Political Discussions
Agree with Republican core values?
Posted by trulyskewed • 10/22/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: gop, Republicans
Here's what GOP.gov lists as core Republican values. Do you agree with them? Do you think they're relevant anymore? Do Republicans follow them? What would a more realistic list of Republican core values be? What is your list?
1. We're fortunate to live in America
The Republican Party believes that the United States has been blessed with a unique set of individual rights and freedoms available to all.
2. You can be what you are, and become what you are capable of becoming
The Republican Party is inspired by the power and ingenuity of the individual to succeed through hard work, family support and self-discipline.
3. Helping those around you is worthwhile
The Republican Party believes in the value of voluntary giving and community support over taxation and forced redistribution.
4.Small government is a better government for the people.
The Republican Party, like our nation's founders, believes that government must be limited so that it never becomes powerful enough to infringe on the rights of individuals.
5. You know what to do with your money better than government
The Republican Party supports low taxes because individuals know best how to make their own economic and charitable choices.
6. Free markets keep people free
The Republican Party is supportive of logical business regulations that encourage entrepeneurs to start more businesses so more individuals can enjoy the satisfaction and fruits of self-made success.
7. Our Armed Forces defend and protect our democracy
The Republican Party is committed to preserving our national strength while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.
User Comments
-
Want to know what our founders meant when they said "republican"?
jeffersonsmammoth.blogspot.com/2009/06/republican-in-name-only.html-
Supporting a Republic? -
it didn't involve wasting money on "national strength"
-
It also didn't involve preventing the English from burning down the White House!
-
That was a breakdown in providing for the "common defense." In the end though, America fought to a stalemate. The brits had more human cannon-fodder. We had more trees to build ships with.
-
Yeah but you have to admit, getting our arse whooped by Canucks was not the proudest moment in American military history. Were it not for our Navy, the only professional military service at that time, it wouldn't have been a stalemate. And it's not so much we had more trees to build ships with (they did have Canada) as we had a brilliant admiral named Oliver Hazard Perry.
Further, if America had been able to burn down London the war would've been very different, and it was largely by discarding that model and having some fun little Jingoes out in the American West that we really established ourselves as a country. -
the population of london had like a million people. the population of DC at the time was a few thousand. And due to the federalist nature of the government, not nearly so crucial.
-
Yes but they burned a lot of other cities on their way over.
-
-
Well, the basic platform of the GOP is wonderful, I just do not see where it is practiced with regards to social issues. For instance, with regards to the hate crime legislation that was just passed, the Matthew Shepherd Act, this site claims that religious beliefs will be prosecuted as a hate crime if a pastor preaches against "immoral" sexual practices.
Here is the link to the page that I am referring too.
www.gop.gov/talking-points/09/10/08/gop-talkers-on-dod-authorization
However, they fail to mention that the bill contains a clause that protects religious ideology and practices. Therefore, this bill only makes the physical harm of a LGBT person that was a direct result of their sexual orientation, a federal crime. This bill does not allow for the prosecution of people like Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps who make a living speaking out against the LGBT community.
So to me, it smells a little bit like hypocrisy however that is just my personal opinion.-
Not sure what particular point any of that goes against, but maybe the best argument against the Matthew-Shepard Bill is simply pointing out that murder is murder, assault is assault, and there's really no difference from why you do it. It's not like it will be legal to murder Gay people if hate crimes legislation isn't on the books.
Now as for actually necessary LGBT legislation, why is it that we still don't have sexual orientation on our list of protected classes for Workplace Discrimination?
-
-
1. We have a unique history, but there are other countries that are blessed too. As for individual rights and freedoms, well, that is a worthy aspiration set out in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, but we're still trying to get there. Democrats and Republicans alike share these aspirations.
2. Promoting equality of opportunity is something that Democrats and Republicans alike try to foster. Democrats just don't always believe that "hard work, family support and self-discipline" are sufficient unto themselves. A decent education system that is available to all is also crucial. I believe Republicans agree on that principle, or else we would not have had "No Kid Left Behind." Setting aside the problems that policy had, the motivation behind it was something shared by both sides of the aisle, which is why the bill had bipartisan support.
3. Volunteerism is an American value, not just a Republican one, which is why Communitarians include Republicans and Democrats. The statements about "taxation and forced redistribution" ring hollow insofar as most Republicans these days support the continuation of Medicare and Social Security, two of the biggest redistribution programs I can think of, redistribution between generations. But if they are against these things as well as insurance for poor children and public education to ensure equality of opportunity, why don't they be honest and say so? Seems to me that these are just hollow phrases, used whenever it appears convenient. No Republican administration is going to end the progressive income tax. They will just adjust it. And no Democratic administration is going to promote an extreme redistribution either. Tax rates are low, and I don't see the political will to change that in any party.
4. The bit about limited government is pretty vague. I know how it plays into conservative and Republican rhetoric, but I don't see Republican behavior in the past as actually promoting smaller government.
5. This is a variation of no. 3, so see above.
6. Free markets might or might not keep people free. I think the link is far from proven, as the case of China shows. Still, I think free markets are desirable. Democrats in general do too. Our disagreements with Republicans come from our understanding of what free markets actually are. The health insurance, market, for example, is anything but free at present. Coercive capitalism is not the same as free markets. Again, while Democrats and Republicans agree on the supposedly Republican core value, they disagree on what a free market actually looks like. Sometimes government regulation is necessary in order to protect freedom, for example.
7. The GOP has done more to grind down our armed forces than any administration in recent history, and they've done so in a frivolous manner. It also has behaved shamefully when it comes to veterans. Finally, this is not a "Republican" core value. Democrats understand the importance of national defense too. But the current president also sees the value in diplomacy, so that the soldiers do not have to bear the weight of the entire world on their shoulders. Two million men and women in uniform only go so far.-
To your #1, yes, and we should not discard our blessings, including a dynamic, creative individualistic culture that avoids the manipulations and social tyranny of others. In other words, we shouldn't become collectivist.
To your #2, I don't believe education is the way to foster equality. Too impractical and demand for educated work (as we are finding out just about now) IS LIMITED. What we really need is more industry and blue-collar work. Further, Republicans, with their light regulations, low tax rates, humble attitude towards society and the individual and tendency to tell NIMBY's to shut up and mind their own business do a far better job at creating the kind of industrial work that promotes the fortunes of the industrial worker. A result of this is states like Alabama and Missippi that not to long ago were among the most desperate generators of poverty in the countries and are now, respectively, America's biggest Steel producer and America's biggest Shipbuilder.
To your #3, I would point out that the main reason Republicans support the continuation of Medicare and Social Security is that getting rid of them at this time would be highly impractical. I know of very few Republicans who are especially in love with these programs, or would enact them themselves if they weren't here already, but you really can't get rid of them at this point because the affected are no longer in a position to save and prepare.
Actually, that is a very important tenant of conservative philosophy as well: humility. The humility to see that no thought can really encompass the earth, and that no, you do not know how to order everyones lives for them nor would the world be a very fun place if you did, and further, you have no right to say you know how to spend everyones money better then they can. The humility to see that massive change and the use of force is not only undesirable from the cost standpoint, but also from the standpoint of inevitable folly. This humility also translates to realizing what is wrong with turning this country in to the opposite utopia. Conservatives realize that we only know so much, and very little is really within our power.
As for gigantic redistributions, several liberals including Obama have already shown a willingness to do this through public healthcare or healthplan selection comittees and mandatory rationing. A Republican may end the progressive income tax now that social issues are non-issues - for the past 20 or so years the Republican Party was watered down by social issues voters and this is no longer really the case.
To #4: See my statement about humility above. It's not about how many beauracrats are hired, but what the attitude of these programs is.
To #6: China is proof of the liberating power of free markets, as anyone who has been there knows. Free speech is close to universal, people travel without consulting the central beauracracy, land ownership is both more meaningful and more extensive then it was 30 years ago and the draft is being dropped. All these are powerful developments over 30 years ago, when Socialism was mostly discarded with the death of Mao and rise of Deng "To get rich is glorious" Xiaoping. They are no longer truly a totalitarian regime, really more authoritarian at this point.
Of course, they're also a collectivist culture, so change will be slower (though still very much there) then in individualistic nations like the US, Canada, Ireland and Italy. The problem, mark, is that change is not instantaneous. Things don't work that fast, but you wait a good 20 years or so and we may well see the first elections there, just as we did in Taiwan (Republic of China) after 50 years of free markets!
#7 is a huge debate and one that's been had many times and many ways on many threads. I don't agree with you but we are NOT having a side-thread on this. -
"The bit about limited government is pretty vague. I know how it plays into conservative and Republican rhetoric, but I don't see Republican behavior in the past as actually promoting smaller government."
Actually, limited government doesn't necessarily refer to small government, or a night-watchmen-state that is aslep on it's flashlight. It refers to what GOVERNMENT IS NOT ALLOWED TO DO.
The constitution makes no specific enumeration for non-defensive war, or for spying, or for bailing out corporations. The "Republican" platform is full of s~!t -
Good point about the meaning of "limited", Agit8r. I haven't seen it put that way, but if you go back a couple centuries, the idea was unlimited power for the absolutist monarch, or very serious limitations placed on him by some other body, in England Parliament.
Have you maybe got some references for what you're talking about? Of course it is at odds with what "limited" means in 21st-century GOP doublespeak, but that's beside the point. -
It really has been incorporated into said doublespeak.... about things like "the welfare state," affirmative action, allowing gay marriage....
-
The problem with limited government is that there are three primary camps in the GOP and one of them doesn't believe in it. You have Moderates, Libertarians, and Social Conservatives. The defense folks can be any of these three as well. The Moderates believe in limited (but still fairly large) government, the Libertarians just want less government period, and the Social Conservatives want less limited government.
-
-
-
Uh oh.
-
he's going to p!ss off the Nevada Department of Corrections guy again...
-
-
-
The real question is whether the "Republican Party" believes in republican values. Which description best serves that party from the two given by America's founding father James Madison:
"The antirepublican party, as it may be called, being the weaker in point of numbers, will be induced by the most obvious motives to strengthen themselves with the men of influence, particularly of moneyed, which is the most active and insinuating influence. It will be equally their true policy to weaken their opponents by reviving exploded parties and taking advantage of all prejudices, local, political, and occupational, that may prevent or disturb a general coalition of sentiments.
The Republican party, as it may be termed, conscious that the mass of people in every part of the union, in every state, and of every occupation must at bottom be with them, both in interest and sentiment, will naturally find their account in burying all antecedent questions, in banishing every other distinction than that between enemies and friends to republican government, and in promoting a general harmony among the latter, wherever residing or however employed."
Maybe we should start just referring to it as the Antirepublican party, for the sake of historical accuracy. o_0-
-
-
They're starting to turn around, and the Conservative Party show over in NY-23 may be a good lesson to them. But yes, they have troubles in the past, as every political party does eventually, with standing up for its own values.
-
-
Political parties tend to have one over-riding "value"
POWER-
I see you've learned.
-
-
I believe those are the values the GOP should be living up, but in many cases don't. I am still a registered Republican, but going forward plan to vote for and support someone who really stand by these values and plan to work to reduce the debt and reduce the size of the federal government.-
Personally I find these core values extra cheesy, though that may be the intent as they are clearly meant as partisan advertising.
-
-
A quick glance at OP's blog tells the story.
trulyskewed.blogspot.com/2009/10/how-to-argue-with-your-friend-who.html
He makes a good point, though I tend to prefer CNN to either network-
I left a comment on his post about how his statement about the Deathbook is actually false. Mainly, look at pages 34 & 35 about mechanical ventilators.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
