Do Republicans want a one-party state?

Great Debates
1

Painting the basement and listening to right-wing talk shows on the radio, I’m still shocked by the hate that’s spewed towards Democrats and liberals. From Rush Limbaugh in the early '90s to the present, it seems as if Republicans believe that everything a Democrat does is wrong, everything that comes out of their mouths are lies, that there is absolutely no redeeming value in opinions from the left, much less the center. You don’t hear this sort of hatred from Democrats and those on the left – there’s the occasional “Bush is dumb” comment, but no mass condemnation of every person whose personal beliefs tend to lean right of center.

So, I’m wondering – do Republicans want to do away with Democrats, and turn the United States into a one-party state?

2

Yes,Yes they do.

If you read your bible (or Heinlein) closely enough you will find that the republicans are actually in league with the “many false prophets” that will arise in these final days.

3

Elmwood, while I don’t really want to give you the smack-down, I have to say that you really have no idea what you’re talking about.

Really? I hear that kind of thing a lot- there are many liberals I know who seem to believe that if you aren’t liberal you must be:

*homophobic, if not out-right "kill all the fags, it’s God’s will
*anti-minority, if not an out-right Klan member
*anti-women
*fully interested in turning America into a theocracy
*possibly fascistic
*absolutely selfish and with no empathy
*someone who takes pride and joy in seeing others get screwed.

Need I continue? If you’d like, I can go through the archives and pull out specific threads on this board where people have made blanket accusations of Republicans being evil. Or pull Salon or Washington Post columns.

No more than Democrats want to get rid of Republicans and turn the U.S. into a one-party state.

4

Really? I’ve read almost every word Heinlein’s ever written, including some stories that’ve never been reprinted outside of the original pulps, and I don’t recall him ever saying that. :rolleyes:

I’d appreciate a cite (story, article title, etc) for Heinlein saying that “republicans are actually in league with the “many false prophets” that will arise in these final days.”

Fenris

5

You mean you aren’t?
Boy, thanks for telling me, I feel beter already!
:slight_smile:

6

… are all democrats so stupid?:slight_smile: Though I don’t actually think this is a serious post. Just look at the OP “to get a fair and balanced opinion I turn to rush limbaugh”

7

: Though I don’t actually think this is a serious post.
: Just look at the OP “to get a fair and balanced opinion I
: turn to rush limbaugh:”

Uhhh, it IS a serious question, and I never said “to get a fair and balanced opinion …”

8

As a damn liberal, I’ll give you my thoughts on this …

: *homophobic, if not out-right "kill all the fags, it’s
: God’s will

Not necessarily. I don’t think that Republicans condemning gays, but rather, it’s the Christian Right, most of whom happen to be Republican.

: *anti-minority, if not an out-right Klan member

Definitely not. Republicans aren’t pro-minority – they aren’t pro-anyone, IMHO, and that’s a good thing. I’m tired of liberal race-baiting and mau-mauing.

: *anti-women

See the previous comment. I haven’t seen much anti-women rhetoric coming from the right – maybe references to “feminazis” on Limbaugh, but I believe he’s talking about radical, man-hating feminists.

: *fully interested in turning America into a theocracy

Christian Right, again, which does not define the party.

: *possibly fascistic

I’ve heard Democrats claim that, but then again, how many Republicans claim that liberals are “socialists” and “communists?” IMHO, there’s no fascist tendancies, except the “let’s eliminate the left and turn the US into a single party state” thing.

: *absolutely selfish and with no empathy

Nope.

: *someone who takes pride and joy in seeing others get
: screwed.

Nope. Maybe the “evil businessman” stereotype, but not most folks from the right that I know.

9

You’re confusing your own post with facts.
Jeez.

10

elmwood: my apologies if my post seemed to be trying to paint “all” liberals or even “most” liberals with the brush of intolerance. I recognize full well that 80-90% of either party are good, decent people; it’s the 10-20% of the party that’s frothing-at-the-mouth-rabid which gives each side a bad name (ironically, generally by trying to smear the other side).

Unfortunately, I live in Maryland, which is an absolute hotbed of liberalism, and many of my friends are such frothing-at-the-mouters (luckily, most of them have interests other than politics, so I can actually be friends with them, rather than constantly be told how evil and misguided I am for being in the same party as Jesse Helms, not that I like Jesse Helms, or that I even voted for him, because I live in a completely different state, but being a member of the same party seems to be good enough to assume that Helms must be my idol. Yeesh.

Where the hell was I? Sorry, kind of got derailed.).
So, anyways, my point is- there is such hate coming from the Left. Like the hate from the Right, it comes from a small segment of crazies and demagouges. But assuming that Rush Limbaugh speaks completely and utterly for the millions of registered Republicans is approximately equivalent to assuming that Jesse Jackson speaks completely and utterly for the millions of registered Democrats.

11

…gee, does thsi mean that not all Republicans are part of the “Vast right-wing conspiracy”? That doesn’t group all the GOP together, does it?

(Uh, Hillary - if they are so vast, they aren’t "right-wing, they’re mainstream by definition…)

12

Perhaps you don’t hear it because it’s not directed at you, but it’s certainly my impression that the blind impassioned hatred you describe is a quite common vehicle for liberal attacks on conservatives. I hear it every day. It is quite difficult to discuss political issues with my liberal acquaintance without their responses turning toward the ad hominem attack on my personal beliefs.

As John noted, no one speaker represents all conservatives just as no one speaker represents all liberals. There’s plenty of thought that’s widely believed to be part and parcel of conservative thought with which I disagree. And I feel no fear in discussing such with my fellow conservative-minded folk. I definitely perceive the presence of the brain police and the character assassins when I’m drawn into discussion with people who represent themselves as liberal. Perhaps your side of the fence has been infiltrated by…who knows? Perhaps folk that don’t represent you.

The biggest difference I see is that, while, admittedly, there are “conservative” commentators who are subject to this as well, and with whom I often disagree, liberal public discourse is very much prone to the broad brush approach to dividing up the populace. The single biggest failing I see in (what do we call it now? Post-post-modern?) liberal discourse today is its intense focus on stereotyping and grouping the populace (the divide and conquer approach?).

Whatever else might be operating, “liberal” hardly means leave that person to his own beliefs anymore.

13

Well…America already is a one-party Republicrat system…only (marginal) differences between the two is which sacred cows they’ll rob ya ta fund!!!

14

Thank you for that incisive analysis, RugbyMan. I’m glad to know that Jesse Helms and Ted Kennedy have “only (marginal) differences between” them :rolleyes:

John Corrado and beatle have already answered the OP, but let me take it a step further. The situation described is one which has occurred in this country–one party becoming overly dominant–at both the national and local levels.

Nationally, the Federalist Party started collapsing in 1800–they never held the presidency after John Adams lost to Thomas Jefferson–which left the Democratic-Republican Party dominant. The result was a split into factions, culminated by the election of 1824 in which four Democratic-Republicans ran against each other. Four years later, the factions had grown into the Democratic and National Republican Parties; thus, the dominant single party begat two opposing parties.

(Note for those who don’t know: the National Republicans were not the start of the current Republican Party, though they can be seen as an ancestor.)

At the state level you have examples such as Louisiana, which at one time was solidly Democratic, but the Democrats were broken into Long and anti-Long factions. A local level example would be Chicago, where there were Machine Democrats (Richard Daley I) and non-Machine Democrats (such as Jane Byrne, who defeated Machine Mayor Michael Bilandic (sp?) in a Democratic primary in the late '70s).

In other words, even if you assume a situation in which the Republicans or Democrats could effectively eliminate the other major party, and further assume that another party didn’t grow into a serious political power, the dominent party would most likely divide into factions which would mimic opposition parties. Neither party is anything approaching monolithic even now; under the stress of being the only major party, both would fracture. It isn’t realistic to think either one could form a one-party state in the sense of the CPSU in the Soviet Union, or the PRI in Mexico for most of the past century.

15

Well…they both steal my money, do they not??? Only difference is that Jesse wants to steal it to promote “God and country” and Teddy boy wants to steal it to butter up to women and minorities. But since they both steal my money, there’s not really much difference between the lot of em.

After all, a thief is nothing but a free-lance tax-collector

16

RugbyMan, I like the way you think. “Free-lance tax collector” - tee hee :D. You ever read through some of the older libertarianism debates that we’ve had over the past year? You might like that sort of thing.

17

John Corrado writes:

> Unfortunately, I live in Maryland, which is an absolute
> hotbed of liberalism, and many of my friends are such
> frothing-at-the-mouters (luckily, most of them have
> interests other than politics, so I can actually be
> friends with them, rather than constantly be told how
> evil and misguided I am for being in the same party as
> Jesse Helms, not that I like Jesse Helms, or that I
> even voted for him, because I live in a completely
> different state, but being a member of the same party
> seems to be good enough to assume that Helms must be my
> idol. Yeesh.

I live in Maryland too, and I don’t know anybody who can be described as “frothing at the mouth” about their politics. I know people who hold a range of opinions ranging from moderately liberal to moderately conservative (and a certain amount of not-on-the-spectrum stuff like libertarianism). If I want to hear frothing at the mouth, I have to sign onto the SDMB.

18

Let’s try to keep these political discussions in Great Debates, o.k.?
Moving this to GD

19

So is your sarcasm meter broken, or is mine?

20

Possibly both. :smiley:

I couldn’t tell if he was doing some sort of varient on the “Heinlein is a fascist” screed, kidding, serious, or what.

Either way, I didn’t get it and I’d hoped the above would prompt an explanation.

Fenris