Interesting blog post that's been making the rounds here at work. It's very long, but well worth a read through if you have a spare 15 minutes. here's a taste: When Republicans say that Democrats "just don't get it," this is the "it" to which they refer. Conservative positions on gays, guns, god, and immigration must be understood as means to achieve one kind of morally ordered society. When Democrats try to explain away these positions using pop psychology they err, they alienate, and they earn the label "elitist." But how can Democrats learn to see—let alone respect—a moral order they regard as narrow-minded, racist, and dumb? http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html
Look at the electoral maps. Obama, Kerry, Gore, et al, always lock up the northeast, far west, and a couple of states in the midwest with big union presence. Their policies are geared toward people who live in those states, and they're outright bashing the people who live elsewhere. Some people actually do want lower taxes and the smaller govt. that republicans promise (but don't deliver, unfortunately).
Well here is the reason why I vote Republican. I'm Albanian, and I'm from Kosovo, came to this country in 1999. First lived in Nebraska, then 4 years ago moved to Massachusetts. When we came here I saw how bad the Democrats really are, not as people of course, but how bad their policies are, how bad their agenda is. They provide social programs for people who are perfectly fine and able to work but choose to get free money, free health care, etc, just because the Democratic govt here in Mass. doesn't ask questions. I see people all over Springfield for example, they're all young (20s, 30s, etc) and yet they never work, just live of the govt, which means that our tax money is going to them, while there are plenty of factory jobs, or other low paying jobs which need workers. Compare this state to the Midwestern states, and you'd never see this there. Also 2nd reason why I'm voting for Republicans is because they're tough on our enemies whether it's the Islamic nuts who want to turn this world 10 centuries back, or other old time enemies like Russia and China who would love to see US go bankrupt and get destroyed. Country First Celtic King
To be fair, if people read their Koran's right, they would know that Osama Bin Laden is taking a big shit on Islam. A Jihad has to be given the blessing of the person's mother, and Osama's mother obviously doesn't approve of what he is doing. So everything he is doing is a sin against his religiion. I couldn't imagine voting for a Republican. They stand for corruption and hatred. I think "Compassionate Conservatism" would be the best political ideology for this country to follow. But obviously, no one in the Republican party is anywhere close to that.
That was an interesting article. Pretty dense, but I enjoyed it. I'm not sure that the author is 100% right (I think there are different reasons that people vote for the GOP) but it's refreshing to see a non-Republican not be condescending about why half the country leans the way they do politically. Ed o.
What strikes me about the divide between left and right is their general difference in perceptions in values. For example, my brother and sister are both perfect products of their Reed education, left-leaning in every sense of the term. When we discuss politics and they tell me their reasons for why their voting the way they will, I simply believe they're naive. When we discuss politics and I tell them my reasons for voting the way I plan to, they believe I'm morally deficient or I simply don't know enough. It's the assumption that somehow liberalism is both a morally and intellectually superior position held by so many on the left that I find striking.
It's the assumption that somehow liberalism is naive by so many on the right that I find striking. So, since you and your siblings have the same family background, are we to conclude that education determines political leaning? Reedies become liberals, Colgaters (it was Colgate, right?) become conservatives? barfo
That's certainly true, but which is worse? One is a moral judgment and the other is an intellectual one. There are two factors at work. First, they're my half-siblings and are 13 and 15 years younger than I am. When I was their age, I was considerably to the left of where I am now. Second, we weren't raised in the same household. As for collegiate affiliation, it wasn't Colgate that did it to me, but the evil University of Chicago.
1. My pastor told me to vote republican 2. I am prolife and the republicans keep saying they will ban abortion 3. I hate gays and so do most republicans 4. I am a friend of Jesus and the republicans want to let us have prayer in schools again These are all reasons I have heard a good many people state as the number one reason they will vote republican. IMO, Ike was the last real republican president. Since then there has been a shift away from the things that Xericx mentioned that illustrate traditional republican party ideology. Since then the party has said one thing but really worked hardest to benefit big business, big oil and the military industrial complex. The exact thing Ike warned us about.
I get why people vote republican . . . what I don't get is that if voters really want change, why vote Republican?
Yet for whatever reason, the states where republicans predominate have, as a whole, less of a college and graduate education than the population of the states that lean democratic. Of course, it is entirely possible that high school dropouts tend to vote democratic as well, and perhaps there are more of these people in the big cities. Still, it is striking that when we think about "intellectual capital" in this country, and recognize that it is mostly concentrated in the northeast and the west coast, we see that they are the democratic strongholds.
I read a fascinating article once that compared the republican method of governance to that of the prototypical father figure, and the democratic method of governance to the mother figure. Republicans want a stern leader that puts them in their place and says that they cannot have certain things. Democrats--the mother figure--believe in nurturing those with needs. The article then segued into why the Republicans were so intent on convincing Schwarzenegger to run for governor, because he is the ultimate father figure. I wish I could do it justice, but I can't find the article on line, unfortunately. Incidentally, it is too bad that Schwarzenegger has been held back due to his lack of experience when he ran for governor.
I would vote for Schwarzenegger. He supports the republican viewpoint on economic issues, but is mostly liberal on social issues. As far as I can tell, his viewpoint is the closest to mine of any politician I can find. As for corruption and hatred . . . yes. I stopped voting for my moderate republican representative, because a vote for her was effectively a vote for Tom DeLay.
There's the PJ O'Rourke quote from Parliament of Whores that sums up that sentiment pretty nicely. Regarding DeLay, Schwarzeneger and the Republican party in general, it's pretty clear that this election is an effort to move the party more toward Arnold and away from DeLay. For that matter, DeLay, Lott, Hastert, and the leadership that lost the Congress is pretty much out the door, with the leadership of the executive soon to follow. The guy running for President was, as much as one can be and still be in the same party, their critic. His running mate, despite appearing socially conservative on a personal level, has been quite moderate socially as a politician (this would be what I, as a Libertarian, consider pretty much ideal), much like Arnold. In short, it seems to me that the success of their candidacies is the best chance of having that sort of thinking become established as the long-term Republican position. On the other hand, if they lose, the Republicans will cast about for something else.
O'Roarke is pretty funny while being astute in his observations. I particularly liked his treatise on how we could eliminate 150 programs that are designed to do the exact same thing, as well as the bureaucracy associated with them. These programs help the poor. Instead of instituting the programs, he suggest we simply cut a check to all these poor people, large enough so they won't be poor anymore. It'd save a lot of money and actually accomplish the stated goal of the programs.
Understand I am not a republican, but I think the reasons generally are: 1) lower taxes 2) smaller government 3) strong military 4) old fashioned moral values 5) more of a belief in free enterprise than not 6) less concern about enviroment than not 7) "strong stick" mentality regarding foreign policy
Where I come from Democrats control everything. Ever since they got into power the state has progressively (pun intended) gone into the shitter. I got tired of the "vote the party line" rhetoric that my family follows, so I'll vote for the person that has the best chance of defeating these people, and are Republicans. I have some of the worst representation in the Senate and definitely one of the worst Governors in the nation. They're all Democrats. BG7 said that Republicans stand for corruption and hatred. Guess he's never been to New Jersey.
