• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A new republican platform

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,675
Reaction score
35,460
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
With all this talk of retaking the republican party, throwing out neo-cons, going back to old conservatism, etc...I got an urge to make this. This is mostly my own views, not necessarily traditional or modern conservatism.

Preamble

The views herein are done with the belief of conservatism above all else. This belief of conservatism can be explained as such. The belief that government intervention in a negative fashion fixes nothing in the long term and often does more harm than good. That government should not strive to aid people in floating through the mire of the lives but instead help to give them a legitimate chance to get out of the muck. That our Nation is only as strong as its ability to defend itself. That Democracy is the most ideal form of government and should be supported, but that such a thing can not artifically be created. That the government is the stewards of our money, not the owners of it. Finally, that traditional American values have helped our national reach the peaks it has arrived but we must not cheery pick those values when they come in conflict, nor back down on our views in regards to the government involvement in lives.

National Security

We live in a world where we are not only faced with traditional conventional enemies but a number of non-conventional ones that we must adapt to.

Defense is the ability to prevent the offense of another prior to the strike. With this in mind, increased funding for our intelligence organizations and a focus in BOTH human and technological intelligence gathering methods. While 100% removal of any threat of attacks is impossible, even if we gave up all liberties, we should strive to minimize and prevent as many as we can without giving up the essential freedoms that we enact such measures to protect. Intelligence law must be maintained to take into account the changes in modern technology and the new challenges they present.

Offensively we should be hesitant to act, but when we act act in full. By acting only when truly provoked we remove the issues with Total War, which is the only true way to avoid needless amount of American Deaths and waste of American Treasure. We should be willing to work with the world community, but not hesistant to act when absolutely needed without their consent. Pre-emptive War should be undertaken only when there is a clear, present, and imment threat upon the United States and even then, only when other avenues have proven faulty.

In regards to the world, we should begin to draw down forces from other countries. We should not do a completely pull out of all bases within the world. Such would be folly as strategically in a world such as this it is in our best interest to have our bases in strategic locations across the globe. However there are a number of areas within the world where we have bases and people that do not need to be there, or do not need to be there at the numbers we presently have.

Government Reform

Government, by and large, has became corrupted and bloated. There is more time seemingly spent worrying about elections than there is serving the people. Votes are cast and bills are drafted in hopes of securing thier seat instead of doing what's best for the country. Senate and Representitve positions should be placed with term limits, to remove career politicians from a system that simply bloats and corrupts them and to return the government into an entity serving the people rather than serving itself.

Government as a whole must be shrunk. This can not be an immediete thing however, with entire agencies being cut overnight, due to the shock to the system. A gradual decrease of the size of government agencies is needed; reducing numbers in redunant areas and utilizing technology to reduce the amount of manpower in others.

Economy

The more money that is with the people the more industrious and active they will be. Tax cuts place money back in the hands of the citizenry, forcing government not to be wasteful and allowing citizens to spur the economy. While those with greater wealth should shoulder more of the burden, it should not be in such a way that is exorbandantly higher.

Heavy regulations of markets and business is deterimental to our economy and should be avoided. When there is necessity or benefit of some type of government intervention it should be in the form of positive, not negative, regulation. Instead of regulations upon a company to produce something to a certain higher standard, provide an incentive should they meet such standard. Rather than raise taxes on a business for forgoing energy saving technologies, give them a break in taxes with that money + 10% having to go towards said technologies. Empower the businesses of America instead of regulate and punish, and they shall strive.

Finally, the world market is a reality and we must not flee from it. At the same time, we must not penalize our American workers and businesses for the standards we impose on them. Countries whose worker standards are at an unacceptable level and whose manufacturing infastructure is significantly outside of the U.S. should be levied a tariff to important into our country and attempting to undercut American companies. Urge international companies to improve upon their standards or invest part of their production facilities into the United States.

Energy

Energy is quickly becoming one of our most important issues, effecting both the Economy and National Security. Incentives should be provided for progress, not just research, in alternative fuels such as solar, wind, nuclear, clean coal, geothermal, and others. Rebates and tax cuts for the development, or use, of alternative energy sources by both private citizens and business should be utlized to spur this direction.

Offshore drilling is a part, but not the whole nor the majority, of the solution. Our need for oil in some capacity shall likely never truly leave this country. Such drilling should be done in conjunction with, not in place of, finding alternative means of energy. Our transportation needs should be moving towards an alternative option of fueld allowing our oil reserves to be used in the coming decades more for the additional oil needs we have.

