Seeking Republican Views on the current Republican Party

[Philuva]

I consider myself a Libertarian. So "ideally" I should share some views with Republicans regarding a small, non-invasive fiscally responsible Federal Government. Lately, I have been loathing the Republican Party and was wondering if long time Republicans felt the same about their current party. I think a lot this has to do with its association with the "Christian Right" over the last 10 to 15 years.

A few examples:

1. Drugs - Not only the war on drugs which has been a colossal cluster-[censored], but Ashcroft's relentlessness to connect drugs with terrorism and to override state's rights to use marijuana for medical purposes.

2. Gays - I don't think gays need special rights, but is it too much for them to be treated the same as heterosexuals? The anti-sodomy laws pushed in TX and the proposed idea of a constitutional amended to prohibit gays from marrying seems so ludicrous.

3. Nation Building. I don’t think I have to go too much into this one.

I would also add big deficits, government expansion, school prayer, 10 Commandments in public buildings, etc. to this list.

Anyway, it seems like somewhere along the line, the Republican Party lost its focus and I think a lot of it has to do with its association with the Christian Right, but there are other factors involved as well. Maybe it was strategic move to align with the Christian Right to get more money, but it appears the Republican Party lost its focus.

These are just a few examples, but I think you get my point.
I enjoy the old gun-toting, get the hell off my property, don't tread on me Republican far more than this current version who seems hell bent on trying conform everyone to some moral standard. And while they are at it, not even in a fiscally responsible way.

Anyway, I am really interested in what long time Republicans or Republicans in general think about their current party and its direction.

Thanks,
Phil

[Sloats]

I consider myself rather Libertarian and mostly conservate. I believe in a minimal Federal Goverment. I do not believe in state sponsered health and welfare plans due to the fact that if you are to receive compensation in some form, you also open yourself up to regulation: i.e. if the government is to pay for increased future healthcare costs due to obesity, then the government 'can' govern and tax those who are obese because they will cost the government more.

1. Drugs -
The funniest thing about medical marijuana is that those who are strongly for it do not want to use it for any medical purposes but rather recreational.

2. Gays -
I personall believe that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. I also believe that it's purpose is for procreation and I also believe that it should be forever. If you effed up and married the wrong person, tough. You don't have to play every hand dealt to you.

3. Nation Building.
Our nation is being destroyed from inside. We are collapsing. We are no longer a society that respects each other, but rather one that is afraid that we will sue each other. We are nothing more than one big victim complex. It's our fault for one reason or another and no one wants to take ownership for anything. Johnny fails math and his parents let him know that they sucked at math too, giving Johnny an out. Suzie doesn't get asked to the prom and so Suzie's sues the school for being unfair to her for discriminating in some way.


Some one mentioned to me that the Republicans of today are equivalent to the Democrats of the 70's. The Democrats, well at least some of the senior leaders, are socialist who want to give benefits to everyone.

The Fundementalist Christian influence in the government only scare me when they bring up those haunting words: "What about the children". We should not base what is acceptable in society based on the lowest denominator. I can no longer listen to the radio or go to my favorite dance review.... all because some child "might" see something. And this goes back to my original comment: No one is taking responsibility for raising their kids. You SHIELD your kids from GTAIII, Prince's "Little Nikki" <-- which was a Democrat's torch, and Stern.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I was talking to a friend of mine about some of the same topics you are discuissing here. The republican party is all screwed up starting at the very top. Bush doesn't represent the repulican party or its views, instead its almost like he is a member of the Christian Party.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, it seems like somewhere along the line, the Republican Party lost its focus and I think a lot of it has to do with its association with the Christian Right, but there are other factors involved as well. Maybe it was strategic move to align with the Christian Right to get more money, but it appears the Republican Party lost its focus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post. I think the answer is that in 1994 with the coalition that included the Christian right, the Republicans gained control of Congress for the first time in 40+ years. I'm not sure that without the Christian right, the Republicans do that. Many people are turned off by the Christian right and Republican leaders do pander to this portion of their constituency. Rightly or wrongly when the Republican party had their "focus" as you put it, they were the minority party. The Democrats have basically written off the Southern states now due to the solid Christian right members in those states. Long winded way of saying it enabled the Republican party to gain more power but there was a cost.

