"Lowell C. Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part: >I had thought for some time that the two "sides" were always >shifting--particularly when viewed in terms of party labels. You had >big-government Republicans in the 1920s and small-government Democrats until >after 1932 election when Roosevelt went from running as a small-government >guy to governing as an even bigger-government guy. The Republicans, by >contrast morphed into small-government types until now when it appears that >Republicans are even bigger government types than the Democrats were.
I think the appearance is deceptive. I think there's a temporary discrepancy between the Republican rank-and-file and their elected representatives, especially in fedgov, and that this has been caused by a few factors that've happened to arrive at the same time. One of those factors is the Terror, which has engendered sympathetic spending and a larger security apparatus. Another factor was the desire of the Bush Jr. White House to vindicate Bush Sr. on Iraq (and indirectly further vilify Clinton). A third factor was the need to roll logs with Democrats to accomplish certain things the Republicans had wanted to do for some time, but had been prevented from doing by lack of votes. The price has been increased spending. So if you poll Republicans, they'll have certain things to be satisfied by by their representatives, but they're still for smaller gov't than those reps have been giving them lately. That situation will not remain forever; in particular, I don't think it'll outlast the Bush presidency. In Your Sly Tribe, Robert _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
