If you're NOT a Republican

I am a Canadian with social responsibility, a democratic socialist,a citizen of the world and frankly, I have voted conservative all my Canadian life, but not republican. If I were American, I would prolly be a democrat, well, maybe,,,,I doubt if I wold ever vote republican unless Barry Goldwater was running.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Labels are sometimes misleading.

I am undeniably conservative, but have never been a Republican.

 

Libertarian. Voted C.P., this cycle.

 

Constitutional Party (Baldwin - Castle 2008)

I'm tired of the GOP's continued pandering to us during election season, and then dropping us like a hot potato once they've got our votes.

The victory of the Democrats over the GOP in the Legislative--and now the Executive--Branch(es) may be the best thing that's happened to the truely "fiscal AND social" conservatives in a long time.

I wish all those "in authority over us" well and pray that God will continue to keep the USA as "one nation, under God, indvisible, with liberty, and justice for all."

But, at the same time, I'm hoping that those among will continue to do what POTUS #40 reminded us to do: "TRUST, BUT VERIFY."

 

Constitutional Party (Baldwin - Castle 2008)

 

Democrat!!

 

I don't like either one. Both are pathetic. I would hate to be identified with either party. But, I will have to say that I find the democratic party to be more reprehensible. Baby killing, global warming worship, homosexual pandering, and socialism don't set well with me. And, the Republicans pandering to the democrats , abandoning the constitution, etc don't set well either.

 

The following article by columnist Holmes Alexander was published 30 or more years ago. It presents the best definition of true Conservative philosophy that I have read. It represents the philosophy that I hold. Even with all its faults the Republican Party best represents this philosophy among the two major parties. I am, therefore, a Republican.

OldRegular

‘The Bobbs-Merrill Company, book publishers of the American Heritage Series, have acted better late than never in recognizing the conservative movement that has been booming along for nearly two decades now. The Heritage Series has previously put out books on the New Left and Black Nationalism, agrarian revolt and civil disobedience, literary radicalism and the libertarian theory, and now "belatedly," as the editors admit, they have made William Buckley the collector and commentator of an anthology called "Did You Ever See a Dream Walking” which gives excerpts from the writings of 25 conservative authors.

As might be expected, the best passages in the volume are those written by Bill Buckley himself. You won't find here any thumbnail definition of conservatism, but will be shown samples of what it is, and be warned away from what it is not. The samplings show that conservatism, among much else, is a form of non violent dissent against — well, materialism, statism, godlessness, immorality.

Conservatism has a lot to do with free enterprise, little to do with Big Business. Conservatism is a discipline, and thus the enemy of permissiveness It is law-and-order, but not repression. It is good manners and social responsibility, but it has few rules — stops short of maudlin pity for the poor and the minorities. It regards Communism as an unmitigated evil, calls Fascism its “illegitimate” brother, and treats Socialism as an obnoxious poor relation of both.

Conservatism is individualism, which is to say, personal freedom. The basic freedom, as Gary Wills writes in this book, is that of the human will. It cannot be killed unless the man himself is killed or reduced to a sub-human condition, as has been done in both ancient and modern times by tyrannous states.

But the individual has an obligation to use his freedom. never to abuse it, as some of our demonstrators of today have abused and debased the freedom of speech.

The ideal state, says the conservative, is one which recognizes that freedom is not given to anybody by his government, but is protected by the laws of the land, as well as by the policeman on the corner. The state, as the conservative sees it, ought to be the servant and the convenience of the free citizen.

The state is not even a leader, or should not be because it always fails in such efforts except in time of war. Dr. Milton Friedman. for example, points out that when the government sets out to help the I poor by passing minimum wage laws, it ends up creating unemployment. The welfare laws have merely perpetuated the poverty and idleness of the supposed beneficiaries. While no conservative could be an anarchist, he would eternally be for a government that is as unobtrusive as possible.

A good many conservatives — two or three in this volume — came to their present beliefs by way of Communism, the god that failed them. Not all of them embraced the Christian religion by way of reaction. As Buckley notes, it is possible for a conservative to disbelieve in a personal God, but it is impossible for a conservative to despise God. The surest synonym, — if there is any — for conservatism is morality. A man cannot be a materialist, or an egocentric, or utterly ruthless, or rudely arrogant and still qualify as a conservative.

Thus in a famous review of "Atlas Shrugged” Whittaker Chambers, then associate editor of the National Review, read Miss Ayn Rand, the author, completely out of the conservative movement. "Out of a lifetime of reading," Chambers wrote, "I can recall no other book in which the tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained." And the National Review itself publicly excommunicated Robert Welch first because the editors found his conspiratorial theories to be unsound, and second because to keep silent about Mr. Welch under the circumstances might seem to give consent to his unsound ideas.

I said that conservatism is a dissent, and you will find in this book that it is a dissent against ideas and persons that attempt to enslave the individual.’

 

I generally vote Libertarian. The Democratic and Republican parties are owned by the same people and it is immaterial who between them is elected. Only thing changes is the names of the tax collectors.

 

Hand raised.

 

Right wing conservative Christian, and soon to cease being a Republican, as I have been for almost 50 years.

