A reminder for the Republican Nanny Staters

If you haven't noticed, the whole nanny state thing is really bugging me this year. I expect it from some of the Democrats in the legislature, but when some of the measures are originating with Republicans, it makes me wonder why my party is taking such a hard left turn down a dirt road that leads to nowhere.

Because it certainly doesn't lead to electoral victory. It's only a path to disillusionment and failure.

I'd just take this moment to point out a statement that's been in nearly every Party Platform for at least the last 20 years, if not much longer:
The South Dakota Republican Party believes the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations. The best government is that which governs least.
I realize there are parts of that platform that come and go depending on the year and the issue. Sometimes it's more centrist, sometimes it's more conservative.

But to ignore a principle like this just cuts the trust placed in you by your GOP faithful to the bone.

Keep that in mind as you get through the last days of the legislature.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I hope all legislators read this!
lexrex said…
pp, the legislature is losing its bearings: booster seats for 7-yr-olds; the vaccine that's already provided for free by the private sector; the statewide smoking ban; government expansion into pre-school; etc. all have received significant support.

fact is, liberal ideologues outnumber the conservative ones; conservatism is losing, legislatively speaking.

where are the conservatives who can be depended upon to vote their principles without fail? i'm not sure i need more than one hand to count them all.
William said…
I too, am really disappointed by the number of "RINO"s in the party. I think the grassroots of the party need find & support some competition for some of our incumbents.
mhs said…
Lex, I think it's got little to do with ideology and everything to do with lack of talent. We have a breathtaking pool of legislators that are simple "nodders". When some department, advocacy group or drug company pitches them on their latest, greatest idea, they simply nod and go along. None have the vision or backbone to simply say "no", I don't believe we need it.

We don't lose our rights in big, hotly debated issues like 1215. It's the little nanny-state stuff like this, automated traffic cameras, politically-correct verbiage laws, etc. ad nauseum that are the real threat.

PP, keep hammering them.
Anonymous said…
We need to say thank you to the 5 Dems and the 9 Rep. in the Senate who voted no on HB 1189.
Douglas said…
It is so gratifying to see that the GOP rightwing so values insignficant irrelevant freedom to be stupid on the highways that they want to pay healthcare costs for a lifetime to brain-damaged children.

Or did I miss something in that wonderful GOP equation?
PP said…
Doug, I'm all for making sure kids are safe.

But at what point does it go beyond reasonable?
lexrex said…
i agree mhs. that was my point. ideologues don't just nod their head. they run issues through their ideological strainer, and the garbage doesn't get through.
Anonymous said…
Then get the GOP wackos out of people's bedrooms! You can't have it both ways, PP.
Anonymous said…
This is the reason I dropped the R on my voter registration. We are seeing the two main parties becoming socialist and socialist lite.
Anonymous said…
These are piddly little concerns. I find it impossible to get anywhere near as worked up over loss of such "freedoms" as being able to smoke in any bar I choose, endager the life of my 6-year-old, and run red lights as long as no policeman happens to be there.

This is going to be another reason people drop R from their voter registration - the nut jobs on the right get all worked up over a little safety legislation.

I thought I was conservative until I see idiocy like this.
Bob Newland said…
Yeah, PP, go!!! Grab that rag mallet and whip 'em like they wuz rented mules.

The reason Republican ideology isn't reflected in Republican reality is because almost no self-proclaimed Republican -- especially those who run for office in South Dakota -- REALLY believes in the creed expressed in the platform statement.

You elect morons like Abdallah, Schoenbeck, Greenfield, ad nauseum, then you expect them to vote for smaller gummint? What were you thinking?
Anonymous said…
I've said it before and i will say it again, i knew and i know this year is ONE BIG DISAPPOINTMENT no buts about it!!! Lack of leadership, lack of will, lack of knowledge, and a sell out.
Sick of hearing the gag me statements in committee meetings of the thank yous and how nice it is to work together. Working together is one thing but the pat me on my back and i will pat yours is so gagging.
Guess it is time for a good cleaning and i hope it gets done quick.
Douglas said…
"Doug, I'm all for making sure kids are safe.

But at what point does it go beyond reasonable?"


Highway safety regulations are a bit different in relation to freedoms than some other behavior. Driving is a licensed privilege, not a right. Regulations related to the licensed nature of driving may be allowed which in your bedroom or home might be considered very intrusive and violations of fundamental rights.

It is important not to confuse apples and aardvarks.

GPS devices that record every movement of your vehicle would be pushing past the point in my opinion.

We can expect cameras in public places, and probably not be justified in assuming that is a violation of rights. Requiring cameras in bedrooms to be sure children are not abused or religious tenets violated would seem obviously over the line in almost every case.

It is sensible to stake out the slippery slope and also the edge of the precipice. Crying wolf about traffic laws ruins credibility on other issues such as the Bush attempt to have powers to federalize all police and emergency systems.

Conservatives and liberals should be able to find areas of agreement on limitations of government powers. But worrying about the gnats while letting the elephants into the living room is a mistake.

lexrex seems able to confuse conservatism with reactionary stone-age ideology and dark ages theology. Real conservatives should be wary of those attempting to present failed libertarianism and superstition as conservatism.
Anonymous said…
PP - I agree with you on almost every "nanny-stater" issue. But I know you agree there are exceptions - you agree with the state providing HPV vaccine.

I'm also for banning smoking in bars. Not because I want to tell business owners what to do, and not because I want to tell smokers what to do. I just get sick of going into bars and smelling like I've been to the bar. And if the state cannot solve that, what's it there for anyway?
Anonymous said…
I don't want to turn this into another knee-jerk abortion post, but I do wonder, PP, as a fellow pro-lifer, what you think about the new "abortion hurts women" message. I've always hated the idea of throwing our eggs in that basket as it seems to validate, rather than invalidate, liberalism.

The more we say that we need regulations because "abortion hurts women," the more we sound like the left.

I'd be curious to know your thoughts (and that of others like lexrex who are truly pro-life).
Anonymous said…
Lexrex oly needs to be better nformed. He is, by far, he most intelligent among you. It would be a mistake to presune to know what he thifs. ... I'm jut sayin'...
Anonymous said…
As for the ANON post # 4:07 p
It should be up to a bar owner to decide if they do NOT want smoking in their business. People who prefer to go to that type of bar will go those who want the other type have theirs. Why don't you open a bar and make it non smoking. It is a choice so have an owner or you choose to ban it. Let the others allow if they wish.
Freedom...Freedom of Choice..
Is this logical I would think so.

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long