Actually I was referring to libertarians and the more libertarian branch of the Republican party, not the ones who run things now.

It’s not that they don’t care for the children. They just care for ideology and the abstract ideal of virtually no government first and foremost. They care about their religious faith in the perfection of the free market system more than the concrete reality represented by those who “put a face” on the real world consequences of those ideals.

Jim,

Your assertion that Republicans are somehow striving toward some “abstract ideal of virtually no government first and foremost” is not bourne out by reality. If your remark were true, then how is it that federal spending exploded under a Republican president and a Republican congress?

I realize that your remark was meant as a criticism of Republicans, but I actually think that your remarks give them too much credit. Your argument is based upon the premise that Republicans actually have a consistent position in favor of smaller government and free market economics.

Expanding the power of the Executive Branch is hardly consistent with smaller government. Supporting a wireless surveillance program that bypasses the need to get a warrant isn’t consistent with smaller government. Waging a half trillion dollar war against a country that didn’t attack us isn’t consistent with smaller government. Supporting the War on Drugs is not consistent with smaller goverment (or with free market economics, for that matter).

This “Republicans want to gut the size of government” versus “Democrats want to expand the size of government” mentality is a myth. Both Republicans and Democrats want to expand the power of goverment–they just do so in different areas.

I cannot support the libertarian ‘no government interference’, position because, IMO, the cicil liberties that calims to promote lies on a false premise.

Some people are too disenfranchized to worry about the finer points of civil liberties. They care more about having the liberty to just survive.

If at the start of a runners’ race, one paicipant has broken legs, he’s not concerned about his liberty to choose to run in a particular lane.

Capitalism or free markets don’t mean much if they’re not rounded out by social justice. jUstice isn’t there just for the taking, Fovernemtn has to proivde it.

You support Dennis Kucinich

might be intended as a condemnation, I urge you and all your readers to take a look at the Lion of Cleveland with fresh eyes. He is the only elected official currently running for President who is not a member of the War Party. Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette said, in 1917

Every nation has its war party. It is not the party of democracy. It is the party of autocracy. It seeks to dominate absolutely. It is commercial, imperialistic, ruthless. It tolerates no opposition. It is just as arrogant, just as despotic, in London, or in Washington, as in Berlin. The American Jingo is twin to the German Junker. . . . If there is no sufficient reason for war, the war party will make war on one pretext, then invent another.

In these dark days for the Republic, I am hopeful that many are beginning to see through the fog of words to the reality of the situation. Dennis IS a menace – to politics as usual. It is politics as usual which got us to where we are now.

It’s not that they don’t care for the children. They just care for ideology and the abstract ideal of virtually no government first and foremost. They care about their religious faith in the perfection of the free market system more than the concrete reality represented by those who “put a face” on the real world consequences of those ideals. The people who started the Iraq war had some strange vision of remolding a part of the world that has a tremendous resistance to change, especially coming from the outside.

Heck, I don’t support the War on Drugs. It’s a waste. My objection is based not only on a “libertarian” view of individual rights but the hard cold fact that the “War on Drugs” is now, has been and always will be a failure. I don’t support the Iraq war not only because it’s been screwed up beyond belief but because the real war we needed to worry about at the time was still taking place in Afghanistan and we’ve seen where taking our eye off the ball there has gotten us. All objections based on the concrete and readily observable, not the blindly ideological.

Yeah but that’s the GOP base.

I hope so.
My worry is that new tecnology in treatment will nourish the sense I get that we are trying to ensure that no one ever dies. That presents a host of serious consequences in itself- philosophically as well as pracitcally and economically.
Death is no longer accepted as a natural consequence of life.

Just something I’ve been pondering. No conclsions to offer, as yet.

Imagine the outcry if Republicans had had a U.S. soldier give a radio address in favor of the war implying that if you don’t support the war, then you don’t support the troops.

I hate the type of politics that says that if you don’t support a certain piece of legislation or government program, you must be a bad person.

If you don’t support gun control, you must be insensitive to gun violence.

If you don’t support the War on Drugs, you must not care whether children do drugs or not.

If you don’t support Social Security, you must not care whether old people have enough money to buy their medicine.

If you don’t support the Iraq War, you must sympathize with Saddam Hussein.

I’ve heard it all before. What I never hear is an honest debate regarding whether the federal government should be doing these things in the first place.