# If Republicans only care about the rich... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 6, 2011, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-republicans-only-care-about-the-rich/591759 "2011-08-06T18:47:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2011, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-republicans-only-care-about-the-rich/591759/121 "2011-08-08T17:22:52Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > They win elections because they appeal to people through other issues. Like immigration, race, patriotism, tax cuts and so on. Under Bush Congess was tagged as a do-nothing Congress, the GOP-controlled congessional agenda was as follows : > > Tax cuts > Flag burning amendment > An immigration law that they knew Democrats would oppose > Terry Shiavo > Gay marriage > partial birth abortion They are worse than ever: > [@](#): > > One quarter into the 112th Congress’s two-year term, only 14 pieces of legislation originating in the House have become laws (12 bills and two house joint resolutions). Fourteen. Compare that with the House in the 111th, which claimed 254 laws (plus 11 house joint resolutions) over two years. The 110th had 308 (plus 10 house joint resolutions). Even the often-derided do-nothing 109th Congress’s House controlled by the GOP passed 316 (with 16 house joint resolutions). > > If the current House continues with this trend it will have produced a mere 48 laws by the end of the chamber’s full term. > > Quick math: The last three Houses have by this time in their tenure produced an average of 76 laws each. > > SOURCE: [Ideology Trumps Accomplishment as 112th Congress Pursues Futile Bills - The Atlantic](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/ideology-trumps-accomplishment-as-112th-congress-pursues-futile-bills/242313/) They are also on about abortion like never before. > [@](#): > > States enact record wave of anti-abortion laws > > SOURCE: [http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iolNVolcZ-Plcx4SrKWLeHDYJhVg?docId=cfe67dcc35cb4b5ba86989cd796261a3](http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iolNVolcZ-Plcx4SrKWLeHDYJhVg?docId=cfe67dcc35cb4b5ba86989cd796261a3) > [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > Basically nothing constructive whatsoever. All the legislation was designed to cause a split between the two parties and the wider public, and this was to create the situation, in the words of Karl Rove, where GOP voters “were reminded which side they were on.” > > The modern GOP doesn’t exist for anything other than getting tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations and creating new and exciting corporate welfare opportunities. They get their votes by appealing to voters on social issues like abortion, racism, hatred of gays etc. That’s how they roll. They have been doing this a long time now. > [@](#): > > **Southern Strategy** > > In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the late-20th century Republican Party strategy of winning elections in Southern states by exploiting anti-African American racism among Southern white voters and appealing to states’ rights. Though the “Solid South” had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party’s defense of slavery prior to the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats left the party following the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation. > > The strategy was first adopted under future Republican President Richard Nixon in the late 1960s and continued through the latter decades of the 20th century under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.[1] The strategy was successful in achieving its goals; it led to the electoral realignment of Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party. As the 20th century came to a close, the Republican Party began trying to appeal again to black voters, though with little success. > > SOURCE: [Southern strategy - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy) ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2011, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-republicans-only-care-about-the-rich/591759/122 "2011-08-08T17:47:55Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I do not need to “assume” people will believe crazy things. I think the evidence speaks for itself that people do this…a lot of people do it and by-and-large they are conservatives. > > It matters because these people help sway public policy so it affects not just them but the entire country. If someone wants to believe some craziness on their own fine…I do not care. I do care when a patently false idea is used to sway public policy. A difference of opinion is fine, even a good thing, if the two sides are using normal rules of evidence for holding a given position. When one side is insisting that 2+2=5 and insists on their version of reality we have a problem. But again I ask, **Lobohan’s** point revolved around him reaching for the “but people are stupid” excuse for which \*\*Gigo \*\* pondered why would he have to be reaching for that excuse and here we are with you defending the using of the ‘stupid people’ excuse. You can keep digging if you like but the message is clear America! You are too stoopid to use your own brains, we (the left) will swoop in and save you from your own stupidity! ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2011, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-republicans-only-care-about-the-rich/591759/123 "2011-08-08T17:55:42Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > They are worse than ever: > > They are also on about abortion like never before. > > They have been doing this a long time now. From your Southern Strategy cite : - [Bob Herbert](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Herbert), a _New York Times_ columnist, reported a 1981 interview with [Lee Atwater](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater), published in _Southern Politics in the 1990s_ by Prof. [Alexander P. Lamis](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_P._Lamis&action=edit&redlink=1), in which Lee Atwater discussed politics in the South: You start out in 1954 by saying, “[Nigger](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger), nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger”.[[5]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-Branch-4)\* Lee Atwater, for those who don’t know, was the Karl Rove of the 1960s/70s GOP party. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2011, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-republicans-only-care-about-the-rich/591759/124 "2011-08-08T18:07:43Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > You are too stoopid to use your own brains, we (the left) will swoop in and save you from your own stupidity! I am not concerned with “saving” them. I merely think they should not have a seat at the table when policy is being negotiated. That is not to say conservatives should not be allowed at the table. Having a mix of ideas is generally a good thing. But the rules of evidence should be adhered to. If one side keeps insisting that the health care reform is really a means to kill grandma then they should be told to fuck off and leave the negotiations to the adults who care about facts. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2011, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-republicans-only-care-about-the-rich/591759/125 "2011-08-08T18:16:45Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > But again I ask, **Lobohan’s** point revolved around him reaching for the “but people are stupid” excuse for which \*\*Gigo \*\* pondered why would he have to be reaching for that excuse and here we are with you defending the using of the ‘stupid people’ excuse. > > You can keep digging if you like but the message is clear America! > You are too stoopid to use your own brains, we (the left) will swoop in and save you from your own stupidity! Well, I was making the point that the OP was excluding a big middle, but that does not mean that there is a chunk that is deluded or crazy. (This goes also for the extreme left BTW) This was explained half in jest by these guys first: > **[Lunch Discussions #145: The Crazification Factor](http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-crazification.html)** > > John: ... I mean, what will it take? That last speech literally made no sense . It was crazy drunken bar talk! Islamic radicals are lik... > [@](#): > > The Crazification Factor > > John: Hey, Bush is now at 37% approval. I feel much less like Kevin McCarthy screaming in traffic. But I wonder what his base is – > > Tyrone: 27%. > > John: … you said that immmediately, and with some authority. > > Tyrone: Obama vs. Alan Keyes. Keyes was from out of state, so you can eliminate any established political base; both candidates were black, so you can factor out racism; and Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. Batshit crazy. Head-trauma crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement. Hell, even like 5% of Democrats voted for him. That’s crazy behaviour. I think you have to assume a 27% Crazification Factor in any population. > > John: Objectively crazy or crazy vis-a-vis my own inertial reference frame for rational behaviour? I mean, are you creating the Theory of Special Crazification or General Crazification? > > Tyrone: Hadn’t thought about it. Let’s split the difference. Half just have worldviews which lead them to disagree with what you consider rationality even though they arrive at their positions through rational means, and the other half are the core of the Crazification – either genuinely crazy; or so woefully misinformed about how the world works, the bases for their decision making is so flawed they may as well be crazy. > > John: You realize this leads to there being over 30 million crazy people in the US? > > Tyrone: Does that seem wrong? > > John: … a bit low, actually. Just as it is not good to exclude the middle that is not crazy or dumb, it is not good to assume that there is no crazy element present. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2011, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-republicans-only-care-about-the-rich/591759/126 "2011-08-08T18:23:39Z")
The point being that with a 27 percent unmovable base. the Repubs only need 24 percent to win. There is nothing the Dems can do to reach the base. We have them on this board and they are obdurate. So the policy of getting gun lovers, anti abortionists, and the religious right works because they don’t have that much work to do. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2011, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-republicans-only-care-about-the-rich/591759/127 "2011-08-08T18:37:41Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I am not concerned with “saving” them. > > I merely think they should not have a seat at the table when policy is being negotiated. That is not to say conservatives should not be allowed at the table. Having a mix of ideas is generally a good thing. But the rules of evidence should be adhered to. If one side keeps insisting that the health care reform is really a means to kill grandma then they should be told to fuck off and leave the negotiations to the adults who care about facts. I happen to agree with you on this point but realize that while both sides have their crazy, the right does a much better job at getting their points across (talking points) so while the Dem’s focus is on ‘getting the facts right’ they are getting demolished in the communication arena. Even on this board there is more crazy left than crazy right (might be the population of left vs right skewing things though) ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2011, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-republicans-only-care-about-the-rich/591759/128 "2011-08-08T19:12:07Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > I happen to agree with you on this point but realize that while both sides have their crazy, the right does a much better job at getting their points across (talking points) so while the Dem’s focus is on ‘getting the facts right’ they are getting demolished in the communication arena. Reality is not easily reduced to a bumper sticker. Conservatives live in a bumper sticker world, and anything more nuanced upsets them. So long as Democrats have this crazy hang up with logic, reason and critical thinking, they will never reach the fraction of the voters that value none of those. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2011, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-republicans-only-care-about-the-rich/591759/129 "2011-08-08T20:13:53Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > But again I ask, **Lobohan’s** point revolved around him reaching for the “but people are stupid” excuse for which \*\*Gigo \*\* pondered why would he have to be reaching for that excuse and here we are with you defending the using of the ‘stupid people’ excuse. Please don’t misrepresent what I said. You appear to have misunderstood it. Republicans use lies and misinformation as a core messaging tool. Rather than have a debate about what to do about climate change, they simply lie and say it isn’t happening. People who believe these lies aren’t necessarily stupid. They have simply been lied to by someone they trust. If someone you believe in tells you that climate change is a fraud, you would likely believe them if you didn’t have the information to refute it handy. > [@](#): > > You can keep digging if you like but the message is clear America! > You are too stoopid to use your own brains, we (the left) will swoop in and save you from your own stupidity! The left are the only ones offering real solutions. Right now, the right are (often) offering ideological solutions to problems, regardless of how things work in reality. Again, people believe in nonsense because they are ignorant. Not because they’re stupid. You do understand there is a difference, right? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2011, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-republicans-only-care-about-the-rich/591759/130 "2011-08-08T21:58:45Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > I happen to agree with you on this point but realize that while both sides have their crazy, the right does a much better job at getting their points across (talking points) so while the Dem’s focus is on ‘getting the facts right’ they are getting demolished in the communication arena. > > Even on this board there is more crazy left than crazy right (might be the population of left vs right skewing things though) The right-wing crazies are actually in congress (bolding below is mine). > [@](#): > > By refusing to raise it unless they got their spending cuts, the Republicans in effect pointed a pistol at the economy and threatened to pull the trigger if they were denied. \*\*An alarming number of them sounded crazy enough to carry out this threat. \*\* > > \ > > Any assessment of Mr Obama needs to acknowledge that when he was elected he inherited the in-box from hell: a financial collapse, a prostrated economy, two wars. Now he faces the opposition from hell: **a reckless, populist Republican Party whose moderate voices have been silenced by ideologues** and which has made throwing him out of office its foremost priority. > > SOURCE: [An underperforming president](http://www.economist.com/node/21525395) If you want I can provide cites of members of congress repeating the Birther line and the Death Panel line and pronouncements about the “Gay Agenda” and Obama is a socialist and so on. Can you provide similar craziness from democratic members of congress in anything like the numbers we see it from republicans? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2011, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-republicans-only-care-about-the-rich/591759/131 "2011-08-08T23:21:17Z")
Well, the crazy Democrats don’t seem to grasp what a dreadful threat from Shaira law. That’s pretty nuts! ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2011, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-republicans-only-care-about-the-rich/591759/132 "2011-08-08T23:25:46Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, the crazy Democrats don’t seem to grasp what a dreadful threat from Shaira law. That’s pretty nuts! Yeah, and they seem to actually believe all that silly “climate change” and “evolution” nonsense those clueless scientist types are always going on about. Crazy! ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2011, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-republicans-only-care-about-the-rich/591759/133 "2011-08-09T00:10:36Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > The fact that there are not that many rich people is irrelevant. They have convinced people to vote against their own interests. The Repubs appeal to single issue voters to vote for them with promises that they would protect their beliefs. The gun people, the anti abortion people, the tea baggers , and people who just want no taxes. > The Repubs are very well funded and get their message out 24 hours a day. They have Fox broadcasting righty bias all day long. They have radio stations across the country pushing Rush and other rights. They finance " think tanks" that get play on their TV stations convincing some, they are intellectually based. They control the guests on Sunday Morning political shows. > They tell the religious right what they want to hear. They scare the old people . Wow. I don’t think I have ever seen so many incorrect statements in a single post before. That’s got to be a new board record. ---
