Anti-Intellectualism Runs Rampant in the Republican Party
79
If one were to turn on the television today, and hear a political candidate say "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed," it would be assumed that the candidate was a Democrat attacking out of control military spending. However, this famous quote was uttered by Dwight D. Eisenhower, the 34th President of the United States, who also happened to be a Republican. Unfortunately, this was before Republicans became the anti-intellectual party they are today. According to Gallup, 60% of Republicans claim that evolution did not occur and humans were created in their present form, only 41% believe climate change is actually occurring, and 35% are in favor of gay rights. In order for democracy to function effectively, both parties should be in the business of telling the truth as they see it, rather than denying scientific findings that contradict a cherished worldview. The Republican party is not fulfilling their current role as a true alternative to the Democratic party, and this hurts democracy by dumbing down the public debate, ensuring intellectually unqualified candidates win office, and by breaking their moral obligation in a democracy to actually be a reasonable governing alternative.
Public debate can happen anywhere and everywhere. From the kitchen table to the campaign trail, every individual has an opinion about the state of the country, whether they vote or not. Problems with society can be seen by anyone, regardless of whether they are active news watchers. The level of this debate, however, is often determined by how the media frames issues, and how representatives from each party explain their stances on the particular issues of the day. And the media will often frame issues based on the language the representatives are using to explain themselves. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that the candidates themselves take reasonable positions on issues in order to ensure supporters of the party help contribute overall to the level of public discourse.
The current GOP has become a circus. Instead of elevating the public debate, they consistently dumb it down by taking positions that lack any rational or empirical support. It is common now, for any Republican candidate running for Congress or the Presidency to deny that climate change is occurring due to human activity, to claim that being gay is an immoral choice some weird people make, that evolution is "just a theory," and creationism should be taught as an "alternative" to evolution. These positions are intellectually indefensible. There is absolutely no evidence to support them, and instead of admitting discoveries that deal with our complex reality, Republican political candidates are bought and paid for by oil companies and groups like the "moral majority." When individuals in their houses and businesses across the country discuss politics, the Republican supporters immediately, and unthinkingly, parrot the factually challenged claims that their parties representatives peddle on an increasing basis.
When a party becomes so intellectually vapid that they no longer put forth ideas that are worth considering, it is not a surprise that individuals such as Christine O'Donnell, or Sharon Angle, could run under the Republican banner, with the former running ads saying she is "not a witch," and the latter evading the media after claiming people should turn to "second amendment remedies" if the election does not turn out the way they had hoped. Nor does it cause one to pause that Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich would be running on the Presidential ticket. Romney worked as a "vulture capitalist" (in the words of...Rick Perry) before his recent run, and Newt Gingrich has asked, “What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]? That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.” With it's obvious racism, Gingrich deserves no place in the national discourse.
The prime example of an intellectually disqualified candidate is former President George Bush, for his policies, and those that believe like him, are mostly to blame for the recent disaster America is currently in. Bush came into office with a positive outlook for the future. Clinton had balanced the budget, and then the tax cuts for the rich came, along with two wars that were not paid for, and a costly prescription drug bill that did little to help seniors. Deregulation (initially passed by a Republican Congress and signed by Bill Clinton, which bears responsibility also, repealing the Glass-Steagal Act) is a major contributor to the current financial crisis, and it is the type of unregulated free market thinking so many Republicans support, and which Bush claimed to believe in. Global warming was consistently denied under Bush, and there was absolutely no action on furthering gay rights. It was not until Obama and the Democratic Congress took office that DADT was repealed, an actual example of knowledgeable lawmakers. One also cannot forget the incredible damage Bush did to America's reputation, by not having more international support for the Iraq war, and his open admission that he authorized the use of torture in American foreign policy. And, even though he is not completely to blame for the current budget outlook, his administration was fiscally and morally irresponsible.
When a political party consistently runs factually challenged candidates, it does a disservice to the democracy that it resides in. For a democracy to function effectively, both political parties must ensure that representative candidates are reasonable, tolerant, and intellectually honest. If one party abdicates that responsibility, it is immoral. For this ensures that if the party's candidates win, once in office they will make poor policy decisions, due to the fact that they are either willfully ignorant of information they should know, or do not have the country's best intentions at heart, and instead are being paid by oil and pharmaceutical companies. In either case, bad decisions are an inevitable result. Climate change is not stopped, gay rights are voted against, religious propaganda is pushed in public schools, and society overall suffers. Moral issues of the day go down on the wrong side of history.
In conclusion, in order for the Republicans to be a viable alternative in America's two-party system, they must undergo a radical transformation. Scientific advancements cannot be denied, intellectually inferior candidates must be purged from the party; this will ensure that the Republicans will be able to once again fulfill their obligation to be a true alternative to the Democratic party, with a vibrant conservatism grounded in facts, and not fantasy. It would remind us of all that is good about America that should be preserved, while also confronting the realities of modern life.