[nolanfan34]

Good post Phil. As a Republican, I appreciate someone posting something that isn't simply "FU Bush", etc.

But regarding your post itself, I agree with you on a lot of those points. I consider myself a Republican primarily because I'm fiscally conservative, and lean Libertarian as well. Yet I'm also an athiest, so I don't share the Christian right views. That's another discussion altogether.

I work in politics for my job, but I have to admit, I'm embarrassed by most of what Bush says/does. Most of it is so transparent, that it makes me ashamed to mention that I'm a Republican at all. Environmental policies, foreign affairs, Patriot Act, etc.

I also agree that the problem with the Christian right is that it has led the party to lean toward legislating morality, which I think is completely wrong. Family values is thrown out as a rallying cry, but that's closer to the solution than the current efforts to shove everyone into one moral category.

I believe that religion has value in society, and that Christianity teaches good principles and values. But I think the party has gotten a little too carried away, forcing people to conform to ALL of those values. The only value they should be pushing is that of personal responsibility, and the impetus of teaching children that responsibility as well.

Sloats hit it right on the head. What this nation needs is for parents to start taking some responsibility for their children, instead of blaming TV/Radio/movies/internet, etc. At the same time, too many Americans fall into the old "handout instead of a hand up" trap. Reliance on social services is high, because for many people it's far easier to work the system instead of actually going out and getting a job.

Couple that with the fact that people are becoming increasingly polarized with Bush in office, and I think there's a serious problem. David Brooks had an interesting op-ed in the NY Times this week, talking about how technology, instead of bringing people together, has actually increased the polarity of our nation because all it has done is made it easier for people to find and associate with people who think like they do. It's an interesting read.

Some further thoughts on your other points:

1. Drugs - I struggle with this issue. I am very anti-drug, and frankly tend to look down upon drug users. Medical marijuana is an interesting issue, and I think the Feds should generally step off if a state has approved this. However, anyone who thinks this issue is about medicine at all is crazy. Most people don't support this because they're compassionate for the afflicted, they see it as a step closer to total legalization - plain and simple.

That being said, and this is not very Republican, but I think the government should legalize pot and tax the hell out of it. The reason I think this, is because people clearly are using anyway, and taxes raised would help support the social services that many of these people are using right now anyway.

If cigarettes, which can kill you, are legal, then why is something else illegal? Same with alcohol. Of course I do drink beer, which pretty much makes me a hypocrite.

2. Gay rights - Gay rights and gay marriage are two different things. I don't think gays need to become a protected class in society, but I don't care whether they get married or not. Since I'm not religious, I really think that marriage means something different for each person. It's simply a social convention that we're groomed to revere, nothing more. Why say that two people can't marry? Who the hell cares?

3. Nation building - I didn't have a problem with us seeking out Bin Laden, because we were provoked. I do believe we need to support countries less fortunate than us, but I don't think we need to be the world's police. I'm more of an isolationist in this regard.

Anyway, I will be interested to read the responses to this. I think I'm one of the few people on the board who will openly admit to being a Republican, although I'm more interested in policies on the state level. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I'm with you. A generation ago the Dixiecrats left the Democratic Party and invaded the Republicans. The Grand Old Party hasn't been the same since. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Philuva]

[quote2. Gays -
I personall believe that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. I also believe that it's purpose is for procreation and I also believe that it should be forever. If you effed up and married the wrong person, tough. You don't have to play every hand dealt to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to turn this into a gay marriage thread because that was not my original point, but provided it as just one example of the government getting involved. Sloats, as someone who believes in a minimal Federal Government, I hope you are not suggesting the US should make laws making divorces illegal? I wanted to clarify your "personal" beliefs in marriage and what you think the government's role in marriage should be.

