What’s the Difference Between Democrats And Republicans?
About the Author: The Party of Kennedy is NOT the Party of Pelosi. The Democratic Party has radically degenerated into a socialistic and postmodern perversion of its former place in American political thought. In place of Judeo-Christian values they embrace secular humanism; in place of a strong national defense they embrace a reliance upon internationalism; in place of a strong family they embrace a radical abortion agenda that increasingly includes outright infanticide.
I can't sit idly by and watch the culture war pass me by. It is time to choose sides. As Joshua 24:15 puts it, "choose this day whom you will serve."
Polls have shown that the more committed one is to (any) religious belief, the more conservative one tends to be politically. One’s views toward religion profoundly affect one’s commitment to political, social, and moral issues. In my articles, I seek to argue in favor of a religion-friendly view of culture, morality, and politics. Read more from this authorWhat’s the difference between Democrats and Republicans? A lot of people are pretty apolitical and frankly don’t know a lot about the two parties. I am a conservative and a Republican, but I would like to try to provide at least the accurate essence of what Democrats believe in before offering the Republican counter.
I understand that many people are not particularly involved in politics until major elections. It is not a matter of ignorance, but rather a matter of being occupied with raising children and running households. When an election rolls around, many people want to make the right decisions for themselves and for their country, but become bogged down in a morass of partisan claims and counter-claims.
The truth is, Democrats and Republicans differ on nearly everything today. But let me focus on three major categories - social policy, domestic policy, and foreign policy - and try to describe a few key differences.
Social policy: This includes attitudes toward religion and to what extent traditional morality should be followed, encouraged, or legislated.
First of all, understand that Republicans and Democrats are largely split between religious lines:
U.S. voters are split along religious lines
Nov 30, 2003 by Steven Thomma Knight Ridder Newspapers
DES MOINES, Iowa — Want to know how Americans will vote next Election Day? Watch what they do the weekend before.
If they attend religious services regularly, they probably will vote Republican by a 2-1 margin. If they never go, they likely will vote Democratic by a 2-1 margin.
This relatively new fault line in American life is a major reason the country is politically polarized. And the division is likely to continue or even grow in 2004.
A new poll by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center For The People & The Press this fall confirmed that the gap remains; voters who frequently attend religious services tilt 63-37 percent to Bush, and those who never attend lean 62-38 percent toward Democrats.
“We now have the widest gap we have ever had between Republicans and Democrats,” said Andy Kohut, the director of the Pew survey.
“It’s THE most powerful predictor of party ID and partisan voting intention,” said Thomas Mann, a political scholar at the Brookings Institution, a center-left Washington research center. “And in a society that values religion as much as (this one), when there are high levels of religious belief and commitment and practice, that’s significant.”
It doesn’t matter whether one is a Protestant, a Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim, or a Hindu; the more often one goes to religious services, the more likely one is to vote Republican. And the less religious one is, the more likely one is to vote Democrat.
It is appropriate to introduce here the concepts of “conservatism” and “liberalism.” Conservatives overwhelmingly tend to vote Republican, and believe in traditional religious, moral, and family values. The key word here is “traditional”; conservatives want to “conserve” our traditions. They would believe strongly in an idea traditionally ascribed to Alexis de Tocqueville: “America is great because she is good, and If America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” Liberals, on the other hand, vote almost exclusively Democrat, and believe that morals and values evolve and change over time, and that society should be “progressive” to suit the times. A key quote might be, “When in Rome, do as the Romans,” with the view that ethics is not about fixed morays, but rather about how most people happen to behave.
With this in mind, we can begin to understand why Democrats strongly favor gay rights, homosexual marriage, and abortion. And we can understand why Republicans tend to condemn these things. The Judeo-Christian ethic that condemns these and other “choices” and “lifestyles” simply is not as relevant to Democrats as it is to Republicans.