Should the Republican Party
See results without votingvote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (3)
- Funny
- Awesome (2)
- Beautiful (1)
- Interesting (2)
CommentsLoading...
Hey Sooner
I enjoyed this Hub. I voted the Repubs should stay they way they are because I think it makes them easier to beat. There are no Reagans and no Eisenhowers coming to lead the party.
I do not use the term Anti-Intellectualism, rather I think they are deliberately promoting ignorance. The wealthy and the corporate "people" need an un-educated populace to keep themselves in power and get ever more tax breaks. We have been waiting 30 years for "Trickle Down Economics" to work but all we get is Republicans peeing on our legs. This idea is still being promoted despite no evidence to back it up.
I think it makes America, and the world, because we are so influential in it, a better place if both parties do their absolute best to come up with solutions instead of just denying paradigm-threatening information.
Like with climate change, the debate is not even about the way to slow it down, but rather one side being beyond intellectually dishonest and denying it is even happening. That is dangerous for our entire world. Hopefully the future will be better.
And the sad part is that they are all in positions where, they seem bear crediblity! Really? Hschneider said it best; "a foundation of goo" Good, & thought provoking hub!
Don't forget the Democratic Party. Affiliates believe that healthcare can be free. They assert that taxing rich people will improve their personal condition. They claim to know what the temperature of the Earth should be.
Sooner, It was Eisenhower, in the dawn of 1961, that warned us about the dangers of the military-industrial complex. A wise counsel by a man that was not exactly a left-wing bomb thrower.
They, the radical right, attacks higher education as leftist and elitist instead of recognizing that the ideas that the right espouses are contrary to those derived by the scientific method or critical thinking? Who wants their form of reasoning in any serious educational institution?
Rightwingers are indoctrinated, progressives enlightened. The question of the age remains, why do so many support the GOP vision, an unattainable ideal, that has never worked in practice? As you say, those that understand the workings of the GOP are the scoundrel portion of the 1 percent, that have to find a method of getting allegience from those who have nothing in common with them. Thus, the Jedi mind trick......
I am forced after careful analysis to come to the conclusion that "PEOPLE ARE DUMB"!
Refreshing Hub, Sooner!
The lack of intellectual integrity in today's GOP is quite breath-taking. Unfortunately.
One of the reasons that it is so unfortunate is its effects on the Democratic party. With the opposition so far out in right field, they do not have to be very accountable for their own positions. For example, the President has disappointed me in several regards--but I don't dare support even a Romney, much less a Santorum or Gingrich, for precisely the reasons you articulate.
"Rightwingers are indoctrinated, progressives enlightened. "
Sure. Except, Progressives deny math. They learned math in expensive private schools and public schools they designed, but they still don't understand that free health care isn't actually free. Progressives are mathphobic.
Sorry for the slow response. @Albertsj,
I think you make a good point, that even though many Americans claim that politicians are scandalous weasels, public officials are still, by SOME (NOT ALL), given a modicum of respect due to the position they hold. I don't believe they deserve respect on that alone, for George Wallace was governor of Alabama and was a segregationist! Missplaced trust in so called "authority figures" in an interesting problem for sure.
@Nicomp and Equanaminity,
No progressive believes universal health care is "free." It would be supported by taxes on almost EVERYONE, lower and upper income. The only people I can see being excluded from such a tax are people living below the poverty line. However, health care is a universal human right, and the United States just hasn't caught up with the rest of the world yet.
And @Nicomp, climate change is occurring whether you want to admit it or not. Do some research on your own on the science behind it. You may be surprised what you find. Don't take my word for it.
@Credence,
I believe Karl Rove summed it up best when he said "“As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing." Yeah, too much education causes people to vote Democrat. I wonder why that is...
@ Doc Snow,
I completely agree with you. When the "middle" is moved, what sounds reasonable will also change. Instead of disagreeing on HOW to combat climate change with the least amount of disruption to the economy, one side is giving lip service and a few token gestures, and the other side is completely denying it is occurring. Both sides are in bed with big business. I just like to think of it like a cheating husband. Republicans are sleeping with the mistress 6 days a week, and they don't care if the wife (voters) finds out. Democrats sleep with the mistress twice a week, but they feel really uneasy about it and don't ever want their wives (voters) to find out.
"No progressive believes universal health care is "free."
Actually, many uninformed progressives believe it is free and I am amused that you deign to speak for an entire movement.
"climate change is occurring whether you want to admit it or not"
Of course it is. The climate changes every day. No sentient human thinks the climate doesn't change. The part of the country where I live was covered with a mile of ice relatively recently. No dispute there.
"However, health care is a universal human right,"
Nope. Sorry. You lack a basic understanding of basic human rights. In a nutshell, a human right must be free to provide. In other words, if the government must confiscate (money, time, resources, freedom) from one class to provide a what you mistakenly think of as a 'right' to another class, a human right has been violated in the process. It's blindingly simple but most progressives don't get it.
By the way Obamacare is not universal health care. It is universal health insurance. Many progressives don't comprehend that difference, either.
@Nicomp,
I don't speak for the entire movement. But the vast majority of people understand that universal health care would require taxes. Instead of mandating that everyone buy insurance, it is easier to simply have a universal system and the government negotiate rates with doctors and drug companies. People could pay taxes instead of insurance premiums, and it would also cost individuals less money. There can also be supplemental private insurance if an individual wants to purchase it.
OK. Are you or are you not denying that the globe is warming? I'm unclear on what your position is so I am not going to respond until I know.
"A human right must be free to provide"? So you are an anarchist. According to your logic, there is no military, no police, and no courts. Those are definitely not free. They require tax money. I suggest thinking through implications before you speak about "rights" again. Unless you are an actual anarchist, then you already understand.
A human right is something basic to human being's survival. So every person, at the very least, needs food/water, shelter, basic protections from criminals, and also health care. I'm curious as to how you would try to define a right. Even most libertarians believe in the harm principle and a military/police force. You're going even further right than Ron Paul!
"A human right is something basic to human being's survival. So every person, at the very least, needs food/water, shelter, basic protections from criminals, and also health care."
You are confusing human rights with human needs. It's a common mistake made by Progressives. Human rights have to be free to provide. It's interesting that you slip in 'basic protections from criminals' because even the greenest policeman would tell you that he cannot possibly protect you from criminals. You call him/her after a crime has been committed.
Perhaps a brief discussion of what human rights actually are: freedom do fail/succeed, freedom to associate, freedom to speak your mind, and freedom to move about are what government can provide for us by leaving us alone. Those don't cost anything to provide. You need to differentiate between human needs, which cost money, and human rights, which can be 'provided' by government simply by not abridging them.
As I said earlier, Obamacare isn't health care anyway. It's health insurance. This should make Progressives livid, but for some strange reason it does not.
@Nicomp,
I was not entirely clear in my formulation, so I apologize. Human needs are NATURAL rights. The rights you speak of are CIVIL. Both are important. Do you believe people have the right to eat? Or to shelter from the elements, such as the current snow storm engulfing some parts of the United States? You seem to be denying people have the natural right to have basic needs met.
Without a government, how far does your civil right to free speech go? How far does your civil right to freely associate go? Nowhere. Or with a government that does not believe in those rights, you can be said to not have those rights at all! How bout free speech in Iran, or North Korea?
Furthermore, you are peddling something that is utterly false. There is no civilization without a government. It costs money to have a police force and a military and a court system. You completely dodged this in your reply, but I'm not letting you get away with it again. Explain how a police, court, and a military are FREE? I'm most interested in how you solve this, especially if you believe private property is a right, for it requires a society to enforce it.
And you are right about Obama. He enacted the Republican plan from the 90s, and in the same basic essence the one Romney signed in Massachusetts. And the fact that Mitt Romney has even won ANY REPUBLICAN primaries with his support of Obama's health care plan is truly ironic.
"Do you believe people have the right to eat?"
Loaded question, akin to 'have you stopped beating your wife?'
Many progressives believe people have the right to free food from government, at their convenience, regardless of their inclination to earn it. It's a common misconception and easily explained away, but it undermines the Progressive mindset that The State can provide for all and The State knows what's best.
"Human needs are NATURAL rights"
You're still mixing terms, but Progressives do this all the time. Simply 'needing' something does not imply a right to that thing. If I need food and I am capable of earning it, I do not have a right to take it forcibly from you nor do I have the right to use government as a proxy to that end. Ditto for health care.
So you don't believe that people have the right to eat and should starve to death if they don't have the money? Or are you just still dodging tough questions?
You're also denying people health care. I hope you never get sick and need a major procedure and don't have the ability to pay for it. You also ought to tell all of those elderly people that you are not in favor of paying for procedures they need, or the really young cancer patients who have parents that cannot afford to cover their treatments. Just be honest and tell them you don't think they deserve to live because they don't have the money.
I'm also happy to see you dropped your whole idea of "free" rights. Glad I could help with that.
"So you don't believe that people have the right to eat and should starve to death if they don't have the money? Or are you just still dodging tough questions?"
Another hallmark of progressivism (is that a word?) is the refusal to consider new thought: I explained how to understand 'the right to eat' but I'm happy to explain it again for you. Yes, people have the right to eat but they do not have the right to sit around waiting to be served for free. Everyone else has the right to expect their fellow citizens to make their own way whenever possible. Progressive thought avoids the responsibilities concomitant with the rights.