**Author:** ![SeldomSeen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ba0ec/32.png) [@SeldomSeen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeldomSeen)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2011, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-republicans-only-care-about-the-rich/591759/134 "2011-08-09T00:53:14Z")
> [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by gonzomax > The fact that there are not that many rich people is irrelevant. They have convinced people to vote against their own interests. The Repubs appeal to single issue voters to vote for them with promises that they would protect their beliefs. The gun people, the anti abortion people, the tea baggers , and people who just want no taxes. > The Repubs are very well funded and get their message out 24 hours a day. They have Fox broadcasting righty bias all day long. They have radio stations across the country pushing Rush and other rights. They finance " think tanks" that get play on their TV stations convincing some, they are intellectually based. They control the guests on Sunday Morning political shows. > They tell the religious right what they want to hear. They scare the old people . > [@Clothahump](#): > > Wow. I don’t think I have ever seen so many incorrect statements in a single post before. That’s got to be a new board record. Care to explain which ones are incorrect? The right wing does, in fact, appeal to single-issue voters including all the ones listed above. And single-issue voters are prone to putting their cause _du jour_ ahead of their own general welfare (although admittedly they may not see it that way). Moreover, Fox and talk radio are notorious for their right-wing bias and “preaching to the choir”. They do tend to paint their talking points with a psuedo-intellectual gloss, and override any actual intellectual attempt at discussion. I don’t know about controlling guests on \*all \*Sunday morning political shows…that might be stretching it a bit. So I say again…which record-setting incorrect points are you referring to? SS ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2011, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-republicans-only-care-about-the-rich/591759/135 "2011-08-09T01:09:54Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Wow. I don’t think I have ever seen so many incorrect statements in a single post before. That’s got to be a new board record. Using Fox for a standard. I am sure you think you have an understanding. I have seen figures of right wingers on Sunday morning political shows. I made up nothing. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2011, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-republicans-only-care-about-the-rich/591759/136 "2011-08-09T06:03:28Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > That’s a simple, immutable fact, to which you provided no response except to say you flatly disagree. But you disagreeing doesn’t really matter. Someone who receives benefit from some social program, especially if that program is run at no cost to themselves, is typically going to want that program to continue. Someone who is neither helped nor harmed by said program and does not shoulder the burden of funding said program is typically going to be indifferent to whether or not that program continues. If, however, that program is run at a cost to someone else and they receive no benefit from it, an indidividual is typically not going to want to pay for it. Of those three people, it’s a good bet that the first will be a registered Democrat, the second will be either a registered Democrat or a Democratic leaning independent, and the latter will be a Republican or a Republican leaning independent. > > Federal program =/= social program. If you’re going to bother responding to my posts, at least respond to the things I’m typing out and not your interpretation of them. Trying to split hairs over the difference between “federal programs” and “social programs” doesn’t solve your problem. I responded to your OP by pointing out that, by and large, the federal government has chosen spending that benefits rich, white guys much more than spending that would benefit blacks or the poor. Now you say that much of the spending in question isn’t on social programs. So what? Why would any voter vote based on solely spending on social programs while ignoring all other federal spending? The bottom line is that most federal spending the Republican demographic of rich white guys while not benefiting, and in some cases actively harming, the Democratic demographic of blacks and the poor. Finding a single category within the federal budget in which that isn’t true doesn’t change the fact. ---
