So here it is. If both parties have made “crazy” choices for the sake of power, or some other reason, I want to hear what you think they are. Not just what one side or the other think, but a range of opinions. I’m not making it a “poll,” but if you just want to leave a short answer, that’s helpful. If you want to give a long explanation for why something is wrong and bad, that’s fine too.
What’s crazy in the [USA] Republican Party?
What’s crazy in the conservative movement?
What’s good about the Republican Party?
What’s good about the conservative movement?
I’ll let a few people answer before weighing in myself, rather than invite attacks for my opinions as a former Republican.
Neither party is really “crazy.” They both have incredibly smart people guiding their operations and policies.
Some of those view and policies are really goddamn evil, but really smart people can perform acts of astonishing evil.
(Also, there are huge differences of opinion on what acts are evil in the first place.)
If one of the major parties sponsored ads saying, “Vote for the other guy; he’s better than ours,” that would be crazy.
(And even that sometimes has a strategic value, as when one party promoted a “lesser” opposition candidate during primary elections. Crazy? Like a fox!)
If anyone thinks denial of science on evolution and homosexuality is a function of political party affiliation, they need to get out more.
As for climate change, there are as many crazy Democrats blaming every hurricane and warm winter day on climate change as there are Republican “deniers”. I’ve seen plenty of climate change activists blaming specific weather phenomena on climate change. Pure woo.
There are a lot of specific issues that I think the Republicans are wrong on, but what bothers me most is the overall attitude Republicans seem to have towards non-Republicans. Some Republicans, but enough so that this is really noticeable, seem to think of only themselves as “the people”. There is a meme going around that Trump quoted Bane from the Batman comic books when he said he was taking power away from the elites and returning it to the people. What about all the people that didn’t vote for him and don’t share his values. Some Republicans, and most definitely Trump, don’t even acknowledge the concerns of others, calling them East (or West) coast elites that don’t matter and instead saying that they only represent “real” Americans. As if the millions of people that live in LA, NYC, or San Francisco don’t matter, and that if you want to find “real” Americans you have to go to predominantly white cities in the Midwest or South. It’s that attitude that turns me off to the Republican Party more than any one particular policy.
Unfortunately for you, your numbers help my argument. There are huge numbers of Democrats who deny evolution, meaning that something else, besides party affiliation, accounts for evolution denial. Everyone in the real world knows that belief in evolution is a function of religious belief. This is true also of acceptance of the science on homosexuality.
That makes no sense top to bottom. Yes, there are huge numbers of Democrats who deny evolution. Did you notice the proportionate differences? [edit: wait, didja think I was saying that party affiliation causes evolution denial? Because that’s absurd.]
If you think anyone is saying Democrats have no morons among them, you’re wrong. Nobody is saying that.
No, I can’t. But I can say that they’re probably linked. Did you read the, y’know, link?
My claim was that these positions are not functions of party affiliation. If you are satisfied that you have demonstrated a functional relationship, more power to you. Since belief in evolution is nearly split down the middle for Republicans, I fail to see a functional relationship. Others can make their own conclusions. From my own interactions with society, I would argue that there is a stronger relationship between these positions and strength and type of religious beliefs.
You can say a hurricane was probably caused by global warming? Perhaps you can cite an article that says a specific phenomena was probably caused by climate change. That would be more relevant.
Do you or do you not see a link between driving while intoxicated and traffic accidents? Statistically drunk drivers get into accidents at a much higher rate than non-drunk drivers. But if you look at a particular accident you can’t tell–the drunk driver could have gotten into that particular accident if he had not been drunk. It is a comparable situation with climate change and specific weather phenomena.
So how would you deal with drunk drivers? And how would you deal with climate change?
Of course. Only nobody blames accidents without involving an intoxicated driver on drunk driving. Leftists, and Democrats, will often blame specific storms on climate change without the kind of evidence which allows us to make a judgement on drunk driving accidents.
I would handle both the same way: adequate recognition of property rights.
Well, I’d offer that a big chunk of the “crazy” (in the sense of being determinedly divorced from rationality) stems from how beholden the party is to religious fundamentalism. How much of the Republican foreign policy plank, for example, is only there because some members of the Party sincerely believe that rebuilding the temple will hasten the end times?
ETA: Thank you, Left Hand of Dorkness for filling in the data!
Also, I still think this is a sideline discussion that doesn’t really deal with the topic. Republicans are ignorant of science and bigoted toward gays, but are they “crazy?”