Repudiating Republicanism...

Aside from your political views, cyclops, do you believe there is such a thing as cycles in nations, such that they rise and fall? Not only that, do you recognize the importance of the culture that causes those nations to rise and fall?

And, you're RIGHT to not be sure!

Noone knows where we are going. That's the beauty of it. That's the evolution of our society.

You are correct that we have undergone a steady, liberalizing influence during our brief tenure as a Nation. You are incorrect that this is a bad thing.

Cycloptichorn

"This brings me to the first point on which the conservative and the liberal dispositions differ radically. As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers, one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such,[5] while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead. There would not be much to object to if the conservatives merely disliked too rapid change in institutions and public policy; here the case for caution and slow process is indeed strong. But the conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind. In looking forward, they lack the faith in the spontaneous forces of adjustment which makes the liberal accept changes without apprehension, even though he does not know how the necessary adaptations will be brought about. It is, indeed, part of the liberal attitude to assume that, especially in the economic field, the self-regulating forces of the market will somehow bring about the required adjustments to new conditions, although no one can foretell how they will do this in a particular instance. There is perhaps no single factor contributing so much to people's frequent reluctance to let the market work as their inability to conceive how some necessary balance, between demand and supply, between exports and imports, or the like, will be brought about without deliberate control. The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change "orderly."

Eisenhower had many bad ideas, and he was a poor president (as were a number of presidents who were previously generals). He was probably the laziest president, spending an inordinate amount of time on the golf course. He accomplished next to nothing.

Reagan was a horrible president, bringing in the supply-side economics that is now dragging the country down. There was some small economic success, but that was fueled by massive deficit government spending. BTW, please spare us the crap that he defeated communism. Communism defeated itself.

Republican presidents in the modern era have been a disaster.

He was responsible for the horrible mess that was Nam.... .

Consider the difference. Ike's basic experience regarding WW-II was winning it.

JFK's basic experience was being out in a little motor torpedo boat and getting run over by a destroyer which he claimed not to have seen.....

Cycloptichorn wrote:

And, you're RIGHT to not be sure!

Noone knows where we are going. That's the beauty of it. That's the evolution of our society.

You are correct that we have undergone a steady, liberalizing influence during our brief tenure as a Nation. You are incorrect that this is a bad thing.

Cycloptichorn

That is the kernel of what FA Hayek states from his essay "Why I am not a Conservative"

Quote:

"This brings me to the first point on which the conservative and the liberal dispositions differ radically. As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers, one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such,[5] while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead. There would not be much to object to if the conservatives merely disliked too rapid change in institutions and public policy; here the case for caution and slow process is indeed strong. But the conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind. In looking forward, they lack the faith in the spontaneous forces of adjustment which makes the liberal accept changes without apprehension, even though he does not know how the necessary adaptations will be brought about. It is, indeed, part of the liberal attitude to assume that, especially in the economic field, the self-regulating forces of the market will somehow bring about the required adjustments to new conditions, although no one can foretell how they will do this in a particular instance. There is perhaps no single factor contributing so much to people's frequent reluctance to let the market work as their inability to conceive how some necessary balance, between demand and supply, between exports and imports, or the like, will be brought about without deliberate control. The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change "orderly."

http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46

gungasnake wrote:

Consider the difference. Ike's basic experience regarding WW-II was winning it.

JFK's basic experience was being out in a little motor torpedo boat and getting run over by a destroyer which he claimed not to have seen.....

Totally brilliant analysis, perhaps you should write a book. I can think of 3 people right here on a2k that would run out and buy it. (fortunately, none of the 3 can read but they could chew the covers)

Eisenhower had many bad ideas, and he was a poor president (as were a number of presidents who were previously generals). He was probably the laziest president, spending an inordinate amount of time on the golf course. He accomplished next to nothing.

Reagan was a horrible president, bringing in the supply-side economics that is now dragging the country down. There was some small economic success, but that was fueled by massive deficit government spending. BTW, please spare us the crap that he defeated communism. Communism defeated itself.

Republican presidents in the modern era have been a disaster.

One of the reasons Ike was a good president is he spent more time on the golf course and less time proposing worthless new government programs.

You are not suited for governance if you believe that the job of government is counterproductive to the mission of our nation, sorry. Saying that a president who didn't do his job, makes him a good president, is truly asinine.