As a conservative, I believe in the Bible, and in biblical morality. I also believe in the wisdom of founding fathers such as John Quincy Adams, who said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Before I move on, I want to emphasize that I am not attempting to claim that all Democrats are “godless,” or even that all Democrats are “liberal.” I am simply pointing out the documented fact that poll after poll has revealed that Democrats as a whole are considerably less religious than Republicans, and that certain views logically follow from that. Even religious Democrats tend to take a more “progressive” view on many issues than the more traditional-minded conservatives.
Domestic Policy: here I will talk about two issues - the role of judges and the role of government in society, especially economic policy.
I mention judges because - for both political parties - a President’s appointment of judges (especially in the Supreme Court, but also the many federal judges) are THE most significant aspect of a President’s power. Interestingly, the very fact that judges ARE so important itself underscores a crucial difference between Democrats and Republicans.
I think a passage from the Article Three Society provides an excellent comparison. Democrats strongly favor activist judges, such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Republicans favor originalist judges, such as Antonin Scalia:
The battle over the courts, at its core, is how to look at the Constitution. An activist judge would say that the Constitution is a “living document”. This, of course gives judges the opportunity to define this incredible document anyway they see fit and to “breath into it” any new “rights” that they see fit to install. Further, they see their role limited only by the boundries of their imaginations. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg remarked to a gathering of the American Society of International Law, “The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification.” A truly activist view!
An originalist, on the other hand, looks at the Constitution with awe and respect. He or she has read the federalists’ papers and other supporting documentation and understands that our rights are from God and therefore are unchanging. Further, any decisions made in regard to legislation is in light of the Founders’ original intent. Robert Bork stated that this way of thinking “appeals to a common sense of what judges’ roles ought to be in a properly functioning constitutional democracy. Judges are not to overturn the will of the legislative majorities absent a violation of a constitutional right, as those rights were understood by the framers.”
Let me provide a little more context for the thinking of judicial activists.
One of the great activist judges of the modern era, Justice Thurgood Marshall, said:
I cannot accept this invitation, for I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever “fixed” at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the Framers particularly profound.
And with that view toward both the founding fathers and the Constitution they framed, his judicial philosophy was basically:
You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.
And the attitude of Justice Marshall is similar to other activists judges, such as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, to this day. She believes that:
… a too strict jurisprudence of the framers’ original intent seems to me unworkable.
Thomas Jefferson, a founding father, took a decidedly different view:
“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign
within themselves.”
Our current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, agreeing with Jefferson, said:
“I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That’s the oath.”
And Edwin Meese III, President Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General, said:
“The American people will never be able to regain democratic self government - and thus shape public policy - until we curb activist judges.”
Thus the divide between Democrats and Republicans on the role of judges. Those who want changes - particularly sweeping and radical changes - in our nation’s social policy far more swiftly than could ever occur in our legislature favor judicial activists and support Democrats. Those who believe that Congress wisely and deliberately limited the role of the judicial branch, and that the people should decide matters such as abortion, gay rights, etcetera, favor originalist judges and support Republicans.
Allow me to provide a word of warning before moving on: there’s an enormous downside to judicial activism, as Scalia pointed out in a debate with the ACLU’s Nadine Strossen:
Scalia, a leading conservative voice on the high court, sparred in a one-hour televised debate with American Civil Liberties Union president Nadine Strossen. He said unelected judges have no place deciding politically charged questions when the Constitution is silent on those issues.
Arguing that liberal judges in the past improperly established new political rights such as abortion, Scalia warned, “Someday, you’re going to get a very conservative Supreme Court and regret that approach.”
His point was that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. And a “right wing” court, taking its cue from a “left wing” judicial philosophy, could impose their will on the country with the same impunity as liberal justices have held for decades in imposing sweeping social changes. The only thing keeping conservatives from doing so is their commitment to the originalism that judicial activists repudiate.
Moving on to the role of government in society, especially economic policy, the difference is readily understood thus: Democrats tend to favor big government, with large social support structures (such as welfare) and bureaucracies intended to administer those services, and Republicans favor limited, smaller government, with funding going to the state and local levels rather than to the federal government.
