Trying to understand (US) Republicans.

[morteduzionism]

A few days ago I was listening to the news (not sure which show...but I think it was Fox)...

Anyway, I heard a Republican strategist commenting on Sarah Palin's current trip to Colorado.

The person (the strategist) said that Sarah needed to, '...show the people she loves hunting/guns...and that's the type of person she is...'

That's a paraphrase but it's pretty darn close to the actual quote.

My question is: Does this really work?

This seems like a trick you play on a small simple child. Give the toddler something sweet and they'll do anything you want. Honestly, it sounds somewhat condescending.

Is that the case for Republicans? As long as their candidate likes guns/hunting...then that's a 'good candidate.'

I suppose it just seems peculiar that..."hunting & guns" would still be a topic of conversation this late in the game.

Or is this a regional issue? Is "hunting/guns" the message for western states while the message for the other regions are: a) America first [i.e. strong military, etc] b) lower taxes c) small government (i.e. no regulation)?

Then I came across this opinionarticle.

They do not change from election to election. They do not believe in a greater American community of shared risk and responsibility. They believe in nothing and no one but themselves.

This quote, from the linked article, puts into perspective an idea I've had before. I even posted a thread asking, in essence, 'Are Republicans mean?'

They claim to be "patriotic Americans" yet, it seems, that the more you disect their idea of "America" the more it seems not to be the current America of today.

On the surface it sort of looks like they [Republicans] are dissidents. Whenever given an opportunity they attempt to defund 'social' programs and reduce the power of the central government. They advocate a confederacy which is in opposition of the current form of government.

Doesn't that seem like they are enemies of the United States of America?

I'm not trying to be negative or anything I seriously don't understand. Whenever I hear the Republican agenda defined it ALWAYS sounds, IMO, as if it is in direct opposition of what I see the USA as standing/striving for.

I don't understand why and how such a simplified message (hunting/guns) consistently resonates with people and I don't understand how people vote for others who seemingly want to destroy the current form of the country (unless those voters want that too).

That's why I'm trying to understand Republicans.

[danzig]

You are misinterpreting the intent of the "hunting/guns" comment as it is aiming at a voting block the Republicans need and it is basically saying she needs to relate to them, that she is one of them. There is little different between this and say Bill Clinton's "I feel your pain" or Obama trying to connect with low income people. Yeah the framing of the comment sounds absurd but the entire goal (unfortunately) for becoming President is to try and connect to the voting blocks you need to win, that you are one of them or that you can relate to them. So its basically (imo) just a buzzword to appeal to the interest of THOSE types of people rather then literally guns/hunting.

Simplified message is unfortunately the name of the game when it comes to politics regardless of party...despite the fact some of us wish it wasnt. It is easier to get that message across then a more complete message that gets sucked into the vortex of sound bite media which results in the appearance that candidate cant clearly define what it is they stand for. Bottom line it is a bigger issue beyond just Republican.

[Kleos]

On the surface it sort of looks like they [Republicans] are dissidents. Whenever given an opportunity they attempt to defund 'social' programs and reduce the power of the central government.

How is this worthy of the label dissident or mean? Its merely the hard headed realisation based on thousands of years of the human experience that a centralised, powerful government erodes personal liberty and is inefficeient in its leadership. Surely few things are more American than a belief in the ability and potential of the individual over the government-knows-best attitude, that curses countries like the United Kingdom.

They advocate a confederacy which is in opposition of the current form of government.

Do 'they'? I don't get this impression at all - at the most a return to a stricter interpretation of the Constitution. Hardly a confederacy, just a Union with a less powerful and smaller Federal Government. It seems as if you're taking a minority of people who vote for the Republican party and using their faults to attack all Republicans.

Doesn't that seem like they are enemies of the United States of America?

They are enemies of your politcal belief and your desires and dreams for the US - just because their opinions conflict with yours does not make them (or, indeed, you) wrong. As for being 'enemies', as inappropiate a description as it is - it could far more easily be applied to the Democrats; large social welfare costs being the major drain on US public funds and no doubt contributing to current and future debts. As you have said, most Republicans would favour a decrease in government spending.

I'm not trying to be negative or anything I seriously don't understand. Whenever I hear the Republican agenda defined it ALWAYS sounds, IMO, as if it is in direct opposition of what I see the USA as standing/striving for.

Again, it may be the opposite of what you stand and strive for - but evidently not the USA. Modern electoral history shows that the Republicans are not the 'direct opposite' of what the majority in the US want.

The impression I get from reading this post is basically the use of sterotypes for the means of political argument. Speaking from across the pond, this is ironic; because it seems 'the left' is happy to lower itself to exploiting a particular stereotype regardless of what it is. In the US its mocking Republicans as being uneducated bigots (c.f. Redneck label), while in the UK, Tories are often stereotyped as elitist snobs out of touch with the ordinary person - both are groundless accusations that used by the politcal opposition.

[morteduzionism]

How is this worthy of the label dissident or mean?

The literal definition of "dissident" is one who disagrees. They disagree with the current form of the country/govt. Therefore, they're dissidents.

IMO, that isn't applicable to Democrats because they don't seem to be wanting to change the structure of the govt but to either increase/decrease its' role in particular areas.

Its merely the hard headed realisation based on thousands of years of the human experience that a centralised, powerful government erodes personal liberty and is inefficeient in its leadership. Surely few things are more American than a belief in the ability and potential of the individual over the government-knows-best attitude, that curses countries like the United Kingdom.

You mean millinnea of aristocracy, right?

Although republicanism isn't a new idea you'd have to admit that it's only been around in the US form for a brief period of time (@235yrs) and really it hasn't even been 50 years since ALL the citizens of the US were "equal."

So I'm not sure where the irrefutable fact that "centralized government erodes personal liberty" comes from. Looking at the last 40 years it has been a centralized govt protecting the lives of citizens from the "personal liberty" of those who wanted to do them harm.

Do 'they'? I don't get this impression at all - at the most a return to a stricter interpretation of the Constitution. Hardly a confederacy, just a Union with a less powerful and smaller Federal Government.

...isn't that the literal definition of a "confederacy?"

It seems as if you're taking a minority of people who vote for the Republican party and using their faults to attack all Republicans.

States Rights, smaller govt, lower taxes and less regulation...

Are you suggesting these are the ideals that belong to the "minority" of people who vote Republican?

States Rights - no matter how it's argued it advocates altering the power/role of the central govt. In other words it's in disagreement with the current form of the USofA.

Smaller govt/less regulation - advocates a reduction in the power/role of the central govt.

Lower taxes - reducing revenues to the central govt. I suppose the logic is: they can't create social programs if they don't have the money to do it. Also, the idea that people keeping more of their money is better than having funding for (x) programs.

They are enemies of your politcal belief and your desires and dreams for the US - just because their opinions conflict with yours does not make them (or, indeed, you) wrong.

I italicized "United" to imply that they were against a "United" States of America. I'm also implying they're perfectly in support of a Confederate States of America <----not trying to make a link to slavery or nothing it's just...the opposite of a union is a confederacy it was the best word...sorry.

As for being 'enemies', as inappropiate a description as it is - it could far more easily be applied to the Democrats; large social welfare costs being the major drain on US public funds and no doubt contributing to current and future debts. As you have said, most Republicans would favour a decrease in government spending.

Enemy was the best word. They're in opposition of a "United" States.

Besides, the issue isn't whether or not one group wastes money or not. The issue is whether or not one group wants to change/alter the structure of the govt.

Again, it may be the opposite of what you stand and strive for - but evidently not the USA. Modern electoral history shows that the Republicans are not the 'direct opposite' of what the majority in the US want.

I think the US unwittingly became a place for freedom. You can find Mosques next to Synagogues, etc etc etc...
It's a place where peoples can come and express themselves/culture/beliefs without fear of reprisal.

Eventhough the...founders of the country didn't include EVERY human when they wrote "...all men are created equal" they unwittingly left open the door for ending a peculiar institution and discrimination based on gender.

That's what the US stands for: freedom. (IMO) That's what it's striving for. A better country for all citizens.

Again, I think you misinterpreted my words. What the US stands for or is striving for is unrelated to what the citizens "want." The ideal may not be achievable, but the important thing is to keep trying to reach the ideal. That ideal being a: UNITED States of America.

Whenever I hear the Republican agenda it seems like it is in direct opposition of that ideal.

The impression I get from reading this post is basically the use of sterotypes for the means of political argument.

You'd have to elaborate on this. I based this thread on my undertanding of Republicans and their agenda.

I wasn't trying to prove a point or make an argument.

I really want to find out if their America is the same as my America and I hoped to find out whether or not they [Republicans] cared about something other than hunting/guns.

In the US its mocking Republicans as being uneducated bigots (c.f. Redneck label),

Well if you look at a political map of the US most red(Republican) states are the more rural areas. While, IIRC, every state (except Texas...) with a major city (to be read as: diverse population) is blue(Democrats).

To me hunting is a side effect of effective ownership of firearms, a fun one as I like meat, but not the main purpose. And yes, it's very important.

Why? Please tell me why whether a candidate hunts or not is important?

If you think GOP Republicans are 'bad,' I will refrain of all but to say that if the US today is different in essence to the US the founders built, I want no part in it.

Rephrase, please.

[Viking Prince]

So I'm not sure where the irrefutable fact that "centralized government erodes personal liberty" comes from. Looking at the last 40 years it has been a centralized govt protecting the lives of citizens from the "personal liberty" of those who wanted to do them harm.

A huge post and a very important idea. I will try to take a small stab at a piece.

You are right that the central government has been instrumental in protecting and even validating minorties equal rights and protections. This is probably an unintended consequence of the constitution though. The founders wanted to simply fix the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation and to restrict the federal government from greater than intended reach. Even the early amendments were not included in the original constitution for fear the document would not be ratified.

