Worried Yet?

  • national debt

« Hippos Are Cuter Than Rinos | Main | Constitution Day Money Bomb for Justin Amash »



Just can't shake that militaristic world view. Looks like the republicans will have to wander in the wilderness some more.

The only thing necessary for this country's demise is a lack of COMPLETE small-government ideology. War is the health of the state (Bourne). DeMint drinks to its health.

I seriously doubt that Ron Paul will turn Jimbo around on foreign policy - especially if he sees plenty of votes for himself and his endorsed candidates. They'll be more apt to believe that the voters still want the war(s). Best to keep labeling him and others like him as neocons until they withdraw their support for interventionism.

And I might be missing the latest news, but has DeMint mentioned any of our lost liberties to be reinstated? Neither side seems to be talking about that much, if at all. What good is fixing an economy only to be slaves within it?

I tend to think that DeMint is angling towards senate majority leader. I think that is his main focus. I truly think he wants small domestic government but a large military.

A big 'defense department' is very much the thinking in the GOP and will take a little while to evolve away, if ever. I suspect economic realities will alter our view of the military more than ideology.

The thought of having a useful resistance in the US Senate to at least some big government is encouraging. If we can only stop government growth (not even shrink it) in the next few years that would be a victory. Then you work towards shrinkage.

Small domestic government w/big military was the cry of Reagan Republicans. What's really being asked is for the rhetoric to be coupled with a way to continue buying votes. And if you have the political leverage to stop the growth, what's to prevent you from shrinking government?

The baby step formula has never worked, has it? All it takes is for those elected to declare their interpretation of the voters intent. And they have always declared, post election, that the people want government to grow. This is why a cabinet position has never been done away with; why we have more bureaucracy than ever.

I truly feel that if a candidate is not principled in both foreign and domestic ideology, then the third party option should be played.

TypePad HTML Email
Of course when was the last time a 3rd Party candidate was elected?  And what percentage of the voting population “gets” the foreign policy side of things?  I’d have to dig a little for data, but I’ll bet there is a significant percentage that is all for smaller domestic government while maintaining a robust international/military posture.  You and I (and others reading this) understand the inconsistency of that visa vis smaller domestic government, but most people are able to separate those things in their mind quite nicely.  We’re a long way from getting any sort of governing majority who believes as we do on both the domestic and foreign policy fronts.  The question is, are we willing to exclude anyone who believes differently than we do on foreign policy—even though we’re very similar on domestic policy—at the expense of losing both sides?  Everyone’s going to have to make that decision for themselves, I guess.  But I’ll bet this isn’t the last time we’ll be talking about it on this site in the next year or so…


Thanks for linking to my article and your insight. I'm not just saying that because you agreed with me on most of what I wrote either. :)



The comments to this entry are closed.

Follow Us On Facebook!

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter