5 ms·

Truly the party of small government and personal freedoms :)

by csto12 1y ago

mizzao 1y ago
Maybe in the past. Now, it's just the party of "whatever DJT says, goes".
- intermerda 1y ago
  Even in the past it was nothing but a coded language. They don't actually believe in it from a principled point of view. Lee Atwater 1981 interview has continued to remain relevant. From direct racial slurs to forced busing, states' rights. Then it morphed into small government, personal freedoms. And now it's DEI and trans.
Spooky23 1y ago
Remember in the 90s, Newt Gingrich would speak in hallowed tones about the sanctity of the rule of law on Rush Limbaugh. All bullshit.
mindslight 1y ago
I don't think the hypocrisy has bothered them for quite some time. By "personal freedom", they mean the freedom for themselves to personally oppress others - not a society based upon widespread individual liberty. This is very apparent when a blatant violation of constitutional freedoms happens to someone in an "othered" group (eg Kenneth Walker's 2nd amendment rights), and they line right up in support of the oppressors.
- atkailash 1y ago
  It’s basically the party of narcissism. Which is why Trump has succeeded. Freedoms insofar as their world and life are concerned. Generally not an externally motivated “hey they need to be free too” unless they can somehow appear morally superior in a US Christian way, like abortion or prootecting marriage.
yibg 1y ago
Was that ever true? At least over the last couple of decades those mostly seem to translate to: - Small government: cut things we don't like (e.g. social programs), and spend more on things we do like (e.g. military) - Personal freedoms: more freedoms for things we like (e.g. guns), remove freedoms for things we don't (e.g. LGBTQ)
- runjake 1y ago
  Not to lessen your point, because I 100% agree, but I'd like to point out that you could swap a couple words in your statements to make the same point about the Democrats: - Small government: cut things we don't like (e.g. military), and spend more on things we do like (e.g. social programs) - Personal freedoms: more freedoms for things we like (e.g. LGBTQ), remove freedoms for things we don't (e.g. guns)
  - dehugger 1y ago
    The crucial missing element is Republicans identifying as "a party of small government".
    - runjake 1y ago
      Sure fine but they describe themselves as the “party of personal freedoms” so the same applies, in my mind. The point being neither party is anywhere close to being a party of either thing. There are giant “plot holes” in both their platforms.
      - birksherty 1y ago
        > party of either thing Democrats don't say party of small gov, only republicans say that. Democrats want more regulations instead. Democrats want freedom but not freedom that give rights that kills kids.
  - rpgwaiter 1y ago
    Since when has either party ever cut military spending? I wish Dems were as cool as you say.
kevinpet 1y ago
They never claimed to be the party of personal freedom. There's a libertarian contingent within the GOP that wishes they could persuade people to go that direction, but unsuccessfully for decades. They have claimed to be the party of small government. And even someone who disagrees with them can recognize the "small government" within their idealized view means government that is only involved in the things that government should be involved in. It doesn't necessarily (or in practice ever) mean less spending.
- mcmcmc 1y ago
  > And even someone who disagrees with them can recognize the "small government" within their idealized view means government that is only involved in the things that government should be involved in. Sure, maybe if they were ever ideologically consistent. Yet somehow “government should not be involved in healthcare” also means “government can dictate your healthcare decisions” vis a vis gender affirming care and abortions. Or how “government should not be involved in wealth redistribution” means “let’s grow the national debt to give billionaires more tax breaks and subsidies”. This is totally setting aside the fact that small government has always carried the connotation of fiscal conservatism.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    The inherent contradiction in the modern Republican party is that it's a blend of Christian conservative morality with libertarian economics. That works... until a policy area straddles both areas: abortion, free trade, etc.
    - enaaem 1y ago
      I feel like American democrats are leaving Christian votes on the table. Here is a party programme of center left evangelical party from Europe [1]. For example, I find it brilliant that they rebranded the environment to the Creation. [1] https://insite.christenunie.nl/l/library/download/urn:uuid:985cc63b-67de-4ab9-bc54-3f73f48cad7e/compact+election+programme+christian+union+2023-2028.pdf https://insite.christenunie.nl/l/library/download/urn:uuid:9...
zombiwoof 1y ago
No illegal Russians are being sent to Mexico

Truly the party of small government and personal freedoms :)

by csto12 1y ago

Truly the party of small government and personal freedoms :)

mizzao 1y ago

Maybe in the past. Now, it's just the party of "whatever DJT says, goes".

intermerda 1y ago
Even in the past it was nothing but a coded language. They don't actually believe in it from a principled point of view. Lee Atwater 1981 interview has continued to remain relevant. From direct racial slurs to forced busing, states' rights. Then it morphed into small government, personal freedoms. And now it's DEI and trans.