Republicans have generally believed that the free market was the best way to build a solid economy, and that people should be allowed to keep most of what they earned. Democrats believed a big government-directed economy was the best way to guarantee the economic security of the most helpless people in society, and believe that the rich should be required to pay a higher percentage of their wealth than less affluent people. This is the progressive tax code. Republicans, believing that it is the rich who create wealth with their investment and their businesses, favor a tax code that does not “unduly penalize” the rich for their hard work and success. Democrats, believing that the rich are more fortunate, and therefore should be required to be more generous in order to fund big government social support structures, favor a tax code that “makes the rich pay their fair share.”
Frankly, the more a person desires to work hard, earn a good living, and keep what he or she earns, the more likely he or she is to vote Republican. The more a person wants to ensure that he or she have a government-provided safety net should he or she fail, the more likely he or she is to vote Democrat. It isn’t that conservatives are callous regarding the poor and needy; in fact, they tend to be considerably more generous than liberals with their personal finances. But they do not believe that their assets should be seized by out-of-control government and then have their money largely wasted on inefficient bureaucracies.
Allow me to state a few realities about taxes and the economy from a decidedly Republican perspective. First of all, under the current Bush tax cuts, the top 50% of income earners will pay 97% of the tax burden. The bottom 50% of income earners will pay only 3% of taxes. And the the bottom 45% of income earners will actually pay 0% of the federal tax burden. Further, the richest 1.3 million tax-filers — those Americans with adjusted gross incomes of more than $365,000 in 2005 — paid more income tax than all of the 66 million American tax filers below the median in income. Ten times more. It is simply a myth that the rich are not “paying their fair share.” They are paying a great deal.
Furthermore, lower tax rates not only create more total revenue for the government by rewarding investment rather than penalizing it, but it even results in the wealthier paying a greater actual percentage of their wealth than a higher tax rate would:
Lower tax rates have be so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase.
Democrats and Republicans have very different ideas about building the nation’s economy and providing for its citizens. Democrats want to ensure that people have access to government support structures; Republicans want to ensure that people have access to jobs. By mandating high tax rates that often serve to penalize investment and limit capital, by having legislation that imposes burdensome restrictions and requirements, by imposing “global warming” environmental mandates, by doing little to restrict frivolous lawsuits, and by working to make it easier to unionize and harder for businesses to resist unionization, it is quite possible that Democrats are causing the very thing no one wants: corporations to “export jobs” or even to relocate overseas.
Currently, the United States has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. Even many Democrats are increasingly beginning to realize that the tax rates businesses face in the U.S. are way out of step with our major economic competitors.
Finally, Democrats and Republicans differ on Foreign Policy. If there are tendencies to excess, the Democrats tend to verge on weakening the military and engage in a policy of appeasement, and the Republicans tend to support an overly powerful military and engage in a policy of force.
Democrats want to work primarily through the United Nations; Republicans distrust and even mock the U.N. as an instrument of global socialism that has never once resolved a significant crisis.
Democrats view our standing in the “global community” as paramount and are willing to negotiate and compromise with the “international community” toward “resolution”; Republicans prefer to form key alliances based on trust and mutual cooperation and only work with the larger international community when they believe they can obtain the results most beneficial to American national interests.
Republicans favor a larger and more powerful military as both a deterrent and as a “negotiation asset” (i.e., “Speak softly and carry a big stick”); Democrats favor using money Republicans would put into the military and instead direct it into social programs while relying on international cooperation and consensus for security.
Democrats favor treating international terrorism and Islamic jihadism as criminal acts that depend far more on the police than upon the military for resolution, believing that the U.S. itself is responsible for creating much of the terrorism. Republicans believe that international terrorism and Islamic jihadism represent a threat to our culture and demand that we fight against using every resource available. And Republicans see increasing international weakness, appeasement, apathy, and nihilism, rather than American imperialism, as the chief causes of terror.
