# The Republican Worldview: A Question **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 1, 2012, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republican-worldview-a-question/623820 "2012-06-01T22:19:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republican-worldview-a-question/623820/21 "2012-06-02T04:31:02Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But dating is a true meritocracy - all of us, men and women, start on an equal footing and everyone ends up in a relationship based on their own merits. You can’t really mean this. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republican-worldview-a-question/623820/22 "2012-06-02T04:31:56Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But dating is a true meritocracy… Did you read the article linked in the OP? > [@](#): > > For Americans, the socioeconomic status of the household they’re born into is the best single predictor of their future prosperity—and nothing is more random, and not based on one’s own efforts, than the family into which a person is born. If physical beauty plays any role in dating (and from the examples you chose, I would guess you think it does), then Porizkova, et al. came by their looks as much as any person is born into a family that gives him a greater chance to become financially successful. ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republican-worldview-a-question/623820/23 "2012-06-02T04:38:15Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But dating is a true meritocracy - all of us, men and women, **start on an equal footing and everyone ends up in a relationship based on their own merits. People may say they’ve been unlucky in love but nobody seriously complains that dating is unfair**. Nobody claims that “Olivier Martinez cheated. I should be the one engaged to Halle Berry.” Surely you are being humorous! (my bold) ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republican-worldview-a-question/623820/24 "2012-06-02T06:43:54Z")
Do I need to point out the obvious? When it comes to dating, physical attractiveness is clearly a merit. People who are good looking do better in the dating game than average looking people. (Obviously, it’s not the only merit in dating. Many people are successful in relationships due to other merits and many good-looking people fail in relationships due to other flaws.) Meritocracy doesn’t mean everyone is equal or that everyone achieves equal results. Meritocracy is when your success is directly linked to the amount of merit you have as an individual. In dating, your success is based on the attractiveness (or other equivalent merit) that you personally have. Nobody can give you attractiveness. It doesn’t matter how attractive your family and friends are - if you’re average looking, they can’t give you their good looks. Financial success is different. Yes, some people earn their wealth through their own efforts. But some people are wealthy because other people gave them their wealth. ---
**Author:** ![SkyRanger757](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@SkyRanger757](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkyRanger757)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republican-worldview-a-question/623820/25 "2012-06-02T06:59:56Z")
yes, true meritocracy, will lead to the very rich, & very poor. So should we provide for the poor, the answer is yes, we are not cannibals, no way can we have the poor die out of hunger , lack of healthcare etcc… However the core issue is a financial system & governance that can sustain itself. State provision for social security, healthcare etc… will eventually lead to bankrupt state leading to total collapse. so the govt should only stick to military, internal security, foreign affairs. All else should be determined by the free market. Social security also should be provided for by the free market, where the rich can contribute to the poor in the society. This is the only model that can sustain itself, In this regard, the GOP is correct, however what a mess they have created instead of rationally arguing this. ! ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 9:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republican-worldview-a-question/623820/26 "2012-06-02T09:13:30Z")
> [@supery00n](#): > > In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with prosperity theology. It’s one of those things that I think of as a superficial interpretation (at best) of the Bible, but a useful motivator for a human world where money is so important, for better or for worse. I’m not a psychologist, but I know that Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs doesn’t start with self-actualization. Then I don’t believe you are familiar with the whole of prosperity theology. One part of it, for example, is that you get rich by donating large amounts of money to the church, even before you actually have it. Absent some sort of karmic restitution, there is no way that will make you rich. Prosperity theology teaches the opposite of the concept that hard work produces monetary rewards. It teaches that, because we are God’s children, we already have the all the riches, and they will come to us if we just believe hard enough. (And, again, one way to show your belief is to give away more money than you have, since obviously that means you believe that money will be coming in.) ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republican-worldview-a-question/623820/27 "2012-06-02T17:49:37Z")
