Who are Republicans?

[IamNY]

So your opinion is that the NY Times is as biased as Hannity is, but yet the article is factual? What's your point then?

Op Ed - A newspaper page containing articles by commentators expressing various viewpoints/opinions.

My point is simple. Although there may be some factual points in the article, it is mostly the writers opinion.

If you want to know "who are Republicans" there are better ways to find your answer and a great start would be to reference an article that is not an Op Ed (viewpoints/opinions) piece.

When reading an Op Ed article you should always consider the source.

Agrippa, I think that you honestly want to know who Republicans are; all that I am saying is that I would disagree with where you are getting your information from.

 

[Poker King]

I'm Canadian, I don't know much about American politics per se. I'm just trying to understand Who Republicans are, how they went from a respectable party that, as stated earlier, stood for smaller government to what they are now (i.e. bigger government enacting laws against gay marriage, rather than repealing laws against (heterosexual and homosexual) sodomy--smaller government).

I recognized the name George Wallace, but didn't know 'all about him' before reading his Wikipedia entry. You're using him as an example anachronistically. He said what he said in 1962 when the norm was segregation. Let alone that he's from Alabama. Besides, he went back on his position in the 1970s. Likewise with Byrd it seems; he later repudiated his involvement with the KKK. The names I mentioned earlier are contemporary Republicans.

Maybe I can help you here. At one point the Democrats were the Conservative Party and The Republicans were the Liberals. Confused, well it's true ... the Republican Party was founded just before the Civil War on a platform that was against the expansion of slavery into the western territories. See essentially both parties have Conservative and Liberal elements in them and from time to time they flip the orientation of the Party. For Republicans that switch happened gradually from Teddy Roosevelt to the 1960's for the Democrats that happened very fast under FDR and Truman who did everything they could to chase out the southern Conservative Wing known as the Dixiecrats, remember Storm Thurmond that 90 plus wingnut from the Carolinas ... he was the last of the Dixiecrats and joined the Republicans after Truman was elected. George Wallace ran as a conservative Democrat until he was chased out by the Liberal wing of the Party in the 1960's.

Confusing, yeap but welcome to a two party system.

As for your perceptions of Republicans as a small government party ... that's only a small faction of that Party ... the Clinton wing of the Democrats have similar views. The problem is that GWB takes the no tax approach to extremes that it seems he is for small Government ... he ain't, his and people like him just take the approach that running deficits are better than raising hard to get rid of taxes because the economy will out grow the deficit with time. The fact remains that economies grow the fastest when Governments actually invest in the economy. The real difference is over what you spend that money on.

If you actually look at the McCain platform or the Obama platform you will see very few differences in total spending ... neither man has talked one bit about getting rid of the current deficit.

And you wonder why people in the States are starting get really upset with politicians ... what they really need in the States is something akin to our NDP and force the two major Parties to take real stands on the issues.


pk

 

[Agrippa]

Confusing, yeap but welcome to a two party system.

Thanks for the informative email! It does make sense, now that I know that the Dixiecrats were the missing link.

Is it really just a matter of opening it up, of having a third party? Sure they might stop seeing things in black and white, us versus them, good and evil, but political discourse really seems to have been dumbed down in general. Besides the abysmal voter turnout doesn't help...

 

[bumfie]

Why is it that the Republican party seems to consist solely of the top 5% of America's wealth holders and the lower third of the IQ spectrum with no one in between?

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[Poker King]

Thanks for the informative email! It does make sense, now that I know that the Dixiecrats were the missing link.

Is it really just a matter of opening it up, of having a third party? Sure they might stop seeing things in black and white, us versus them, good and evil, but political discourse really seems to have been dumbed down in general. Besides the abysmal voter turnout doesn't help...

It actually is dumbed down in both our Countries ... mainly because of the 24 hour news cycle and the fact that we all collectively have attention deficit disorder, in so much we can't get around the 5 sec. sound bite. In Canada we see this with Dion's Green Shift policy ... while you can debate the merits the main problem is that you can't explain this policy in 30 seconds or less leaving it wide open for political attacks such as Harper's that calls it a Carbon Tax when that is only a component of the policy, what gets lost is that it is only the Liberals that are offering a broad based tax cut to the middle class while the Carbon Tax will be absorbed largely by Alberta's largest customer ... the US.

The same happens in the States ... and frankly even most Americans don't get their own Political Parties.

What is really startling about this POTUS race is how similar Obama's campaign is to Kerry's failed bid in 2004 ... the thing that got in the way of Kerry was only the Swift Boat ads ... a blatant and shameless lie perpetrated by the oilman Boone Pickens. The difference this time is that Obama's campaign will not ignore the mud and are perfectly prepared to sling it back and then some.

As for the Republicans being the top 5% and the bottom of the economic chain ... that's an over simplification. Republicans come from all walks of life and in 2000 and 2004 actually had a higher membership than the Democrats. This has reverted back to the old FDR numbers with Democrats out numbering Republicans and may reflect a changing demographic in the US.

Where Democrats lost to the republicans was in the Regan years when Regan was able to sell the American dream to ordinary and former Democrats.


pk

 

[Agrippa]

Thank you again for your thorough post PK. I generally agree with you.

Of course it is an oversimplification, but one has to wonder how can people still be rooting for Republicans? Their policies have failed across the board. They are more of a moral party than a politicaly party. As someone mentionned elswhere, wouldn't you quickly get fired from your job for doing such an awful job?

Saying that the Republican party consists of "the lower third of the IQ spectrum" is harsh, but you have to wonder, how can they not see this?

 

[mass1965]

I really dont see a big difference in the two parties. There is a difference in personalities but not really in the parties. I wish there was a viable third party with new ideas that would challange the status quo or should I say stagnation of the current US 2 party system.
As for the current election in my mind McCain showed extremely poor judgement in nominating Palin. There are too may questions about her activities while in goverment. Her education is a joke (basket weaving) and a 2 year mayor of any of 100's of medium size cities in the "Lower 48" would have more experience than she. If fact I would say McCain's nomination of her is insulting to the people of the US. Of course maybe there is another reason. After the distaster Bush has been, no one wanted to be on the Republican ticket as it was sure to lose. So maybe Palin was the only one stupid enough to agree to take it.

 

[Poker King]

Thank you again for your thorough post PK. I generally agree with you.

Of course it is an oversimplification, but one has to wonder how can people still be rooting for Republicans? Their policies have failed across the board. They are more of a moral party than a politicaly party. As someone mentionned elswhere, wouldn't you quickly get fired from your job for doing such an awful job?

Saying that the Republican party consists of "the lower third of the IQ spectrum" is harsh, but you have to wonder, how can they not see this?

Lower third is harsh but it goes to the so-called "American Dream" that most Americans chase. The reality is that the US has generally throughout it's history been a center - right kind of Country. It is overly religious, pretty much through any religion or creed ... hence the moral code ... heck you can even say that about Liberal Jews.

Canada on the other hand is center left ... hence S. Harper's attempt to seem to be a centrist when he is anything but much the same as Obama is also trying to portray himself as a centrist but isn't.

pk