**Author:** ![Indygrrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@Indygrrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indygrrl)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2011, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-republicans-only-care-about-the-rich/591759/137 "2011-08-09T18:24:09Z")
I always have to laugh (after I cry) when republicans say they are in favor of “smaller government.” What they really need to say is they are in favor of small government policies when it comes to tax breaks, lobbyists, and anything in favor of the rich. Because they’re happy to spend countless dollars all over the country to implement draconian laws regarding abortion, and even basic reproductive health care. And they’ve not only fought against gay marriage, but many of them want to change the constitution to make sure it’s forever illegal. I don’t call that smaller government. Ditto with the “war on drugs,” and the incarceration of thousands of non-violent offenders. They could decriminalize marijuana and save a hell of a lot of resources, but I don’t see republicans fighting for that. In fact, they seem to want to make more things illegal, and see more people behind bars. I’ll never be able to get my head around this sort of hypocrisy and inconsistency. I’m not saying democrats are perfect, but they aren’t trying to pull the rug out from under your feet. The whole republican plan to de-fund Planned Parenthood, while continuing to give government money to people like wanna be president Michelle Bachmann’s husband’s anti-gay brainwashing “counseling” center, is about as hypocritical as it gets. And that’s not even getting into how many of them want to use their religion to make laws for the rest of us. It’s craziness. And the discussion of people voting against their own interests made me think of this article: [http://alstefanelli.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/about-people-who-vote-against-their-own-interests/](http://alstefanelli.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/about-people-who-vote-against-their-own-interests/) OMG might not want to believe that this is the true reason so many middle class people vote republican, but I’ve known so many people who use this reasoning, and it’s a powerful thing indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2011, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-republicans-only-care-about-the-rich/591759/138 "2011-08-09T20:34:38Z")
> [@Indygrrl](#): > > I always have to laugh (after I cry) when republicans say they are in favor of “smaller government.” What they really need to say is they are in favor of small government policies when it comes to tax breaks, lobbyists, and anything in favor of the rich. Actually, the new crop of ‘Tea Party’ Republicans are also against corporate handouts and subsidies. Tim Pawlenty went to _Iowa_ and told the crowd that ethanol subsidies are a bad idea. That took some guts. But you’re right that the majority of the Republicans currently in the federal government are resistant to any change in tax law that raises revenue, even if it’s change that levels the playing field or ends unwarranted subsidies. And for that, they’re wrong. > [@](#): > > Because they’re happy to spend countless dollars all over the country to implement draconian laws regarding abortion, and even basic reproductive health care. And they’ve not only fought against gay marriage, but many of them want to change the constitution to make sure it’s forever illegal. There’s a very large fight going on within the Republican party between the social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives. There’s a third group who is socially conservative but recognizes that fiscal issues matter the most and social conservative issues should be de-politicized in the interests of growing a coalition to fight bigger government. I don’t know which side is going to win yet. I think the fiscal conservatives and the libertarians are on the upswing at the moment, but there are a lot of big players in the social conservative movement who have a lot of clout. We’ll see. > [@](#): > > I don’t call that smaller government. Ditto with the “war on drugs,” and the incarceration of thousands of non-violent offenders. They could decriminalize marijuana and save a hell of a lot of resources, but I don’t see republicans fighting for that. In fact, they seem to want to make more things illegal, and see more people behind bars. Actually, I don’t think the war on drugs is a partisan issue any more. There’s just as big a faction on the right that wants drugs legalized as there is on the left, and there are plenty of drug warriors in the Democrat ranks. Barack Obama, for instance, whose Justice Department has stepped up raids on medical marijuana users and refuses to recognize state laws legalizing marijuana. The National Review, which is probably the biggest and most influential ‘conservative’ magazine, has had an editorial stance calling for drug legalization for 15 years. And of course, the Libertarian right is for drug legalization as well (and for gay marriage and legal abortion). On the other hand, if you think people have a right to use drugs if they see fit, how do you justify the FDA’s control of the prescription drug market? Don’t I have just as much right to take an experimental drug for my cancer as I do to smoke weed for my Glaucoma? > [@](#): > > I’ll never be able to get my head around this sort of hypocrisy and inconsistency. I’m not saying democrats are perfect, but they aren’t trying to pull the rug out from under your feet. Unless you do any of the things THEY don’t like. Both sides are hypocritical. Both are trying to exert control over the public. They just choose different areas in which to do it. Michelle Bachmann doesn’t want gays to marry. Michael Bloomberg doesn’t want to allow you the choice of whether you want trans-fats in your diet. Republicans don’t want you to have an abortion, and Democrats don’t want to allow you to hire non-union workers or have a choice in what school your kid goes to. > [@](#): > > And the discussion of people voting against their own interests made me think of this article: > > [http://alstefanelli.