Printer Friendly

Republocrats: the Republican Party has become a virtual clone of the Democratic Party. One administration may be replaced by another, but there are no major policy shifts.

An examination of Democratic and Republican Party politics in recent decades shows that, no matter how far to the left the Republicans more, the Democrats move even further to the left, enabling both the liberal-left politicians and the major media to continue portraying the Republicans as conservative. Each new bipartisan "compromise" becomes the new "conservative" position justifying future "compromises" that will move the country even further to the left. In fact, over time it has become increasingly difficult to detect any substantive differences between the two major parties.

Political rhetoric and appearances aside, the U.S. government has become more socialistic and more internationalist during periods of both Republican and Democrat administrations. The voters may vote one president out in favor of another, but the basic policies remain intact even when the political leadership changes.

Quigley's Formula

This is not by happenstance; in fact, it follows a design advocated by Carroll Quigley in his monumental 1966 study Tragedy and Hope. Therein the late Georgetown University professor explained: "The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."

In addition to this, Quigley argued, there is one other benefit to having two political parties, each with the same program. Should either party become corrupt of unenterprising while in office, "Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."

What are those "basic policies" that, according to Quigley, are "vital and necessary for America" and "disputable only in details of procedure, priority, of method"? Quigley wrote, "we must remain strong, continue to function as a great world Power in cooperation with other Powers, avoid high-level war, keep the economy moving without significant slump, help other countries do the same, provide the basic social necessities for all our citizens, open up opportunities for social shifts for those willing to work to achieve them, and defend the basic Western outlook of diversity...." Translated: more internationalism and more socialism. Based on the Quigley formula, presidential elections would be little more than debates over "details of procedure, priority, or method," not major policy differences.

The formula advocated by Quigley in 1966 has been put into practice by the Power Elite, which dominates both major political parties. Quigley was well aware of the existence of this Insider-controlled Establishment, admitting in his book: "There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network ... has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records." One exponent of this network is the Council on Foreign Relations, whose members have dominated both Republican and Democratic administrations since World War II. This network has been so successful in implementing the Quigley formula that Democrat and Republican "rascals" have been thrown out without "any profound or extensive shifts in policy." Moreover, the Republican Party has become so socialistic that it is now a virtual clone of the Democratic Party.

Republican Socialism

Almost all major policy aims and legislative proposals put forward by Republicans these days are unabashedly socialist. In fact, the socialist nature of Republican efforts can be detected in nearly any Bush administration proposal.

For instance, consider the Bush plan on marriage. The administration is proposing a greater involvement for both state-level intervention and federal funding for marriage and family improvement. The Bush budget includes $240 million in federal funding of grants to states to promote marriage. An additional $120 million would fund research programs on marriage promotion. Apart from the absurdity of the runaway bureaucracy of the federal government attempting, through such programs, to be the nation's marriage counselor, programs like this are fundamentally socialist. Like all socialist programs, these proposals work by taking money from those who earned it and redistributing it to those who did not. It is theft, plain and simple, and no part of a conservative platform.

The Bush marriage proposal, though, is far from the only administration, and therefore Republican, policy that seems a better fit for a socialist Democrat than for a supposedly conservative party and president. Among the many other areas in which Bush has proven to be a big-government champion is education.

Republicans once dreamt of removing the federal government from the classroom, and President Reagan even gave lip service to the notion of abolishing the Federal Department of Education. Though the Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to appropriate dollars for federal education programs, the current crop of Republicans, led by President Bush, has made expanded federal education policy a central part of their platform. Indeed, Bush, referring to his administration's socialist No Child Left Behind Act, praised an expanded federal role for education, saying that "the new education reforms we have passed in Washington give the federal government a new role in public education."

In remarks made on January 8 of this year at an elementary school in Tennessee, exactly two years after signing the No Child Left Behind Act, Mr. Bush called the legislation historic because, "for the first time, the federal government is spending more money, and now asking for results." When the education bill was signed into law in 2002, in a point emphasizing the kinship between Republicans and ultra-left Democrats, the reliably socialist Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) was there to look on. In fact, under Bush and the Republican Congress, federal outlays for the Department of Education have steadily climbed from $35.7 billion in fiscal 2001 to $46.3 billion in 2002, $57.4 billion in 2003, and an estimated $62.8 billion in 2004. That's a 76 percent increase in three years. In light of this, conservatives may be forgiven for pining for the good old days of the Clinton administration.

Critics can almost randomly throw darts at the administration and hit areas where big government has run amok. One of the biggest spending boondoggles put forward by the Bush administration and passed by Congress was the bloated farm bill of 2002. This bill provided astronomically large entitlements to farmers. In fact, in a speech on August 15, 2002, Bush boasted that the measure "increases direct farm program spending $73.5 billion over 10 years" and that it "contains $243 billion for food stamps." Such measures are touted by the president's supporters as compassionate. But compassion for whom? Certainly not for the taxpayers footing the bill.

Indeed, on budgetary matters overall, the president is a big spender. During Clinton's tenure in the White House, the budget climbed to the almost incomprehensible sum of $1.9 trillion in fiscal 2001. With Mr. Bush in the White House and a Republican majority in both houses of Congress, the federal budget has continued to grow each year. For fiscal 2005, the president proposes to spend some $2.4 trillion.

The "W" Is for Wilson

These days, the Republicans are big spenders abroad and are committed internationalists in foreign affairs. Although the Bush administration has been aggressively interventionist, many harbor the misperception that President Bush is a unilateralist. He is not. Like both his father before him and Bill Clinton, his predecessor in office, George W. Bush favors a world effectively controlled by the United Nations.

