1 2
joey48442
joey48442 Dork
11/1/08 11:58 p.m.

Where can I find out what there traditional values would be?

Basically, people say the Republicans are not all about big government. Which is cool with me. But all this stuff that becomes an issue such as gay marriage, and "family values" seems like things that someone who doesn't want big government and not alot of laws could care less about? The way I see it, is that someone who says that "I don't care what other people do, as long as it doesn't hurt others is free to do it" would be more of what I thought a Republican should be. Sort of the Oliver Wendall Holmes quote "The right to swing my fist ends where the other mans nose begins" Does that make sense? Am I right? Who cares if gays want to marry, as the government shouldn't have anything to do with it either way, man/woman man/man.

Sorry if this sounds like a mess, but the more I hear, the more I think Im a bit more of a traditional Republican. Not this laughable mess that calls themselves republicans we have now, and potentially will have for another 4 years.

Where can I find out about real Republicans? Would a real Republican be more like Ron Paul? I know alot of folks said he was an isolationist, but wouldn't we do well with a little isolation?

Never mind that stuff, I dont want this to turn into another political debate thread, I just want to know what the traditional beliefs of a Republican are. Some how I don't think they would jive with the whole Neo-Con thing of today.

Joey

TJ
TJ New Reader
11/2/08 5:37 a.m.

In my opinion, I would say a traditional republican stands for:

Lower taxes Less government spending Free markets Trade States rights

Issues such as gay marriage and abortion are distractions that have become part of the platform only to keep certain groups voting republican.

taft link

There is a difference between a non-interventionist foreign policy and an isolationist one. I find that people who call Ron Paul an isolationist either don't understand what his position is or know that isolationist is a word that they can make stick.

NeoCons and ideas like premptive warfare are not part of traditional Republicanism.

ddavidv
ddavidv SuperDork
11/2/08 5:48 a.m.

I think you'll have to do some history homework. The Democratic party pre-FDR was vastly different than the one we have now. FDR was really a socialist, and was surrounded by a bunch of Marxists who were all excited about the new grand experiment we know as the Soviet Union. The Depression gave them the ability to pass a bunch of entitlement programs that probably never would have seen the light of day otherwise, and the modern Democratic party does all it can to preserve these and make more.

Where the Republicans went wrong is less clear to me, but somehow 'government conservative' got tied up in 'religious and social conservative' and has made a mess of their platform.

I think the Libertarian party platform is probably the best illustration of what the Republicans used to be.

NYG95GA
NYG95GA Dork
11/2/08 8:26 a.m.

There are ever-changing supposed platforms for both parties, but they change with the wind.

At the end of the day, they are all crooks.

Rumnhammer
Rumnhammer New Reader
11/2/08 8:35 a.m.

Pretty easy question to answer, they Republicans (currently) are against gay marrage, abortion, various other topics because a large part of their voters are the moral majority also know as the silent majority, support these issues. To get their support they vote against these issues. These are the people that got W elected in 2000 because the didn't like the way Clinton acted as president.

Both partys have supporters that they need to satisfy to get votes. For the Dems, the environmentalists are a big one, you can't tell me that half of those rich dems jetting around in their private jets etc actually give a toss about the environment, but they vote against drilling etc because there base expects it.

The Latinos are a bit of a puzzle though, traditionally they are consirvative, religious, and used to vote primarily republican, however with the advent of so many illegals that has changed, since the dems bend over backwards to give them all the rights of legal immigrants and citizens. They are swinging left now. But since a lot of Republicans like having them around for cheap labor they do a lot to ignore the problem and hope they vote Republican???

Chris

carguy123
carguy123 HalfDork
11/2/08 8:36 a.m.

Traditional values don't matter as much as present day values. You won't be voting for what any party did in the past, only what they'll do in the present.

Well I guess I should say you won't be voting for what any party did in the ancient past, look to see recent and present day trends.

I know it will be very hard to tell Democratic values and trends from Obama's campaign or ads since they don't really tell you a thing. He's not running so much upon his values of the party's values as simply trying to cater to and create a dissatisfaction vote.

And of course remember the Pres race isn't the most important one. Congress runs the country so your local representatives are more important.

joey48442
joey48442 Dork
11/2/08 9:42 a.m.

Im just trying to figure out what I am politically. Old Republican values being the mordern Libertarian make sense, because any of these little "what am I" political test bring me up as a Libertarian, but leaning slightly to the left.

Joey

oldsaw
oldsaw New Reader
11/2/08 10:09 a.m.
joey48442 wrote: Im just trying to figure out what I am politically. Old Republican values being the mordern Libertarian make sense, because any of these little "what am I" political test bring me up as a Libertarian, but leaning slightly to the left. Joey

You can erase a lot of angst and simply define your as a Independent; one who looks at the issues, how you respond to them and votes accordingly. You live your life according to your personal value system; vote the same way.

Life and politics are very complicated and you don't have to label yourself with a D, R, or L.

bastomatic
bastomatic Dork
11/2/08 10:10 a.m.

Left and Right don't really mean anything if you start looking beyond what the Repubs and Dems stand for. There really is not a two-dimensional system, where you're either liberal or conservative, and on all issues.

If you believe in state rights over federal rights you're a federalist. That's something Republicans pretend to be for, but have not advanced at all in recent history. You would be most closely allied to Libertarians on that issue.

If you think "That government governs best which governs least," that's a Libertarian issue. Again, Repubs claim to support this but I call BS. They are expanding federal government like nobody's business - wiretaps, wars, NCLB, etc etc etc.

If you are a fiscal conservative - you want to tax less and spend less - you're a Libertarian. Note that this is distinctly different from Republican again, since the Repubs tend to tax less, but spend anyway.

Really the modern republican party platform is based on trickle down economics, deficit spending, hawkish foreign policy, and social conservatism. If you believe that the wealthy should get tax breaks to promote economic growth, and the federal government should use American might to fight preemptive wars, and that social issues should be actively legislated in a conservative manner, you would agree with most of the current Republican platform.

I won't get started on the Democrats, because most of the time I'm not sure what the party platform is. Both big parties currently have a spending problem, which is a bummer.

integraguy
integraguy Reader
11/2/08 11:18 a.m.

To me, Republicans SAY they are for a smaller, less intrusive government.....except when it comes to enforcing the laws they think REALLY need enforcing.

The Democrats don't care how big or small the goverment is, but thanks to FDR and others after him, Democrats will accept HUGE government...if it means everyone who wants a job and/or benefits has them, even if it means we all become employees of "Uncle Sam".

Duende
Duende Reader
11/2/08 12:47 p.m.

This is something so strange I've noticed in the past few weeks. All day long on the radio and on TV, it's democrat v. republican.

But come online, and all I see is talk of third parties. I really think the media is f'ing us over on this. Continuing the money-making status quo.

Disheartening.

DILYSI Dave
DILYSI Dave SuperDork
11/2/08 12:51 p.m.
Duende wrote: This is something so strange I've noticed in the past few weeks. All day long on the radio and on TV, it's democrat v. republican. But come online, and all I see is talk of third parties. I really think the media is f'ing us over on this. Continuing the money-making status quo. Disheartening.

I 100% agree.

carguy123
carguy123 HalfDork
11/2/08 2:04 p.m.

A reformed anything is the worst there is. I'm a reformed Democrat. In my youth and on up until middle age I voted Democrat mostly. But as time went on I got to see the consequences of my actions. The problem is that many of these consequences can take decades to become self evident.

This lead me to try to be an independent, but that goes nowhere. There is no impact to the system to be an Independent so therefore I had to choose sides. Knowing I had been betrayed by the Dems that left only the Republicans. Like it or not those are the only real choices you and I as normal people with normal resources have. It takes mega bucks to fund a way to get the "little people" to band together to become a factor so that ain't happening anytime soon. And if you've got the megabucks to fund that sort of movement you have to ask yourself is it still composed of &/or representative of the "little people"?