Somewhat of a tangent, but… Suppose we lived in a very different society where everyone had truly equal opportunity from birth, ie, all children were raised by the government so no one ever inherited anything, no one ever had their parents pay for their college (and conversely no one was ever neglected by a crack-addicted single mother). In a society like that, I’d be MUCH more receptive to the whole “well, the poor people are poor because they don’t have jobs and are lazy, why should my stuff be taken to give to them” argument. (I’m not saying I wish we lived in such a society, or that even in a society like that I’d just let people starve in the street, but I feel like a lot of Republican philosophy would make more sense in that world.) ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republican-worldview-a-question/623820/28 "2012-06-02T18:41:48Z")
I can see four main reasons to support a less regressive taxation and social welfare structure: 1. The idea that we live in a meritocracy. 2. The discredited idea that this will help the economy. 3. I got mine, fuck 'em. 4. Then of course there are those who don’t think about it at all really like **Lobohan** said. So no, not all conservatives believe in a true meritocracy, but when one of them engages in an actual argument based on principle, it’s invariably based on #1 or #2. Those who do not wish to provide coherent first-principles-based arguments fall into #3 and #4. Which isn’t to say that those who try to argue coherently don’t slip into #3 or #4 either, especially when they are losing the argument. (They will sometimes slip into rah rah tu quoques or Argumentum Ad Hitlerium or eggs-omelettes-I’m all right Jackisms when confronted with irrefutable evidence against #1. Doesn’t happen as often when defending #2, possibly because just like people, you can get numbers to say something vaguely like what you want them to if you torture them enough.) ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republican-worldview-a-question/623820/29 "2012-06-02T19:47:52Z")
One of the many problems of the OP is the assumption that Republicans do not want to help the poor (and that Democrats, presumably, do). Both Republicans (for the most part) and Democrats (for the most part) want to help the poor. They disagree on [ul][li]the means by which this can best be accomplished, and [_]whether those means are more just than any others, and [_]what are the consequences of what we decide to do, intended and otherwise.[/ul]And especially we disagree on [ul]what we do when what we do doesn’t work.[/ul]I don’t think cost-benefit analysis is immoral, but I hear a lot of objections when it gets applied. [/li] But in answer to your further question, no, it is not possible to construct a society in which everyone agrees everyone is getting what they deserve. Those at the bottom will always resent those above them, and will always be able to come up with reasons why it isn’t their fault they are poor, and it’s no fair. That’s human nature. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republican-worldview-a-question/623820/30 "2012-06-02T20:23:34Z")
> [@supery00n](#): > > The question I was really trying to get at (and I used a biased source, I admit), was whether the ideal meritocracy would be a system in which wealth corresponds to “deservedness,” and whether capitalism and free competition (shouldn’t have used the word Social Darwinism in that context) could ever lead to a situation where people, rich and poor, _believe that the system is indeed a meritocracy, and thus feel no injustice from it._ Maybe one way to put it is that, for Republicans, the ideal is **equality of opportunity** , not equality of results. In a society where opportunity is readily available to everyone, some people will take more advantage of it than others, and so some people will end up richer, others poorer. Republicans don’t believe that we currently _have_ equality of opportunity, only that that’s the ideal, or at least closer to the ideal than trying to assure that everyone is equally wealthy. I don’t know if that’s a fair and accurate way of putting it or not; I am willing to be corrected. (Of course, not every Republican holds the same views, and there may well be cases where what individual Republicans pay lip service to differs substantially from what they truly believe.) ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republican-worldview-a-question/623820/31 "2012-06-02T22:29:44Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Or, maybe, just maybe, you’ve gone far off-base because you don’t understand us. Here’s a hint: the very question of “deserve” _has no meaning for us_. When you talk about whether Republicans believe people “deserve” to be poor or rich, you’re talking in a foreign language. We don’t talk about, because wealth or poverty isn’t considered to be in any way related to moral standing. We don’t ask whether the rich guy “deserves” his money. he can be a total asshole, but he can do whatever he likes with his money because it’s _his_. > > In short, you’re assuming that everyone holds your worldview, and then trying to ask where we stand on it. The answer is that we _don’t_ stand on it. Let me join the Amen Chorus on this post. Very well said. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republican-worldview-a-question/623820/32 "2012-06-02T23:17:27Z")
