May 29, 2008
The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says "look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don't get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it."
Amazing, what a vile smear of economic conservatism and libertarianism. Hucktard, as he is wont to do, dips into the rhetoric of the left yet again. We constantly hear this slander, that those who want to end big entitlement spending want little old ladies to go without their meds, and children without health care and education. Bullshit. Utter fucking bullshit, and I'm fucking tired of hearing it. It is nothing but a rotten straw man.
Most of those who want to reduce entitlements wish to do so because the government does such as piss poor job of administering them, and think that by eliminating those programs and reducing government spending and regulation, we can better help those who need help.
By ending the government programs, dismantling the criminally wasteful bureaucracy, cutting taxes, cutting spending and deregulating the market, we can give individuals, churches(emphasized since Huck wears his faith on his sleeve), businesses and charities the room they need to not only replace the social program run by the government, but to far outperform it in carrying out those tasks. There is nothing heartless about that, if anything, it is more compassionate than the inefficient big government programs Hucktard advocates.
Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it's not an American message.
If you have a breakdown in the social structure of a community, it's going to result in a more costly government ... police on the streets, prison beds, court costs, alcohol abuse centers, domestic violence shelters, all are very expensive. What's the answer to that? Cut them out? Well, the libertarians say "yes, we shouldn't be funding that stuff." But what you've done then is exacerbate a serious problem in your community. You can take the cops off the streets and just quit funding prison beds. Are your neighborhoods safer? Is it a better place to live? The net result is you have now a bigger problem than you had before.
Yeah, where does the breakdown in community and family come from? GOVERNMENT! Government has done more to destroy the social fabric of a community than any other force in the nation. In the past, we built much bonds with our communities and families because we had to, we didn't have a massive government that took over responses every problem in the community. Congrats Mike, you fucking dunce, you're trying to cure an illness by treating the symptoms, not the root cause.
This is something the social conservatives, and the religious right in particular need to understand, when they seek to use government to enact their policies, they just undermine themselves. They might not like that people are free to reject their views, but the alternative is much, much worse.
If the religious right and people like Mike Huckabee think they will successfully usurp government as a means to use it as a bludgeon to enforce their worldview, they will not only fail, but they may give the left what it needs to push us into a Marxist system where they will find their lifestyle, culture, values and beliefs under siege in ways they thought they'd never see in the United States, and all of us who value our liberty may be dragged down with them. Mike Huckabee and his big Nanny State government is bad news, and the religious right is going to be led to ruin if they follow his lead.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at
07:12 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 668 words, total size 5 kb.
Posted by: Rosetta at May 29, 2008 08:09 PM (SOUOR)
This is into headdesk territory.
Unfortunately, I don't have any cool graphic to illustrate.
Posted by: kishnevi at May 29, 2008 08:38 PM (Mcbdi)
Posted by: alexthechick at May 29, 2008 08:50 PM (VwWW3)
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at May 29, 2008 09:06 PM (1Ug6U)
Posted by: leoncaruthers at May 29, 2008 09:07 PM (JSO4h)
Yep, and we've gotta be ready for it, and offer an alternate vision.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at May 29, 2008 09:13 PM (ZuzXA)
This is a perfect example of what I was talking about the other day ... the fracturing of the two main parties. Huck and Santorum are Christian Democrats ... they're still in the GOP for convenience only. Or, the GOP is no longer a conservative party.
Either way, I despise everything this fuckhead stands for. The GOP can embrace this crap if they wish and lose my vote forever, while I look for politicians (or a new party) I can support.
Huck offers a nearly identical version of politics as Hillary, just with extra added religion. Is America ready to go the socialist route? I hope not, but in the restructuring of American politics, a Hillary/Huck type coalition could be very powerful.
Posted by: Hermit Dave at May 29, 2008 10:03 PM (Tk5HT)
I'm just saying is all.
Posted by: Sean M. at May 30, 2008 03:59 AM (e6v7s)
Posted by: S. Weasel at May 30, 2008 06:35 AM (rasT+)
Posted by: Joseph at May 30, 2008 10:59 AM (ni/US)
Not the omg oh noes graphic, scroll on down past the links, just above the tip jar. Normally I'd just link the graphic, but I like this guy's blog.
Gabriel, what are you basing Huckabee being out of the running for VP on? Not that I doubt you, I'm just very behind on my reading right now. I'm wondering how the heck he justifies the (R) by his name.
Posted by: Alice H at May 30, 2008 07:13 PM (jRtPb)
Posted by: doubleplusundead at May 30, 2008 08:33 PM (ZuzXA)
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