Speaking in Britain on November 19, 2003, Bush praised the internationalism of Woodrow Wilson, that president's famous Fourteen Points, and the creation and aims of the League of Nations. "Bush," said the Washington Post, "said Wilson had come to Europe after the war to press for the creation of the League of Nations and adoption of his Fourteen Points for peace. 'Many complimented him on his vision, yet some were dubious,' said Bush. 'Take, for example, the prime minister of France. He complained that God Himself had only Ten Commandments.' Taking a shot at the French before the appreciative British audience, the president added: 'Sounds familiar.'" In addition, Bush updated Wilson's Fourteen Points for the 21st century by adding three additional pillars: "strong international organizations, a willingness to use force and a commitment to spreading democracy."

Contrary to the prevailing view in the media, Mr. Bush is an ardent supporter of the UN. Welcoming UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to the Oval Office on February 3, the president enthused: "The world is changing for the better and the United Nations is playing a vital role in that change." In fact, under Bush, the U.S. has paid its supposed "back dues" to the world body, signed the UN's Persistent Organic Pollutants Convention, and attempted to justify the war in Iraq by pointing to UN resolutions supposedly authorizing military action. In other areas of foreign policy, Bush has also evinced an affinity for internationalism, being a tireless supporter of NAFTA and its dangerous expansion into the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

Based on this record, President Bush is a leftist and an internationalist. Indeed, some allegedly conservative commentators have applauded Bush for his Wilsonian stance. In fact, the Wall Street Journal's Max Boot, in a June 1, 2002 column entitled "George W. Bush: The 'W' Stands for Woodrow," lauded Bush for his similarities to Wilson. And why not? Bush not only seeks the same internationalist goals Wilson did, he is also a puppet of the same internationalist elite.

CFR Connections

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has long played an inordinately large role in presidential administrations. The body, headquartered in New York City, was organized largely by Edward Mandell House, Woodrow Wilson's. Since its inception, the CFR has worked assiduously to maintain control of the presidency, regardless of which party is in office, and direct policy as much as it is able toward me sub-mergence of U.S. sovereignty under the overarching authority of a world government. Just as the CFR played a significant role in both the Clinton and first Bush administrations, it does so today in the George W. Bush administration.

The president himself, while not a member, has the proper pedigree. His father was a prominent CFR member prior to becoming president. Moreover, like his father, George W. Bush is a member of the secret Yale University society known as Skull and Bones. This shadowy organization serves as a sort of "farm team" for the CFR and has produced many prominent internationalists in both parties. It is interesting, for example, that Democratic presidential front-runner and CFR member John Kerry is, like George W. Bush, a Bonesman (see article on page 10).

As in previous administrations, the current Bush administration is well-stocked with CFR members, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Trade Representative Robert Zoellick. (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is a former CFR member.) As G. Vance Smith, the CEO of the John Birch Society, has pointed out, "George W. is totally a front-man for and a puppet of" these Insiders.

The dominance of the CFR in presidential politics goes a long way toward explaining how the same basic internationalist and socialist policies are followed no matter who wins any given election. Through CFR influence, Carroll Quigley's formula, through which American voters would be able to vote the rascals out of office periodically without affecting overall policy, has been implemented. It is, in point of fact, largely impossible for voters to have any beneficial impact on presidential politics at this stage in American history.

For conservatives, does this mean that the game is over and the internationalists have won? The answer, thankfully, is no.

Through the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, the executive branch of the federal government was made far weaker than Congress, the only branch granted legislative authority by the U.S. Constitution.

And Congress was subdivided into two chambers, the House of Representatives and the Senate, with the House possessing unique power over government spending (since all revenue bills must originate in that chamber). Moreover, the House is particularly close to the people, since there are 435 congressional districts, each with its own congressman, and each congressman facing election every two years. The CFR-Insider cabal--even with its control of the major political party establishments and of the major media--cannot possibly dominate 435 congressional races like it can one presidential race.

The internationalists and the socialists have had many successes, but they have not been able to seize total control of this nation despite decades of effort and a relatively complacent electorate. They have done their worst, yet the nation's institutions remain strong.

All that it will take to finally defeat the internationalist cabal is to build sufficient understanding among the electorate and concentrate grass-roots efforts where they can be most effective: on the Congress. By doing so, the course of the nation may yet be corrected.
COPYRIGHT 2004 American Opinion Publishing, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2004, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Party Politics
Author:Behreandt, Dennis
Publication:The New American
Article Type:Cover Story
Date:Mar 8, 2004
Words:2222
Previous Article:Bipartisan Bonesmen: the two leading contenders for the U.S. presidency are both members of Skull and Bones, one of the oldest secret societies in...
Next Article:George W. Bush is no conservative.


Related Articles
Where the Liberals are.
Whither the Democrats? John B. Judis, who co-authored the important new book The Emerging Democratic Majority, confronts the recent U.S. election...
Welcome to the machine: how the GOP disciplined K Street and made Bush supreme. (Cover Story).
Party talk: why do we have a two-party system? What is a Democrat? What is a Republican?
Money talks: Robert Rubin remembers clintonomics.
A warning to Democrats.
Perverse polarity: the mainstream media bemoans the lack of civility in Washington--but won't say who's responsible.
Whom do we elect? Constitutionalist Americans who want to fix the nation's ills through the presidency are fighting on the wrong battlefront. The...

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters