Republicans - Then and Now

First, welcome Avatar ADV to A2K.
I know, Cyclops, that you have thought about this topic long and hard before you posted and I look forward to hearing more about the topic.

But right now I pretty much agree with Fishin and am skeptical about your theory. But I am willing to listen.

In the meantime, however, I just wanted to clarify that the thrust of my argument does not revolve around Norquist's quote at all; it was merely the seed where the discussion began.

Instead, I believe that the 'Trust me' form of government, the belief in a strong and overpowering executive branch, the lack of oversight - many of these are new things to Republicanism, at least as I understand it. Issues such as Nation Building, once eschewed by Republicans, are now embraced. Medicare part D, embraced. Gigantic increases in gov't spending under Republican rule, embraced. Either there has been a change in the nature of the party, or the party has been full of hot air on a lot of issues for a long time.

The reason I believe the 'cult of personality' comes into the modern age of Republican politics also has a lot to do with the turmoil of the 90's, the disgust many social conservatives and religious folk felt for Clinton's lies and indecency in the WH, the hotly contested 2000 election and, most of all, the fear they felt on 9/11 - all of these steps have added up over time to create a certain tension in the mind of the loyal Bush supporter.

I'd wager the issue of abortion wasn't mentioned in any Republican Party Platform until at least the 1960s.

Beyond that, some of you examples listed aren't changes but, IMO, your perception of recent events biased by your own political views. The Unitary Executive concept has been around and had it's limits pushed (by Presidents of both parties), even if it hasn't used that term, since the start of the country so to say that it is "new" is misleading at best.

To say the Medicare Part D is "embraced" is simple willful ignorance. If it were true that the plan was "embraced", you and your fellow "Progressives" wouldn't have any compaints about the system that was passed into law would you? And yet... so many still complain about it.

The Democrats had been pushing for a Medicare Drug Plan for better than 10 years (first introduced in the House in 1993). The legislation that created Medicare Part D wasn't passed in 2003 because it was "embraced". It passed because the Democrats had scared senior citizens enough that there was a public outcry for it and what passed was an appeasment out of political necessity. As you might recall the plan was roundly panned in the press and, at the time, many Republicans balked at voting for it because they thought te price tag was to high. They became even less enamored with it when they found out that the actual price tag was going to be much higher than what they had been told when they voted for the bill. Selctive memory doesn't benefit you. You mentioned several of these same items yourself 3 years ago right here on A2K.

Quote:

The reason I believe the 'cult of personality' comes into the modern age of Republican politics also has a lot to do with the turmoil of the 90's, the disgust many social conservatives and religious folk felt for Clinton's lies and indecency in the WH, the hotly contested 2000 election and, most of all, the fear they felt on 9/11 - all of these steps have added up over time to create a certain tension in the mind of the loyal Bush supporter.

Well, here you go off the tracks. To begin with, the "Cult of Personality" stupidity is just that. Look up the the theory means if you are going to try to use the term. Just because Paul Krugman uses it on occassion doesn't mean that it fits. Anyone that says that they honestly believe there is a cult of personality with Bush while he's in office with a mid-30 something approval rating and he's being clobbered in pretty much every paper in the country (if not world) is delusional. The concept could possibily be applied to JFK, Reagan or Clinton but trying to claim that it is applied to Bush is just pure fantasy. The term has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of your paragraph here at all.

I enjoy discussion, and welcome any and all views; but I disagree with your premise that I am off base.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I enjoy discussion, and welcome any and all views; but I disagree with your premise that I am off base.

I don't understand the "but" in this sentence. If people don't believe their respective correspondents are off base, what is there to discuss?

Fine -- then by all means, do debate the issue. What makes you think there is a cult of personality around Bush, in a sense that Democrats don't have a personality cult about Clinton or Kennedy, or Republicans don't have a cult about Reagan?

Do you believe that there is a greater emphasis on a strong Executive authority amongst Republicans than there used to be?

Conservatives for the Constitution

Just imagine if one of the leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination endorsed this radical agenda:

• End the use of military commissions to prosecute crimes.

• Prohibit the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by torture.

• Prohibit the detention of American citizens as enemy combatants without proof.

• Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien combatants.

• End National Security Agency warrantless wiretapping.

