What is A Republican?

Factual Questions
1

Well, I grew up in Utah, a Republican stronghold. Then I moved to CA (and it was quite a culture shock). Since I’m extremely liberal myself, I found that it was quite easy to identify with Democrats in CA, and the general demographic of the group, and what they do and do not believe in.
However, I still do not understand what makes a Republican. The easy answer is, “Well, the opposite of you, pepper.” But even that’s not entirely true.

So, I decided to read all the GD about politics, and hopefully I would learn something. Uh, didn’t happen. For one thing, many threads turned into “Well, you suck you Fundie Christian SCUM!!!” “No, YOU suck you Pinko Commie BASTARDS!!!” “I HATE YOU!” “NO, I HATE YOU!!”
Obviously that wasn’t the exact wording, but it came close.

So I began to read the newspaper, looking for answers, only, the newspapers served to confuse me on the issue. Everytime I thought I knew something, Bush or another Republican would contradict that belief, and I would be back at zero.

Since I don’t want this to turn into a huge political debate over issues, I decided to post in GQ. I’m looking for things like “Republicans are mainly pro-life” not “Well, Republicans, unlike Democrats, are not baby killers.” In other words, I don’t want to debate who is right, I just want a set of Republican “values”, if you will.
That way I will be better prepared to vote in the 2002 elections, and also, I’ll be better able to understand why Pres. Bush does the things he does. (Or not, after all, I’m not expecting a miracle here.) :wink:

2

Here is the Republican Party Platform for the 2000 election.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/features/platform.00/

Your ideology may vary.

3

Ambrose Bierce said it all a hundred years ago.

“Conservative *n. * A statesman who is enamored of existing evils. As opposed to the liberal, who wishes to replace them with new ones.”

4

At the core of the Republican philosophy is the constructionist interpretation of the Constitution. That is, Republicans are more likely to view the Constitution as meaning exactly what it says the way it is written, rather than lending itself to interpretation to fit the needs of the day.

Republicans are also generally opposed to more government; that is, they believe the government should do less and do it with less money. They generally oppose expansion of government beauracracy (sp?); more on this in a sec.

Republicans, at least in theory, oppose abortion. This obviously isn’t true of every Republican. Many are quite OK with abortion laws the way they are but would want to avoid any action that would expand or increase abortions. There are some, of course, who would prefer to see a Constitutional amendment banning abortion across the board. Ain’t gonna happen in my lifetime, but that’s another thread.

Most Republicans support the right to keep and bear arms and generally oppose most any gun control.

Republicans are big on law enforcement and big on the military and will generally favor increased military spending, tougher crime legislation, etc.

Republicans don’t like giving lots of money to public education and would like to make it easier for parents to put their kids into private schools.

Republicans generally oppose tax increases and are quite happy to support tax reductions, within reason. Republicans believe that the wealthy should have as much of their money as possible for this reason: the more money a wealthy person has to keep (instead of give to the government), that’s more money for him/her to put back into the economy; through investing, lending, purchasing, etc.

Republicans generally believe that the free market will offer a faster and better solution to a problem than the government will.

I said earlier that Republicans generally oppose more government. This isn’t exactly true. There is a group of Republicans, call them “Social Conservatives,” who would be quite happy to see more government, so long as that government regulates social issues. These are the people who would ask the government to censor movies, to ban certain violent video games, and to basically enforce social values. A pox on them. I say, let the free market bear it out. If parents stop buying violent video games for their kids, manufacturers will stop producing them. Economics 101.

I tried being a social conservative once, but I couldn’t do it. It was too inconsistent with my core Republican beliefs. For example, when the issue of riverboat casinos first came before Illinois voters in the early 90’s, social conservatives far and wide were vehemently opposed to it on moral grounds. At first, I opposed it, too. Not on moral grounds, but because the introduction of casino gambling to Illinois would give the Illinois General Assembly an excuse to write 20,000 pages of legislation in excruciating detail. Then I thought about it some more and decided that the prudent thing to do was to let the free market bear it out. If Illinois wasn’t ready for riverboat casinos, no one would patronize them and they would fizzle out. If Illinois was ready for riverboat casinos then hey: more jobs and more tourist revenue. Bring it on!

So that’s what this Republican believes, in a nutshell.

5

Lately, one hears a lot of grumbling about how the big two parties have both moved toward the middle and become more similar to each other then they used to be. I think this is true, and I suspect it must make it more difficult then formerly for people to grasp what each party is all about.

When I was growing up, the big two were farther apart then now. Nevertheless, I remember being puzzled as to what was supposed to be the difference between them. I think I was expecting a simple list of positions where they differed, or maybe a simple, clear explaination of two different philosphies.

Once upon a time, one of the most significant differences was that the Dems were seen as pro-union/anti-business, while the Repubs were believed to be pro-business/anti-union. Today, I’d say they’re both pro-business, but the Dems are perhaps less unfriendly to union interests.

The Repubs used to be seen as the party for the well to do. The Dems were seen as representing the working class. Today, they both cater to the rich and the corps, but the Dems are perhaps less unfriendly to the non-rich.

In a way, both parties seem to me to be coasting on images they no longer quite deserve. Each party retains its traditional constituencies, even if that constituency is no longer getting much from the party it traditionally identifies with. The various betrayed groups keep telling themselves that that other party is way worse.

I keep hoping that more people will get discusted with both of the big two and turn to 3rd parties.

6

Thank you rastahomie for your thoughtful response. That cleared a lot of things up for me.

From Bob’s link

And also

From a Republican’s point of view, what does this mean? I know what it means to me as a liberal, but that doesn’t matter. What is its intent? Especially the second quote, it’s obviously that the Boy Scouts reference is because of their recent stance on homosexuals. Do Republicans in general have problem with homosexuals? If so, why? (Now I realize a lot of Christian religions do, and a lot of the Christians are Republicans. So, this leads to the next question: Does Republican=Christian?) In other words, can one seperate “Republican” from “religious right” when it comes to issues such as homosexuality and other “moral” issues?

7

Glad I could be of help. bows

As for the first quote, it has to do with the perception that the government is encroaching upon the rights of Christians to practice and/or proclaim their faith. In general this applies to the prayer in schools issue; that is, Republicans feel that the courts must respect the rights of students to pray at school, to pray before football games, to pray before graduation, etc. Also, there’s the part about “the original intent of the framers.” That is, the original intent of the writers of the Constitution was not that the government should have nothing to do with religion at all, but that the government should not go about the business of establishing a state religion, as England did.

As for the second quote: what we’re getting into here is another issue of government interference in a private matter. That is, Republicans feel that the government should not be involved in telling the Boy Scouts of America who they can have in their ranks. IOW, Republicans support the idea that the Boy Scouts should be free to set their own membership guidelines without government interference, especially in light of the fact that the Boy Scouts do not receive government funding.

Do Republicans have a problem in general with homosexuality? Not necessarily. I think that in terms of homosexuality most Republicans embrace the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) principle. That is, do what you want behind closed doors but don’t stand up in front of a classroom and try to tell my kid that it’s perfectly OK. Then there’s the Log Cabin Republicans, a group of openly gay Republicans.

Does Republican=Christian? Not at all. Ben Stein and Laura Schlessinger come to mind. Also, I’m sure that Republicans encompass many religions. Hell, I suppose a lot of atheists are Republicans too. Again, I believe there’s a danger in equating Republicans with Social Conservatives. Not all Republicans are Social Conservatives.

Can one seperate “Republican” from “religious right” when it comes to issues such as homosexuality and other “moral” issues? Of course. I’m a Republican and I’m religious, but I don’t align myself with the Religious Right/Social Conservatives. I don’t want to see the government regulating social issues; I’d prefer they stay the hell out of them, TBH. If the Republican governor of Illinois introduced legislation making homosexuality a punishable offense, I’d be appalled. But if he introduced legislation that every public school in the state have a homosexual come in and teach kids about their lifestyle, I’d be equally appalled. Both cases are examples of instances where the government is involved in social values. And as a Republican I cannont deal with that.

8

Again, thank you rastahomie. Believe it or not, you have cleared up many mis-conceptions for me.
I’ll probably think of more questions later tonight.

9

A few cynical remarks…

  1. People looking for a difference between the two major parties doom themselves to disappointment. :slight_smile:

  2. I don’t believe either party has much of a consistent ideology, other than “whatever the leaders want at the moment.” And what do the leaders want? Primarily, anything that appeals to large numbers of middle-of-the-road, undecided voters, without alienating their base. Secondarily, anything that can create the appearance of a difference between tham and the opposition.

  3. Though Republicans are generally thought of as conservative and Democrats as liberal, in some parts of the country one party or the other has such a near-monoply on power that they come to embrace a very wide range of positions. I suspect that what happened to you in Utah is similar to what happened to me in Chicago. Here, we have only one functional party, the Democrats. EVERYBODY is a “Democrat” – black and white, rich and poor, labor and management, pro-life and pro-choice. There’s only one game in town. So there’s a lot less hewing to the party line. While the local Dems support the national party, they tend to pay it little mind. There’s no need to bash the opposing party; they are non-existent. So they concentrate on the matters at hand – lining their pockets and avoiding convictions.

