GOP - Faux Federalists (The "Any Means To An End" Party)

[Dover]

Does federalism still matter?

By David Davenport and Gordon Lloyd


When Congress recently enacted special legislation opening the federal courts to Terri Schiavo's case, the word "federalism" suddenly reappeared in the national vocabulary. Perhaps you remember federalism, the old-fashioned idea that American democracy is not just about making policy decisions in Washington, D.C., but also concerns which branch and which level of government has the power to make each decision. With the Republican leadership neglecting it in recent years, one wonders whether federalism has any constituency or future.

The traditional political divide has separated Democrats – the party of big government, higher taxes and spending, and federal solutions – from Republicans – the party of smaller government, lower taxes and spending, and a preference for state, local or even individual decisions. Until recently, Republicans have quoted Thomas Jefferson with enthusiasm: "That government is best which governs the least." And they have stood firmly on the related principles of federalism: If government is to be involved, better local and state action than federalization.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the first Republican White House coupled with the first Republican House and Senate in 50 years. Under Republican leadership, federal spending and deficits are at all-time highs. And several commentators have observed that Republicans no longer seem to be the party of smaller government either. Indeed, the emerging conventional wisdom holds that the Bush administration and the Republican Congress seem less interested in the traditional conservative commitment to smaller government, focusing instead on using big government to serve conservative purposes.

Now the question arises, are Republicans also giving up on federalism?

..snip..

So what's going on here? Why has federalism fallen on such hard times, especially in a Republican-controlled White House and Congress? Why has keeping power away from Washington fallen into such disfavor on the watch of a president who once served as governor of a major state? ..cont'd

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050403/news_mz1e4davenpo.html



Neocons are anarchists representing the dinosaur "old money" power elite.

[Selatius]

1. I wouldn't call them anarchists.

Anarchists by traditional definition is a form of libertarian socialism. What you see in Washington is really better described as state capitalism where the government serves the interests of business or a small number of individuals at the expense of everyone else.

[Dover]

2. Perhaps traditionally, but they love to twist and mangle the meanings

and traditional associations of words. So I thought I'd do the same.
The neocons give it new meaning. A corporate/old money anarchy of sorts...however the ousted
authority would not be eliminated, but would be replaced by THEM. The GOP is a paradox.


an·ar·chy (nr-k) KEY

NOUN:
pl. an·ar·chies
Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.


The traditional meaning has more positive implications, but if you could distort its purpose then the GOP fits the bill imo:


Anarchism has been defined many ways by many different sources. The word anarchism is taken from the word anarchy which is drawn from dual sources in the Greek language. It is made up of the Greek words av (meaning: absence of and apxn (meaning: authority or government ). Today, dictionary definitions still define anarchism as the absence of government. These modern dictionary definitions of anarchism are based on the writings and actions of anarchists of history and present. Anarchists understand, as do historians of anarchism and good dictionaries and encyclopedias, that the word anarchism represents a positive theory. Exterior sources, however, such as the media, will frequently misuse the word anarchism and, thus, breed misunderstanding.

A leading modern dictionary, Webster's Third International Dictionary, defines anarchism briefly but accurately as, "a political theory opposed to all forms of government and governmental restraint and advocating voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups in order to satisfy their needs." Other dictionaries describe anarchism with similar definitions. The Britannica-Webster dictionary defines the word anarchism as, "a political theory that holds all government authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocates a society based on voluntary cooperation of individuals and groups." Shorter dictionaries, such as the New Webster Handy College Dictionary, define anarchism as, "the political doctrine that all governments should be abolished."

These similar dictionary definitions of anarchism reflect the evolution of the theory of anarchism made possible by anarchist intellectuals and movements. As a result, dictionary definitions, although fair, only reflect watered down definitions of the word anarchism. Professor Noam Chomsky, in fact, has refuted the definition, as written in the New American Webster Handy College Dictionary, describing anarchism as a "political doctrine." According to Chomsky, "...anarchism isn't a doctrine. It's at most a historical tendency, a tendency of thought and action, which has many different ways of developing and progressing and which, I would think, will continue as a permanent strand of human history." Other modern definitions of anarchism are thoroughly explained, not as a word, but as a history of movements, people and ideas. The Encyclopedia of the American Left, in fact, gives a three page history of anarchism, yet does not once define the word.

Prior to the existence of the word anarchism people used the term "Libertarian Socialism," which meant the same thing as anarchism. Libertarian socialism was used largely by Mexican radicals in the early eighteenth century .


..snip..

Emma Goldman's life long comrade, Alexander Berkman, played a major part in helping to define the word anarchism. He wrote a book called ABC of Anarchism which defined and describes anarchism and is still read today. Berkman wrote, "Anarchism means you should be free; that no one should enslave you, boss you, rob you, or impose upon you. It means you should be free to do the things you want to do; and that you should not be compelled to do what you do not want to do."


cont'd

http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/defanar.html