Environment

It is in all of man's best interest to preseve the environment and conserve our resources. However, we should not do so at the expense of our economy, our national security, or our freedoms. If we believe we can not give up our essential freedoms in exchange for security, then we too must believe we can not give up these freedoms in exchange for the environment. The environment should be protected, but in absence of conclussive and indisputable fact actions should not be taken to force people into actions for the environment that will be detrimental to the economy or our freedoms.

Recycling and conservation should be taught and heavily suggested, as excessive wastefulness and bloat is against conservative ideals. We should seek technologies that improve the quality of our air and water and move towards them. We should continue to strive to protect our national parks and wildlife to such an extent that it does not severely impact other needed aspects of life. Actions to potentialy slow climate change should be encouraged, though not excessively mandated, while research should also be done on how to best adapt should this seeming enivetable occurance comes to pass.

Education

Education is extremely important, as we can not continue to grow as a country without an educated and intelligent new generation. Public funding should go into higher and lower education, aiding the states in this process. Schools should not only teach the most basic of courses or hard facts, but help expose children into a range of topics and to help them learn how to think. Focusing simply on the most basic of facts and standard Math, English, and Science courses we instill in our children a habit of regurgitation and memorization over critical thinking and intelligent reasoning.

Choice is tantamount to successful education. Those parents who wish to enroll students in private schools should be returned a voucher to aid in this enrollment. In hopes of improving education for all, the amount of this voucher should work an an inverse scale, reducing slightly in the total amount as you move up through tax brakets. Increased ability to enter into private schools should drive prices down and increase choice. The reduction of numbers in public schools should additionally increase the effectiveness of such environments as well.

Continual brainstorming of educational changes as we enter into this next century is key. We can not simply rely on the old form factor to suit the needs of this country. Continue to evaluate the public and private school sector to find if there is a better way to perform the duties of education that best servers the people.

Values

Traditional American values are what helped build our country, and they should not be forgotten. Legislation that would remove traditions long held in this country due to a small minority being offended should be faught. Parents should strive to teach and instill American values into their children.

Values however is not the governments place. The federal government should not be used as a vehicle to impose ones values on another. As conservatives we should seek to teach and convince others the benefits of these values so that they may come to share them and live them as well, not force it upon them with the hammer fist of government. While we should fight legislation that further erodes our moral fibers, such as more gratiutous sexual education in schools, we should also not persue legislation that forces our moral values upon others as well, such as abstinence only education. We must recognize that the minority do have rights not to be forcefully infringed upon by the government, yet at the same time fight against the minority attempting to use the government to infringe upon the majority.

If we as conservatives utilize the government as a tool to strong arm our values then we open the pandora's box for the future. We must seek to educate and instill our values on others through our own efforts, both in the community and in the home. But we must also spread the value of personal responsability and freedom from government intervention, and these values we can not teach if we our ignoring them ourselves.

Welfare Programs

Our welfare system must be re-examined and adjusted. It has been decades since they were instilled and yet poverty is still abound. Our current system seeks to allow people to survive horrible conditions by the most minimal margains. This does not address the issue at hand; the condition itself. Our welfare systems must be adjusted to not simply "support" people, but to help to elevate them. Payouts should be linked to progress, not failures. Education should be coupled with any program the government does.

It is in the best interest of all to have some sort of social welfare programs, but this is only if it helps enable and improve those on it. If our social programs do nothing but help them survive a miserable situation while never exiting it then we do not only a disservice to them, but to the general publics interest as well.

Social Security is broken. It is almost universally accepted it can not continue on the current path. The money from Social Security can no longer be considered just additional government funds. We must work to a position of either privatized Social Security or a seperate, untouchable, saved fund. We, as Americans, can not continue to put Social Security on the back burner and it must be the first and foremost issue that is worked upon and solved before any other at this point.


Alright, enough rambling by me. Comment if you wish
 
Last edited:
All good but, where does abortion fit? I wouldn't think it would fit under "values" as it is not a "value issue".
 
Sounds very similar to Mccain.com.
 
Ultimately I believe it is a state issue, as I believe most conservatives should feel.

I believe trying to make abortion a core principle however of your platform is going to be an issue in any national campaign because it should be a state issue and its such a divisive thing at such a national level.

