Calling all Republicans/Conservatives

[summer_sparrow]

(I know I must have at least one or two on my list; feel free to forward this to others. I want as many responses as I can get.)

*dusts journal off* Been a while, huh?

I have a question for you. This is an honest question, no sarcasm involved. It was sparked by a conversation with my boyfriend (Republican). I'll admit that while he's got a high base intelligence, his education is not what it could be and he is not the most articulate of people, hence why this is going on LJ.

I know a fair amount of Republicans (by which I mean people who identify with and seem to support the ideals of the party which currently calls itself Republican.) Now, I've tried to stay away from politics recently, because I'm flat sick of it, and besides which the guy I like dropped out ages ago.

Not a one of these people, some of whom are extremely smart folks, can answer my questions. Neither do the Republicans on television.

My question is, why? Okay, so Hilary is evil (another thing that no one will explain-- never why, just is) and Obama is inexperienced (which I'll grant, though it's not like it's his first day in politics either). So what makes the Republican candidates better? I'm willing to listen, but no one will talk. There's plenty of mud-slinging and blustering and nonsense words (that last can get pretty funny though), but no one will convince me. No one will tell me why-- except for reasons that are completely irrelevant. My boyfriend, for example, wants to vote for McCain, for no other reason than he spent six years in a POW camp. When I say, "Okay, yes, I also respect him for that, now what do you consider his qualifications as a president?" I get a blank look. The same has been true for other people.

My other question is, why are you a Republican? I don't understand how people can still follow the party. It's funny, my dad calls me a liberal (still don't understand why that word is supposed to be an insult). Really, if Republicans were still what I considered Republican, I would be one (my mom calls it "Goldwater Republican"). I'm extremely fiscally conservative, believe in small government with minimal governmental interference, as few taxes as can efficiently run the country, states rights (within, as now, an broader set of laws to maintain cohesiveness). I despise the way the current administration is throwing money around, quite frankly.

I'm about half and half on social issues; in some areas I'm very conservative, where in others I'm liberal. I think abortion should be legal. I think everyone should have access to education.

There's another question. WHY is education a 'liberal' thing? Isn't education good? Don't we want people in this country to know things? Shouldn't we know what's gone before, how to speak our own language*, you know, little things like that? Things most people don't seem to have ever learned, or promptly forgot if they did? So tell me, why is it 'liberal' to want education? Suppressing or preventing knowledge is a sign of tyranny, not the way of a free and civilized people.

*(that always cracks me up-- oh yes, it should be the official language, don't you dare make me press one for English, it's not like most of the languages native speakers can't use it for shit. When most of the people you meet who can use your own language properly grew up speaking another, it's time to be depressed.)



That's about all. It's not as clean and coherent as I would like, but it's been a long day, and there's a fire about five miles away with wind blowing strong towards my house, so I'm just a tad scattered.

My gratitude towards anyone who replies. I apologize if I sounded snarky anywhere in there; written word is a hard medium to get one's meaning across sometimes, and I do have a tendency to sound rather bratty if I don't watch myself closely. No offense is intended; I truly do want to hear answers to my questions.

Thanks.

-Sparrow

Comments

not republican, just curious

[elaineofshalott]

Hmm...but to have education for all, you have to have public education. Which requires taxes. Perhaps you consider education one of the few things which should be publicly funded? If so, do you also support free/reduced-cost college education? What about health care?--it seems strange to me that many people support public education but not public health care. People can live (on a basic level, anyway) without much knowledge, but many literally cannot live, even on a basic level, without health care. All government services require revenue. I never did understand the "tax-and-spend liberal" insult. We tax...so we can spend...on worthwhile services. (Granted, the whole system could be run a lot more smoothly and efficiently. I'm neither an economist nor a productivity expert, so I can't really fathom how that could be done.)

Re: not republican, just curious

[sparrowinsky.livejournal.com]

I believe in preventative health care, and the minimal that can be gotten away with while still keeping the country basically healthy. Essentially, I want to spend the absolutely minimum necessary to keep the country educated, healthy, sane, and improving (that last is a whole post on it's own, if I ever make it). I even support- again, minimal, VERY minimal-- social programs. A few are necessary. Essentially, those too young, too old, or mentally incapable must be taken care of. For those who are not, not welfare but workfare. Even the physically disabled, unless they are completely disabled, can perform some kind of function. It's sort of like Welfare to Work (the things working for the Department of Social Services shows you, yay), but better.

And the bureaucracy needs to get pared down significantly.

What I think the current (and many of the previous) administration is doing is taxing far too much and wasting the generated revenue.