"You're also denying people health care."
One more trait of progressive philosophy is to cast the dissenter as heartless. In this case your leap in logic is understandable because you can't argue the facts: when you're out of intellectual bullets, lurch toward ad hominem attacks. This strategy often cowers the conservatives because no one wants to be thought of as cruel. Often, progressives can change the culture this way. It never ends well, but it is effective.
The fact you call me a progressive means you are most likely a Glenn Beck listener. Otherwise you would have been calling me a liberal. But I can hope I'm wrong.
OK we can possibly make some progress. You believe in the right to eat for citizens who cannot afford it who try to work? What if someone is addicted to drugs? Or homeless? Or leaves an abusive relationship? Sometimes work cannot be the number one goal in life. Past mistakes will take time to overcome. What is your solution to people like that? Or to people who can't find a job because companies have moved out of their cities? Are you willing to fund job training programs and education so people can better themselves?
If I understand you correctly, you are still asserting that some people do not have the right to eat if they are able but not willing to work. If they don't want to be exploited for cheap labor, I don't blame them. Or what about if a minimum wage job pays less than welfare, especially if the individual has kids? Economists are always talking about "rational choices" and the fact that welfare would give SLIGHTLY more income than working (which is a pathetic indictment of our wage system, because food stamps doesn't cover crap) means the whole system is corrupt. People should be paid a living wage, and also treated fairly in their jobs.
@Nicomp,
So with regards to health care, you are saying I am right in summarizing your position that people should die who can't afford it. Morality is about doing what's right by your fellow man. By being honest with him, not hurting him, and helping to ensure that the society he lives in is a just one. What possible moral principle could you be relying on to deny people the right to health care?
"The fact you call me a progressive means you are most likely a Glenn Beck listener. Otherwise you would have been calling me a liberal. But I can hope I'm wrong."
Yet another trait of progressives is the tendency to assume that anyone who disagrees with them cannot think for themselves and is obviously being led by a disembodied voice on the radio. This dovetails perfectly with the liberal/progressive/Democrat position that people cannot think for themselves and therefore need government to assume greater and greater control of their lives.
"What if someone is addicted to drugs? Or homeless? Or leaves an abusive relationship?"
This discussion is not about me, but I appreciate your interest in my opinions. When you are clear on the difference between the 'right to eat' and the associated responsibility to provide for ones' own food when capable of doing so, and how that applies to health care as well, I will be happy to split hairs. Let me know when the basic fallacies of progressive thought have become apparent to you, then let's move forward.
Well the only right-wing talk show host who uses progressive in almost every sentence is Glenn Beck. And so far you have done that to me. My apologies if you are not a listener.
I have a few more questions for you. Since you already don't think people have a right to health care. You are being a science denier with global warming, which you mentioned earlier. Do you believe in marriage equality? Do you affirm or deny evolution as the best explanation for the variety of life on earth?
"Morality is about doing what's right by your fellow man."
One more trait of progressives is playing the morality card when logic defeats them. They tend to bounce back ans forth between legality and morality, creating a mismash of legislation that only makes problems worse. For an example, research the original impetus for employer-paid health care in the first place. There are many other examples of failed legislative attempts at imposing populist morality: feel free to ask.
Ask a progressive what's 'moral' and stand back: protecting the (human) rights of unborn babies is not moral, but preserving the rights of terrorists comfortably locked up in Gitmo is moral.
@Nicomp,
You actually bring up an interesting point about morality and legality. They are not the same, but they are related. For example, it's not illegal to deny the holocaust, but it is morally wrong. However, it is both morally wrong and legally wrong to kill someone without any purpose (self defense, war). I am arguing in the way of the second. Telling a young child they do not deserve cancer treatment because they happened to be born into a poor family is immoral, and universal health care could fix this. The only way to argue about morality is to talk about the moral principles behind positions. That's why I asked you what your moral principles were to support your position that people do not have a right to health care. And you really haven't answered.
I'm also not going to get into the abortion debate. This discussion is already pretty wide, I don't want to widen it further. But if you have a hub about abortion, I'd be glad to read it and comment on it.
"Telling a young child they do not deserve cancer treatment because they happened to be born into a poor family is immoral, and universal health care could fix this."
No, it could not fix this. Another trait of progressives is the tendency to think that morality can be legislated. It's interesting that progressives set themselves up as the deep thinkers of the political spectrum, but a concept this simple escapes so many of them.
So a universal health care system that provides access to ALL citizens regardless of income could not fix the problem I laid out? Are you even interested in dialogue at all or just calling me a progressive as many times as you can in each response? That claim makes me believe you really are just stuck in the past. Saying people don't have a right to eat, and that universal health care would not solve access problems? Sunlight is a good disinfectant.