I believe that abortions should not be a common thing, I think there should be in no way government funding for them, but at the same time I am not for an outright banning...espicially at a national level. I believe that while all fetus's have the potential for life, that it is hard to truly call it life till its within this world breathing and surviving on its own. For instance, should we charge a women manslaughter if they happen to be doing an activity early in a pregnancy or before knowing she's pregnant if it ends up causing a miscarriage? Its a tricky situation. Personally, I'm against it save for instances of reported rape or the life of the mother at risk and even then only in the early trimesters. But ultimately I believe this MUST be a state issue, not a federal one, and as such should not be a focus point of a national campaign save for in the vein of strict constructionist supreme court justices that would likely overturn Roe v. Wade.
 
Sounds very similar to Mccain.com.

Sadly, not very similar to McCain.RealLife.

He's by no means strong on Immigration which this would push for. He is not for a drawing down of military forces the world over. He's been in favor of further punative regulations on businesses. He's been in favor of regulations that would force people or businesses into actions to help with the environment. He's not really came out in any significant way in fighting against those fighting to legislate away American values, only simply seeming to fight when people try to legislate for them.

There are some similarities...he is a republican....but there are some notable differences as well. I also won't proclaim to be the most "extreme" in my right wing views, though I am far more right wing in my application of said views than many in the republican party are in modern days.

As a note, I left out Health Care because frankly I am not learned enough on the situation to give a truly decent suggestion on how to fix the issue as I'm not fully aware of all the myraid of issues.
 
Sadly, not very similar to McCain.RealLife.

He's by no means strong on Immigration which this would push for. He is not for a drawing down of military forces the world over. He's been in favor of further punative regulations on businesses. He's been in favor of regulations that would force people or businesses into actions to help with the environment. He's not really came out in any significant way in fighting against those fighting to legislate away American values, only simply seeming to fight when people try to legislate for them.

There are some similarities...he is a republican....but there are some notable differences as well. I also won't proclaim to be the most "extreme" in my right wing views, though I am far more right wing in my application of said views than many in the republican party are in modern days.

As a note, I left out Health Care because frankly I am not learned enough on the situation to give a truly decent suggestion on how to fix the issue as I'm not fully aware of all the myraid of issues.

All very thoughtful as versus Iriemon's idiotic snide. Besides that, while Mccain.com does offer "Good Food. Better Life" trying to make a smart-azz swipe at another poster with it really just came across as dumb-azzed.:doh
 
Ultimately I believe it is a state issue, as I believe most conservatives should feel.

I believe trying to make abortion a core principle however of your platform is going to be an issue in any national campaign because it should be a state issue and its such a divisive thing at such a national level.

I believe that abortions should not be a common thing, I think there should be in no way government funding for them, but at the same time I am not for an outright banning...espicially at a national level. I believe that while all fetus's have the potential for life, that it is hard to truly call it life till its within this world breathing and surviving on its own. For instance, should we charge a women manslaughter if they happen to be doing an activity early in a pregnancy or before knowing she's pregnant if it ends up causing a miscarriage? Its a tricky situation. Personally, I'm against it save for instances of reported rape or the life of the mother at risk and even then only in the early trimesters. But ultimately I believe this MUST be a state issue, not a federal one, and as such should not be a focus point of a national campaign save for in the vein of strict constructionist supreme court justices that would likely overturn Roe v. Wade.

I believe abortions should not be a common thing also. I disagree with you about government funding of abortions. I think there should be assistance for cases of rape, incest and health of the mother. period. I also disagree with women having to pay for a "rape kit" to prove their case as Sarah Palin demanded as governor of Alaska.

It is a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy. It is not the governments as the "bible thumpers" would have you believe.
 
Zyphlin, what you said makes a whole lot of sense but my question is; Who in the Republican party will bring this idea forward? Or will it have to be a grassroots upheaval?
 
Sadly, not very similar to McCain.RealLife.

He's by no means strong on Immigration which this would push for. He is not for a drawing down of military forces the world over. He's been in favor of further punative regulations on businesses. He's been in favor of regulations that would force people or businesses into actions to help with the environment. He's not really came out in any significant way in fighting against those fighting to legislate away American values, only simply seeming to fight when people try to legislate for them.

There are some similarities...he is a republican....but there are some notable differences as well. I also won't proclaim to be the most "extreme" in my right wing views, though I am far more right wing in my application of said views than many in the republican party are in modern days.

As a note, I left out Health Care because frankly I am not learned enough on the situation to give a truly decent suggestion on how to fix the issue as I'm not fully aware of all the myraid of issues.

National Security: Be hesitant to act but then act in full. Same.

Government Reform: Shrink Govt cut wasteful spending. Same.

Economy: Cut taxes, avoid excessive regulations, free market. Same.

