I'm currently writing a piece about Progressivism and how both political parties take pragmatic steps to "run" the country and foreign policy according to their ideas of good governance. Democrats are more in tune with global, progressive, UN goals of human rights and social justice, while Republicans are more concerned with the maintenance of power and stability at home and abroad. Contrary to the media's portrayal of Republicans as anti-government, the GOP establishment is very concerned with government power sufficient to "run" the country and foreign policy -- Republicans just want the nation to be more conservative than liberal regarding culture. Edmund Burke believed that wise, benevolent leaders are needed in government to guide the people toward law, order, stability, decency, civility, etc. The Republican establishment would never dismantle the welfare state -- they will only try to get it to work better, but even there, the desire for efficiency has been more rhetorical than anything. Republicans might even say they don't want to dismantle the welfare state, just make sure that unhealthy dependence doesn't develope, but, again, it's rhetoric. Under Republican leadership, the welfare state has grown, and waste, fraud and abuse haven't been eliminated.
MSNBC first advertised Morning Joe as their offering of commentary from the Right. Actually, there are far more Leftists on the program than Rightists, but Joe Scarborough is the token Republican, and he's supposed to present the Republican/Right/Conservative side of all issues. Scarborough represents the Centrist part of the GOP, although he presents himself as a "small" government conservative. Scarborough is pragmatic, like most politicians from both parties. Pragmatism is what has kept both parties together in our two-party, statist system of government. As an example, Scarborough has made it a point on Morning Joe to highlight his rejection of the expanded war in Afghanistan, and to listen to Scarborough at times, you'd think he is a Murray Rothbard fan, a non-interventionist cut from the mold of our Founders, a traditional conservative. However, this morning, Scarborough called for intervention in Syria. The pragmatic solution is for the US to be part of a multi-national intervention.
Al Sharpton was on the show, and he agreed with Scarborough, making a point of criticizing the Iraq War because Bush acted alone. If the US intervenes in the affairs of other nation in concert with two or three other nations, then this is acceptable. Never mind that the same unintended consequences will come about, or that the same principles will be violated, or the fact that we don't know which side to support, or if both sides are equally bad choices, if we can intervene behind the respectability of UN agreement, then this solves the problem. The US went through a long, deadly civil war, and no one intervened. Syria will have to deal with its own problems. And even if intervention is the only resolution, Turkey and Saudi Arabia and Russia and other countries closer to the turmoil are more knowledgable regarding the problems and will make better decisions. In other words, it's none of our business. We can't continue in the role of Global Police, we just can't, and shouldn't. Until we announce that America will no longer play the role of Global Police, other nations will sit back waiting for us to intervene. The game has to change.