"Saying people don't have a right to eat..."
Yet another anti-intellectual tendency of progressives is oversimplification in order to make their points. No one in any mainstream American political party ever asserted that people don't have a right to eat. However, a progressive will build a straw man argument verging on nonsensical by suggest such.
Again, "have you stopped beating your wife?"
"So a universal health care system that provides access to ALL citizens regardless of income could not fix the problem I laid out?"
Sigh. As mentioned before, this concept is unsustainable in the real world. It's anti-intellectual to champion for the impossible.
I'm glad you believe people have the right to eat. I look forward to you voting accordingly in the future!
And what evidence do you have that it is impossible, considering it's the case in all other industrialized nations? The evidence is against you my friend. Come over to the dark progressive side!
For better or worse, many progressives take their news from The Daily Show or Ed Schultz or Katie Couric. While not proof of anti-intellectualism, evidence points to a consistent trait of intellectual laziness. After being repeatedly told by these sources that government-enforced universal health care shines as a beacon of social justice in all industrialized countries except America, progressives tend to adopt ill-informed positions. They don't do their homework. It's absurdly simple to perform an Internet search to refute this thesis, but few progressives demonstrate such ambition.
For example, England is held up as a bastion of socialized medicine. The government ostensibly provides everyone with coverage. A simple Google search reveals that health insurance companies still ply their trade in England. Why? How can this be? One would expect this market to be long gone, given that England adopted country-wide socialized medicine in 1948. Oddly enough, some Englanders still, to this day, voluntarily opt out of the program. They spend their own money to purchase their own insurance for access to their own health care. How can this be, when progressives concurrently insist that every industrialized country except America presents a unassailable model of socialized medicine?
Some progressives might respond with "Harrumph! We never said those industrialized countries were perfect! At least health care isn't rationed!" Unfortunately, intellectual laziness surfaces yet again. Even the BBC disagrees: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/251988.stm. Don't even bother to read the entire article... the first line suffices: "The NHS cannot, and never has been able to, offer every treatment to everyone who needs it."
The Daily Show is not my main source of news, but is of a much higher standard than what passes for "news" in most corners. Ed Shultz is decent, but at times he veers off the facts, as POLIITFACT has shown, so I watch him sparingly; but my main source of news is the networks, the New York Times, Cnn, and the Washington post.
The NHS in England has also been underfunded. If you are going to have a universal system, you probably need to fund it :P. Furthermore, you make it sound as though all Brits are purchasing health insurance when that's not the case. Even if the NHS has problems, it's not systematically leaving out the poorest members of it's population the way the United State does.
I also don't mind doctors still practicing privately if they so desire. If people want private insurance, and a doctor wants to practice privately, they should be free to do so. But they should be required to take a substantive number of people who cannot afford private insurance first.
Also, our worldwide rank is 37- http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064. So it looks like we have a long way to go in our "wonderful" system. Unless the New England Journal of Medicine and The World Health Report 2000 are "progressive biased sources" you're defending a mediocre system.
Great Post....nice mention of Glass-Steagal. However, Anti-Intellectualism in US politics has much deeper roots than the current day Republican Circus. As far back as the 1st Great Awakening "Americans" have been told that the "common" wisdom is as valid as knowledge gained through education. This ideology is at the very roots we grapple with as a country....nice job
@Steveamy,
I really have no problem with questioning the major intellectual institutions of our day; whether they be the government, religion, or even science. Government is becoming a tool of the powerful; religion is increasingly living in another century; and many scientists are shills that go work for oil companies just to make money.
What I do have a problem with is when the questioning is not even motivated by a sincere search for truth and the most just society possible, but instead based on religious or political dogma. When conservative Christians question evolution, they aren't doing it to challenge an outdated worldview; they are simply doing it the same way the Catholic church did with Galileo, except they don't have the current influence over society they once did (THANK GOD FOR THAT!).
This unthinking dogma extends to other parts of the Republican party, from homosexuality to global warming. So I am very dismayed that any thinking person would even vote for a Republican (unless it was one of those rare elections where the Democrat is just completely incompetent) in their current state. Thanks for the compliment!
I have thought, for years now, that the greatest achievement of the current day Republican Party has been the ability to convince everyday people to vote against their own interests -- by way of myth and misinformation.
It's amazing isn't it? I have family members, who make 30,000 a year. My brother also came out to them as gay, and they still vote Republican.
I think the key to reform isn't to change the hard right, cause that would be impossible. The people who need focus are the independents, who are centrists, slightly right, or slightly left. If all of those people can get on board with changing this country, the 30% that hate government won't even be a factor.
