[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 11/11/00 6:19:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> <<
> I may be deluded but it has always been my understanding that a true
> Republican, one who sticks to the original idealogy, is someone who
> staunchly believes in individual rights to live your life the way you
> choose. I think the original Republicans were more like the Libertarians of
> today. >>
>
> If what you say were true, I doubt that Republican President Abraham Lincoln
> would have gone to war to preserve the Union, and instead would have favored
> the rights of states and their citizens to "live the life the way they
> choose."
Exactly, Paul. The "Republicans" of Lincoln's time were closer in philosophy to
today's Democrats in believing in the importance of the Republic over the rights
of individual States. So yes, if Lincoln was a modern-day Republican he would
not have tried to unify the country, but would have allowed each state to do as
it wished.
The Libertarian Party is relatively new, I think, with its emphasis on each
individual being able to do exactly as she/he wishes. In earlier years, there
was more of a sense of community, whether that community was a local one or the
entire country. People literally could not survive without the support of a
community. The sense of that is lost nowadays it seems.
The Republican Party started around the time of the Civil War and evolved, again
it's an "I think", from the Democratic-Republican Party of the time. There were
also a lot of Democrats in the South then and through the 1960s who were similar
to today's Republicans in stressing the importance of state government over the
federal government. I don't know how the switch in basic philosophy between the
two parties occurred.
Because currently Republicans believe that state government should supersede
federal government (ideally, all the time), they have stretched that to giving
the impression that only they believe in "individual rights", but that's just
rhetoric on their part. An American's rights are guaranteed by the Constitution
and the Bill of Rights. They are not the province of any particular party.
With an emphasis on State/local government control, though, it does mean they
tend to have a laissez faire attitude toward business, so Wall Street usually
likes the Republican party, although since there's been a recession in the
second year of every Republican President's term since Warren Harding in the
early 20s, it's a mystery to me as to why there is such affection.
Another way the difference in the philosophies have played out is by the
Southern states insisting on the primacy of States' rights, which resulted in
segregation lasting as long as it did. The white majority in those States
insisted on "living the life they chose" during the time of the Civil War and
for more than a hundred years following it, and hid such evil behavior behind
the banner of States' rights.
So I'm a little leery when people spend so much time being concerned about
States' rights, especially now when there's such quick communication throughout
the country. Makes me wonder what those folks are up to.
At the same time, Federal programs can become so cumbersome they're of no use,
so a Federal government solution is not always the answer either.
Debra Shea