The value of decentralized government is competition. If Chicago's government sucks, you can move to a suburb. If Illinois state government sucks, you can move to Wisconsin. The free movement of people is a great constraint on oppression. Once the power is centralized and monopolized, you will not be able to vote with your feet.

This sorting is common in most urbanized areas. Some tend to be wealthier, some more liberal, some maybe focus on schools. One jurisdiction may want lower taxes and provide less services while another jurisdiction has higher taxes and provides more serevices. This sorting process does not mean it is easy to move, but when you do move --- the sorting occurs. On the margin, each jursidiction gets more of like minded citizens when movement does occur.

[Kleos]

The literal definition of "dissident" is one who disagrees. They disagree with the current form of the country/govt. Therefore, they're dissidents.

Well, if we're being that pragmatic, Democrats are technically dissidents, for they too disagree with the current form of government. This a non argument.

IMO, that isn't applicable to Democrats because they don't seem to be wanting to change the structure of the govt but to either increase/decrease its' role in particular areas.

I'll quote you..."The literal definition of "dissident" is one who disagrees". You can't simply switch between the 'literal' and a more general defintion of a word when it suits the particular opinion you're tryng to get across.

Although republicanism isn't a new idea you'd have to admit that it's only been around in the US form for a brief period of time (@235yrs) and really it hasn't even been 50 years since ALL the citizens of the US were "equal."

So I'm not sure where the irrefutable fact that "centralized government erodes personal liberty" comes from. Looking at the last 40 years it has been a centralized govt protecting the lives of citizens from the "personal liberty" of those who wanted to do them harm

More laws = less freedom. It's simple really. All around the world, throughout history tha pattern has been clear - the larger, more centralised, the government; the less freedoms its citizens have. You are not seriously trying to argue otherwise?

...isn't that the literal definition of a "confederacy?"

What I wrote:
"...just a Union with a less powerful and smaller Federal Government"
'Literal' defintion of a confederacy:
'An association of sovereign states'
So no, by wishing for a less powerful Federal government they do not wish for a Confederacy. As I said, at the extreme you will have strict Constitutionalists...which would still leave the USA exactly that - a Union.

States Rights, smaller govt, lower taxes and less regulation...

Are you suggesting these are the ideals that belong to the "minority" of people who vote Republican?

No, nor did I.

In your opening post you didn't mention states rights once. You only mention less regualtion, small government and taxes in relation to other regions. Instead, you were accusing Republicans of being like "a small simple child", suggested all they care about is guns and hunting, agreed that they "do not believe in a greater American community", called them "dissidents", projected that they wished for a confederacy, accused them of being "enemies of the United States of America" who "seemingly want to destroy the current form of the country".

It was these sort of accusations that I was adressing when I stated:
"It seems as if you're taking a minority of people who vote for the Republican party and using their faults to attack all Republicans."

Besides, the issue isn't whether or not one group wastes money or not. The issue is whether or not one group wants to change/alter the structure of the govt.

Well...surely every group want to alter Government to some degree, they wouldn't be running on a platfrom of 'Change' otherwise. And regardless, this is besides the point - yes, there may be a tiny minority who wish for a fundamental restructuring of the US government, but they are a minority. You're using them to paint all Republicans as, and I quote, "being in direct opposition of what I see the USA as standing/striving for."

That's what the US stands for: freedom.

And how does the desire for limited government and individual liberty in anyway conflict with freedom?

What the US stands for or is striving for is unrelated to what the citizens "want."

...my point of the modern electoral results being that Republican beliefs do not make them "enemies of the United States America" or the people of the United states.

[Samuel Adams]

Is that the case for Republicans? As long as their candidate likes guns/hunting...then that's a 'good candidate.'

I suppose it just seems peculiar that..."hunting & guns" would still be a topic of conversation this late in the game.

Or is this a regional issue? Is "hunting/guns" the message for western states while the message for the other regions are: a) America first [i.e. strong military, etc] b) lower taxes c) small government (i.e. no regulation)?

To me hunting is a side effect of effective ownership of firearms, a fun one as I like meat, but not the main purpose. And yes, it's very important.

They claim to be "patriotic Americans" yet, it seems, that the more you disect their idea of "America" the more it seems not to be the current America of today.

On the surface it sort of looks like they [Republicans] are dissidents. Whenever given an opportunity they attempt to defund 'social' programs and reduce the power of the central government. They advocate a confederacy which is in opposition of the current form of government.

Doesn't that seem like they are enemies of the United States of America?

I'm not trying to be negative or anything I seriously don't understand. Whenever I hear the Republican agenda defined it ALWAYS sounds, IMO, as if it is in direct opposition of what I see the USA as standing/striving for.

I don't understand why and how such a simplified message (hunting/guns) consistently resonates with people and I don't understand how people vote for others who seemingly want to destroy the current form of the country (unless those voters want that too).

That's why I'm trying to understand Republicans.

If you think GOP Republicans are 'bad,' I will refrain of all but to say that if the US today is different in essence to the US the founders built, I want no part in it.