posted
I remember several years back, a good and very Republican friend of mine tried to convince me that his political party was the one I should follow. He asked me if I believed whether government should be large or more limited. I said limited. He asked me if I believed the individual and individual rights was more important, or if society and social change was more important, and I agreed with him that the individual and his rights are. At that point he declared that I should be a Republican, because fundamentally that's what being a Republican is all about.
Well, what happened to that party?
Perhaps it never really was anything like that, or perhaps it was, but the Republican Party certainly isn't like that these days. It did seem like in the past that it was a party of reason, however - sometimes a bit cold and harsh, but nevertheless practical.
But now, just in a few years, the Republican leadership seems to have fallen away from all of that. Instead, they've transformed it into the Archie Bunker party - kill the bad guys, don't trust the foreigners, do anything for safety, spend as much as possible on the military, cut taxes, and declare anyone who disagrees unpatriotic. The Republicans have always had that aspect to them, but has it really always dominated them to the extent to which it does these days? They no longer seem like a party built on reason at all. Instead they seem like a party build on irrational impulses and biases. They've become the party that wants to rename french fries.
On top of that, they seem to be giving up on the idea of small government. Yes, they still want to cut taxes, but they nevertheless increase spending massively - on things like wars and weapons and homeland security. Instead of tax-and-spend liberals we have borrow-and-spend Republicans. Are these people really Republicans??
I know the Republican Party does not have to be like that. There are people like Colin Powell who could be leading it in a very different direction. But why are the John Ashcrofts and Donald Rumsfelds in control instead? I assume thats what Republicans in America want from their party. But my question is, why?
I'm a person who has voted Republican in the past (sometimes that is... I try to be even enough ), but I'm afraid they have changed in a way that prevents me from voting for them these days - not until somebody fixes them. I can't vote for a freedom fries philosophy of government, and I can't imagine how most Americans could not eventually see this for what it is either. Right now the Republicans have an advantage, but they are blowing it by becoming too radical and almost un-Republican. No? We'll see soon enough I suppose.
Now I'm just disillusioned. But that's OK - artists really shouldn't be politically active, anyway. They end up turning into Trotsky.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Both parties have 40% of the votting public. That percentage never changes no matter who is running or what bill is being proposed. This is absolutly ridiculous, but that's beside the point. Each party has base that it can always rely on, so they just try to go after that after 20%. Not to say that they can do anything without offending their 40% base, but so long as they don't change too fast they'll keep that votting populous.
All I can say is that I guess what each party is doing is what they think that middle 20 wants. I don't see why they want it, perhpas because the part of the middle 20 that can be won is typically in the middle and all the moves have been closer to the center recently? All I really do know is that niether party represents me and voting is more that checking off party affiliation.
posted
Can't say I like either party. They both seem almost the same to me. There has to be a kind of middle ground, but when both factions favour special interest groups over the people it does create problems.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While Colin Powell may be able to lead people, he does not hold to the traditional republican ideas of limited government or social issues. He can be described as a liberal who knows the Republicans are the ones who make sure the military has money. Im not saying hes a bad man or anything, just that he is not a true conservative and he doesn't pretend to be either.
I hate that the republicans seem to have no back sometimes. It is true, that those in power, while they may believe in limited government are hardly doing anything about it. Posts: 879 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that they are a political party. And no, it can't be fixed.
In all honesty, I think most of what you're seeing is a result of the extreme duress the country has been under. These things were certainly much worse during WWII... we're just less on board with it now than we were then... which isn't a bad thing.
I honestly think that the only difference we'd be seeing now if Gore had won is that taxes would be higher, particularly for those of us who got the child tax credit, and the economic recovery would be slower in coming.
For the record, while I was happy to receive my $1600, I think the child tax credit is a fundamentally bad idea...
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
), but I'm afraid they have changed in a way that prevents me from voting for them these days - not until somebody fixes them. I can't vote for a freedom fries philosophy of government, and I can't imagine how most Americans could not eventually see this for what it is either. Right now the Republicans have an advantage, but they are blowing it by becoming too radical and almost un-Republican. No? We'll see soon enough I suppose.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
All I really do know is that niether party represents me and voting is more that checking off party affiliation. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
