Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Why Support The Republicans?

Rate this topic


TheEgoist
 Share

Recommended Posts

While many Objectivists are vocal critics of conservatism and the current Republican party, many also think that the Republican party can be saved. This has been, as far as I know, the mantra since the 1980s. For some reason, the Republican party is seen as a place where reform can take place but the Democrats are totally screwed and beyond salvation. Why is this?

When was the last principled Republican who held the Presidential office? Coolidge in the 20s? Yet Objectivists continue to hold some kind of faith that one day their efforts will pay off. I do not understand it. I think the Republican party has been so ingrained with Religion that it is beyond saving. It will either grow to great proportions, or it's going to be totally marginalized in the next few years. There are too many competing interests. Objectivists aren't going to rid the party of tradition of traditionalists, anti-abortion advocates, homophobes and compromising quasi-Socialists like McCain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be mistaken about this, but it seems very few secular leftists become O-ists. More tend to start out as secular rightists. In any case, the Rs might have been salveagable 20 years ago, but you are correct in your assessment that the religious right is ruining that party completely.

When coming to a generalization like this be sure you are not throwing in comments someone made 20 or 30 years ago, before the situation was as it is today. (I'm not *claiming* you did, I guess I am *asking* if perchance you did.) Most of the comments I see today are to the effect of drive-a-stake-through-the-Republican-party's-heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be mistaken about this, but it seems very few secular leftists become O-ists. More tend to start out as secular rightists. In any case, the Rs might have been salveagable 20 years ago, but you are correct in your assessment that the religious right is ruining that party completely.

I was most certainly a secular leftist before I learned about Objectivism (I considered myself a liberal and an agnostic...kinda creeps me out to think I used to be like that haha).

I might have a somewhat skewed version of conservatives being that I'm in the northeast. We don't get quite as many of the crazy evangelical hardcore religious right, so most of the people that I meet that are republicans are more secular.

Religion is not an easy thing to shake off, and as optimistic as I try to remain, I do fear that the republican party is doomed to the christian base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have another take on this. Eventually the left wingers who are in their philosophy collectivists will merge with what we know as right-wingers because the right-wingers have also accepted the philosophy of collectivism and abandoned capitalism. Both sides are very much the same now with minor differences in controlling behavior of this kind or that. It will take a while for a coalition to form though. Both sides proclaim to want to reach over the aisle and I think that they really mean it.

Then the time for a rational party has arrived. Non of us here would support any of the above, but the new party would be based on the ideals of laissez-faire with the problem of having to eradicate all the baggage of the old system. This can not happen until there is a broad base of support in the general population though. A lot of work lies ahead to spread the word first and make people change their thinking, become rational and adapt all that that entails.

I have no hope that the religionists will join a Laissez-faire driven movement or turn back to half-capitalism, altruism is part of religion after all. They used to have a partial ideal of capitalism, but that has really been abandoned. Only a few of them mouths the wish for a smaller government, but it is a half hearted attempt because they cling to religion as their guide in moral decisions and therefore can not abandon altruism/collectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some small-government Republicans left. as regards smaller government, they are the ones we could support on that issue alone regardless of what other issues they may support. As far as I know there are NO small-government Democrats.

The problem here is that Republicans who favor smaller government often do so only to the extent of paying lip service to it, or at most to the extent of taking symbolic action. Earmarks are a good example. Yes, they're wasteful and yes, they go 99% of the time to things that are not the government's business, but compared to the middle-class welfare programs they are but a drop in the bucket. Not only that, but it is the middle-class welfare (medicaid, social security, freddie and fannie, etc) that poses the real threat of creeping socialism in the country

Then too Republicans favor a strong national defense, eith the exception of some isolationists in the mold of Pat Buchanan.

And the problem as we all know is that few, if any, in the GOP will favor forceful action abroad to secure America's interests. Instead they favor strong action abroad in orer to reconstruct broken countries and to implant "democracy" there. Without making sure even that the resulting rebuilt countries will be friendly to america or secular in governance (there's that religious right thing; better a hostile religion, it seems, than no religion).

The Democrats will favor action abroad only if they think it will be popular with the masses (as they believed in 2003). But they'll turn against it if their "base" does (as it did in 2004).

We still have Iran to contend with. I'm certain Obama will not strike pre-emptively in order to stop Iran from developing nukes, nor will he be urged on by the Democratic-dominated Congress. The GOP may urge him to, but they may as well urge a rock to bleed for all the good it will do them. No, there will be still more talks, until Iran tests an A-bomb (if we're lucky; if we're not they'll test and H-bomb).

It's doubtful Bush will do anything in the short time remaining him in power. It's also doubtful, but less so, that Israel will launch a pre-emtptive strike. Even if she does, for all the might of the IDF Air Force, all she will accomplish is a delay in Iran's program.

And that shows exactly how badly the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been missmanaged. Iran borders these two countries. Iran should be shaking with fear that they could be next, and that large numbers of American tropps and aircraft are stationed close to them. Instead they are as care-free as they can be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was most certainly a secular leftist before I learned about Objectivism (I considered myself a liberal and an agnostic...kinda creeps me out to think I used to be like that haha).

