I ask because I got off a quip in a “Romney-bully” thread about merely registering as a Republican implies a certain toleration of bullying, but the more I think on it, the more I think it’s actually true. Foriegn policy: advocating “bomb the shit out of them and teach them not to fuck with us” is a policy often espoused by Republican candidates (viz. Romney right now vis-a-vis Iran), not so much by Dems (much to their harm in general elections). What is that but bullying on an international scale? Domestic policy: Food stamps and aid for the poor in general: “They’re weak and useless–cut them off, force them to get a job or starve, and they’ll be better off.” Again, bullying on a grand scale. I can think of several more examples, but I’ll leave it to you to supply them.
If Obama had been found to have done ANYTHING like Romney did, it would hurt him with his base much more than Romney will suffer with his base because Dems tend to be critical of cruelty and picking on the defenseless, while Republicans often extol such traits as somehow virtuous, or if not, then as inevitable.
So, to prove your premise, you assume it to be true and apply it to a hypothetical. I forget which logical fallacy that is, but it is a fallacy.
At any rate, this is one of those assertions that is impossible to prove, and is going to be highly influenced by confirmation bias. And while the premise may, in fact, be true the OP would be better served with actual examples of mainstream Republican thought as opposed to absurd caricatures. For example, can we have a cite that Romney espouses “bombing the shit” out of Iran? OTOH, right now Obama is bombing the shit out of the Pakistani tribal areas. Using drones at a much higher rate than his Republican predecessor.
I think you have to take war out of the equation here. Were we “bullying” Hitler when we bombed the shit out of Germany in WWII? You’re going to get stuck in defining when a war is legit or not.
Nitpick, perhaps, but I don’t think that counts as bullying. On the philosophical side of things, it can be construed as backhanded benevolence. I don’t think it really is, but that’s besides the point.
To me, the essence of bullying is going out of one’s way to belittle the Other, making him believe that he doesn’t matter or is inferior and actively making his life miserable. Simply refusing to help someone does not accomplish this. Bullying in this case would be, I dunno, forcing people on welfare to wear a scarlet letter, or to go door-to-door warning people that a food philatelist lives in their neighbourhood.
I didn’t say it was a rule, did I? Just some correlation between Republican policies and bullying. I think if it were to have been revealed that Clinton actually, clearly, provably out and out raped a woman (i.e., was found guilty in a court of law) his political future would have been just about as fucked, if not more so, than a Republican who’d done the same.
As to Hitler (good one, John–Godwin in only 4 posts!), that was more like a fair fight, in which we stood some kind of chance of losing (and under a Dem, of course). Granada, Iraq, Iraq II–now there’s bullying for ya.
For instance, you claim that Iraq I is an instance of bullying. I assume you agree that the bombing of Kosovo and Clinton’s Operation Wag the Dog are equally examples of bullying by the same definition. Therefore, if Democrats are less tolerant of bullying, they would be opposed to those two foreign policy examples. Please show a cite that Democrats opposed either, or both.
I can show you plenty of cites that Democrats opposed turning Kosovo into a full-scale war, starting with the fact that they didn’t do it. Look, if you don’t want to entertain my suggestion, that’s fine with me. It’s not like you can have it both ways, though. Either you agree that Republicans have been far more inclined to send our troops overseas for years and decades than Democrats, or you don’t. If you don’t, please open a thread of your own claiming that Dems and Pubs have been equal-opportunity warriors over the past few decades, and I’m sure you’ll get plenty of responses.
Possibly, but I doubt the bullies themselves have any delusions about what they’re doing or why. I’m sure they rationalize their cunt ways, but I’d be amazed if anyone in the history of schooling ever thought to himself “I’m going to take that kid’s lunch money, kick him in the nuts and have the lads give him a swirlie ; that should teach him proper fiscal responsibility”.
IMO–apply that throughout this post–the Republican Party have made a fetish out of personal ambition and avarice, and while they pubically seem to dismiss Ayn Rand (ostensibly because she was an atheist), they take to heart her message that altruism is a form of weakness. Their traditional support for Christianity at one time held these tendencies in check, but that has been co-opted to the extent that it’s used to maintain the status quo.
These beliefs will inevitably lead to bullying–which is, at its essence, the idea that might makes right (the only rationale for defending torture, discriminating against unfavored groups, or tarring those who “don’t pay any taxes” as moochers). If that bullying is allowed to continue, the bully will begin to see the process as part of a natural order, perhaps convincing themselves that it’s actually beneficial for the weak (e.g. we need to favor the wealthy because they create jobs for the rest of us). Other groups less apparently affected by the bully may even profess their loyalty and join in as lackeys (the Tea Party).
And of course, the only way to stop a bully is to challenge him/her, which is when the successful victim usually finds out just how much of a fragile whiner the bully can be. On the playground bullies usually take their mewling to Mommy or a teacher; in America politics these roles are filled by a friendly media (e.g. Jamie Dimon’s recent MTP interview), congressional lobbyists, or in the most extreme circumstance (Bush v. Gore, Citizens United) the courts.
It has nothing to do with Godwin. You raised the issue of war, without qualification, and so I asked about “the good war”. Now, you’ve moved the goalpost and say that war = bullying only when the other side is weaker. That’s just tailoring the definition to fit your agenda.
And I notice you completely ignored the “bullying” (by your definition) by Obama-- Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Libya. We’ve also got the “bullying” of LBJ in Vietnam. Now, I’m sure your going to bring up some sort of statute of limitations…
And, we have the bullying tactic of shouting down a speaker when you disagree with his/her views. Which side does that more often?
Same wine, different bottles. One side considers it cruel to turn a blind eye to the have-nots, the other considers it cruel to punish hard work/skillful money management by forcing the well-off to pay for the have-nots. Depending on whom you talk to about welfare and socialistic programs like welfare, medicare, medicaid, fire & police protection, public education the wealthy are bullied into paying for them; and if taken away, the poor are bullied into living in squalor.
As for the OP, “bullying” is just a term that is also called “natural selection.” chickens with weird feet get pecked to death by the rest of the flock, dull-colored male birds don’t get to mate, alpha wolves & baboons finesse & fight their way into their positions. In short, pretty much anything goes as long as you get to control the resources and get the babes, and if you can’t convince others to give you the resources and the babes, your line ends.
There is in my opinion a definite feeling that the Republicans favor the strong over the weak, and to favor the stick over the carrot. My impression is that the Republican would recommend that the proper response to bullying is for the bullied to fight back, and if they can’t then its their fault for not being strong enough.
The liberal response to Bullying would be more along attempting the resolve the conflict peaceably or failing that, appealing to a higher authority for intervention.