Given that the Republican party is in shambles it's time to redefine "Republican" once again from first principles as someone who believes in a _republican_ (vs., e.g., democratic) form of government. At least, let's start there.
Since this is the kind of government our Constitution explicitly guarantees (and requires of) each state, a Republican is someone who believes in our Consitution's mandated form of government, and wishes to preserve it. In this most basic sense, a Republican can be considered "conservative". The differences between republican and democratic rule involve the layers of indirection that republicanism adds between the elected and the electorate at the higher levels of government. Republicans (small 'r') want more indirection, democrats less. Our founders were mostly 'republicans'. They sought to limit the negative aspects of pure democracy, which they openly derided, by republican means. Republicans (small 'r') believe that history demonstrates time and again the tendency of direct rule to morph into various forms of tyranny--specifically starting off tyranny of the majority, and often ending in dictatorship and oppression. Hugo Chavez is a fresh demonstration of this age-old wisdom, so is Putin; I think Obama will prove to be another. We have (or had) mechanisms in the structure of government to limit the pernicious effects of "majority faction" but these have been largely circumvented by the so-called "traditional two-party system" -- which is entirely extra-constitutional, and virtually guarantees majority faction in all branches of government at any one point in time. More and more the two parties are becoming one---just look how close McCain is to both Hillary and Obama on the big issues. (Incidentally, after much ballyhoo to the contrary, we now know Obama's policy with respect to Iran and Israel is exactly identical to Bush's and McCain's... or at least the policy he outlined yesterday is....) Republicans (small 'r') prefer self-rule over mob-rule and the freedom of states to regulate most of their own affairs, within certain constructs essential to the preservation of union. Democrats want the government to reflect in real-time the exact wishes of the electorate all the way up and down the levels. Republicans believe this makes government unstable---just look how far we're about to swing from one form of majority rule to another. It's hardly conducive to stability. Sadly, in reality, Republicans today represent instead mostly global corporate interests, and Democrats today represent mostly global non-corporate (and anti-corporate) interests. Neither represent American interests, and this is why both the President and Congress have favorability ratings somewhere below that of pond scum. Subconsciously the people know it. Unfortunately, in this condition "we the people" are always looking for a messiah of types to come along, give us a great pep talk about how gosh darn good things are going to be after the next election, and so we have the Obama phenomenon. We are ripe for the next wave of tyranny, to put it mildly. Anyway, getting back to the question at hand, IMHO, that's really all a Republican should believe at a basic level--whatever is in the Constitution and founding documents, including the Bill of Rights and amendments thereto. Everything else is extra-political and should not be a federal issue at all. This includes most social issues and any attempt of the government to control individual freedom, income, and beliefs. Freedom of religion is not to be confused with freedom "from" religion--as democrats, whose religion is politics, often mistakenly assume. It's about individual liberty not abstract notions of "social justice" as some think--these are often Trojan horses for direct democracy and, ultimately, tyranny. As regards the social issues, generally Republicans should allow for different personal views, except for the fact that every single one of these have already been hyper-federalized, and so it gets harder to accept and this is why the party is so fractured. But for the hyper-federalization of every social, moral and personal issue, this would not be a big deal, even to those of us with social opinions that emanate from openly religious convictions. At least, that's my opinion about what Republican means; I could be wrong. :) - Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Stephen Russell > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 9:37 AM > To: ProFox Email List > Subject: Re: [OT] Is Hillary begging for the second slot? > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Michael Madigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > McCain isn't a Republican, > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Please define what a Republican is for me. I would like to know a > definition because the lines seem so blurred over the past 16 years. > > Thanks. > > -- > Stephen Russell > Sr. Production Systems Programmer > Mimeo.com > Memphis TN > > 901.246-0159 > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
