A few years ago, the topic for one of our GOP meetings was "Why are you a Republican?" It made for an interesting discussion: The reponses ranged from "my parents were" to thoughtful, well-written essays. As a starting point to the discussion we had emailed a statement that appears on many GOP websites and individual web pages (do a Google search on "Why I am a Republican;" you'll see the links). I'm not sure who orignally wrote this, or I'd credit the author.
How well do you think these statements describe the Republican Party, as you see it?
I AM A REPUBLICAN BECAUSE . . .
I BELIEVE the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person's dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.
I BELIEVE in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability.
I BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.
I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.
I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and that the best government is that which governs least.
I BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.
I BELIEVE Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times.
I BELIEVE Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.
FINALLY, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.
Reading that was a surreal experience. I strongly agree with every one of those points except the last. In fact, the gulf between the words on that list and the deeds of this Republican administration and Congress makes me arrive at the opposite conclusion to Handymom--the Democrats have their problems, but they're not engaged in actively undermining virtually every principle on that list.
I'm pleased to see your list doesn't include placing the Bible over the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. I know the alliance between the modern Republican party and the Robertson-Dobson set is a marriage more of convenience than ideology, but it's hard for me to respect Republican candidates while that alliance persists--I can't blame the fundies for trying, but they've spectacularly missed the point as to the Founders' intent on religious freedom, and many Republicans are far too willing to go along.
I'm disappointed that your list doesn't include protecting the environment. I'm not sure when it became "liberal" to believe that we should expect individuals and corporations to operate in a manner that ensures opportunity for future generations. The most responsible President ever in this regard was probably a liberal moonbat named Theodore Roosevelt. And far too many Republicans are willing to let corporations exploit our resources below cost and skip out on the consequences, which I classify as the worst kind of corporate welfare. I'm a small-government type myself, but right up there with defending the nation against its enemies should come defending it against those who erode the nation's long-term future for their short-term greed.
Linda, thanks for posting the list. It's amazing and discouraging how people can see the same issues so differently. I'm not sure what the Republicans here think that the Democrats want, but it must be really bad if they're still willing to defend the current administration after it has strayed so far afield. I know many Democrats who would agree with everything on that list.
How well do you think these statements describe the Republican Party, as you see it?
In theory or in practice?
And, nationally or locally?
Whatever you'd like to discuss.
And I should have added in my post: "Why are you a Republican?" (To those of you who consider yourselves Republicans, of course.)
Here's a good one
So far, though, we can still vote our king out.
rswb-
Well, you and I agree. It's *not* a black day if you don't mind living under a king. And it's a positively brilliant day if that's what you've wanted all along.
I'm a Republican for many of the reasons that you cite, but I don't feel that the Party represents many of those principles any more. Frankly, the Republicans are out of control on spending and don't seem to have a spine at all when dealing with things like the fillibusters, etc.
I agree with CD. It becomes discouraging to vote for the least worst candidate, instead of for a candidate that you can stand behind with enthusiasm.
My parents were proud independants. They would vote for Republicans when it came to financial issues, otherwise they were social liberals. But social liberal meant something different when I was growing up. It meant equality and equal opportunity for all.
As I started to become interested in politics, I found that the Republican Party was much more consistant than the Democrat Party at fighting for equallity. It seems like so many Democrats hold on to an old image of Republican's as the racists, elitist party. I think, that as the two parties have evolved, it is now the opposite. The Democrat party seems to have so many "victim" groups that seek an inequitable solution to their problems. And they want to impose their ideals on all of us because they know better what's good for us, and they want us to pay with our taxes for their ideas. The Republican Party does a better job of supporting the rights of all individuals. They also haven't forgotten that not only do citizens have individual rights, they also have responsibilities for themselves and society. When it comes to spending, I still believe the Republican Party is the least worst choice.
I also want to add that after 9/11, national security became my most important voting issue. On this issue, I enthusiastically support the Republican Party.
In a lot of respects, the Democrats became the status quo party and the GOP became the shake-things-up party in '94 with the Contract with America. Abortion and Social Security are two huge issues where the GOP is working to change things. It would be nice if they would add border control and immigration reforms to that list.
I am still waiting for the Democrats version of the Contract for this years elections.
I have been very disappointed in W and our current Congress in regards to "the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people." Grade schools, city buses, cops and bike paths are not national issues. Just once I'd like to hear our President say, "I know people are concerned about this issue, but it is not the proper role of the federal government - they need to contact their governor."
I love these humorous tongue-in-cheek posts. Had me rolling on the floor laughing!
The opportunity is ripe for the national Democratic Party to make some gains, given the GOP excesses on the deficit, pork, entitlements, etc. But the Democrats won't - because they'll be too busy being anti-war (and not anti-Iraqi War, but anti-war period) and all their other potential issues will be ancillary.
There's a great opportunity for the national Democrats to pick up a bunch of conservative/libertarian voters who are otherwise disgusted by the growth of Federal government (like me!). But it's impossible to take the Democrats seriously on national security, and so the opportunity will be wasted. Wasted by Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean; John Murtha and John Kerry; Kos and Code Pink. It's almost like the Democratic base thinks it's worth losing elections as long as the Democratic Party remains "pure" and anti-war.
It's almost like the Democratic base thinks it's worth losing elections as long as the Democratic Party remains “pure” and anti-war.
It's almost like the Republican base thinks it's worth losing elections as long as the Republican Party remains “pure” and anti-choice, ant-gay, and pro-gun.
When will people learn that it's better to have "one of us" in office, even if not "idealogiaclly pure"?
A moderate R is better to have than a conservative D. It means that Rs have more access than Ds, and minds can only be changed if there is access.
I'm so disappointed with the republican party, it hurts. I can't join Kennedy and Dean, but I can join more moderate Ds, and I will join them over radically "pure" Rs anytime.
Regular Reader,
It's not like the GOP positions on abortion, gay marriage or gun rights are preventing the GOP from winning and holding majorities on the national level.
I think you and I might be disappointed in the national GOP for different reasons. You seem to be angry at the social agenda, and I'm disappointed in the spending. But on both issues, the Democrats will waste their opportunities - because their base needs, wants and demands that they be firmly anti-war and anti-anything-connected-to-the-war. Unfortunately, the Democratic suicide pact means that they have no power to force the GOP to control spending. A Our country would benefit from a Democratic Party that could be taken seriously on national security.
OK, call me a kook - I agree with the unitary theory of the presidential power. If the Congress doesn't like what the president is doing with the EPA, etc., then tighten up the laws. These agencies need to be accountable to someone, and that someone is the President. Why should any one of them just be able to do whatever they want? Who voted for the head of the Dept of Agriculture?
Gordy,
I (generally) support the social agenda of the national party, but it seems to lack the "compassionate" side of conservatism sometimes. I agree the spending is out of control, and I also agree that the country would be better off with a stronger, more reasoned and more reasonable, 'loyal opposition".
But, the Rs have become just as bad as the Ds at being polarized, and polarizing. I feel driven out of the Rs by those that don't accept me as a moderate R, being branded a RINO. I don't always toe the party line. I won't always toe the D party line, either, but as I have said before, it is awfully hard, emotionally, to remain an R. I am now a D. A conservative D, but a D, because I am sick and tired of having my chops questioned, just because I am moderate. (As Rush says, and too many believe, there are no moderates, only liberals who call themselves moderates).
I'll follow any party that is willing to actively pursue desegregation of schools (and I mean actual scientific intiatives, not "Let's do school vouchers because I don't understand basic economics!" or Ted Kennedy and friends, "No Child Left Behind" crap...)
It's not a black day if you don't mind living under a king.
We need more moderate Republicans to see that there is something seriously wrong with their party at the national level.
I agree with this list of claims almost completely. As many have pointed out, the claim that the Republican party is the best exemplar of these virtues seems to me in almost every case here extremely dubious.
The Republicans party, far from being the party of individual rights has pushed an agenda of increasing government surveillance on individuals, raising penalties for peaceful protest, and lowering the separation between church and state that traditionally protected the religious beliefs of minorities. They are also the party that has been more apt to support censorship whether of pornography or of protest, and of and criminalizing not just abortion, but also the use of birth control such as the "morning after" pill.
It's far from clear to me that the Republican party now represents such individual freedoms in a very meaningful way.
As a progressive non-Republican, I believe that I have not right, but duties and moral obligations to others. I don't believe that indifference to injustice and moral wrongdoing is commendable or attractive or an attitude I'd wish to hold.
While "individual initiatives" is a virtue I cultivate in myself and would encourage in my family, it is not an excuse to ignore the suffering of others; nor is it an adequate principle for framing policies and institutions that will lead to a just and sustainable society. Will an appeal to individual initiative see to it that laws are followed and that contracts are enforced? Will it ensure that wealth and power are not appropriated by a small group that seeks to maintain its authority by influencing the lawmaking process and even resorting to concealed or open intimidation and violence?
The importance of individual initiative aand responsibility shouldn't blind to the benefits that can accrue though communal action. Impartial courts free us from the need to seek vengeance as individuals and clans. Contracts are enforced, roads and bridges are built. We exercise both our self interest and our moral obligations to others as we participate in framing policy through democratic processes. Things like slavery and indentured servitude and child labor can be outlawed. We can create a military and police. We can provide public education that can provide children the tools they need to exercise their individual initiative. We can provide medical care for those who's illness prevents them from acting on their own.
It's always a complicated balancing act, but our own experience in the US, and the examples of other countries show us that when individual freedoms are combined with democratically produced laws that work to promote and protect the public interest, a higher standard of living can be reached, both ethically and materially, than that which is achieved when every man stands only for himself.
There's no escaping the fact that the US is going to be a nation of laws and institutions. We all have an obligation to see that those laws and institutions are not larger than necessary, but also to see that they are adequate to our needs and obligations, and that they reflect our moral values and character as a people.
Sorry for the typos. I note a missing "just" and a missing "us" and a few other mistakes, and I'm sure there's more. But I spent too much time typing that comment to proof-read it, too!
Regular Reader,
Reading your posts, I think my ideology is pretty similar to yours - socially libertarian and fiscally conservative. I have a different take though in that I think the GOP has become MORE accepting of moderates in recent years. Nowadays we have Lincoln Chafee voting against Alito, Chuck Hagel bashing Bush every other day, Christie Whitman writing scathing books against conservatives...all of them still solidly in the GOP tent. A few years ago, I think they would have been blackballed from the party with torches and pitchforks, but now the GOP establishment accepts them as the price of being the majority party.
I guess I'm wondering - was there some seminal event that recently drove you over the edge? Or has this just been building over time?
By the way, when I said "drove you over the edge" it wasn't meant to be an insult, just referring to your party switch.
I also agree with the list of values I posted. At any particular moment of time the Republican Party or a particular politician may not fulfill all the bullet points of this list. But it's important to have a list of goals to strive for, as we work to mold the future of our party. The point is, if you think this list isn't being fulfilled, don't give up -- get involved, at whatever level you can.
Local and state races are a good place to start. Find a candidate who has the "list" you agree with -- and support them, by blogging, volunteering, and contributing financially.
Marvin Candle,
I know what you meant by "drove over the edge", no offense taken, even seen until you mentioned it! Sad that one must be so careful to not offend, but I appreciate your effort.
A seminal event? Not really. Maybe Abramoff was the straw that broke the camel's back. Not that Bush knows him, or even might have taken money from him (so what?), but the sweeping it under the rug. If there are photos, release them and explain them. Not realeasing them makes it look like there is something to hide. Bad PR. No good reason.
The war. What is the end game? It's never been explained. We don't have one.
Katrina. The South is still in shambles. The blacks think Bush is a racist, everyone else knows he is just incompetent in dealing with the issues at hand.
The economy. Reported tonight that America had the lowest savings rate, a negative savings rate, since 1933, the year after the depression. Major businesses are scaling back. GM. Ford. Kraft, to name a few recently.
Gays. I don't want to extend them any rights beyond what we all have and the law allows, but this administration, surprisingly with Cheney's acquiesence, doesn't appear to be neutral, but anti-gay. I believe in the law as it is, man and woman only may marry, but other than that, so what if someone is gay? I don't think that is the position of the Reed/Dobson/Robertson wing.
Wiretqaps. About as good PR as the MTD Board. Needed, to some extent, but not to the extent the public perceives it.
Homeland security. It is a joke. The ports are wide open, people are walking into America daily, and nuns have to take off their shoes in airports. I have seen a nun's bag searched.
The bloogers here, passionate partisans, have pushed me over the edge. They think Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are political leaders, instead of the just being entertainment.
Sorry, Marvin Candle, I ramble on.While I shudder to think how things would be if John Kerry was President, are those enough reasons to be turned off at least by this administration, if not by the entire Republican Party?
Marvin Candle,
Where were the moderate Republican to stand up to Alito today?
With a president who feels no compunctions about breaking laws, we're in more trouble than ever with this new justice and his theory of the "untary executive" that accords unprecedented powers to the president, who according to Alito gets to write "signing statements" about laws he signs that say what the law really means.
It's a disgrace. This adminstration is about a radical transfer of power upward, to itself. Where were the moderates today?
Please, today, of all days, don't try to feed us this stuff. It's a black day for us all.
For liberal comrades and Republicans with thick skin and a good sense of humor:
Why does this thread remind me of ask a Republican?
Christie Whitman is out of politics, and Lincoln Chafee is about to be.
"For liberal comrades and Republicans with thick skin and a good sense of humor:
Why does this thread remind me of ask a Republican?"
Cute...creative...funny in places. Almost as funny as anything Michael Moore says....
"Where were the moderate Republican to stand up to Alito today?"
I think the better question revolves around:
>On Monday, the Senate staved off an attempted filibuster by 24 Democrats and one independent, who voted to prevent Alito from getting a confirmation vote. But 19 Democrats joined 53 Republicans to pass the 60-vote threshold to prevent a filibuster and allow a simple majority vote Tuesday. - FoxNews
A moderate R is better to have than a conservative D. It means that Rs have more access than Ds, and minds can only be changed if there is access.
At this point I'd settle for a moderate R or a moderate D. Or even a conservative R in the mold of Roosevelt or Goldwater (before "conservative" came to mean pro-big-brother, anti-environment, anti-woman and pro-Christian-theocracy).
Regular,
I understand your frustrations - and shared them a few years ago. I considered leaving the party, but then Sept. 11 happened and any thought of doing that ended. Bush has made his fair share of mistakes, and the last year hasn't been pretty, but I feel he and the Republicans do a much better job of representing my values. The Democrats are just complain, bitch, whine, moan on anything and everything. I know what they're against alright, but I'll darned if I know what they're FOR.
Handy,
Care to wager that Lincoln Chafee is about to leave politics? Ten imaginary Internet dollars says he's a stayin right where he is.
Interloper,
Today is a "black day?" Isn't that being a wee bit melodramatic? Perhaps it is for liberal partisans, who saw their ridiculous attempts at blocking a qualified, experienced jurist go up in smoke, but I think everyone else in the republic is managing to survive. Obama is right - you guys need to do a better job of picking your battles.