“There will always be ignorant, dangerous people who twist the truth for their own ends. No amount of arguing will change their minds because their argument isn’t based on facts, it’s based on their own petty point of view.”
- Gail Z. Martin, Dark Haven
My wife told me, after listening to my last post, that I was sounding a bit angrier than usual. My on-and-off political foil, Wow, said in response to the same, “What’s with lowering yourself to a pointless, name-calling rant?” And my response is, I’m tired of Republicants.
The elected (and acknowledged) leaders of the Gallant Old Party are bereft of actual ideas. Listening to Michael Steele, Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Michelle Bachmann, Tucker Carlson, Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, Judd Gregg, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, John Boehner, Eric Cantor and all of the elected Republicants who claim to speak for conservative Americans when their personal lives and political actions don’t reflect that supposed conservatism is annoying in the utmost. They don’t seem to grasp the fact that the playbook they’ve been using got tossed with the old coach who got fired in November, and he’d stopped using it years before.They are, as my pleasure reading stated, using arguments which aren’t “based on facts, [but] based on their own petty point of view.”
I get called a liberal a lot, and I recently self-identified as such for the gallop pollster who called my house. But I’m not certain what that label means. Just as I’m not certain what the Republican label means. What I am certain of, though, is that the leadership of the Republican Party doesn’t know who or what it is. For the last twenty-five years, the GOP has followed Reagan’s “the government is the problem” philosophy to unadulterated ends, and that has proven to be disastrous for our country.
I would like to hear what exactly “conservatism” and conservative values are . . . not from “the right-wing, nut-job extremists” that Stephanie Miller and company spend so many hours satirizing every morning, but from individuals who consider themselves to be conservatives, either fiscal or social. I feel like I tend to be socially liberal, based on the teachings of the Catholic Church in which I grew up and my study and understanding of the founding principles of the United States. And I am more and more fiscally conservative, wanting to know why the government is still wasting money like Speaker Pelosi’s recent trip to Italy or the Democratic and Republican earmarks in the recent $410 billion omnibus bill that Congress is working on right now. But I am cognizant of the fact that it’s difficult to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when you don’t have boots, and part of the government’s responsibility to is to “promote the general welfare,” i.e. make sure Americans have boots.
To answer the question about my recent rants, ravings and anger, all I can say is that I’ve got no problem with Republicans.
It’s the Republicants I can’t stand.
9 responses so far ↓
theNimrod // March 4, 2009 at 8:08 am |
“For the last twenty-five years, the GOP has followed Reagan’s ‘the government is the problem’ philosophy to unadulterated ends, and that has proven to be disastrous for our country.”
In what way(s)?
ReyMac // March 4, 2009 at 9:54 am |
The ‘myth of small government’ is the foundation of tax cuts encourage the economy, social programs called pork, and regulation kills the free market. Reagan simply articulated the philosophy that led Donald Rumsfeld to auction off the responsibilities of the military to private contractors, and attempt to build a shell government (The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein). It seems to me that the government has specific responsibilities (enumerated both in the preamble and the articles). But those responsibilities don’t have anything to do with the size of the government, which is what those three criticisms I mentioned all have as the primary rationale or motivation. http://powerfulbeyondmeasure.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/size-does-matter-the-myth-of-small-government/ That’s what I mean when I say its been disastrous. That’s what I mean when I say that they’re subscribing to a failed philosophy.
theNimrod // March 4, 2009 at 11:56 am |
I knew which philosophies you were referring to. I’m wondering in what ways they have “proven to be disastrous for our country.” Specifically what you’ve got against tax cuts and social programs = pork.
Deregulation we’ve discussed before, and I would agree that regulation could have helped us avoid the housing crisis. However, let’s not pretend that this was just a republican problem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
AND
“If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”
— John McCain, 2005
Let’s also not forget the role that Carter played in the deregulation of many economic sectors.
Shock doctrine is on my list by the way – sitting in a stack in my office. Just got moved up.
ReyMac // March 4, 2009 at 12:53 pm |
The tax cuts mantra seems to be divisive for conservatives when the tax cuts are for the middle class, or aren’t for the upper class. As to it being “just a republican problem”, from Ws inauguration through 2006 the republicans were in the same position that the democrats are in now. And don’t get me wrong, as I watch Pelosi and Reid, they are falling into the “absolute power corrupts absolutely” category currently. Forty days into a we have all the reins period, though, hasn’t added up to the hole we’re in now.
And the cutting social programs when more and more money is being spent on the invasion of Iraq is misplaced priorities at its worst. Simply because we are drawing down in Iraq (and ramping up in Afghanistan) doesn’t exonerate the ideas behind the invasion, or the opportunities seized (and some argue, created) in order to remove from government many of the responsibilities that it carries.
