Originally Posted by Jaxian

Regarding the speech, it seems absurd to commend the republicans of today for the actions of republicans of the past. Some republicans in the past may have supported freedom, but by punishing people with minority sexual orientations, by preferring the majority religion, by supporting increases in censorship, by engaging in a war on drugs, and by many other actions, many Republicans today certainly do not.

If one is to be proud of voting for republicans today, let him state the accomplishments of those republicans. Of what relevance are the accomplishments of long-dead republicans whom history has grown to look favorably upon? There should be no doubt that virtually every Democrat also supports the ideals of those republicans. The only way to determine which party supports freedom today is to look at the actions of those parties today. Freedoms won in the past do not excuse freedoms denied in the present.

That speech brought up only one present-day issue where Republicans are supposed to have supported freedom to a greater extent than Democrats: bringing Democracy to Iraq. But it should not be forgotten that there are many countries without democracy and without freedom, yet we would be horrible to bring democracy to every such nation in the same fashion which we have brought it to Iraq. We brought democracy through war, through the murder of thousands. I do not mean to claim whether those deaths were worth freedom, only that there are two sides to this issue, and that while we may have increased the freedom of some people, we have stripped the most important freedom, the freedom to live, from many others. One's stance on the Iraq War is hardly a clear-cut indication on where he stands on freedom and civil liberties.

And let us not confuse democracy with freedom, for although we certainly brought democracy to Iraq, I question whether we have brought freedom. It seems to me that even freedoms so simply as the freedom of religion were compromised in Iraq. What we have brought may have been more freedom, but I do not consider it enough.

The speech ends by suggesting that the "Republican commitment to civil rights and individual freedom undergirds our policies of limited government and peace through strength." But I have to question this. Are there more than four issues on which Republicans support more civil rights and individual freedom than Democrats? If so, why not list those issues? And what does it mean to say that Republicans support peace through strength? Doesn't this claim follow the claim that Republicans used war to impose freedom on those without it? For consistency's sake, wouldn't it make more sense to say that Republicans support freedom through war instead of peace through strength?