"I have thought, for years now, that the greatest achievement of the current day Republican Party has been the ability to convince everyday people to vote against their own interests -- by way of myth and misinformation."
Someone has you fooled.
@Sooner28, please accept my complements for the civil way you handle dissenting voices (mine). It's been fun bantering with you. The typical HubPages progressive, by now, would be reduced to name-calling and probably have banned me by now.
@nicomp --- Put down the Conservative Kool-Aid...and a link link for your enjoyment
@Nicomp,
I wouldn't ban anyone from any hub, unless they were saying something overly racist or calling other members names. I'm in favor of free discussion.
This is very well rounded and well written, though the editor in me suggests that you differentiate between Dubya and his father by adding his middle initial, and that you change "incredibly" to "incredible" 5 lines above the penultimate paragraph.
Healthy and progressive discourse may no longer have a viable future in the American area, as the GOP and even the poor, ignorant conservatives who back it have become inextricably entangled with the corporate and other financial entities that epitomise nasty third to fourth phase capitalism. The only hope for the future of this particular country is for everyone to wake up and notice, but the likelihood of that happening is pretty slim.
@Peelander Gally,
Thanks for the constructive criticism. I'm always open to it. Writing is an art that can always be improved.
I can also relate to the fact that many really poor people vote for the GOP. I have many relatives that are not well off by any stretch, yet they continue to vote Republican year after year. I also have an older relative who was part of a union, and is old enough to get SS and Medicare. Yet if you were to talk to this person, you would never guess such a thing! I'm still waiting on the Tea Party to burn their Medicare cards...
Thomas Frank wrote a book called "What's the Matter with Kansas?" where he explored the issue of poor conservative voters. His ultimate conclusion is that Republicans use social issues to garner support from groups that would otherwise never vote for them. I only have anecdotal evidence, but when I was a Christian I often heard people talk about abortion and homosexuality like they were the defining issues of our time(apparently starving kids and widespread air pollution don't make the top of the list!). Anyway, they would mention caring about the poor, but they told me they could never support a political party that was in favor of "killing babies." So while not every poor Republican votes based on social issues, I think there are a few of them that turn out just because of them.
I think there is hope for the future if our economic system changes. Instead of a profit driven exploitative system, resources need to go to advancing ALL of the human race, not just Americans, Canadians, or any other specific nationality. However, the fact that many human beings are greedy beyond comprehension, I am currently doubtful whether this will occur anytime soon.
The Republican party captures the easiest most gullible people. If you can believe in the tree of the forbidden fruit, an ark that included two pesky mosquitos, a talking fiery bush and a talking George W, Bush you are an easy target for conservatism. Conservatism is sold in the market hypocracy. The republicans fear everything and want to control others behavior and the moment one of theirs get caught playin footsy in a toilet stall in the basement of a bus station they immediately point to Barney Frank, who is already open and out of the closet. Conservatives fight exposure with blame. Everytime I get in a discussion with a radical rightwing conservative they revert to name calling and adopt the talk show better than though and I'll hang up on u cause this is my show attitude of Rush and Hannity. Conservative so hate poor people that they would prefer giving record profit making oil companies 44 billion dollars in unsubstantiated subsidies before giving someone living in the ghetto food stamps because the ghetto person may own a TV and a window air conditioner which, evedently, is a sign that they are not poor. Conservatives cannot see that the globalization that is being pursued is the real socialism or communism they should fear not the social net programs, that I will say need restructured. Globalism requires a parity among all nations and America was one of the final dominoes. We are not far from becoming another third world country and when that happens it becomes lights, cameras, action for global control at which time the conservatives will begin eating their own.
@Sooner28
Thanks for the reply! And believe me, I know. Poor conservatives who want Big Brother and the big corporations out of their lives but who vote for the very people who sell their souls to those entities are herded to the polls by the media-driven exploitation of their fear of progress, globalisation and rapidly advancing technology that they refuse to understand and embrace. Fearmongering is a good, old-fashioned way to get results, and I'm sure nothing is funnier or more rewarding to the lobbyists and executives than successfully convincing people to vote against their own interests.
The yokels listening to Santorum (because someone is, apparently) are exactly this type of gullible, backwards people who think that someone who doesn't know the difference between "theological" and "ideological" can actually lead the free world on an isolationist, Evangelical Christian platform and probably agree that the well-educated are brainwashed liberal snobs and that most of what goes on today is the work of Satan.
@Joe Scalise,
I agree. The lack of rationality affects ALL of their positions. They deny evolution occurred, say that being gay is a choice, and that global warming is a hoax. If their belief-forming processes cannot even produce non-controversial beliefs that are accurate, there is no hope for them on anything else, such as taxes or welfare. And they prove their positions on these issues are incorrect when they open their mouths.