That's about as far as my brain can go right now. I'm off to dinner. If you want to ask me more questions, please do so. In a way this post is as much to help me frame and understand my own beliefs, as well as those of others.

Re: not republican, just curious

[tricksterquinn.livejournal.com]

Wait, preventative health care. So... you do or don't believe in taking care of the people who are actually sick?

I'm confused.

Re: not republican, just curious

[sparrowinsky.livejournal.com]

"...and the minimal that can be gotten away with while still keeping the country basically healthy."

Sure, take care of those are sick. That's a necessary part of a civilized, healthy people. However, I believe if the focus was put on preventative health, ie a small surgery to prevent a large one, promoting good food and exercise, along with a STRONG focus on creating vaccines or cures for those issues that currently have none, or for which the treatments are not entirely effective or, in some cases, nearly as bad as the issue itself... I believe that only then will we have health in this country. You can't make people well when their lives and our ineffective health system don't show them how to be. You can't make people well when you're playing catch-up on the ones that aren't. You need to make it so that fewer get sick in the first place (and for the economically-minded, less sick people = less money spent on making them better).

Re: not republican, just curious

[tricksterquinn.livejournal.com]

I never did understand the "tax-and-spend liberal" insult. We tax...so we can spend...on worthwhile services.

Word. Word to the word word word.

I'm sorry, I like to think my government exists for a reason. Or a few, really. Foremost among these reasons are things like health, education, and the ability to live without having people wander by, take my things, kill my family, and rape either me OR my dog.

I'm still not sure where the bad in that use of government is.

[yinepu.livejournal.com]

Man I am going to post answer to this, as a self-proclaimed Republican, tomorrow. I just got home from the bar, quite drunk, so I'm in no place to make a coherent statement. I don't know if I can change your mind or convince you in any way with my peculiar statement (and I do strangely identify as a liberal republican) but I have very firm beliefs AND articulate answers to your questions. So see you tomorrow! LOL

[sparrowinsky.livejournal.com]

Awesome. Remember I'm looking for "why" more than "what." I'd love to hear your take on it. :)

[gal-montag.livejournal.com]

Just as a random aside, the majority of politicians who call themselves Republicans are not Republicans in the purest sense. Republicans are about smaller government and fiscal conservatism and while a Republican *might* be a moral conservative, it's not a cornerstone of the party's beliefs (primarily because religion only really became a major part of american politics in the past 20 years or so).

The "borrow and spend" Neo-Cons, who have God as a cornerstone of their party, who hate women and are in lockstep against women's rights and who like smaller government when their CEO pals can get away with screwing over their employees and consumers and bigger government when they can take away civil liberties and civil rights are not Republicans.

[sparrowinsky.livejournal.com]

...it is a wonderful and amazing thing to find somebody who agrees with me on that subject!

(I am deep in both meth territory and redneck country, the combination of which is not the best place for locating either democrats, true libertarians, or true republicans)

Unless I'm being exceptionally forgetful (which I may have been in my post but I'm far too sleepy to reread it), I try to make sure I differentiate in my discussions between actual republicans and the party which currently claims to be republican.

And now... bed.

[noveldevice.livejournal.com]

Education is a liberal issue because educated people are more likely to be liberal. Of course, that's not what the conservatives say--they talk about "streamlining education" so that the people "know what matters" in order to be able to "compete in our new economy". Except, what they mean is that people should be taught just enough to work a menial job, without the intellectual skills that would allow them to understand that they're being exploited or to vote to stop it. Public education is the cornerstone of democracy, because a voting populace must be an educated populace. Your neo-cons don't want that to happen, because anyone with a modicum of education and critical thinking skills can see right through Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage.

The reason no one is giving an actual reason for why McCain is a better candidate is because the reason they have is that he's an old white man, and HClinton and Obama are not white men. McCain has had the reputation in the Republican party for years as being a tad crazy, and they're running him now because they don't have much choice. I don't think he's very tightly wrapped, I don't want him with his finger on the button, and he just seems to lack basic reasoning skills. He also seems to be very prone to the blandishments of lobbyists and out of touch with the average American--a deadly combination.

The other, even more unfortunate reason why no one is giving an actual reason is because the Republican political machine currently believes that they can keep Obama's margin over McCain, in a national election, down to a point where the election will be stealable. I think--gods, I hope--that they are wrong, but there's not much reason to go into specifics about why the voting public should vote for your guy if you have your people in place to throw out boxes of uncounted ballots, tamper with electronic voting machines, and turn properly-registered voters away at the door for either having names similar to convicted felons or for voting while black or Latino.

