Eight years ago, Republicans called for the elimination of the Department of Education in their platform. Four years later, the Republican Party nominee called education his number one priority. He made good on his word in making the No Child Left Behind Act the first bill he pushed Congress to pass. Now--nearly four years after Bush's assault on the conservative principle that education funding should be left to the states and localities--the president announces that in the next few months the federal government will spend $9 billion dollars, in large part, to build schools...in Iraq.

Such is the regression of the Republican Party. One could track a similar rollback from conservative principles by the Republicans in health spending, campaign finance reform, nation building, farm subsidies, and other important issues. Big government used to be the enemy--when Democrats controlled big government.

America has a Republican president. Seven of the nine members of the Supreme Court were appointed by Republicans. Republicans outnumber Democrats 51 to 48 in the Senate, and 229 to 205 in the House of Representatives. All three branches of government are in the control of the Republican Party.

The nadir of conservatism paradoxically coincides with the apex of the Republican Party. Are the two occurrences related?

republicans have realized that consercatism is a regressive ideology that no one in thier right mind would vote for. They therefore have to steal liberal ideals just to get elected. That, combined with thier massive amount of cash, explains why Republicans control the country. It's not about democracy. You know you people should read the Economist sometimes. That's the British conervative newsweekely. They just ran an covere editorial on how undemocratic America is. Get educated you conservative losers! You're totally brainwashed!

I am very impressed that the Brits understand our domestic policy better than we do. I quite enjoy your posts to try and make us see "your light". Thank you for educating me DB. You smug twit. England has a much more severe class crisis than the U.S and a parliment that thinks and acts the world revolves around them. Throw in a monarchy that is a complete farce and you have yourself government in complete disarray.

DB, you are not a prisoner of fate...but a prisoner of your own mind.

If "consercatism is a regressive ideology that no one in thier (sic) right mind would vote for" then why should we read the Economist which you rightly call a "conservative" newsweekly?

Anyway, the two phenomena do coincide Dan b/c the GOP has for a long while (since early 80's) been in the midst of a quiet realignment where traditional conservatives were forced out and the liberal Republicans came to dominance. The rise of the neocons and their big government progressivist ideology are a huge part of the story.

You should read the Economist because it's version of conercatism is far more rational and humane than the American "It's time to burn gay people at the stake" version. you could lean something.

The problem that I see is that a lot of Republicans have adopted too many liberal ideals and its murdering true Conservatism.

Contrary to what the loony libs on these and other pages think, Conservatism is not Right Wing religious fanaticism but is a political philosophy based on fiscal and social common sense.

The Neocons have opted in as Republicans but do not share the true Conservative truths.

Unfortunately, our current occupant of the White House thinks more like a Neocon than a traditional Conservative.

This should make most of the not too far left leaning liberals happy. But, it doesn’t seem to.

Nothing short of the George McGovern in the WH will have them smiling. Kerry may be the closet thing they got to that.

That’s why it would be very scary for this country if he got there.

Please save our civilization while we still can. Come with me and join H.A.G.A.S. Humans Against Gays and Sodomy. We only have one life and one exit. Don't let anyone tell you different.

It's Hegelian in nature: the Neoconservatives were the one faction which the Left treated with a modicum of respect. The Neoconservatives were allowed to be the right wing of Liberalism. But anyone to their right, was simply outside reasonable discourse -- racists, nativists, reactionaries, fundamentalists, etc.

No bird can fly with only one wing. Liberalism has two wings. One we all know. The other we know as "conservatism."

Education is a good example. As I wrote, "In this issue, as in others, the G.O.P. is functioning rather efficiently as the consolidator of Liberalism in America. The process works this way. First the Left proposes some innovation on our constitution as a people (in this case, near-monopoly, near-mandatory public education). The Right reacts angrily, denouncing the innovation as, in fact, an unnecessary innovation — and not a particularly wise one either. Soon, however, the Right’s anger dissipates, its vigor flags, its opposition diminishes; and finally it acquiesces in the innovation itself. Not long thereafter, acquiescence becomes active support. The Right claims the innovation for its own, and sets to defending it with all the power of tradition and prejudice."

Liberalism's right wing.

I think Warrior said it best when he labeled todays neocons "CON-servatives." Conservative my foot.

Someone in another message board (PBA) said that conservatism was in fact a lack of ideology, but rather deciding issues on fact. I rather like that definition.

Todays people in power are not conservative at all. They are not political leaders, they are corporate raiders. Can you say "no-bid contract," or "corporate welfare disguised as a prescription entitlement?" (That last part is based on the fact that to get the drug plan, Congress had to agree to banning drug imports-making the drug plan a cash cow for pharmaceuticals. These men are not about values, other than power. They throw crumbs to the moderates, et al in order to secure votes. But the big breaks go to those with the most money.

Am I going to vote for Kerry? NO WAY! I need a man with a spine-willing to stand firm. I think that Kerry spends so much time trying to figure out what he thinks I want to hear that he forgets what he wants to say.

I will probably do as I did in 2000, write in Jesse Ventura. He may be a jerk at times, but at least he is honest about it.

Be well,

Sponge

I'll be writing "The Nature Boy" Ric Flair.

http://www.ricflair.com/images/ricprez.jpg