In Defense of Republican Obstruction

Home Forums Off Topic In Defense of Republican Obstruction

This topic contains 3 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  Creigh Gordon 2 months, 3 weeks ago.

  • Author
  • #2786

    Creigh Gordon

    The Republican establishment, if not the base, is opposed to the government doing anything beyond protecting private property rights. (The “God, guns, and gays” stuff is chum for the rubes.) Aside from a powerful military (defense of private property rights at home and abroad), cutting taxes (theft of private property), law and order and mass incarceration (punishing disrespect of private property rights), deregulation and privatization (removing restrictions on private property rights), and opposing campaign finance reform (giving property rights the status of personal rights), they reject any more ambitious role for government. They have no use for the idea of promoting the general welfare. They have no use for the idea of public property or public good. They have no use for even the idea of society. As Margaret Thatcher once said, “There is no such thing as society.” The concept of family values, Joe Bageant observed, means “my family is valuable, yours isn’t.”

    As it stands, the biggest threat Republicans see to property rights is confiscation of private property in pursuit of some wasteful–if not immoral–scheme to promote the general welfare. Given the structure of our government, obstruction is a very effective method for blocking that threat.

  • #2787

    Chris Ladd

    It is exactly the strategy deployed by Southern Congressmen in the 1840’s-50’s. It worked pretty well, until it caused a war.

  • #2788

    Aaron Dow

    I’m sorry I’m confused, how are Republicans for property rights? They seem to be pretty fond of asset forfeiture, which is pretty damned anti-property rights. They also definitely are not into property rights for Native Americans, regardless of any bills or treaties signed therein. There’s also the issue of letting your common every day citizen hold on to the mineral and air rights surrounding his property — doesn’t help the oil companies to have to have to pay individuals for the wealth they’re sitting on.

    And even if we say, “Sure but in general, the Republicans are for property rights,” well in general, the Republicans supported a man who ran on a promise to seize thousands of families’ properties along the southern border via eminent domain in order to build a giant, bureaucratic, wasteful, and useless wall. And rather than obstructing to prevent said wall from the administration, so far they seem pretty keen on including it in all spending measures.

    tl;dr: No, the Republican party does not have a contemporary history of supporting property rights.

    • #2789

      Creigh Gordon

      Property rights are definitely subject to prioritization. Indian tribes and citizens with little political power don’t get much love, but there is pushback and some reason for optimism on both Native American rights and civil forfeiture. And the wall? More chum for the rubes. The Republican Party establishment could care less about it.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.