@Peelander Gally,
"Fearmongering is a good, old-fashioned way to get results, and I'm sure nothing is funnier or more rewarding to the lobbyists and executives than successfully convincing people to vote against their own interests." This is exactly what the Republican party does. If you go back and read some of the quotes from them when Clinton raised taxes, they predicted that the world would end and economic growth would come to a screeching halt. Too bad voters have such a short memory. There are also other countries that have higher tax rates than we do, and also have strong economies. The two are not mutually exclusive. But the fear-mongering cannot stop, because there is nothing left for the GOP to campaign on. So what if deregulation, tax cuts for the rich, and unfunded wars were all caused by us? Eh. We are about achieving the American dream! Tax cuts for all, and by the way, IRAN IS GOING DOWN! I feel like I am in bizzaro world where an ax murderer killed ten people, and then attempts to go about living normally like nothing ever occurred.
I've also been seeing an increase in the number of Santorum signs around Oklahoma. Super Tuesday is soon, and I have a feeling my state is going back either him or Gingrich; and that is quite depressing.
"Evangelical Christian platform and probably agree that the well-educated are brainwashed liberal snobs and that most of what goes on today is the work of Satan." This is how many of my relatives are. Somehow facts, such as the extreme poverty in the world, are part of a "liberal agenda." Tis the world we live in today.
I've actually just been talking about how Norway and Sweden are statistically the best places in the world to live in spite of and, indeed, because of their high income tax rates on one of the sociopolitical threads. Being home sick is conducive to spontaneous Internet debating to be sure.
What you said about the GOP being completely vapid and devoid of any ideas worth listening to pretty much hit the nail on the head; seeing their debate turnouts is like watching moths and mosquitoes hover transfixed around a bug zapper. That people think the things such as and not limited to a high quality public education through university, fancy sparkly new infrastructure and public transit and 120% of salary pension funds that high taxes pay for are somehow evil and wasteful socialist propaganda while dumping billions into fruitless Middle Eastern venture capitalist schemes is more than justified boggles the mind. The people who put the distorted ideal of total and ultimate freedom (which no one ever really has anyway) above their own well-being and that of society are the same people screaming about what goes on in the uteri of others, and there are plenty of them in Arizona, too.
Even though people in your state are crazy at least they're taking numbers from Romney. It's not going to matter, but imagining Santorum attempt a debate with Obama is probably enough to cheer you up if you're feeling down about it.
Those countries with "oppressive" tax rates also are the happiest! In fact, Denmark is the happiest nation in the world. The U.S. doesn't even make the top ten. I think that's very telling. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/0
"That people think the things such as and not limited to a high quality public education through university, fancy sparkly new infrastructure and public transit and 120% of salary pension funds that high taxes pay for are somehow evil and wasteful socialist propaganda while dumping billions into fruitless Middle Eastern venture capitalist schemes is more than justified boggles the mind."
I've always wondered as to why people get upset when government employees, some of them specially skilled with advanced degrees, get benefits that they don't. Why not unionize more heavily, so that workers everywhere can be treated fairly? Why would you want to bring down everyone else to a pathetic level of pay? It's like instead of everyone eating, a lot of voters seem to believe others should be malnourished right along with them, despite the fact there is food for all.
As to the future Presidential debates, I am mixed on the fact that, in Oklahoma, Santorum is polling at 37% among Republican primary voters, with Romney coming in second at 26%. My state isn't exactly known for producing intellectual heavyweights. One of our representatives named Sally Kern blamed the financial crisis on homosexuality and abortion. And recently, there is a push for a personhood amendment. Though Arizona passed the infamous immigration bill, so I guess all states have their lunatics. But does it have to be a race to the bottom?
In one sense, I want Mitt Romney to win the GOP nomination, so that if Obama loses, at least there is a chance Romney can become more moderate, since that is how he actually governed in the past. On the other hand, it seems like Rick Santorum would ensure Obama would win. I just have reservations because last time the Democrats thought they had it in the bag with Gore and Bush...well we know how that turned out. I wouldn't want a repeat of a crazy religious nut being President again.
Haha, yes, I know, and the tax rate in Denmark is completely ridiculous, much higher than in the other Scandinavian countries. It just goes to show what peoples' priorities are - here they'd rather be broke and suffering and have that aforementioned misguided sense of freedom than healthy and living well, contributing to the greater good of society.