Energy: Offshore drilling with solar wind nukes and coal. Same.

Environment: Protect it as long as it doesn't hurt the economy. I think that is about the same.

Education: Vouchers. Same.

Values: Maintain traditional American values without over imposing. Sounds similar, maybe McCain was pandering more to the RR.

Welfare: Privatize SS. Same.

What are the significant differences?
 
All very thoughtful as versus Iriemon's idiotic snide. Besides that, while Mccain.com does offer "Good Food. Better Life" trying to make a smart-azz swipe at another poster with it really just came across as dumb-azzed.:doh

Feel free to respond to my post above.
 
What are the significant differences?


McCain feingold, McCain kennedy, Mccain insert liberal.

immigration, abortion (yeah I believe his change), socialist nationalize mortgages, opposed many right proposals. etc etc etc.
 
McCain feingold, McCain kennedy, Mccain insert liberal.

immigration, abortion (yeah I believe his change), socialist nationalize mortgages, opposed many right proposals. etc etc etc.

Those weren't in the OP.
 
Those weren't in the OP.



So what. McCain is a center-right moderate and a compromising appeaser of the left.

I showed significant differences. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalala" is not good debate form. :2wave:
 
So what. McCain is a center-right moderate and a compromising appeaser of the left.

I showed significant differences. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalala" is not good debate form. :2wave:

What is a "center-right moderate"? I never heard that before.

How is McCain appeaser of the left? He sure isn't appeasing the left by supporting Bush policy in Iraq.
 
So what. McCain is a center-right moderate and a compromising appeaser of the left.

I showed significant differences. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalala" is not good debate form. :2wave:

Neither is making posts that have nothing to do with the topic being discussed. :2wave:
 
What is a "center-right moderate"? I never heard that before.

Which one of the three words is giving you trouble?


How is McCain appeaser of the left? He sure isn't appeasing the left by supporting Bush policy in Iraq.



Mccain fiengold, "The maverick", McCain kennedy, etc... I already listed examples.
 
Neither is making posts that have nothing to do with the topic being discussed. :2wave:



Once again Iriemon, you delve the discussion into a little pissing ad hom match.


My post was in response to yours and was indeed on topic.
 
The Heritage foundation was pretty much the ideological think tank behind neo-conservatism (with People for the American Century and the AIPAC), they're lock step with Bush (or possibly, Bush is lock-step with them).
 
no, there's really not.

I used to work for a conservative think tank that will not be named and all I did was research the policy platforms of other conservative think tanks.

I did this all day, every day, for six months.

The Heritage Foundation is Bush and Bush is the Heritage Foundation.

There are conservative think tanks with significant ideological differences. Cato for instance.
 
no, there's really not.

I used to work for a conservative think tank that will not be named and all I did was research the policy platforms of other conservative think tanks.

I did this all day, every day, for six months.

The Heritage Foundation is Bush and Bush is the Heritage Foundation.

There are conservative think tanks with significant ideological differences. Cato for instance.



Cato is more Libertarian, I am a subscriber.

heritage is not for the bush drunken sailor mentality.
 
National Security: Be hesitant to act but then act in full. Same.

Government Reform: Shrink Govt cut wasteful spending. Same.

Economy: Cut taxes, avoid excessive regulations, free market. Same.

Energy: Offshore drilling with solar wind nukes and coal. Same.

Environment: Protect it as long as it doesn't hurt the economy. I think that is about the same.

Education: Vouchers. Same.

Values: Maintain traditional American values without over imposing. Sounds similar, maybe McCain was pandering more to the RR.

Welfare: Privatize SS. Same.

What are the significant differences?


Congratulations. You boiled down the specifics and got to vague generalizations that are for the most part similar between republicans. congratulations. I'm sure I could do the same with Obama and the socialist parties platform if I wanted to. What's your point?

I'm not proposing suddenly that black becomes white, night becomes day, and sound becomings silence for the republican party. You seem to want that to define it as anything different. No surprise coming from one of the sights biggest liberals, but its not practical nor realistic
 
Once again Iriemon, you delve the discussion into a little pissing ad hom match.


My post was in response to yours and was indeed on topic.

Once again hound, you devolve into infantile semantics to try to make a lame point about totally irrelevant things. My post addressed the OP, the proposed Republican platform and identified why I thought it was similar to McCain's. None of which had anything to do with immigration, abortion, or anything else in your post, because they were not in the platform proposed in the OP.

Next smarmy comment?
 
Back
Top Bottom