I see nothing wrong with taxes. Taxes, ideally, are there to provide me, a member of the public, with services that are generally considered public goods: roads, safe drinking water from municipal plants, sewage treatment, trash pickup, police, the judicial system, the legislative system, education, safe food, safe medications, safe air, a safety net for the disadvantaged. The Republicans have managed to redefine "public good" to mean only rich people, and have persuaded an awful lot of poor people to go along with it, just in case they might someday be rich.

Comfort yourself by saying that "they're not real Republicans" if you want, but the truth is, that's the Republican party you've got. If you don't want to be the kind of good Republican the current Republican party wants--if you want access to education, if you want public services like water you can drink and air you can breathe and firefighters to work at putting out that fire, if you want the right to control your own body despite the fact that you were born female--vote for somebody else, who will support your rights as a person and a citizen, and who believes that your taxes should do something other than line KBR's pockets.

[sparrowinsky.livejournal.com]

I agree with a large portion of that. Regarding taxes: I don't believe they're a bad thing, and they are absolutely necessary to running a country. I do believe, however, that we're being overtaxed and that the money isn't going to the places it needs to be-- like improving matters in our own country.

Regarding Republicans: the current Republican party doesn't follow the original Republican values, which is why I say that they're not real Republicans. It is no "comfort" to me to do so, considering that I'm a member of the Democratic party and have intended to vote for Obama since Edwards dropped out of the race.

Thanks for replying. It's food for thought.

[sparrowinsky.livejournal.com]

slight edit:

I don't believe they're a bad thing, and they are absolutely necessary to running a country

should read

I don't believe they're a bad thing, and I believe that they are absolutely necessary to running a country.

I'm sure you knew what I meant, but considering how often things get misread online, I wanted to correct myself.

[noveldevice.livejournal.com]

No problem.

This is just one of those things that I get really exercised about. :)

Registered Republican from Nebraska

[(Anonymous)]

When I was 18, I registered to vote. My parents told me I had to be a Republican. It's kind of like choosing a religion in many aspects. In any case, I've never voted in an election and I think I'm actually a registered Independent in Washington. But that was only so that I could get a Washington driver's license.

I don't really like registering because I think that voting is a complete waste. Also, if you register to vote, you automatically are eligible to get called up for jury duty. Jury duty is not interesting. Neither is voting. I think that we should all stop voting until a new system is in place. I'm all for not voting except that I have the fear that someone stupid will be elected. And then I remember that we never really get to elect that person anyway. Our votes are a pleasant "suggestion." So, again, I think we all need to stop at the same time. That would be an amazing, pig-flying, mother fucking day.

ANYWAY, I don't really talk to too many people back home who are Republicans anymore. The ones I do speak with are not voting for McCain. To me, it seems that the Republicans had to put SOMEBODY in the race, even though they know that their chances of winning are zero. The focus is on Obama and Hilary. It's a Democratic race. McCain would never win in a real election, which is why he looks so good as a poster ad in a poster campaign. He's just that porous Little Debbie cream filling.

My boyfriend thinks that McCain will win. He really believes that Obama and Hilary are a red herring and that McCain will somehow get put into office and it will be blamed on people not voting. We have a bet worth an entire Indian dinner dependent on the manifestation of this occurrence. I love Indian food.

A lot of wealthy people are for Hilary. She has a bad rep because she is SO political and she's quite vicious. She was born for politics.

Obama actually isn't a whole lot better. He's a a fantastic speaker. I hope he wins because his facade is a little better. Yes, Obama takes funds from Wall Street corporations just like any other candidate (even though he says he doesn't). Obama has created an image where he looks like he listens and is amenable to change and suggestion. He's very popular abroad because of this image. Most Hilary fans complain that Obama is just following suit on whatever Hilary declares. But Obama has structured his new measures for improving life in a way that makes it seem like an all-encompassing plan. It reminds me of Hinduism or something.

Either way, I do not believe in any of our candidates. Slightly better than our last election, these candidates are, nonetheless, battling images. You could watch Fantasia and get just as much meaning. I mean, who are they kidding thinking that there can be a national health care plan, etc.? America is fucking huge.

I'm a pretty big proponent of states' rights for many reasons including the legalization of all marriage, the legalization of drugs and prostitution, as well as better health care, better damage control (like natural disasters) and fewer taxes. Smaller area, larger voice kind of thing.

None of our candidates are for that kind of relaxation - and they never will be. Anyone who is president is (I hate to agree with Ayn Rand) a complete puppet. That's what they get paid to do. Acting is one of the highest-paid occupations in our nation. The President is just another role. You may never know the real people holding the reigns. It's like voting in the MTV Movie Awards or something.