Tell me about it. Believe it or not, but before I was an Objectivist I use to believe in Geoism or the whole land property is collectively owned crap while everything else is private. Spooks me to think back to those days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't my argument in it's entirety, it's something wanted to show to illustrate the mind-set that is wide spread amongst the Republicans. This little debate happened in a Facebook group discussing ideas about revamping the Republican party. I told them the best way to do so was to stop catering to the Evangelicals so much. This guy told me that that was stupid because that's their entire base. To which I said this...

So there entire base is the Evangelicals? Should a political party only cater to one select group of people?

Seriously, what have the Evangelicals, the Compassionate Conseratives, and the "Traditional Values" people done with your party? The main issues they support with the most vigor are the ones that violate the rights of other people.

They want to violate the right for two consenting romantically linked adults to enter into a legally binding contract with one another. Thus violating the right to the pursuit of happiness.

They want to violate a womans right to her own body. Thus violating the right to life.

They want to violate the First Amendment by pushing for faith-based intiatives. Thus violating the right to liberty.

All the while they trump themselves as the "True Americans" some even going so far as to claim the country is for Christians only.

Is that the type of party you want to vote for? Are these the type of people you want to write your laws, spend your tax dollars and protect your freedom?

The reply I got was this...

hehe. i finally got you to crack. your obviously a dillusional liberal who has nothing to do with the republican party. thanks to your post here everyone can see that, not just me. go back to your liberal democrat forums. and if you do claim anything to do with the republican party then i'll expose you even further. it is people like you who have destroyed the republican identity. people aren't voting against republicans because of their traditional values. they are pissed off at the party because it let people like you take control over it and kick all those values to the curb. why in the world do you think they want to "clean house?" i'll tell you. it's to get rid you and all like you because you are driving this party into the ground.

good bye, and good luck with all your hope and change nonsense.

I tried to make sure my post containted nothing of supporting Democrats; just the point that the Evangelicals main objective is to use the government to violate peoples rights. I got called all sorts of things in return. This is the mentality, "If your not X then you are Y and Y is always bad" "If you aren't with us 100% then you are against us and anyone who is against us is wrong and bad" It's pure-grade collectivism for sure and the fact that a lot of these guys can't really back up their arguments shows their altruism -- they think only what other people around them think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They want to violate the right for two consenting romantically linked adults to enter into a legally binding contract with one another. Thus violating the right to the pursuit of happiness.
They dont object to two men entering into a legally binding contract with one another, they object to labeling that contract a marriage. Now that California has defined marriage as one man and one woman, whose rights have been violated? A gay man has the exact same rights as a straight man--they can marry anyone of the opposite sex who is willing to have them. There is nothing to stop a gay man from getting married, so long as he marries a woman.

They want to violate the First Amendment by pushing for faith-based initiatives. Thus violating the right to liberty.
How is a faith based initiative more egregious than a non faith based initiative? Is a government handout in the name of religion any worse than any other government handout done in the name of the common good?

All the while they trump themselves as the "True Americans" some even going so far as to claim the country is for Christians only.
Who said that?

your obviously a dillusional liberal
I dont think he broke any real ground with that accusation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They dont object to two men entering into a legally binding contract with one another, they object to labeling that contract a marriage. Now that California has defined marriage as one man and one woman, whose rights have been violated? A gay man has the exact same rights as a straight man--they can marry anyone of the opposite sex who is willing to have them. There is nothing to stop a gay man from getting married, so long as he marries a woman.

That's wonderful... except that a person of the opposite sex is the last person a gay man would want to marry, and I'm sure many gay members of this forum would love to inform you about the joys of "civil unions."

How is a faith based initiative more egregious than a non faith based initiative? Is a government handout in the name of religion any worse than any other government handout done in the name of the common good?

When people are burned at the stake again, I'll remind you this statement, but I give you that one form of irrationality is just as bad as the other. Problem is, some forms are far more motivated at the moments than the others.

Who said that?

No one specific and everyone. It was a general summation of many statements.

I dont think he broke any real ground with that accusation.

Your petty word games and snide insults do not impress me. Try again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one specific and everyone. It was a general summation of many statements.

Well, you cleared that up. Now, if you could work that nonsensical statement into a rhyme you could write for Dr Seuss.

Your petty word games and snide insults do not impress me. Try again.

I wasnt trying to impress you, but I will put that on my 'to do' list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They dont object to two men entering into a legally binding contract with one another, they object to labeling that contract a marriage. Now that California has defined marriage as one man and one woman, whose rights have been violated? A gay man has the exact same rights as a straight man--they can marry anyone of the opposite sex who is willing to have them. There is nothing to stop a gay man from getting married, so long as he marries a woman.

Surly, you're not saying that you support prop 8, are you? I would like to hear your reasons for doing so.

Is a government handout in the name of religion any worse than any other government handout done in the name of the common good?

Yes. Particularly because it embodies and promotes an entirely altruistic ethic unlike socialism which is nothing more than a political system devoid of morality. Moral relativism has to collapse into something you see? Religion provides that something for it to collapse upon. Get rid of religion, and there will be no way for anybody to praise the virtue of sacrifice anymore.

Who said that?

Oh I don't know...

Edited by Miles White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They dont object to two men entering into a legally binding contract with one another, they object to labeling that contract a marriage. Now that California has defined marriage as one man and one woman, whose rights have been violated? A gay man has the exact same rights as a straight man--they can marry anyone of the opposite sex who is willing to have them. There is nothing to stop a gay man from getting married, so long as he marries a woman.

I'll respect sNerd's wishes and not delve further into this with you.

How is a faith based initiative more egregious than a non faith based initiative? Is a government handout in the name of religion any worse than any other government handout done in the name of the common good?

Who said that?

It's not all there is on the subject, but here is a starter from Michelle Goldberg

I've just published a book called "Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism," and since it appeared, I've been asked several times what Christian nationalism is, and how it differs from Christian fundamentalism. It's an important concept to understand, because the threat to a pluralistic society does not come from those who simply believe in a very conservative interpretation of Christianity. It comes from those who adhere to a political ideology that posits a Christian right to rule.

Christian nationalists believe in a revisionist history, which holds that the founders were devout Christians who never intended to create a secular republic; separation of church and state, according to this history, is a fraud perpetrated by God-hating subversives. One of the foremost Christian revisionist historians is David Barton, who , in addition to running an organization called Wallbuilders that disseminates Christian nationalist books, tracts and videos, is also the vice-chairman of the Texas Republican Party. The goal of Christian nationalist politics is the restoration of the imagined Christian nation. As George Grant, former executive director of D. James Kennedy's influential Coral Ridge Ministries, wrote in his book "The Changing of the Guard:"

"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.

But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.

It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.

It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.

It is dominion we are after.

World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish."

In the Christian nationalist vision of America, non-believers would be free to worship as they choose, as long as they know their place. When Venkatachalapathi Samuldrala became the first Hindu priest to offer an invocation before Congress, the Family Research Council issued a furious statement that reveals much about the America they'd like to create:

"While it is true that the United States of America was founded on the sacred principle of religious freedom for all, that liberty was never intended to exalt other religions to the level that Christianity holds in our country's heritage...Our founders expected that Christianity -- and no other religion -- would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples' consciences and their right to worship. They would have found utterly incredible the idea that all religions, including paganism, be treated with equal deference."

The iconography of Christian nationalism conflates the cross and the flag. As I write in "Kingdom Coming," it "claims supernatural sanction for its campaign of national renewal and speaks rapturously about vanquishing the millions of Americans who would stand in its way." At one rally at the statehouse in Austin, Texas, a banner pictured a fierce eagle perched upon a bloody cross. For a liberal, such imagery smacks of fascist agitprop. But plenty of deeply committed Christians also object to it as a form of blasphemy. It's important, I think, to separate their faith from the authoritarian impulses of the Christian nationalist movement. Christianity is a religion. Christian nationalism is a political program, and there is nothing sacred about it.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/11/151212/239

These people exist and as stated above, have made themselves a place in the Repulican party.

I dont think he broke any real ground with that accusation.

Care to explain what you mean?

Edited by Mammon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The republican party is currently a circular firing squad; each group trying to expel the others within the party they wish to blame for their current predicament.

It will be interesting to see what comes from the rumble but i don't think we are going to hear from the GOP for a very long time. The Neo-Cons and the No Nothings simply have too much control and vested interest in the party to allow to the return to more of a principal more in line with objectivism such as Goldwater.

Edited by Chwisch87
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The republican party is currently a circular firing squad; each group trying to expel the others within the party they wish to blame for their current predicament.

Right Chwisch, right now we are witnessing the Republicans attempting to get back on their feet after one their biggest defeats. Read what the Republican Governors are saying about the future of their party. This is a moment of introspection for them and we get to some of their true colors coming out. An Objectivist on this board had an op-ed published on Little Green Footballs, notice the comments that were made about it. These are the kinds of these things that are going through the Republicans heads.

I'm not that excited about what I see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got done "reading" the responses to the Little Green Footballs post.

By "reading" I mean staring at the first hundred or so malformed attempts at intelligence made by the site monkeys before realizing I was only a twelfth of the way in and gave up.

Ow.

I didn't think I was possible for so many people to miss the point at once. Ouch.

Edited by Nyronus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, the irony.

I asked you politely to explain because I, unlike some people, don't like to rush to conclusions about what people might think if it's a little shady. I don't pretend to know what's going on in their head, and although I might have a good clue that's not enough to accuse them of anything.

You could of meant that I'm a liberal like he said, so that accusation isn't old or you could of said that he didn't make any new grounds with having a civil and thoughtful discussion.

Either way, you don't owe me a response. But I asked anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And no one really answered the original question. ;)

I thought I'd answered it: such Republicans as are for smaller government deserve support on an ad-hoc basis, regardless of their views on other issues (assuming smaller government is their main issue).

It wouldn't be a bad idea to grant both parties an ideological bailout. I'm even willing to "sacrifice" and bail them both out by myself :P

Ah, if only it were so simlpe....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...