Democrats would be quick to point to Iraq as an example of everything that is wrong with the Republican approach to foreign policy, but it is important to point out that Democrats played a significant role in the Iraq war as well. For example, 60% of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate voted to pass the Iraq War Resolution, and the war authorization actually passed in both the House and Senate by wider margins than did the 1991 Gulf War Resolution. And an examination of quotations compiled by Freedom Agenda reveals that Democrats were every bit as determined as Republicans to force Saddam Hussein to open his regime to weapons inspections or be overthrown by force. Republicans would argue that the real question isn’t why the Republicans went so wrong in Iraq, but rather why the Democrats demonstrated so much weakness and betrayal of their previous commitments.
While this does not necessarily demonstrate that Republicans are in the right as regarding foreign policy and Democrats in the wrong, it is worth mentioning that current and former veterans support Republicans over Democrats by a 56% to a 34% margin, according to Gallup, continuing a long-time support for Republicans among veterans.
So there you have it. There are many enormous differences between Republicans and Democrats, and they ultimate come down to differences in priorities and differences in values. I hope that this has enabled readers to better understand both parties and what they stand for, so they can vote for their candidates accordingly.
As a conservative, I did not present the Democrat’s case. Let them do that themselves. But I did attempt, in pointing out the differences, to fairly and accurately represent the view that typifies the Democratic Party.
There are other issues. Democrats tend to believe in man-caused global warming; while Republicans view this notion skeptically. And, partially as a consequence of their stance on global warming, many Democrats oppose any significant increase in domestic oil production, while Republicans believe that increasing domestic oil production is the only viable path toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil while we search for practical alternative energy sources. Again, a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats ultimately believe it is up to the government to decide and “set” energy policy, while Republicans believe that the free market would be in a much better position to create better and cheaper energy if the government would just quit meddling and get out of the way.
it is n’t true,when you say if you don’t go to church you vote for Democrats, and if you go church you vote for Republicans. i go church 2 day’s a week, and i vote for democrat. i can’t believe you say that. i am catholic and i don’t miss any mass even when i go to different state for vacation i go to church. and my family go to church every day.
God is the most important in my life and my family’s.
God bless you all
Well, first of all, I don’t say what you say I said. What I do is provide an article that documents that the less religious one is, the more like one is to be a Democrat, and the more religious one is, the more likely to be a Republican.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20031130/ai_n11427480
But the really interesting thing is that you are this devout Catholic who doesn’t give a damn about what your own pope and your own archbishops say. I find that so crazy-weird.
Me, I believe that when Jesus said, “Let the little children come unto Me,” it wasn’t because He wanted to perform retroactive abortions on them.
You stand for abortion. You have personally voted for the death of 55 million precious innocent human beings, because you vote for the party that has abortion in its platform, and you vote for candidates who promise that they will kill more babies, and keep baby killing legal so that millions more can be killed. And you seem proud to do it as a good Catholic.
Am I really supposed to be impressed with your life of devoutness and faith?
When it comes to abortion, the democrats are pro-choice. There are certain situations like rape. There are so many women who are raped and most rapists don’t bother to use protection which results in pregnancy. In addition to the post-traumatic feelings, the baby would be an ever-lasting reminder of that unfortunate event.
If we did away with abortion, the unwanted children would be put up for adoption or abandoned, leaving millions of children homeless forced to fend for themselves or waiting to be adopted into a loving family, being in the system for months or even years before getting in to a good home. Then what would be on the child’s mind … “who are my real parents and why was I abandoned? … why don’t they love me? … why was I even born?” Not getting those answers eventually results in depression. In acts of not doing well in school, being involved in gangs, using drugs all so that they would feel wanted or to make the pain go away. Most of all, leading to suicide or a lifetime behind bars.
Do you really want to put a child through that depression and that kind of life style? Picture yourself in that child’s shoes. But I doubt you can. Is a lifetime of misery in the best interest of the child? Every single person has their own point of view on this delicate matter. Don’t be so harsh on people who don’t have the same view as you do. You have to see both sides of the story before making a decision.