 

I don't vote, my freedoms are given to me by my Father.

 

DFo you believe that the Republican administration of the last 8 years represented this policy?

 

I am a Democrat.

 

I am unaffiliated. I generally vote for the person I feel is best for the times.

 

Gina L, I respect the question but any answer you receive may be misleading. For example: In this area one doesn't have any choice to participate in a primary election until the general election, because there is seldom a third party candidate, and more seldom than that...a third party contest in the primary. So a person may not be a party loyalist, but declares their party affiliation nearest the one which they identify as closest to, or least injurous to their ideals, as represented by the two dominant parties.

The reason; The general election is the runoff between all candidates which won the primary election in each of their parties........ and anyone, regardless of registration of party, is free to vote among those running in the generall election. They can split the ticket, and vote for this candidate under this party for this office, and for the next office vote for a different candidate under a different party for that office, and choose independant whenever there's a qualified runner on the ballot. Registering 'Republican' or 'Democrat' does not always indicate party allegiance or loyalty..... but often one chooses one of these major parties to register which is closest to their ideals, as they want to have a chance to participate in the primary selection of front runners in hopes of voting the nearest to their political persuasion and knowing their party registration does not stop a 'voting independant' from working for an independant candidate who is running, whenever there is one, or from working to gain awareness for an independant party or candidate.

One party, the Democrat party, has been strong on loyalty oaths from their candidates, membership, and electors and party representatives..... both for voting and for support, endorsement, and opposition. They follow and closely censor and reprimand their own: Hillary Clinton and her supporters could oppose Obama as long as she was running against him in a contest and neither had a certain front runner position. But once it was clear that Obama would be the front runner, her positon of party loyalty demanded that she and her supporters throw their reservations aside and be loyal Democrats backing the Democrat ticket and an Obama win. Of course, not all Democrats accept the yoke of party allegiance and loyalty...... but few choose to break with the party, and most will not publish their opposition, like Leiberman, because they know the party will find its way to give them grief in their present and future supports...... which most find necessary for winning and for party support for programs when in office.

Personally, and this is imo, the Republican party seems to be the only one of the two major parties which embraces conservative economics, lawful support for morality, religious freedom and expression, and independant thinking: The Democrats try to give the impression of embracing diversity, but a study of the diversity and organizations indicate, they are very effective in manipulating folks which have distinct oppositions to each other through their individual organizations which represent their divided allegiances and goals, but which are politically active in uniting them (through their separate organizations) to the common cause of winning on the Democratic ticket.

An independant, on the other hand, may be independant in their vote and active support only, or independant in their registration. Either way, they are under represented as there is less united support, few running, and difficulty in qualifying for the ballot, and seldom a choice offered of qualitied candidates on a primary ballot. Therefore, to participate in the election process, the choice most independants have is to register either Republican or Democrat and vote for the candidate and idealogy in the primary which best represents their ideals, and then, if given a choice in the general election, choose between the major candidate or an independant..... if one is running.

This last election was all about change, or so so many people thought: They do not realize how much they really have more of the same MO. Neither major party offered real change: The biggest choice was in the area of morality because as far as economic, and socialization goes..... both party hiearchies are essentially on the same page....... after they finish their saber rattling to fool the sheeple into thinking they are different. Already the future presidency is already shaping up like the familiar of what's gone on before. The thing which disturbs me is that so much is in place already...... and as we already see, how organized political difference and moral idealogies are working successfully to cause attacks against people....(Prop 8, California, Mormon org target, Christian org target, Catholic church target)...... is that the laws and the surveillance is already in place to assure that if someone wishes to use and abuse the DHS for political or idealogical purposes to profile dissidents purely for political and ideological purposes, it can be done and there are no assurances that our country has provided its citizens with oversight that such agencies cannot become renegade organizations of powerful leadership to squash oppositions to their policies and agendas.

It is really too bad that those who had choices offered in the major election, saw their options as between the Republican or Democratic Parties.... which was really little choice..... and did not exercise their right to vote their opposition to both when in many states they did have more options. Imo, both hypocritical Republicans and hypocritical Democrats are responsible for the direction of where this nation is heading. Evidentally, it is more important to the masses to follow that which is popular than to do their homework and consider the importance of registering their opposition to both.... even with a vote for a candidate which looses. ......Or, perhaps, I'm too optimistic when I believe most people are really pro-life, against homosexual marriages, conservative in desiring free enterprize and the return to fewer monopolies of industry or corporations instead of state support of captialization to form monopolies and control and squash free commerce and competition by allowing consolidations and control and making this a legally lawful advantage against regulations meant to protect consumer and environment...... and many other ideals which neither party is projecting as a priority interest in the constitution and the government by their citizenry.

 

As far as I know there is one Libertarian member of the House [Ron Paul] and he votes with the Republican. There is one Socialist and one independent in the Senate and they vote with the democrats. I believe the Republican Party best represents my political philosophy between the major parties and I will support them in an attempt to stop the socialist agenda of the democrats. I do concede that the Republicans spent like drunken democrats since 2000 and they got kicked out.:love2: