SUPPORTING FISCAL CONSERVATISM

In case there are those that read my previous post (http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2014/04/three-republicans-who-wont-get.html) that may have gotten the opinion that I hate conservatives, I do not hate conservatives and I do support a policy, for example, of balancing the Federal budget over a business cycle (but not annually).  I point out, however, that having a positive cash flow in our government is something we rarely have done.  No Republican has done even this loose balancing since Eisenhower (who had it twice), not Nixon, not Ford, not Reagan, not H.W. Bush, and not H.W. Bush.

In fact I was a Republican up until Barry Goldwater.  After he got the nomination I said to my fellow Republicans at a meeting that now we should all pull together and not just beat up on Rockefeller.  Someone replied that if I was such a Rocky lover, why didn't I become a Democrat?  So I did and have to admit that Democrats have more fun.  Later I was to break from the Democratic Party because I agreed with President Ford's pardoning of Nixon.  The Democrats were setting up to worry the Nixon issue to death, just like Republicans are doing with Benghazi now, and not do any work.

I think that Republicans putting the 1964 Civil Rights Act over the top was their finest hour.  The Act was much broader than just applying to Blacks but included sex, race, and religion as well as color.  Through the leadership of Republican Everett Dirkson, in the end 27 Republican Senators voted for the Senate version of the bill and only 6 against it.  Also 138 Republican Representatives voted for the House version and 34 against whereas 96 Democrats voted against it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964).  Can you imagine that happening today when a comprehensive immigration bill cannot even come to the House floor?

The same might be said for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 when 30 Republican Senators voted for it and only 2 against, 112 Republican Representatives voted for the bill and 24 against (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965).

Of course these bills were in the days when the Solid South was in the Democratic Party and before the Southern Strategy when they switched to the Republican Party.  I consider Dirkson who shepherded both bills through the Senate to be a hero, though he was a supporter of Joe McCarthy and the Vietnam War..  Dirkson is also famous for saying, "A billion dollars here, a billion dollars there and pretty soon you are talking about real money." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_Dirksen)

NO LEAST BAD CHOICE

I think our president is at a loss as to what to do about the use of poison gas in Syria now that the Brits have backed out from any type of military action.  Curiously the news programs don't mention why the President has changed his mind on military action in Syria.  The President definitely has backed off on his call for regime change, for now anyway.  After the Arab League sounding as it they are on board of some punishment of Assad, they have backed off.  The United Nations is not on board.  So it seems like it is just the French and now maybe us to do something about Assad's use of poison gas..

So now it appears like our president has cold feet about his "red line" over the use of poison gas and has turned the matter over to Congress.  Although Technically, poison gas is outlawed in war by the Geneva Protocol of 1925 (not signed by Syria), as if you can make war humane, it overlooks President Reagan's overlooking the poison gas used by Saddam Hussein on several occasions in the Iraq-Iran War and on his own people as well.*  In spite of a stronger prohibition by the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention (also not signed by Syria), most of the world does not seem to care if poison gas is used.

So what will Congress do?  It seems like a limited attack on Syria as punishment may be approved by the Senate, but what about the House? (1)  The House seems to oppose anything the President proposes. (2) There seems to be a drift among Republicans back toward isolationism (led by Rand Paul), something missing since the Solid South of the Democratic Party joined the Republican Party as the Southern Strategy. (3) The President's own party is not keen on an attack. Therefore my guess, and it is only that, is that the House will not approve any action against Syria.  Time will tell.  If this is the case, the prohibitive actions against the use of poison gas against your own people and probably in war in general will be null and void.  As C. Northcote Parkinson once said about the League of Nations, "The buildings of the League of Nations were  finished in 1938 and so was the League of Nations." (Not an exact quote.)

Although there are non-sectarian forces fighting against Assad, the el Qaeda forces seem to be more effective.  I guess the thought is that if there is a regime change, then there will be another war between the non-sectarian forces (Free Syrian Army) and al Qaeda.  And what role will Hesbollah play in such a circumstance?

* (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran); http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/09/01/world/poison-gas-viewed-as-uniquely-horrible/#.UiUT09uF9rw

REPUBLICANS RESIGNED TO BEING MINORITY PARTY?

The core of the Republican Party are the wealthy and business people.  These people are not numerous enough to win elections so the core undertook a Southern Strategy to incorporate a large conservative group that had been the Solid South of the Democratic Party.  This move changed both the Republican and Democratic Parties in many ways, but the Democratic Party became more socially liberal and the Republican Party became more socially conservative.  For example, it was Republicans that put the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over the top (Republicans voted 27 for and 6 against in the Senate; 136 to 35 for the House).*  Even in the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Republicans voted overwhelmingly for the bill (30 to 1 in the Senate and 111 to 20 in the House for the conference Report).**  This change also brought the religious right or so-called Evangelicals into the Republican Party, a group that had a lot of religious fervor.  The Republican Party also attracted many white working class people who viewed initiatives for Blacks, women, and other minorities as being unfair.  This coalition is big but seemingly not large enough to win national elections.

Perhaps the last straw was President Obama not only winning the electoral vote for his second term but the numerical vote as well.  Republicans were primed to fight the election because they were sure that Mitt Romney would win the numerical vote which would seem to be a move to the popular vote rather than electoral votes.  Thus the Republican Party seems to be resigned to being the minority party  and have abandoned a move to the popular vote endeavor.  So what can they do to win major elections?  They already had mastered the art of Gerrymandering congressional (redrawing congressional districts to favor one party) districts to win a sizable majority in the national House of Representatives even though the Democrats received more popular votes.  The Gerrymandering story with the state Senate and Houses have had even more success, if anything.  There was an original move to Gerrymander presidential electoral votes by district rather than state-wide voting, but this attempt has so far been abandoned, for now, by all except Pennsylvania (as of the date of this writing).

Perhaps Republicans can take some solace in that even though there are more Blue States than Red States (20 to 12 in 2012),*** there are 30 Republican governors and only 22 Democratic governors.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 (The vote among the South Representatives was 7 for and 97 against in the original House version.  The South here is the 11 states in the Confederate States of America during the Civil War.)
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act
888 http://www.gallup.com/poll/160175/blue-states-outnumber-red-states.aspx

THE AMERICAN SOUTH AND WAR

The American South has a tendency to be very war-like. They not only were eager to start the Civil War, but, when the political Solid South was a part of the Democratic party, it was the Democratic Party that was the war party (WW-I, WW-II, Korea, early Vietnam). The Republican Party had an isolationist bent, and there were those who even opposed America’s involvement in WW-II. Then the Republicans adopted their Southern Strategy and lured the Solid South into the Republican Party, after which the Republican Party has become the war party (escalation of Vietnam, Lybia bombing, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq; I do not count Reagan’s Granada War as it was a joke. At least Reagan found someone we could beat.).


Now it seems there may be the beginnings of a rift in the Republican Party and an isolationist group of mainly northern Republicans seems to be raising their heads: Pat Buchanan has been an isolationist for a long time and George Will has opposed the Afghanistan war beginning with the last presidential election. Some others seemingly against the Afghanistan War are: Michael Steele, Michelle Bachman, Liz Cheney, and Ann Coulter, though one or more may really be in favor of the Afghanistan war (e.g. especially Michael Steele according to some) and are just using public opposition to the war as an election ploy to be used against the Obama regime and congressional Democrats. But they also seem to be adopting a conservative opposition to big government which has been missing for a long, long time in the Republican Party. Reagan never came close to balancing a budget, nor did Bush-41 or Bush 43. In fact if they could get tax cuts, primarily for the wealthy, they seemed to be happy with any resulting Federal deficits. After all Republicans pushed though two wars that they never tried to pay for, massive tax cuts primarily for the wealthy that they never paid for, and an increase in the large drugs benefit package that they never paid for. In fact, Bush-43 urged people to go out an shop after the disaster of 9-11-2001.

Personally, I have no opposition to these Republican’s claim that Afghanistan has become Obama’s war. It is very nice that several Republicans have come out and said that it is America’s war. But the Obama administration’s major escalation of the Afghanistan War shifts the "ownership" of the war to him. There is no sign the Democratic base favors this escalation, quite the contrary. But if the Afghanistan War should be successful and Afghanistan become a stable country that doesn’t harbor terrorists, then Obama also will deserve the credit