I think this is part of the problem is that many people can't seperate their personal beliefs from what laws should be. I will never own a gun, but I don't think guns should be illegal. The same thing applies to marriage IMO. Why is the government in the marriage business to begin with? Does it ensure the two people are in love? are commited to each other? provide counseling? The answer is no. Thankfully. Because the government should not be involved in these personal matters. That is too far stretching of a role for government. As a Libertarian, I appreciate that. So, the government basically recognizes the marriage to make wills, legal issues, etc. easier to manage. So in essence what the government recognizes as marriage is just a legal relationship between two people or part of a family. So, if this is the case why not couples who are living together and have kids, why do they have to get "married" to enjoy these benefits, when their legal relationship could be recognized just as easily. I don't think just homosexuals should be pissed off about how the goverment treats marriage, but all people who operate outside the traditional institution of marriage should be pissed that they can't get access to the same benefits.

Anyway, that was definitely a tangent, and I really didn't want to focus the attention on this one issue. Again, it is just one example (the proposed constitution ammendment) of the current Republican Party expanding government control into personal freedoms and liberties. As well as interfering with states rights (i.e. MAss in this example).

I am more interested in what I see as Repbulicans straying from the core principles of a small fiscally responsible federal government commited to preserving personal freedoms.

[jcx]

You have hit the nail on the head re: marraige. It has survived without govt sanction for thousands of years, and could continue to survive quite nicely without it. The government loves being involved in marraige becuase they get to decide how your children and your property will be divided in the case of divorce. I personally believe that marraige is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, but would not force this belief on anyone. If 2 men, 2 women, 5 men, whatever wish to believe they are married, I could care less as long as the government is not forcing me to accept someone else's lifestyle.

As to your original question, I am an ex-GOP'er who turned libertarian. The simple reason is I woke up one day and realized there is not a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties. Republicans have nominated 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices, and we have an extremely liberal court. The GOP has had majorities in Congress for nearly 10 years, over 3 of these years GWB has been President. In that time govt has continued to grow exponentially. GWB still has not vetoed a single bill increasing spending. I just got to the point I couldn't take it anymore. The American voter these days does not have a choice. We are on the road to Socialism. You can choose the expressway (Dems) or the scenic route (GOP) but the end result is the same. I choose none of the above.

[Philuva]

Another factor to consider besides the Christian Right influence is the fact that Republicans have controlled the House, Senate and President over the last 4 years. Do you think that has inadvertly changed the direction of the Republican Party by giving them too much power, and subsequently increased the Federal Gov'ts powers and controls just as a result of them controlling all three?

[whiskeytown]

voted Republician in the last few elections....In 2004, I will NOT be doing so....

I'm extremely disheartened with the fiscal and moral view of this party - not only does the religious right have a grip on it's balls, but it's getting blowjobs from corporate interests at the same time. -

I'm disgused with the candidates they offer (McCain, I would vote for - in a new york minute...but he's not special interesty enough) - and I would like to see smaller govt...but I do think there comes a point where basic services, like health care, should be covered if no else can do it - even if it's in a tent hospital and not the Mayo Clinic... -

it's a disgrace to this country when you can commit a crime, go to prison, and get free health care while basic citizens are told to "buck up" and pay thru the nose for overpriced health care that is overpriced because, quite frankly, the industry can get away with it here...

RB

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
the fact that Republicans have controlled the House, Senate and President over the last 4 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forget that the Democrats controlled the Senate for most of the 2001-2002 session. In the last 50 years, the GOP has controlled House, Senate and Presidency simultaniously for 2 years - and all during a era of war against terror, and with an effective Democrat filibuster organized.

The GOP has never really had a chance to run the government, so all the evidence we have of them is with obstruction and forced concessions by Democrats - which leads to high spending btw. Give the GOP a chance to truly run things, you may be pleasantly surprised. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

BTW, Democrats had House, Senate, and Presidency simultaneously for 14 of the past 50 years.