Why I am a Republican

[FromTheSouth]

The American political system exists almost entirely of two parties. The Republican party exists to protect the republic. It is big on defense on promoting business, as business can support the people. The Democratic party represents the democracy, the people. It is big on welfare, supporting those at the bottom of the chain, and on supporting the people as a whole as a means to prop up business.

I identify with the Republicans for several reasons.

The first of which is that I feel that a strong national defense is the best way to ensure peace. I follow some simple logic. Nuclear powers do not attack each other because of the mutually assured destruction. If nations start lobbing nukes at each other, there are no winners. Likewise, if every nation had a strong national defense, I believe there would be less war, in that the losses would greatly outnumber the benefits.

Secondly, I feel that business bests trends the economy. Switching from whale oil to coal to ground oil was not led by the government. It was steered by the market. I feel that less taxes on business are good for the economy. First of all, the money paid in taxes is never taken from profit. It is taken from salaries, through lay-offs, research budgets, and price raising. Corporations exist on a promise to deliver the highest return possible to share holders, and doing that requires maintenance of profit. A business that is taxed less can hire more people, do more research, and/or lower prices. These are all societal benefits.

Third, I feel that less government is key to efficiant government. In a large bureaucracy, the redundancy of paperwork can lead to a massive slowdown in operations. Less regulation allows for more independent research, which benefits the people. Sure, industry will mess up, but market backlash will correct that behavior, as it will cost more than a government fine.

Fourth, the Dems are pro-Union. I do not have a problem with teacher's unions, but beyond that, I do have concerns. American car companies are dying because of unions. Nissan and Toyota do not have to pay $50 an hour to the guy who screws on lug nuts. They don't have to pay full salary for five years after retirement. Therefore, the average production cost of a Toyota midsive sedan is 2/3 that of a GM. This translates to a cheaper product to the consumer. Often times, a better product as well. Elimination of the UAW would lead to the preservation of American car companies.

Finally, the groups that are associated with Democratic party put me off. The ACLU has gotten out of control. Why is it bad to have a nativity scene on public land? Because it endorses Christianity? Doesn't forcibly removing it endorse Atheism? Does protecting child porn mean the same thing as protecting the first amendment? I don't think so, so I vote against the ACLU. PETA, WWF, ACLU, these are all organizations whose leaders have taken their aims from being social protectorates to being lobby groups, and this is not what we need. We need people to protect those who cannot protect themselves, not group pushing a liberal agenda in order to condemn those who enjoy steak and God.

I think that the goals of the Dems are noble, and they provide a necessary check on the right. I know that unchecked, the right's military industrial complex would get moving at a pretty quick pace. Someone needs to look out for the electorate. I just feel that traditional values are what seperates us from third world nations. I feel that industry can best regulate itself and I feel that being safe is more important than being unsupervised. I don't want big brother over my shoulder, but then again, I don't want Stalin either.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Even though I am probably more liberal than some Democrats, I am a Republican as well. However, I will not lie and tell you that this has nothing to do with the people that affiliate themselves with the Democratic Party. Politically, I despise both those in Hollywood and in New England, as I feel that they are some of the most hypocritical and condescending people in America. Furthermore, I hate how the Democrats put so much stock in charisma; if it wasn't for charisma, Obama wouldn't be President and the Kennedys wouldn't be the equivalent of a royal family in America (I think JFK is one of the worst Presidents ever, by the way).

Ideologically, I am a Marxist. Now, please, don't conflate this with me saying that I am a Communist. I am a firm believer in free enterprise and being rewarded for hard work. When I say that I am, ideologically, a Marxist, I mean to say that class tensions have a significant part in explaining the dynamics of society. Furthermore, I think that socialites and the ultra-rich are parasitic to America. But, even with its representing the interests of the rich, I feel that the Republican Party is more sympathetic to the plight of the poor and really does want to give them the opportunity to better themselves. On the other hand, I feel that the Democratic Party infantilizes the poor and, ultimately, thinks of them as second-class citizens. Thus, improvement, in my opinion, will only come with the Republican Party.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Even though I am probably more liberal than some Democrats, I am a Republican as well. However, I will not lie and tell you that this has nothing to do with the people that affiliate themselves with the Democratic Party. Politically, I despise both those in Hollywood and in New England, as I feel that they are some of the most hypocritical and condescending people in America. Furthermore, I hate how the Democrats put so much stock in charisma; if it wasn't for charisma, Obama wouldn't be President and the Kennedys wouldn't be the equivalent of a royal family in America (I think JFK is one of the worst Presidents ever, by the way).

Kennedy was inspirational to many who felt oppressed in society. He was the first Catholic President. The Catholics were held down for many years, and his elections sent a signal to blacks that they would be next to prosper. He was a terrible President. he let Bay of Pigs go too far, the embargo on Cuba sentenced them to their condition today, and it was LBJ who was the civil rights leader in that white house.

Ideologically, I am a Marxist.

Pinko Commie Bastard!

Now, please, don't conflate this with me saying that I am a Communist.

oops!!!!

I am a firm believer in free enterprise and being rewarded for hard work. When I say that I am, ideologically, a Marxist, I mean to say that class tensions have a significant part in explaining the dynamics of society.

True, but I still believe in trickle down economics. Giving corporations tax breaks may make the rich richer, but it allows them to employ more middle and lower class employees. Out system best provides for advancement possibilities. While the liberal left tells us the the poor will never ascend to the top of a large corporation, there is no one from the poorer classes saying they would be happy making $80,000 in middle management. Then, their kids have opportunity to take over a large corporation. It is stupid of Americans to want everything instantly. Capitalism leads to opportunity, opportunity to growth, and growth to equality. Two or three generations is not back breaking, it's the way things go.

Furthermore, I think that socialites and the ultra-rich are parasitic to America.

Paris Hilton, yes. But many ultra wealthy are very charitable, and you would never know. I believe that sincerity is the measure of a man, and the ones who contribute with no fanfare measure up well. We just don't know who they are.

But, even with its representing the interests of the rich, I feel that the Republican Party is more sympathetic to the plight of the poor and really does want to give them the opportunity to better themselves. On the other hand, I feel that the Democratic Party infantilizes the poor and, ultimately, thinks of them as second-class citizens. Thus, improvement, in my opinion, will only come with the Republican Party.

This is my favorite part of your post. You hit the nail on the head. The Dems keep passing legislation to reward people for having children they can't afford and we get chastised for asking welfare recipients to work. I hate that Bush didn't reform the welfare system. I think that as President, he could have done more to help the poor that an extra $180 a month for another kid. I used to work in a welfare office. These people weren't ashamed that they needed help. They weren't thankful either. They were like zombies, showing up to get their check every month and then leaving to do nothing for all that time. I tried to help with job placement, and they decided (under Clinton) that they didn't need to. They would lose benefits. The idea should be to cut benefits for those who don't work, and provide gas tax credits, uniform credits, etc. to welfare recipients who work, and then a three year tax cut for those who went from welfare to passing the threshold for TANF. They get three tax credits for getting off of welfare. This is a Republican style idea and treats recipients like adults who need help instead of kids who need an allowance.