9 ms·

Nothing says "small government" like expanding government oversight, right? I really don't understand what the Republican party actually stands for. There's no

• w1ntermute 13y ago
  Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats support the views they claim to. Those are just ways to get votes from their gullible and emotionally persuadable constituents who will pick the least-worst of the 2 choices as long as the candidate of their choice presents a veneer of authenticity. Politicians really support the views of the people who actually matter to them - the donors who fund their campaigns, the lobbyists who give them nice perks while they're in office, and the companies who promise them high-paying jobs once they've left public office.
• straight_talk 13y ago
  It obviously stands for global fascist totalitarian government.
• betterunix 13y ago
  The major parties in the United States are what the rest of the world calls "the right wing." Their goals are more or less "keep the wealth in the hands of the wealthy" and "keep the power in the hands of the powerful." The only difference is which groups of wealthy and powerful people the parties cater to, though there is plenty of overlap there.
• ajscherer 13y ago
  When politicians say "small government" they really mean "low taxes", and when they say "liberty" that is measured as 100% minus the top marginal tax rate. Restrictions on people's behavior or privacy aren't really part of the discussion. When they say "spending" you can safely suffix that with "on someone other than me". Seriously though, the Republican party isn't a libertarian organization and never has been. They've been marketing themselves that way lately, since they are a bit closer to the libertarian ideal than the Democrats (I guess not in this case though!).
  • mwfunk 13y ago
    Historically the Republican party has been libertarianish, at least in the sense that the guiding principles were minimizing the size and reach of government, keeping the government out of people's lives, and legislating at the most local levels possible (don't make a state law if a local law will do, and don't make a federal law if a state law will do). This changed in the '60s- Democratic support for the civil rights movement caused a massive shift in the south, in which a huge number of voters (evangelical, socially conservative voters who had supported the Democrats since the end of the Civil War) switched allegiances from Democrats to Republicans. That period also saw the rise of Barry Goldwater, who also wasn't a traditional Republican- he was more of a demagogue who engaged in a lot of flag waving and and emotional oratory to get people riled up. Ever since then there's been a cognitive dissonance within the GOP- the old-school libertarianesque beliefs wedded to the social conservatives and demagogues of the Religious Right (who aren't traditionally right-wing (or left-wing) at all, they've just latched on to the Republican party as being more amenable to being bent to their will). This cognitive dissonance has reached epic proportions in the last 10 years, in some cases leading to polarization in the party (fiscal conservative/social liberals vs. those who are completely driven by religion and social conservatism). In other cases it leads to politicians who somehow try to appeal to both the libertarians and the Religious Right (Ron Paul being a prime example), and I just don't know what to make of that. The views of the world embodied by those two groups could not be more different, and seems impossible to reconcile in any intellectually honest way.
  • dmix 13y ago
    Anecdotally I've seen a notable upswing in the self-identification of republicans as "libertarian" in the last 6 months (when that's clearly not the reality).
    • astrodust 13y ago
      "Libertarians" are just hipster Republicans.
      • dmix 13y ago
        And "anarcho-capitalists" are hipster libertarians?
• nostromo 13y ago
  Nothing says "civil liberties" like getting multinationals to share data freely with the FBI and CIA. This is why I don't understand what the Democrats actually stand for either, and there are plenty on that list.
  • niggler 13y ago
    To be fair, the majority (52%) of Dems voted against the bill. Contrast that with 13% of Republicans.
    • freyr 13y ago
      To be fair, that's just barely a majority. But I suppose it's great in the "lessor of two evils" sense.
      • niggler 13y ago
        To be fair, my congresswoman (Maloney) voted Nay.
        • ahsteele 13y ago
          Where can I find how my congressman voted. http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/all http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/all does not yet have the results from today's vote.
          • niggler 13y ago
            The article for this chain (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll117.xml# http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll117.xml#) has the roll call (by last name, and they mention states where there is confusion) If you don't know or don't remember your congressperson: http://house.gov/representatives/find/ http://house.gov/representatives/find/
      • deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
• enoch_r 13y ago
  Borrowing from Arnold Kling's "three axes", generally speaking: - Libertarians evaluate things on a freedom/tyranny axis. - Republicans evaluate things on a civilization/savagery axis. - Democrats evaluate things on a fair/unfair axis. I think that explains Republican voting behavior here fairly well. They're not for small government because they're libertarian; they're for small government because the US is historically connected with libertarian philosophies.
  • pekk 13y ago
    Not sure about this. If I think it is savagery to have lots of people dying without healthcare, that's a pretty Democrat sentiment isn't it? Or are we talking about the parties as they were decades ago rather than today?