Basically I feel the Dems consistently try to take the feel good route (to garner the most votes) but are actually the least concerned for the consequences of their actions. They are also the most adept at maneuvering the spoken and written word to make it so that if you disagree with their statements then you appear callous and uncaring. "You can't possibly be against helping the poor little children, orphans, poor, little old ladies, etc, etc.?" They remind me of the Romans in the Bread and Circus times, which was just before the end when they collapsed.

The Kennedy election was another one of those "We want change" elections. The policies begun under his regime have done more damage to the basic structure of what is United States than anything since the Civil War. You could argue that both Kennedy and Lincoln were the worst presidents this country has ever seen since they brought about fundamental shifts in the countries directions.

As far as long term Democratic mistakes, take welfare, it seemed like a good idea at the time, but my how it has grown! Most of you are too young to have known America prior to welfare nor have you seen welfare grow and as it's grown how it's changed and destroyed the basic fiber and core values of America. Welfare as we have it is fundamentally wrong. It doesn't reward industriousness. We have 4th and 5th generation kids who don't even understand the concept of working for a living. But they do understand working the system so that they can have their welfare and a little something on the side. Handouts are the wrong way to go and time has proven that.

We've got to take a hard look at where we are headed and take some unpopular stands. For instance Welfare simply doesn't work. (gasp he probably is for killing unborn babies too!) Instead of helping the poor become un-poor it has created a HUGE sub class of American and consequently we have a greater percentage of poor than ever. It used to be a virtue to work hard and we were too proud to take a handout - now it's the American way.

Simply put you get more of what you subsidize. No one has the right to a good life or even a life. You must work for what you get. Those that work hardest get the most. Those with ambition (which is another thing that has been stifled by Welfare) get ahead, the lazy sloths don't.

The thing that gets me about both parties is that neither is concerned about what is right or best for the people or the country but are instead concerned with staying in power. Of course they say that the only way they can help the people/country is if we vote them in power.

But with all our ills we still live in the best country in the world. Freedoms we take for granted other countries don't have. And that's not to say that there aren't other good countries out there, only that we seem to have the best or most of the attributes that scream Freedom.

Unfortunately all of that could be taken away with the stroke of the pen or pull of the voting lever. If we, and the political parties, don't begin taking more long term views we'll end up another has been country.

Osterkraut
Osterkraut Reader
11/2/08 2:08 p.m.

Unless you'd like to purchase some of my old textbooks (please do!), wiki isn't a bad place to start on the history of the parties and their values. I mean, the Republican party pre-1980 was VASTLY different from the one today. Rise of the religious voter and all.

Xceler8x
Xceler8x GRM+ Memberand Reader
11/3/08 8:34 a.m.

To avoid a debate on the direction of the Republican party...

I remember R's being about the things you mentioned ~ small gov't

~ no gov't intervention in personal lives. This includes social safety nets like welfare, social security, etc. Also includes gun laws.

~ less taxes

~ conservative social values meaning a focus on keeping social change to a minimum. i.e. continued oppression of homosexuals, stopping school desegregation, opposing equal rights for non-married couples, etc.

Like another poster mentioned the rise of the religious voter has changed a lot of that. Now the R's cater to that voting block as it did help to win, and in the prior election gain via the supreme court, the election for W.

I wonder if the R's will discuss their parties direction after this election cycle. I'm hoping they'll jettison the religious rhetoric and return to what they were.

Wally
Wally GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
11/3/08 8:53 a.m.

I am registered as a Republican because in NY you have to belong to a party to vote in a primary and they generally have a person I like that I can vote for and pretend to matter. (I was THE person who voted for Keyes in 2000) In the actual election I've voted all over the place depending on the person running. In NY there is a fine line btween Republicans and Democrats and sometimes they end up on the other side of the line depending on how many people are running (ie: Democrat turned Republican turned independant turned emporer for life Mike Bloomburg)

If you don't have a pressing need to join a party I see no reason why you should, although as a Republican i do get some entertaining mail from the local organizations.

pete240z
pete240z HalfDork
11/3/08 9:26 a.m.
Wally wrote: I am registered as a Republican because in NY you have to belong to a party to vote in a primary...

I was an election judge for a primary and the voters had to declare their party before they got a ballot. People got angry with me and told me it was none of my business.

So we explained how the primary process worked and they still gave us that untrusting eye.......

carguy123
carguy123 HalfDork
11/3/08 10:00 a.m.

Yeah, party affiliation is only an issue in the primaries.

joey48442
joey48442 Dork
11/3/08 10:17 a.m.

I'm not really looking to declare a party, just trying to figure out the differences.

I cant say I really disagree with more traditional Republican values, except for the social change bit, I have no problem with that. Plus, I support some kind of regulation in the marketplace.

Joey

walterj
walterj HalfDork
11/3/08 10:27 a.m.
ddavidv wrote: I think you'll have to do some history homework. The Democratic party pre-FDR was vastly different than the one we have now. FDR was really a socialist, and was surrounded by a bunch of Marxists who were all excited about the new grand experiment we know as the Soviet Union. The Depression gave them the ability to pass a bunch of entitlement programs that probably never would have seen the light of day otherwise, and the modern Democratic party does all it can to preserve these and make more. Where the Republicans went wrong is less clear to me, but somehow 'government conservative' got tied up in 'religious and social conservative' and has made a mess of their platform. I think the Libertarian party platform is probably the best illustration of what the Republicans used to be.

Do you really think FDR as a socialist? I saw that whole "New Deal" as a way to give just enough to the poor and working class to get control of the militant, angry populace and squash what was a very socialist thinking movement that was growing in popularity. I mean - he could have nationalized everything at the time but he chose to save capitalism. He looked to be giving them what they wanted but used it to create public schooling that trained kids as patriots, kept the poor on the government payroll building the empire and then used the support and patriotic upswing to lead us into war.

aircooled
aircooled Dork
11/3/08 10:31 a.m.

I believe the solid Republican tie to the "Religious Right" occurred with the Bush II election (maybe earlier?). They discovered this relatively untapped, rather large block that (pretty much by definition of what they are) will follow each other like sheep with little regard for self thinking. Basically the holy grail for a political campaign.

I think the kicker is the fact that the "swing" states (many of the larger states are pretty predictable as to which way they will go) seemed to be crammed full of people who are influenced in this way.

Anyway, I find it pretty sad. Essentially a tie between church and state... not good.

If you want a true read on what the Republican party was, look up Barry Goldwater. There is actually a very good documentary about him currently playing on HBO.

From wikipedia:

By the 1980s, the increasing influence of the Christian Right on the Republican Party so conflicted with Goldwater's libertarian views that he became a vocal opponent of the religious right on issues such as abortion, gay rights, and the role of religion in public life.

Jensenman
Jensenman SuperDork
11/3/08 10:54 a.m.

Yeah, the Republican Party used to be a lot more libertarian than now, they espoused fiscal responsibility and keeping government out of the lives of the common folks as much as possible (and that's the Republican party I miss). After the Reagan years, they morphed into the far right wing 'talk' and big government 'do' party we see now.

OTOH, the Dems have pretty much always been more about the more 'socialized' side of things, believing that government intervention is always the answer to every social question.

The weird thing about the Democrats: they were the party of racism here in the South for many years. They were in power in many of the Southern cities during the race riots and the FBI investigations of the Klan, yet now they are viewed as being the opposite.

carguy123
carguy123 HalfDork
11/3/08 11:08 a.m.

I just relooked at the thread title - are you sure that's not an oxymoron?

Duke
Duke Dork
11/3/08 11:28 a.m.
Jensenman wrote: The weird thing about the Democrats: they were the party of racism here in the South for many years. They were in power in many of the Southern cities during the race riots and the FBI investigations of the Klan, yet now they are viewed as being the opposite.

I've never been able to figure that out. The Southern Democrats were repressive and racist for decades, yet no, for some reason, black people go Democrat for something like 90% of all votes.

walterj
walterj HalfDork
11/3/08 11:31 a.m.

You know what they say... "Once you go Democrat...."

1 2

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
x24UKuoIZwB86DawYCK0W9VfyBfAfOsjyoA4Dsq9w83VicjDUmQ4GmiCneGK4zwX