Spooky23 1y ago

Remember in the 90s, Newt Gingrich would speak in hallowed tones about the sanctity of the rule of law on Rush Limbaugh. All bullshit.

mindslight 1y ago

I don't think the hypocrisy has bothered them for quite some time. By "personal freedom", they mean the freedom for themselves to personally oppress others - not a society based upon widespread individual liberty. This is very apparent when a blatant violation of constitutional freedoms happens to someone in an "othered" group (eg Kenneth Walker's 2nd amendment rights), and they line right up in support of the oppressors.

atkailash 1y ago
It’s basically the party of narcissism. Which is why Trump has succeeded. Freedoms insofar as their world and life are concerned. Generally not an externally motivated “hey they need to be free too” unless they can somehow appear morally superior in a US Christian way, like abortion or prootecting marriage.

yibg 1y ago

Was that ever true? At least over the last couple of decades those mostly seem to translate to: - Small government: cut things we don't like (e.g. social programs), and spend more on things we do like (e.g. military) - Personal freedoms: more freedoms for things we like (e.g. guns), remove freedoms for things we don't (e.g. LGBTQ)

runjake 1y ago
Not to lessen your point, because I 100% agree, but I'd like to point out that you could swap a couple words in your statements to make the same point about the Democrats: - Small government: cut things we don't like (e.g. military), and spend more on things we do like (e.g. social programs) - Personal freedoms: more freedoms for things we like (e.g. LGBTQ), remove freedoms for things we don't (e.g. guns)
- dehugger 1y ago
  The crucial missing element is Republicans identifying as "a party of small government".
  - runjake 1y ago
    Sure fine but they describe themselves as the “party of personal freedoms” so the same applies, in my mind. The point being neither party is anywhere close to being a party of either thing. There are giant “plot holes” in both their platforms.
    - birksherty 1y ago
      > party of either thing Democrats don't say party of small gov, only republicans say that. Democrats want more regulations instead. Democrats want freedom but not freedom that give rights that kills kids.
- rpgwaiter 1y ago
  Since when has either party ever cut military spending? I wish Dems were as cool as you say.

kevinpet 1y ago

They never claimed to be the party of personal freedom. There's a libertarian contingent within the GOP that wishes they could persuade people to go that direction, but unsuccessfully for decades. They have claimed to be the party of small government. And even someone who disagrees with them can recognize the "small government" within their idealized view means government that is only involved in the things that government should be involved in. It doesn't necessarily (or in practice ever) mean less spending.

mcmcmc 1y ago
> And even someone who disagrees with them can recognize the "small government" within their idealized view means government that is only involved in the things that government should be involved in. Sure, maybe if they were ever ideologically consistent. Yet somehow “government should not be involved in healthcare” also means “government can dictate your healthcare decisions” vis a vis gender affirming care and abortions. Or how “government should not be involved in wealth redistribution” means “let’s grow the national debt to give billionaires more tax breaks and subsidies”. This is totally setting aside the fact that small government has always carried the connotation of fiscal conservatism.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  The inherent contradiction in the modern Republican party is that it's a blend of Christian conservative morality with libertarian economics. That works... until a policy area straddles both areas: abortion, free trade, etc.
  - enaaem 1y ago
    I feel like American democrats are leaving Christian votes on the table. Here is a party programme of center left evangelical party from Europe [1]. For example, I find it brilliant that they rebranded the environment to the Creation. [1] https://insite.christenunie.nl/l/library/download/urn:uuid:985cc63b-67de-4ab9-bc54-3f73f48cad7e/compact+election+programme+christian+union+2023-2028.pdf https://insite.christenunie.nl/l/library/download/urn:uuid:9...

zombiwoof 1y ago

No illegal Russians are being sent to Mexico