    • mseebach 13y ago
      So that's clearly "unfair" on the Democrat axis. Old school Republicans should be for some measure of properly financed universal healthcare (oh, hi there, Mitt), but there is also the financial end to consider: overspending is moving away from civilization, and towards savagery.
    • erikpukinskis 13y ago
      You're using the figurative version of "savagery". I think what republicans are opposed to is the older form of the word "savage" i.e. "the way of life of those people less evolved than I".
  • rorrr 13y ago
    > Republicans evaluate things on a civilization/savagery axis By pushing creationism into schools? By denying gay rights? By pushing anti-abortion nonsense? That's so incorrect.
  • lobster_johnson 13y ago
    Republicans seem to care less about civilization than "family", more precisely "conserving [Christian] family values". That's why it's linked to all the nonsensical, irrational thinking about gay marriage and abortion; they think it violates the ideals of the traditional Christian family. It cannot be equated with "civilization" unless you somehow believe that those things are uncivilized, which makes the entire axis analysis tautological.
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• TallGuyShort 13y ago
  Ask most voters to explain the reasons they voted the way they did and you would find a big disconnect between not only what they thought the candidate said and what the candidate actually said, but also between what the candidate said and what they do.
• JonnieCache 13y ago
  Rational self interest. It's not like they're shy about it.
• jbooth 13y ago
  Sure there's consistency. Obama. Healthcare ideas that originated from the heritage foundation? No way. Romney 'won' the first debate by agreeing with Obama's platform on every single issue. The difference between them? Obama.
• marknutter 13y ago
  The same hypocrisy can be found with Democrats. They like "big government" except when it comes to wars, women's bodies, and gay marriage.
  • pessimizer 13y ago
    Democrats don't campaign in support of "big government." That's something that they are characterized as being for by the people that oppose them. That's like a Democrat saying that Republicans like "letting the poor die" except when it comes to veterans, children, and those wounded by terrorist attacks. What hypocrites!
    • bmelton 13y ago
      Increasing the social safety net, increasing regulations on commerce and business, leveraging the public largesse for greater equality aren't using the same words as "big government", but aren't doable without one. I agree with your point in that it was an invective, pithy statement, but the big government categorization wasn't unfounded.
      • thefever 13y ago
        Democrats may support some policies that lead to big government, however they don't support big government as inherently good, but merely as a unavoidable side effect to other important policies. Republicans, on the other hand, frequently argue that small government is worthwhile for it's own sake.
        • bmelton 13y ago
          I think if we look at both motives without attempting to ascribe negative connotation, we might get somewhere. "Small government" isn't purposeless, it's (supposed) tenet is to limit the government in both scope and authority to those powers enumerated by the Constitution. Either way, the point isn't just that the government should be non-existent, or smaller for its own sake, but that it should allow the citizens to provide for their own welfare and provide the minimal in opposition to that. The Republican mantra believes that people can and will fend for themselves, and either enjoy their own successes or failures with minimal intervention. The democratic mantra is to provide a minimum standard for all, at the expense of those in excess of that standard. It's a contrast in ideology, but neither is good or bad on its own. Also worth noting is that over time, the parties have effectively flipped positions on matters entirely. The Republicans, for example, freed the slaves despite FIERCE opposition by the democrats. Nowadays, the Democrats generally carry the African-American vote. In short, it's a popularity contest. Both parties have ideals that they live up to some percentage of the time, but any individual politician (or party dynamic) is likely to shift their belief in the interests of getting elected, staying elected, appeasing campaign contributors or even to appease their constituency.
• poindontcare 13y ago
  Laws for sale.
• SomeCallMeTim 13y ago
  "Small government" is a code phrase for reducing the social safety net. Nothing more. For much greater detail about why Democrats and Republicans think they way they do, read what the cognitive scientist George Lakoff has to say.[1] By the end things like "We respect life!" but "We want the death penalty!" on the same platform actually make sense. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Politics_%28book%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Politics_%28book%29
• geon 13y ago
  You have only two parties that matter. They have to take a stance in virtually every matter ever; abortion, gun control, unemployment... And they neet to take the opposite view, or it becomes a non-issue. It is simply impossible to make a de-facto two-party system like the US make sense. There are more than 2kinds of people, so uou need more than 2 parties to represent them.
• smky80 13y ago
  > Can someone help me out here? It's a sham. The voting process is just there to create an illusion of control and provide a circus for the masses; just another means of control by manufacturing consent. The Republican Party's purpose is just to mobilize a certain segment of the population when a war needs fighting or some banks need bailing out, and as controlled opposition to the Democratic Party's social agenda. The Democratic Party likewise serves as controlled opposition to the Republican agenda: Obama is President, but you still get the wars and Wall Street anyway.