Both sides of the aisle are equally guilty of leading us down the path to socialism and here's why:
In order to get elected, a candidate of either party has to promise to do something for somebody. The somebody typically has to be a braod group of constituents. In order to get reelected, a candidate has to have shown that he actually did something for a broad group of constituents.
Doing something means passing legislation (in rare cases it may mean killing proposed legislation - but how often do you here of a candidate running on a platform of what bills they managed to kill? Look at Kerry now - he voted against some military spending bills for some very good reasons - special interest riders that nobody mentions - and he's getting raked over the coals for it).
The motivation of all representatives is to pass more legislation that benefits their constituents. No matter what ideology is at the root of it, enacting more and more legislation inevitably drives us toward more a socialist society. The mentality that we have to fix something that isn't right and the way to do that is introduce legislation is equally alive and well in both parties.
The way to stem the slide into socialism isn't to elect more republicans, it's to create gridlock by making the president and the legislative majority are on opposite sides of the aisle. Also, significantly shorten the legislative sessions with an associated reduction of pay and benefits for our representatives.
Here's something to ponder:
The Republicans believe Reagan was a great president - but he was often stiffled by a democratic majory in congress.
The Democrats think Clinton was a great president, but he was usually battling a republican majority.
Their own partiies think they were great because they were not able to blow it by ramming through their whole agendas - which would have been bad for everybody in both cases.
