What is a Republican?

With all of the political spin and tripe swarming the atmosphere of the potential 2008 Presidential candidates, it can be difficult to ascertain what it really means when one affiliates themselves with a particular party. If someone declares allegiance to the Republican party does that mean they are pro-guns, anti-abortion (also known as the misleading euphemism of "pro-life"), and for smaller government? Maybe. But then again, none of these are mandatory contentions of a Republican. If the range of Republican ideals spill over into the domain of traditional Democratic stipulations, then how can we tell what a candidate is really standing for? What does it mean to be a Republican?

One of the first major political parties, the Republican Party is the second oldest ideology to the older Democratic notions. Said to be (according to Wikipedia) the more social conservative and libertarian party, Republicans are widely thought to encompass these particulars stances in their platforms: smaller government, less taxes, anti abortion and pro death penalty (see any immediate hypocrisy in that last comparison?). This is a mere snippet, but already we can see how these stipulations fail in those who claim to be Republican.

George Bush, current right-wing leader of the Free World (because we Americans tend to think only the USA has "freedom"), has made a mockery of some of his alleged allegiances. A major contention of the Republican platform is to reduce the size and control of the government. Wikipedia states that, "Republicans believe in a more robust version of federalism with greater limitations placed upon federal power." But ever since Bush Jr. took the helm, we have experienced a vast increase in government control and a deterioration of our "inaliable rights."

The Patriot Act of 2001 allowed for the government to spy on and invade the privacy of millions of Americans. Under the guise of Homeland Security - another creation of the Bushist regime that has thwarted individual freedom and expanded government control - the Patriot Act claims to protect us from ourselves. Evidently, we have nothing to fear but ourselves, as the definition of terrorism under the Act has decreed "domestic terrorism" as a facet of the overused term "terrorism." Bush incorporated this expression to expand the power of the government to investigate not only foreign suspects plotting to disrupt American stability (if you can call it that), but to interfere with personal emails, telephone calls, and implement more laws that make it harder for American citizens to travel and communicate freely.

This is a violation of on of the Republican Party's precious views: to reduce government and allow indiviudals and States more power. Bush has terrorized that notion and some say broken his vows to the regime - er, party.

If pro-life is one of the Republican's dearest values, then what is Giuliani doing with his pro-choice promise? Is he putting an end to the social-conservatist stance that has dominated the Republican motif? Well, the Huffington Post, run by famed blogger Ariana Huffington, says this is just another political ploy. But Time argues otherwise, stating that Giuliani is stepping away from the right wing, and launching his political spin somewhere in the middle of the road.

What about the stance on immigration? Aren't Republicans in favor of abolishing illegal immigrant's rights? Well, according to the Republican caucus in California, no. In fact, a new bill proposes that California's government will pay for non-US Citizens to be healthy: "The Cal CARE plan will send a bill to the federal government for the costs California taxpayers already must pay for illegal immigrants' health care." Guess Bush's wall hasn't gone up to protect American taxpayers from their unprotected medical plans (instead giving it to those who take a check and owe the US government nothing). In fact, Bush wanted to spend $4 Billion dollars (another un-Republican move for those who believe in spending less taxpayer money) on a wall to separate Mexico from the US, which promptly got turned down by the Senate.

It appears that the stance of a political party has no bearing on what a candidate can claim in their agenda. The term Republican is losing its meaning - if it ever had one - and is providing more confusion than clarity to the voter pool. What is a Republican? It depends on the candidate, and it can change the minute they are elected.