> [@supery00n](#): > > And on a slightly different point, is there any meaningful difference between a true meritocracy and a system of Social Darwinism? I feel like the two systems are really one and the same at their logical extremes, and that those who laud the former as some sort of grand ideal are in some way “creeping Social Darwinists” rather analogous to how “socialists” are “creeping toward communism.” Is there any “merit” to my observation? 🙂 I associate social Darwinism with laissez faire capitalism, libertarianism, and a severely limited government. In a true meritocracy every child would start with the same economic and educational advantages. This would require a much larger government than than libertarians find tolerable. It would restrict the freedom of wealthy parents to pass on their wealth to their children. ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republican-worldview-a-question/623820/33 "2012-06-03T12:29:06Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Well put. I believe someone has the right to his stuff, because it’s his stuff. Period. > > And conversely, someone is poor because he doesn’t have enough stuff. It has nothing to do with “deserve.” I realize this seems tautological and meaningless to many on this board, but **smiling bandit** ’s post really is a good insight into conservative thinking if you’re really looking for it, IMO. Unlike all the straw man “I know what’s in conservatives’ hearts” nonsense that is typically offered as gospel around here. This sounds all well and good until you actually apply it to what conservatives are DOING, which is trying to give tax cuts to the wealthy who pay a much smaller percentage of their income in taxes, while making lower income earners pay MORE. It’s obviously only the wealthy who “deserve” their income since you think the poor and working should be paying more in taxes than the rich. Since it only works one way for “conservatives”, obviously you DO in fact agree that the rich deserve their money more than the poor, unless you find what republicans are currently striving for to be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republican-worldview-a-question/623820/34 "2012-06-03T13:26:26Z")
> [@Randvek](#): > > I think it’s a lot more common than you think. “Poor people just need to do X, Y, and Z and they won’t be poor anymore, but since they don’t do X, Y, and Z, they deserve what they have.” Not only do Republicans believe this, but the first half of the statement is completely and objectively true and believed by Democrats as well. The difference is that a Democrat would end it “but they either don’t do X, Y, and Z or can’t do X, Y, and/or Z.” Nobody opposes aiding those who truly “_can’t_ do X, Y, and/or Z.” … but conservatives are a lot more inclined to suspect that it’s a matter of “don’t want to,” or at least “don’t want to if it means giving up other things.” It’s one thing to say “I want a job;” it’s another to say “I want a job enough that I’m willing to clean toilets or work weekends or give up partying.” I don’t think most Republicans care if someone chooses to be poor; I surely don’t. The issue is making self-destructive, poverty-creating choices and then making demands, via government, on other people. When you ask me to pay for your rent, I might be willing to help, but I’m first going to ask why you can’t pay it yourself and expect a good answer. I was devoted liberal at 18; I changed in large part because I worked for several years with the homeless, and saw up close the way the (liberal/government-run) groups I worked for refused to allow people to make their own choices and live with the consequences. Even when clients deliberately, obviously made self-destructive choices, the liberals I worked with insisted it couldn’t possibly be their fault. The irony of these kinds of threads is that it is Liberals, not conservatives, who tend to see everything as boiling down to money. My father, a very staunch Republican, chose a low-paying career. He did so because he felt it was a calling, and that he was doing the right thing. He doesn’t think of himself as a failure because he never made more than 50k in his life, and he doesn’t feel entitled to some kind of redistribution: he made his choice, and I don’t think he envies Donald Trump or George Soros. The most hard-core Republican I know lives in one of the most expensive cities in America, relying on his 35k and his wife’s barista income to raise their kids. They might qualify for aid AFAIK, but he’d be damned if he’d take it. I’m a libertarian, but I chose to spend most of my career as a teacher. I’ve never made money, but I’ve never complained … because _I chose_ to spend most of my career as a teacher. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republican-worldview-a-question/623820/35 "2012-06-03T13:47:34Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But dating is a true meritocracy - all of us, men and women, start on an equal footing and everyone ends up in a relationship based on their own merits. No it isn’t. First, because a lot of deception and manipulation is often involved. And second, money is a major factor in attractiveness; both the fact of having it, and the accessories it can buy you. > [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Or, maybe, just maybe, you’ve gone far off-base because you don’t understand us. Here’s a hint: the very question of “deserve” _has no meaning for us_. When you talk about whether Republicans believe people “deserve” to be poor or rich, you’re talking in a foreign language. We don’t talk about, because wealth or poverty isn’t considered to be in any way related to moral standing. Nonsense. Conservatives typically equate money with moral worth, and demonstrate hatred and contempt against the poor, and often towards anyone who isn’t rich. > [@furt](#): > > Nobody opposes aiding those who truly “_can’t_ do X, Y, and/or Z.” Wrong. There _are_ people who think that those who can’t help themselves should be left to die. People have argued for that on this board even. > [@furt](#): > > The irony of these kinds of threads is that it is Liberals, not conservatives, who tend to see everything as boiling down to money. Nonsense. Conservatives are obsessed with money. ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republican-worldview-a-question/623820/36 "2012-06-03T14:30:48Z")
“Meritocracy” is maybe the wrong word to use. The suggestion seems to be more that poor people don’t try hard enough (and that rich people have). What do we call a society based on effort rather than merit? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republican-worldview-a-question/623820/37 "2012-06-03T14:44:38Z")
That is meritocracy by another name. It is actually the more common form of the meme considering that they don’t want to look all highfalutin, and so pretend that hard work is even more important than talent. So therefore the poor deserve to be poor because they are lazy. Of course that is, like I said, only pertaining to those who actually want to defend high regressivity rationally. There are always those who say “because fuck you, that’s why.” ---
**Author:** ![supery00n](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5f9b8f/32.png) [@supery00n](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/supery00n)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republican-worldview-a-question/623820/38 "2012-06-03T14:44:55Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Somewhat of a tangent, but… > > Suppose we lived in a very different society where everyone had truly equal opportunity from birth, ie, all children were raised by the government so no one ever inherited anything, no one ever had their parents pay for their college (and conversely no one was ever neglected by a crack-addicted single mother). In a society like that, I’d be MUCH more receptive to the whole “well, the poor people are poor because they don’t have jobs and are lazy, why should my stuff be taken to give to them” argument. (I’m not saying I wish we lived in such a society, or that even in a society like that I’d just let people starve in the street, but I feel like a lot of Republican philosophy would make more sense in that world.) That was **precisely** the point that I was suggesting. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republican-worldview-a-question/623820/39 "2012-06-03T14:45:38Z")
> [@furt](#): > > I’m a libertarian, but I chose to spend most of my career as a teacher. How do you feel about Romney’s plan to increase military spending and pay for it by lowering taxes on the wealthiest? Or his support for a Constitutional amendment prohibiting states from allowing gay marriage? Or Obama saying that the wealthiest should pay at least as high a tax rate as the middle class? (FTR, I think of myself as libertarian too, and disagree with a lot of Democratic policies – I was more aligned with moderate Republicans. Since the Democrats moved to the formerly moderate Republican positions and the Republicans have fallen off the right side of the scale, I’ve switched my support.) ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republican-worldview-a-question/623820/40 "2012-06-03T14:52:01Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > That is meritocracy by another name. It is actually the more common form of the meme considering that they don’t want to look all highfalutin, and so pretend that hard work is even more important than talent. So therefore the poor deserve to be poor because they are lazy. Much of the purpose of that philosophy has always been to keep people under control by eliminating free time; “idle hands are the devil’s playthings”. Workers who buy into that “work ethic” are going to spend as much time as possible working, which means they won’t have the free time to do anything that would inconvenience their masters. It’s a control technique the powerful have exploited for literally centuries. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republican-worldview-a-question/623820.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-republican-worldview-a-question/623820.md?page=3)