Just because eri is a democrat, it doesn’t mean she supports abortion.
Allie says,
“Just because eri is a democrat, it doesn’t mean she supports abortion.”
And I say, “Of course it does.”
The official Democratic platform calls for abortion. Virtually every single Democrat is pro-abortion. Her support for the Democratic Party is a vote for its platform. And it is impossible to deny that abortion is a key part of the Democratic Party’s platform.
You can’t just vote for people and then wash your hands over what they do. You become responsible for what they do when you vote for them because YOU put them in the position to do what they did.
Ah, yes, “Pro child, pro choice.” It’s MERCIFUL to kill the babies, lest they be unwanted.
The Nazis had a good term for it: Lebensunwertes Leben - “a life unworthy to be lived.”
We should apply that same relentless logic to the rape victims you talk about: they are suffering. Better that that suffering be ended. We can target the mentally ill - surely they suffer! And homeless people - would you want to live that kind of life? Far better to be euthanized.
It doesn’t matter if innocent human beings are killed in the process. Why should it?
Nor does it matter if what you call for amounts to killing the child for the crimes of the father. Why should it?
Not in the Brave New World we have created. One day - after we have implemented the socialized health care program and begin to come to grips with the shocking costs of budget overruns, we will employ that same relentless logic to the elderly (who consume most of the health care resources while no longer producing). Watch out, grandma and grandpa: because the generation that survived your abortions will come after you!
The wildest estimates are that about 25,000 pregnancies due to rape (a statistic including incest) occur. That’s kind of a drop in the bucket to the average of 1.5 MILLION abortions we’ve averaged every year.
Do you have any idea how many couples wait for YEARS to adopt a baby? Do you know that parents (like some neighbors of mine) are going to countries like China to adopt developmentally disabled children so they can have a precious child?
Abortion has destroyed role of fathers. Men have a flat-out evil obligation imposed upon them by a few JUDGES to stand by while their children are disposed of like garbage. Or they are compelled to support children they don’t want (where’s THEIR reproductive freedom?). Many men have figured that THEY didn’t “father” a child; all they did was supply an ingredient that resulted in a lump of inhuman goo. How are THEY fathers? And they walk away.
You want justice and fairness? Men should be compelled to support their children, and women should be compelled to have their children. To treat babies as garbage to be destroyed is monstrous.
That IS a difference between Republicans and Democrats.
okay..so i was just searching around on the internet and looking at websites that involved the differences between republicans and democrats and i ran across this one.im only 16, and ive never really looked into all this stuff..until my family had an argument that got me real interested..my mom and aunt had been argueing over political stuff..so i wanted to see what all the fuss was about. you see, my mom is a firm republican but my aunt on the other hand…not so much. shes democratic all the way..in fact her husband is a our state representitive of TN or county representative..i dont really know what he is.yea.hes democratic too.and so when i read this i was amazed by the differences between democrats and republicans. and..wow!! is all i have to say! now i understand why my mom is soo republican! my aunt must be crazy!! all democrats are crazy for crying out loud! they want to make us defenseless!! and get rid of God!!! we are supposed to be a nation that is religious!! thats how its been from the beginning! crazy!!….i cant even believe..and btw…i TOTALLY agree with you on pro-life…there is no reason..AT ALL..that a babys life should be taken away..i dont care how the baby was made..rape or not..it deserves to live..and the whole taxes thing is ridiculous too…if i make money..then its mine….im not gonna give you my money just because you are a minority or homeless…why are you taking my money away, THAT I WORKED HARD FOR!, and giving it to the people that arent working………..seriously???????…all i have to say is that you rock mann!! im totally hyed up for a political discussion..thanks :grin:
hi
cindy wills,
Thank you for sharing that. That makes my day.
I was sincerely trying to honestly represent the real differences between Republicans and Democrats. And I think I did that.
