Andrew writes, citing another: “You quote Olsen writing “Mr. Huckabee offers the Republican Party a new political narrative, light years removed from the limited government principles governing the GOP in the Reagan and post-Reagan era.” This would be funny if it weren’t so sad. As a small government fiscal conservative I’m amazed that someone as knowledgeable as Mr. Olsen could write such nonsense. Under Bush and his congressional enablers we got Medicare Part-D, The 2005 Transportation Act, No Child left Behind, an explosion of earmarks, intervention in the Schiavo case, the ongoing scandal and waste of the Ag bills and on and on. Really what part of this represents “Limited Government” in the post-Reagan era? The fact that he borrowed instead of taxed to do it does not make this fiscal conservative happy, that’s just taxing a future generation. Huckabee is a kinder gentler Bush III.”
Let me try this one more time, not to convince you Andrew, but for others who aren’t bored out of their socks by this.
The Senate voted unanimously or near unanimously in the Schiavo case, Andrew, as did most of the House, to pass legislation authorizing federal courts to review the state’s court decision – something that is routinely granted in capital cases without legislation from Congress. I don’t want to argue, endlessly, the Schiavo case again, but it does not prove your point. I am glad they did and wrote so at the time. Furthermore, it is preposterous to argue, with little more in your case, that evidence of the Republican party turning into a European Christian Democrat-style party can be found in the party’s spending. By such reasoning, maybe it’s becoming a socialist party. Maybe the Rockefeller wing has finally prevailed. Maybe, if, whatever. This proves that Republicans are aping liberals (European and American liberals, I might add.)
And yes, with all due respect (and I mean it), I haven’t conducted a scientific analysis, but your posts seem related mostly to your concern about religion in America. And I think the fact that you found Mr. Olsen’s piece, who won’t go as far as you do, is interesting, but still doesn’t prove the point.
No one denies a religious component to traditional conservatism. No one denies that religion has always played a major role in this country. The Founders in many ways relied on their religious experiences. The abolitionists were largely Christian activists. The civil-rights movement came out of the black churches. And in many ways it remains people of faith, actively participating in their government, that strengthen the moral order of a nation — which Edmund Burke championed and many have since. So, it’s important to be precise in your analysis when you claim the GOP is becoming a European Christian Democratic party based on (as best I can tell): 1. Huckabee winning in Iowa; 2. Republicans spending like secular-progressive liberals; 3. Mr. Olsen’s article.
Okay, Andrew, that was my closing argument, with none to follow. Take care.