• Empower Congress to challenge presidential signing statements.

• Bar executive use of the state secret privilege to deny justice.

• Prohibit the President from collaborating with foreign governments to kidnap, detain of torture persons abroad.

• Amend the Espionage Act to permit journalists to report on classified national security matters without threat of persecution.

• Prohibit of the labeling of groups or individuals in the U.S. as global terrorists based on secret evidence.

Of course, it is difficult to conceive of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or even the somewhat more Constitutionally-courageous John Edwards going to such extremes.

They are, above all, cautious candidates. They don't want to be accused of getting too serious about maintaining the basic underpinnings of the Republic.

Only the nuttiest of radicals who ask that candidates for president would ask that candidates for nation's top job to start talking about the notion that the lawless presidency of George W. Bush has created a Constitutional crisis.

So what left-wing cabal is promoting the above assault on the executives excesses of the Bush administration?

The group that's advancing this so-called "American Freedom Agenda" is chaired by Bruce Fein, a former Nixon administration aide who served as deputy attorney general under President Reagan and who helped to formulate some of the serious -- pre-blue dress -- arguments for impeaching Bill Clinton. Fein is joined by former Georgia Republican Congressman Bob Barr, veteran conservative fund-raiser Richard Viguerie and David Keene, the former aide to Bob Dole who for many years has served as chairman of the American Conservative Union.

What gives? How come conservatives are taking the lead in the fight to restore basic Constitutional protections?

"The most conservative principles of the Constitution have been repeatedly violated in the last several years," says Fein. "[The] Founding Fathers engrafted a system of checks and review of one branch by another -- a system of due process safeguards against injustice that is likely to occur because of prejudice and fear. And those checks and balances have eroded enormously over the last several years, particularly since 9/11."

Viguerie is even blunter, suggesting that "a constitutional crisis... has developed to alarming proportion under President George W. Bush."

Rejecting the suggestion that conservatives must remain silent because Bush is supposedly one of their own, Viguerie says, "Conservatives must not fail to oppose the massive expansion of presidential powers out of fear they will be aid and comfort to the Left. Concern about one branch of government acquiring excessive power should not be the providence of liberals, moderates, or conservatives. It must be the concern of all Americans who value liberty…"

Barr echoes that view, arguing that, "[We]" cannot sit by and wait thirty years for court decisions. We cannot wait until another four-year election cycle is concluded to have the Bill of Rights restored and defended."

The American Freedom Agenda campaign is the vehicle that these conservatives have established, with a self-described twofold mission: "the enactment of a cluster of statutes that would restore the Constitution's checks and balances as enshrined by the Founding Fathers; and, making the subject a staple of political campaigns and of foremost concern to Members of Congress and to voters and educators. Especially since 9/11, the executive branch has chronically usurped legislative or judicial power, and has repeatedly claimed that the President is the law. The constitutional grievances against the White House are chilling, reminiscent of the kingly abuses that provoked the Declaration of Independence."

The agenda was launched two weeks ago. So far, one candidate has expressed support it: Texas Congressman Ron Paul, the libertarian Republican who explains that: "[They] say that the executive branch is always hungry. That's why it's up to the people, up to the congress to reign in the power of the executive branch."

Paul's right to sign on. The question now is whether any Democratic presidential contenders will join him in doing so.

The restoration of the Constitution's system of checks and balances ought not be a project of the left or right. It ought to be something that every presidential candidate can endorse. And, for Democrats, the American Freedom Agenda initiative creates a perfect opportunity to do the right thing with "political cover." After all, if Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards were to express support for the restoring the system of checks and balances and undoing the damage done to the Constitution during the Bush years, they tell the Democratic strategists who constantly counsel ideological caution: "Don't worry, I'm not taking any risks. I'm just making like the conservatives."

The American Freedom Agenda's (AFA) mission is twofold: the enactment of a cluster of statutes that would restore the Constitution's checks and balances as enshrined by the Founding Fathers; and, making the subject a staple of political campaigns and of foremost concern to Members of Congress and to voters and educators. Especially since 9/11, the executive branch has chronically usurped legislative or judicial power, and repeatedly claims that the President is the law. The constitutional grievances against the White House are chilling, reminiscent of the kingly abuses that provoked the Declaration of Independence.