But has there ever been a time when two principled parties clashed in a fight of ideals free from corruption? We have an ideal to strive for and have noticed a measurable decline in the last few decades, but it would be depressing (and unrealistic) to hold ourselves to a time that never existed. Washington was there shooting people at Shays’ Rebellion with the other bureacrats.

Well, anyway, public education is critical to protecting our way of life and our form of government. We’ve got to preserve our “democracy”, duh. Good thing our politicians are smart enough to bail us out when things get rough so we keep our capitalism alive and all that stuff! Thank goodness I learnt civics in my public school or I’d be dumb by now.

I would have been happy to see it stop at #1

Amen, brother, Amen.

Do you feel the urge to channel Peter Finch in the movie “Network”? (1976)

Carborendum, I absolutely love that talk by Benson, and likewise Locke’s works such as social contracts. Just government absolutely derives its powers from the governed. Our current government is absolutely unjust. I don’t care if 90% of the people thought it would be a good idea to pay poor individuals out of taxes.It’s still unjust as you described. I have no power to tell my neighbor he makes too much and must give some up for the poor. Likewise I have no power to tell my neighbor he shouldn’t drink, or smoke marijuana, or run a business out of his home, or any number of things. Yet this is exactly what our government constantly does. It’s so sad really. I have had it up to here, I’m fed up, as connor is, I’m furious! I just wish I could wake up enough others to get the bozos out of office. I’m more angry at my fellow americans who are sheep than I am at the government! Though I reserve plenty of indignation for them as well. Sigh, I’m done ranting.

step 1: a few schools are publicly supplied through land grants, parents pay tuition for these and they’re locally operated and controlled. Majority of education done through private schools/tutors.

step 2: Land Ordinance of 1785 established a reliable way to fund public schooling. Most schools still privately owned and operated.

step 3: normal schools established (1823) to train a teacher workforce

step 4: spread of compulsory attendance laws (first was Massachusetts in 1852, last was Mississippi in 1918)

step 5: By 1870, all elementary public schools became “free” (completely supported through taxation)

step 6: federal department of education signed into law by Jimmy Carter in 1979

step 7: Goals 2000 legislation signed by Clinton in the 1990′s to set goals for standard-based education reform (outcome-based education)

step 8: NCLB signed by Bush coerces states to met standards in order to receive federal funding (which they now greatly rely on)
Federal funding for education increased greatly under this law from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion in 2007

Notice the gradual shift from individual responsibility to government control over education? I would have been happy to see it stop at #3.

http://www.zionsbest.com/proper_role.html

To look at government this way, we must ask: Do I have a right to tell my neighbor that he makes too much money and therefore needs to give me some because I’m so poor? If not, then I cannot give power to a free government if I don’t have the power in the first place.

Just governments derive their power from the governed.

The second way to look at it is through a strict Constitutional authority basis. Under that authority, the federal government has the authority to run a post office and build roads. We’ve had discussions on that before as far as how far that power should extend and what uses . . .

But the Constitution does not grant authority to redistribute wealth through force of government. Nor does it grant authority to pay for individual or universal health care. Such powers would be the province of the States if the state constitutions allow for such a thing. But none do.

The term “socialism” has been thrown around unnecessarily as a scare tactic, especially during the elections. At the same time, it is naive to believe that our nation is not gradually creeping toward more and more socialism, as Connor has defined it (I didn’t see a definition from Jason). So, I think it’s very appropriate to use the term “socialist” to describe many of the programs and proposals in our governments today, but we should be careful not to overuse the term or misapply it. Good discussion, guys.

P.S. I better go get that chip in my windshield fixed; thanks for the reminder, Connor.

It’s vaguely written (in the constitution) how much authority the gov should have over the postal service. What’s the word, “establish”? It has been interpreted differently over the years. Same with the states and education. There has been a gradual increase in authority over education. It’s all about degree.

I think we need to make sure we understand the definition of socialism. What I’m referring to, and what I believe is generally accepted as a proper definition, is the taxation of one people to directly and privately profit another.

You don’t privately profit from a post office or a freeway. Instead, these are services funded by your taxes that are generally available to all for use. I could argue that these aren’t the proper role of government, but that’s beside the point here. I don’t think that they are socialism (though they might be labeled as a “social service”) since the benefit is general and universal, not private. Neither do individuals financially gain from these programs.

COMMUNISM: If you have two cows, you give them to the government and the government sells you some milk.

SOCIALISM: If you have two cows, you give them to the goverenment and the govenrment gives you some milk.

CAPITALISM: If you have two cows, you sell them and buy a bull. Then you sell the bull’s service.

NEW DEALISM: If you have two cows, you shoot one, milk the other, and pour the milk down the drain.

NAZISM: If you have two cows, you do with them what the furer tells you to. And you never let a Jew drink the milk.

I think Jasonthe would refer to the postal system as socialistic, and thus claims that there have been elements of socialism in the republic since the beginning. If the postal system is at all socialistic, then he is right. I’m curious to hear your response to that.

A tiny bit of socialism and the absolute espoused philosophy differ only in magnitude. Call it what you want to soften the blue, but the welfare state (supported by both parties) is at its very core based on the philosophy of socialism.

McCain/Palin tried to run a presidential campaign with the same cheap tactics, and it was like watching a train wreck.