Conservative political activists in Chicago, having no viable Republican party to support, instead form the conservative wing of the Democratic party.

  1. I am living proof that it is possible to be a Republican and an athiest.

The close relationship between the Religious Right and the Republican party is a fairly recent development. Fist of all, fundamentalism is a social phenomenon that tends to arise whenever a people feel powerless and threatened. Most folks in the Bible Belt used to take a pretty libertarian approach to society – we don’t care much if the rest of you go to hell, just leave us be. But they perceived the social upheavals of the '60s and '70s as a threat to their way of life. And after Watergate, with the Republicans losing a lot of seats in Congress and the federal government taking a hard turn to the left, they felt ignored, even persecuted by Washington. Add to that the economic downturn of the 1970s, and you’ve got a bunch of people who see their whole world gone topsy-turvy, and so they cling to the one constant in their lives – religion.

(I’m not necessarily agreeing with any of these views. However, fundamentalists movements the world over follow similar patterns.)

Now, go back a couple of sentences. The Republicans after Watergate were on the ropes. They suffered massive defections. They needed to shore up their base. And who was left in their base? The social conservatives! Reagan recognized this, exploited it (not necessarily in a bad way – I think he genuinely believed in much of what the social conservatives were saying), and rode it all the way to the White House. Every Republican for the last two decades who has played any role at all at the national level has had to pay at least lip service to this group. (Witness what happened to John McCain as he tied himself in knots trying to this group, many of whose philosophies he finds distasteful, and finally jettisoning the pretense as his candidacy went down in flames.)

I get the impression that lip service is mostly what the SCs are getting from the current administration. Time will tell.

Hopefully not too far OT, but there are some who wonder / speculate / hope? that McCain is the bellwether of a new Reublicanism, less beholden to the social conservatives, less hard-line, more in tune with the American middle. Again, we shall see.

10

One thing to keep in mind when contrasting the two parties in the United States is that things are not the same in every corner of this country. A California/New York/Massachusetts Democrat probably wouldn’t get far around here(Oklahoma). Democrats are the majority here at the state and local level, but only one member of our congressional delegation is a Democrat and our electors haven’t voted for a Democrat presidential candidate since at least 1976.

Another issue that separates the parties is States’ Rights. Republicans are usually in favor of letting the states settle the issues affecting their residents for themselves. Democrats are usually in favor of one big federal statute for everybody.

I think it really wrong to categorize a party on the basis of one issue. Abortion is the real hot-button issue these days. I find it particularly sad that many people select their representatives on the basis of this one belief. I feel that there are far more important issues at hand that bear more attention, like crime, economic growth and stability, and education. IMHO, the legality of abortion is best left for the states to decide.

11

“Can one seperate “Republican” from “religious right” when it comes to issues such as homosexuality and other “moral” issues? Of course. I’m a Republican and I’m religious, but I don’t align myself with the Religious Right/Social Conservatives. I don’t want to see the government regulating social issues; I’d prefer they stay the hell out of them, TBH. If the Republican governor of Illinois introduced legislation making homosexuality a punishable offense, I’d be appalled. But if he introduced legislation that every public school in the state have a homosexual come in and teach kids about their lifestyle, I’d be equally appalled. Both cases are examples of instances where the government is involved in social values. And as a Republican I cannont deal with that. **”

Ah the primary reason I’m not a Republican…The Religious Right scares the hell out of me. So even though I support about 75% of the party line, I will not vote for any Republican, except of course John McCain.

Anyhow (IMHO) the Average Republican is generally more friendly with the military, religious groups, limited Government, and the wealthy. They are not concerned with foreign policy except how it plays at home. They like to have sex, but don’t want any one else to get any…

The Average Democrat is friendlier to Unions, the middle class, Buddhist Minks (wink), minorities, and are far better at Foreign Policy. Plus they think sex is ok for everybody… As long as they are getting some.

As has been mentioned before, the parties are becoming very similar, I expect to see a viable Green Party and a viable “Fundamentalist” Party in the future. Of course our system of govt is set up for two parties, so I dont know if they could ever be major players.

12

Here’s the simplistic answer. A republican is a member of the Republican Party. A Democrat is a member of the Democratic party. You don’t have to agree with the ideals of either party (although they can deny / revoke your membership I’m sure), as long as you sign up and pay the dues, you can claim membership. It’s just that simple.