individual liberties during times of peace. Issues like abortion and marriage are not in my view Federal, and should be left to the States and individual citizens. Deficit spending should be limited to the costs of waging war, and maintaining a stable economy without unreasonable inflation. Social programs that can't be paid for out of current revenues should be cut to the bone, with the possible exceptions of Social Security and Medicare. If individual States want to pursue social programs, let them do it from State revenues. The Federal government was designed to govern the nation through a system of representation, checks and balances. It was not intended to regulate every waking moment of every citizen's life, much less guarantee that every dream come true.

The nation needs two parties, so that there is always opposition as a check to any single group or philosophy becoming so entrenched that it loses sight of what is best for the nation as a whole. The rotation of government between the fundamental Federalist philosophy the Jeffersonian populist ideals has served us in good stead. I don't expect that the Federalist Party will be reborn, but the conservative nature of the Republican party will do. I come of a long line of Jacksonian Democrats, but by the Carter Administration was found that I was increasingly more in agreement with the Republican Party than the Democrats. Clinton was the last straw, and all over the South and Texas my Democratic ancestors rolled in their graves as I shifted my registration to meet my conscience.

Aha -- the mystery of Asherman is revealed! While I agree with your historical points, I see the present and the future a little bit differently.

I don't know that my comments had anything to do with my opinions as to present circumstances, or the alternate futures that might result.

I'm glad that radical Islamic terrorists are expending their limited blood and munitions in Iraq, rather than in New York. The enemy can not afford for Iraq to be a self-governing entity where terrorists are unwelcome. They must prevent popular elections and a government that places the material well-being of the Iraqi People above radical Islamic idealism. They can not afford to lose experienced troops and leadership at current rates for a long period of time. New recruits will be increasingly less skilled and with fewer resources available to commit terrorist acts. Keeping the pressure up and "staying the course" will, I'm confident, lead to eventual victory in Iraq, and greater security elsewhere in the world.

The strong leadership of this administration has sent a very positive message to other would-be bad actors. Kim Jong-Il and Iran must today be much more careful of how they behave. Warnings issued by this President get serious attention, where the posturing of earlier Presidents often was little more than a joke. It's nice to have a President who says clearly exactly what he means, and unflinchingly acts on his beliefs even though it may be unpopular with many people. I really do believe that the United States is safer and more secure today than it was on 9/11, or than it was prior to putting our troops on Iraqi soil.

I disagree with expansion of Federal controls over every conceivable part of our lives. Let the Federal government leave the schools to local school boards. Let State legislatures pass whatever laws they wish to manage abortion or the marriage licenses, within the scope of the Constitution. I like a very independant Supreme Court willing to thumb its noses at the Executive Branch, the Congress, State governments, and every other interest group in the land. There are enough laws on the books without expanding them ad infinitum. Individuals rise by taking risks, and risks insure that many will fail ... sometimes repeatedly. However, so long as individuals can reasonably dream of procuring great wealth and property for themselves and their children, the nation will remain strong and vibrant. Take away the dream, reward the indolent and imprudent at the expense of industry and initiative and we are headed in a bad direction.

The Federalists and the Constitution recognize that often individuals and interest groups place self-interest above the larger good. Men are not angels, and anyone can be tempted into the greed for power. The Founders provided for checks and balances for government, but they also recognized that perhaps the greatest danger for the nation lay in the majority, especially if the majority behaved like a mob driven by emotions rather than reason.

Why would anyone believe that a truck driver who never finished high school, and whose main interests are football and beer, has the same level of judgement regarding international treaties as a member of Congress whose job it is to stay on top of such matters? Does a crowd of demonstrators driven by the slanders of M. Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 know better how to manage our foreign affairs than the State Department? Since when does the Pacifist Movement have better military judgement than career officers? Oh, they all are entitled to their opinion and even have a civic duty to make their opinion known. Partisans of the opposition should try to persuade the electorate to switch their opinions and votes. That is to be expected and encouraged. On the other hand it makes much more sense to me that we support the policies of our elected government (of whichever Party) over the nation's sworn enemies. Its time we stopped automatically assuming the worst of all public servants, most of them are able men and women who do the very best they can to serve the nation's needs. We may dislike the person or disagree with the policy, but we should honor the dictates of the electorate. The People choose their own representatives, and the representatives then do the best they can to carryout the mandate of the People. Sometimes representatives don't vote for policies their constituents want (remember Gore's daddy voting against the segregation his constituents wanted to perpetuate?). He did what he thought best, and it was for the people's own good, but he lost his seat in the next election. Ah, I do love people of conscience and courage.

Makes a difference, doesn't it? I mean, the government having been back under adult supervision for the last four years.

oh, well.. at least we're all three of us in the same section.

yep, gunga... granpa dicky has been telling the young whelp just how things oughta be done.

okay. i'm going to try to make that my last smart ass comment to you for the rest of the year. hell, maybe even longer !

i don't practice "christmas" as a christian holiday ( yeah. i know. how does that work?? ), but every year, i take 3 or 4 weeks off from all the contentious jive and try to spread the good will that extra little bit.

so, gunga, happy holidays dude!

This is why I love the Electoral College. George W. Bush has proven twice that he can win the White House, without winning any of the following states- New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Illinois, California, Washington state. The President has effectively established with his re-election victory that you don't have to win a big metropolitan state in order to win the election. Now, granted the end result is still a very close one- both victories in the Electoral College were fairly close.

But, the wonderful thing about the system is that if you win everything else, you're money. The country folk in Alabama and all the other rural states are enough to balance out the yuppies in Los Angeles and NYC. It's a great testament to the system's wonder.

Oddly, no state cast more votes for President Bush than California, 5,114,795 to be exact. Texas came in second with 4,518,491. Yet under the state's winner-take-all system, John Kerry got all 55 electoral votes.

If apportioned as a percentage of the vote, Kerry would have gotten 30 votes and Bush 25.

I'm not a believer in allocating electoral votes based on the winner of congressional district or based on percentage of the vote in a given state. Because then, Al Gore would have been President on 9/11/01.

I agree. The electoral college is there for a reason, and won't be changed in our lifetime. I just love the fact that over 5 million Californians preferred Bush, LOL.

The election in 00 was close only by dint of massive fraud on the part of the democrats and it's not even clear that Algor won the popular vote then. They stopped counting in California, remember?