Their train wrecked because (among other reasons), they failed to admit that their party (and their platform) was loaded with the same compromise of principles. Hypocrisy and disingenuousness are readily evidedent, and being unable to stand on a solid base of core values, they fell. And rightly so—as I said earlier, they (and the party) deserved to lose.

…the hybrid we’ve created between free market and regulatory management is the foundation of our economy, one of the most stable in the world (despite what we’re currently experiencing).

You’re really going to argue that a fiat monetary system based on fractional-reserve banking is stable? Stability exists in this system only so long as people have confidence in it.

Regardless, stability shouldn’t be the ideal and goal of an economy, for that introduces all sorts of moral subjectivity—if you want stability, that opens the door for the government to intervene and provide “security and prosperity” for all to enjoy. Problem is, they are nowhere authorized to so intervene, and there lacks any strong moral argument for their economic intervention. Stability might be the result of a health economy, but it should not be its objective.

The redistribution of wealth is a key part of our government, and always have been.

Always has been? Go read a (decent) history book. The redistribution of wealth at the hands of government is a recent invention in American governance.

And does antiquity beget morality? Should we continue to promote a system just because it’s been going on for a few decades? The government has been spying on its citizens for decades as well—should it continue to do so? Would you support your same argument had it been given by Southern slave holders 150 years ago?

Conservatives only notice it on certain inflamatory issues and when they are in the minority. Then it’s all they can prattle on about. And it’s childishly naive.

Wow, now there’s a false blanket statement. First, I would agree that most Republicans cry wolf when they’re in the minority; I said as much in an earlier comment. Second, as I said to Chris in comment #2, you have to define conservatism before referring to it. The word itself is devoid of meaning. And third, others like myself have been noticing it and calling it out on multiple issues of varying degree, and for the past several years as well. Your incorrect accusation of a similar nature on a recent post betrays your myopic brushing with broad strokes.

Ridiculous rhetoric meant only to inflame is a pet peeve of mine.

I don’t mean to inflame, only to assess. I stand by my socialism claim 100%. Again, I invite you to provide a reasoned argument against it; simply stating there is a difference does not make it so. Feel free to write a post on your blog and invite us over for comment.

an actual book on socialism, so that you can better understand what it actually is, and stop using the word wrong

According to wiki (but feel free to let us know where your definition comes from):

Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other

Social interventionism is an action which involves the intervention of a government or an organization in social affairs. Such policies can include provision of charity or social welfare as a means to alleviate social and economic problems of people facing financial difficulties; provision of health care; provision of education; provision of safety regulations for employment and products; delivery of food aid or recovery missions to regions or countries negatively affected by an event; adoption programs; etc.

Benson was right (decades ago) when he said we have traveled far down that path. It has been a gradual process. Both parties are advancing the philosophy and we need to see it for what it is even when it’s one program at a time.

You can find capitalist, socialist, marxist, and anarchist elements in various aspects of our republic… and the hybrid we’ve created between free market and regulatory management is the foundation of our economy, one of the most stable in the world (despite what we’re currently experiencing). The redistribution of wealth is a key part of our government, and always have been. Conservatives only notice it on certain inflamatory issues and when they are in the minority. Then it’s all they can prattle on about. And it’s childishly naive.

That said, I came more to half agree/give input on what is holding the GOP back. I was merely distracted by the trumped up warning cries of “socialism” ending what was to that point a productive post. Ridiculous rhetoric meant only to inflame is a pet peeve of mine. As for the future of the Republican party, I stand by earlier comments and would ad that I hope they pull it back together and return some substance and principle for their reason to exist. 8 years from now, my Democrats will look just as bad if left unchallenged for that length of time.

I lived and worked in Washington D.C. during the 2004 election for the RNC as a TV studio intern (Yes, the RNC has a TV studio). Michale Steele was one of our frequent “talking heads” as he did interviews across the country promoting the ticket. I can’t say that I agree with all of his policies or positions but I do have to mention that there isn’t a nicer guy out there.

We often had “political divas” come through the studio (ahem…Sen. Chuck Grassley) but Steele was always kind, gracious and made time to talk to the lowly intern. On a political level, I’m not sure he was the best choice but on a personal level, I have to admit that I’m happy for him. Best of luck Chairman Steele!

I’m seriously going to start a PAC to fundraise the dough to send every reactionary and paranoid “conservative” out there who calls the Democratic Party ideals socialism an actual book on socialism, so that you can better understand what it actually is, and stop using the word wrong.

I’d love to hear any logic-based, compelling argument that shows how the economic policies of the Democratic Party are not socialistic. I fully understand what the word entails, and any attempt to tax one group of citizens to economically benefit another is socialism, plain and simple. As I’ve said many times before, the Republicans are just as bad in their socialist redistribution of wealth, but it’s the Democrats who flat out champion the welfare state as a utopian ideal.

Chris,

As for the video I see why you think that but to understand a person’s views you need to examine the record not a single statement.

To look at a person’s character, I believe it’s advisable to disregard pretty much anything they say when they’re running for office unless it consistently matches up with the person’s previous actions and statements. Giving a TV interview during his campaign and upon his election hardly shows who Steele is and what he truly believes.

That said, the man very well may have changed his tune and sincerely believes in traditional conservative principles. But that’s easy to do when your president isn’t in your party and you rise to fill the “loyal opposition” seat. Republicans prostituted themselves during the Bush administration, and now all of a sudden they’re taking the moral high ground when Obama is pursuing many of the same policies that Bush did? Please.