There is a comprehensive worldview. If you are a religious person, you believe in individual rights, and individual responsibility. You don’t look to government as savior, and want limited government. You respect innocent human life. You value traditional morality.
Most no longer know it, but the separation of powers came out of Christian theology. The doctrine of sin and human depravity provided the realization that humans with too much power will do evil, and that power must therefore be split up so that one man or agency can have all power. The idea of three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) came from the doctrine of the Trinity; as there was one God in three Persons, so there should be one government in three branches.
So much of the American political experiment in democracy comes from the Judeo-Christian worldview.
And as the foundations for our political experiment are thrown aside, our democracy will surely be thrown aside as well.
As the Bible says in Psalms 33:12, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.”
May God bless both you and your mother.
Hi
thank you so much for this insightful article. i am writing my paper on the differences between democrats and republicans in domestic politics and found this website most helpful. thank you for the help.
What would the USA look like if everybody did as they saw fit? No concern for mankind. Kill, steal, rape, misappropiate funds, rip off billions of dollars, close jobs that feed millions of people. Oh my bad, thats what it looks like today. I was searching to find out what the fundamental differences between the two parties and now I am not sure what to believe. If repubs believe taxes are bad and the demis believe in regulation. The democrats must believe in the perseverance of human kind and the repubs believe in what? The USA is changing every day, more greed is being uncovered daily. I am all for regulation of the activity of mankind through governance. Without it there would be no laws of protection. Lets face it everyone does not follow the Ten Commandments.
If they did there would be no need for keys to lock your things up during the night or during the day for that matter.
I am in search of leaders of principle and they generally seem to be sorely lacking. I think Sarah Palin is potentially such a leader; principled and smart and not from inside Washington or Chicago. That she fought her own party should have been front and center for her, but I think her pick was unexpected and it prevented the campaign staff from building a case for her, so you was swamped by the liberals.
My principles are currently more in alignment with Republicans largely because of the Democrats significant role in precipitating the banking crisis by pushing mortgages on those who could not afford them as part of their stealth affordable housing program, but also because of their adoption of the extremist the Anthropogenic Global Warming hoax.
I truly appreciate your comment, Bhavisha. The reason I wrote this was to educate, rather than indoctrinate. In writing the article, I tried hard to be objective.
Let me respond to Sheila.
Republicans DO believe in lower taxes. It is part of their view toward smaller, more limited government. Government should not be our god, inserting itself into every sphere of human existence; but that is largely what it has become.
As to Democrats favoring more regulation… It might be interesting to Sheila to go back and learn about who fought FOR and who fought AGAINST the regulation of Government Supported Enterprises Fannie and Freddie. In 2002, Bush tried to regulate; Democrats fought against it. In 2005/2006, Bush tried again. Democrats threatened to filibuster. The housing financial disaster very likely would not have happened had Bush got his way. It is unfair and wrong to blame Republicans for being opposed to regulation.
Here’s a hugely relevant quote from Barney Frank from the 2003 Bush attempt to regulate Fannie and Freddie:
”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
So I would argue that what is really at stake is what kind of government we want: do we want a small, limited, streamlined government that does little beyond what the Constitution empowered it to do, or do we want a massive, socialistic bureaucracy above all and over all?
I would also quote John Adams:
“”We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
As we become less and less religious and correspondingly less and less moral, we will need more and more tyrannous government to control an increasingly amoral and corrupt people.
There is a consistency in both positions: conservatives want more God and less government. The idea is that people restrain themselves. Liberals want less God and more government.
===========
Garacka,
Well said. I am NOT a “Republican,” in the sense that I am not committed to a political party. Rather, I am committed to fundamental religious and conservative principles. And your two bogey men are big ones for me, as well!
I thought Sarah Palin - that Katie Couric interview the sole exception - was magnificent. It is too bad she chose to do that interview that day: her son deployed to Iraq THAT DAY, and she just lost her focus. I pray for her and for her family, and hope she is a major player in American national politics. I would love to vote for “President Palin” in 2012!!!