Fannie and Freddie only carry 30% of the mortgages that are problematic. That toss to JMc is nice, but . . . private companies saw that those two were getting breaks, and jumped in. 70% of the mortgage-backed securities were/are carried by the private sector, but the flag gets waved that liberals (read: democrats) wanted to keep “subsidizing” social programs (which is how Fan/Fred are characterized) afloat, so they ignored the warnings?
Again, I am asking: what are the principles of conservatism that all these republicants are screaming about? Less government regulation of everything? More governance of social issues (abortion, gay marriage, marijuana) and less of economic? What are the values and the principles? Looking at the GOP website, I agree with some of the ideas there . . . but their translation into policy and practice, or their translation through the mouths of Steele, Boehner, Bachmann, Coleman, McConnell leave me scratching my head or dismissing them altogether.
theNimrod // March 4, 2009 at 6:20 pm |
“The tax cuts mantra seems to be divisive for conservatives when the tax cuts are for the middle class, or aren’t for the upper class.”
You’re misrepresenting the complaints. The problem for conservatives is just the opposite: that the upper class – individuals and businesses – are bearing disproportionate tax hikes which are discouraging growth. I don’t think it’s divisive at all.
On bad mortgages: I’m saying many on both sides ignored (or flat missed) the warnings. My point is simply that it hasn’t been just conservatives and it hasn’t been just liberals who’ve stood up for and against deregulation. Everybody was stupid.
Beyond that I’m not sure what you’re getting at. You’re saying conservatives need to come up with one voice on every issue so that you can better understand them? Or agree with them?? “More governance of social issues and less of economic” is a very convenient way of looking at it. Gay marriage and marijuana are going to divide conservatives, while abortion probably won’t. Nor will deregulation. Conservatives will largely advocate less economic regulation…to varying degrees. All of this does not mean that the values and principles aren’t there. I think a little much is being made of the apparent rift and supposed disorientation in the republican party right now. We lost big time over the last couple years and we’re regrouping; new leaders are establishing themselves. As always, after a while it’ll come back around and democrats will inevitably find themselves in this position.
I still don’t understand your original point. How have tax cuts proven disastrous for our country?
Robert // March 8, 2009 at 6:41 pm |
I can’t begin to tell what republicans believe anymore. I can tell you what conservatism means to me. It is simply this; I want the government to stay out of my life. I want to succeed and fail on my own. I do not need a government safety net because I depend on my own resources and savings to save me. Most conservatives just want government to stay small and unobtrusive so that people have the chance to succeed or fail as they see fit. Government is not the answer it is almost always the problem. Call me what you will but that is what I see as true conservatism. Self reliance and the willingness to try even if it means failing.
Wow // March 18, 2009 at 12:53 pm |
A republican is someone who isn’t comfortable voting democrat. Our two party system has reduced us to this.
Some people vote republican because they believe in individual responsibility and accountability above all else. Some people vote republican because they strongly believe in a specific issue, such as pro-life and gay marriage issues. Some people vote republican because their minister tells them to (those are the people that win republicans elections).
I find the two party system so empty. My brother, a teacher, once told me that he was voting for John Kerry because he hated “No Child Left Behind.” He couldn’t express one other issue to me, but was merely voting on union lines. And this guy, my very educated brother, is teaching our kids!
The reason you see me here so infrequently, is that politics and republican v. democrat issues exhaust me. While this election has given life to so many young voters, it drained me completely. Not merely because I lost (as an admitted McCain supporter of 10 years), but because, with few exceptions, I couldn’t find a single Obama voter who could give me a legitimate reason why they voted for him. Instead, I got answers like, “I can’t take 4 more years of Bush policies.” And “I’m ready for change.”
These were all very educated people (my closest friends and coworkers) who can only explain their vote with campaign rhetoric. It destroys my passion. I stop by occassionally because you have more than that to input. I just find my energy waning when it comes time to respond.
Hitting the Reset Button « Various Philosophies of Cynicism // April 20, 2009 at 8:38 am |
[...] its goal. There are still obstacles in our way – nuclear North Korea; staggering unemployment; Republicants; budget deficits; over-extended military personnel and their families; corporate and other pirates; [...]
Hitting the Reset Button « Various Philosophies of Cynicism // June 25, 2009 at 11:51 am |
[...] goal. There are still obstacles in our way – nuclear North Korea; staggering unemployment; Republicants; budget deficits; over-extended military personnel and their families; corporate and other pirates; [...]