Arizona is still passing quite a few more troubling bills these days; I'm no stranger to what it's like to live in a frustratingly backwards state. The option to opt out of the National School Lunch Program (SB1061) has passed and schools are therefore not required to provide many underprivileged children with a crucial free meal or two every day. And I think just yesterday, thank goodness, one that would have required college students who didn't have a scholarship to contribute a minimum of $2,000 toward their own tuition every year (I think it was, as opposed to every semester) was dropped (SB2675). Those constitute blatant class warfare. The purpose of avoiding feeding poor kids is to keep them (especially the ones who aren't white and/or don't speak English) out of schools in nicer neighbourhoods, and trying to force people to fork over a chunk of their tuition is meant to keep those same kids out of college in the first place, though it's not like any of them can afford to go anyway. Other bills on the table include the one that would allow everyone to carry concealed weapons on college campuses, one that seeks to dissolve U.S. membership in the United Nations and others that would make private conversations between elected officials inadmissible as evidence in court, create a high school Bible elective that would exclude every other religious text, et cetera.
"Race to the bottom" is a good term to have coined; that's what it is now. I don't know about you, but by the time I'm ready to settle down and have kids, it's probably going to be in the general vicinity of Stockholm. There's no reason for the rats to go down with the ship.
And Romney's had the nomination from the beginning. That's why he always has that shit-eating grin on his face and is never flustered. My theory is that a bunch of psychos and zealots were strategically placed around him and are being knocked down one by one to make him look more than mediocre. I figured Gingrich would be next, but right now Santorum's getting the beat down. The media's turning against him and soon they won't be defending his wildly ignorant comments anymore. It doesn't matter what they use to nail Gingrich to the wall - there are so many options - but that's what'll happen next. I've had my fingers crossed for like a year and a half that Romney won't get elected, but I guess we'll see.
I like the idea of freedom from. Freedom from poverty, freedom from living in a society filled with crime, freedom from being exploited for cheap labor. Positive rights instead of just negative ones.
I wasn't aware of all the other bills going on in Arizona, except for the tuition one. 2,000 dollars, regardless of income status? It makes one wonder whether the woman who sponsored the bill actually wants everyone to go to college. Companies need cheap labor to do the dirty work, and if everyone is educated, people are not likely to want to work for 8 dollars an hour. Plus, the more education one attains, the more liberal one becomes. It reminds me of the famous Karl Rove quote where he said, “As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing.” Facts and critical thinking apparently are not conductive to supporting the Republican party!
I've also considered leaving the United States. If the Tea Party ever becomes in charge, pollution and exploitation will be more rampant than they already are. Yet, I also have hope that the situation can change. Our generation is pretty tolerant, and we are open to new ideas. Perhaps America can become a moral leader once again, instead of being the only major industrialized nation to not have a universal health care system, or still support the death penalty.
"My theory is that a bunch of psychos and zealots were strategically placed around him and are being knocked down one by one to make him look more than mediocre." This actually explains the state of the Republican presidential primary campaign very well. Instead of trying to figure out why some human beings are so void of all rationality, it makes more sense to simply see it as a dog and pony show, where the nominees are simply playing their respective roles in an attempt to make the process seem legitimate.
Also, on a side note, at a Rick Santorum rally today, a Ron Paul supporter was in the crowd yelling, and a Santorum supporter actually grabbed him and threw him to the ground. So much for freedom of speech...
To Sooner28: Welcome to HubPages. You have presented a well thought out premise. Anti-intellectualism is not only increasing among Republicans, it is also increasing in the general populace. Many people are afraid to thinking analytically and beyond the box, it is much softer and more societally acceptable to just blindly conform to whatever program and/or propaganda the majority deemed to be correct at the time.
@GM,
Thanks. I've noticed this also. Many of our primary schools are no long producing critical thinkers. People are all turning into robots.
It's disheartening that the Republican party is not fulfilling it's job as a true alternative. Many of the values it speaks of, such as personal responsibility, accountability, and self-reliance are all good to strive for. Yet, they often don't follow their own advice, or ensure that their corporate masters follow it either.
The Republicans want corporations to avoid taking responsibility for their actions, face no accountability at all, and rely on the government to ensure they keep their monopolies.
Those who run this country have added dumming down of the population to their agenda. Ignorant people don't rebel...they riot and the government is prepared for riot control but they don't want to deal with critical thinking in action.
@Joe,
This is true. Public schools, and some universities, are not teaching critical thinking anymore. It's really unfortunate.
![Time to Talk About Tea Parties, Newt Gingrich, and Conservative Presidents Again. (Updated 1-23-12) [53]](http://s1.hubimg.com/u/5100732_50.jpg "Time to Talk About Tea Parties, Newt Gingrich, and Conservative Presidents Again. (Updated 1-23-12) [53]")
HSchneider Level 6 Commenter 3 months ago
The GOP panders to the lowest common denominator in their constituencies. It serves their corporate benefactors because it allows them to get away with incredible influence in government. The Tea Party wing now wags the Republican dog. It is a sad state of affairs because the party used to be conservative but with a strong intellectual foundation. This party has a foundation of goo. Excellent Hub, Sooner.