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/about-people-who-vote-against-their-own-interests/](http://alstefanelli.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/about-people-who-vote-against-their-own-interests/) > > OMG might not want to believe that this is the true reason so many middle class people vote republican, but I’ve known so many people who use this reasoning, and it’s a powerful thing indeed. That article is a bigoted smear written by someone who doesn’t understand what the true self-interest of the right is. For many of us, it’s not about seeing how big a slice of the pie we can extract from the government. My self-interest lies in making sure that freedom from government interference in our lives is maximized and that my daughter grows up in a country where she doesn’t have to get approval from a government flunkey before she blows her nose, in exchange for being given unearned financial security. The comparison of the right to Nazi Germany is particularly offensive and ignorant. The National Socialists came to power promising big government fixes to social ills and a social safety net. They promised good wages for all, free public education, and all the goodies of the modern welfare state, if only the people would give them more economic and political power. The people rioting in Greece and Britain are rioting for more government services. The Tea Party is marching for smaller government and more personal autonomy. I’ll leave it to you to figure out which ones are more likely to sign away their rights for more economic security and lead to authoritarianism. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2011, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-republicans-only-care-about-the-rich/591759/139 "2011-08-09T20:48:41Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > On the other hand, if you think people have a right to use drugs if they see fit, how do you justify the FDA’s control of the prescription drug market? Don’t I have just as much right to take an experimental drug for my cancer as I do to smoke weed for my Glaucoma? Of course you do. You also have the right to know that the drug you’ve been prescribed is actually the drug your doctor wants you to take, and that the company that made the drug accurately reported the possible side-effects. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2011, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-republicans-only-care-about-the-rich/591759/140 "2011-08-09T21:02:54Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > Of course you do. You also have the right to know that the drug you’ve been prescribed is actually the drug your doctor wants you to take, and that the company that made the drug accurately reported the possible side-effects. This is typical of left-wing thinking. You just invented a ‘right to know’, which actually isn’t a right but a restriction on my rights. My ‘right to know what’s in the drug I take’ is actually my lack of a right to take the drug until YOU have decided that I have the information I need. If I truly have a right to take that drug, then I have the right to take it whether or not you think it’s a good idea, or whether or not you think the company that made it jumped through the right hoops. As for my right to not take the drug unless I know what’s in it - I still retain that right. I can choose not to take it if I’m not satisfied that I have the information needed to do it safety. And if I feel I’m not qualified to judge, I have the right to seek out the advice of a doctor, or perhaps look to an agency like Consumer Reports to advise me. Let me ask you - should pot be legalized? And if it is, should marijuana have to go through the same process? Should there be government regulators inspecting pot farms? Should it be kept off the market for 10 years while the EPA demands for safety and efficacy tests be done? Or would you just legalize it and let people simply buy it from local growers or grow it themselves? If the latter, then I would suggest that you’re the one not being consistent. What if the growers spray it with pesticide? Who is going to ensure quality? What if unscrupulous operators start selling crappy ditch-weed instead of righteous bud? Don’t consumers have a right to be protected? By the way, if any of you smoke pot, can you tell me if the quality of it has gotten better or worse over the years? Do you know anyone who has died from poisoned pot? If not, how do you reconcile that quality and safety with the fact that it’s completely unregulated? Hell, it’s even got very weak market regulation, because the illegal nature of it means it gets sold by fly-by-night dealers and people not trying to build a reputation as quality growers and sellers, because they can’t publicize their quality. If it’s pretty good now, wouldn’t it get even better once it was legal and people could gain market advantage by improving quality? I’ve known pot smokers all my life, and what I hear from them is that the quality of pot has improved over the years, and the consistency is very good. And I’ve never heard of anyone being poisoned by tainted pot - except in the 70’s, when the _government_ intentional sprayed Malathion on it in an attempt to disrupt the market by injecting uncertainty about quality and safety. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-republicans-only-care-about-the-rich/591759.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-republicans-only-care-about-the-rich/591759.md?page=8)