I would respond that the news media portrayed us this way.
I wish I knew.
It sort of describes my daughter.
Seems to me if you want to know how a Republican thinks, you should take the time to listen to one. Few Democrats listen and they make their judgements based on left leaning media. An honest discussion between people can be very eye opening.
I mean your perspective seems incredibly warped. I don’t think an Internet thread will be able to help you overcome the cartoon-villain caricature you chose to believe about millions of people.
The best advice I could give you is to list (for yourself) the people who have taught you to view the world through this warped lens… and then to stop listening to those people, because those people seem like ideologically extreme propagandists out to caricature anyone who fails to conform to their own narrow worldview.
PS yes, propagandists exist on all sorts of ‘sides’. Learn to screen out the propaganda on all sides.
I would point to the fact that many of our greatest presidents have been Republicans for a start. In living memory, I’d point to Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr. for their contribution to bringing an end to the Cold War and destroying communism in much of the world. Eisenhower, of course, was largely responsible for winning the Second World War in Europe. Going further back, Abraham Lincoln saved the Union and abolished slavery.
Leftists and so-called liberals (who are usually anything but liberal) tend to inflict catastrophic harms upon any society they end up controlling. They do indeed appear to say all the right things, and some of them, especially lower down in the chain of command, may even believe what they say. The fact is, however, that right-wing, conservative regimes deliver good governance, prosperity, and freedom. If you look at Europe, all the poorest countries in Europe are the ones in east-central and eastern Europe which are still suffering from the long-term impact of decades of communist rule.
Privatization, deregulation, competition, free market capitalism, lower taxation, lower public spending, smaller government, and fewer handouts all contribute to a political and economic environment in which people have the opportunity to make the most of their opportunities, to become self-sufficient, to provide for themselves and their families, and to create wealth and jobs for society. Socialism is superficially attractive, but it stifles entrepreneurship, stifles competition, creates a culture of dependency, and leads to poverty and idleness.
Perhaps worst of all, socialism is an inherently illiberal ideology. There is no personal freedom without economic freedom and no economic freedom without personal freedom. It is natural that people wish to create as much wealth as possible for themselves, their families, their communities, and their people. Socialists know this, and that is why they have to limit people’s freedoms: because people will not submit to something as unnatural as socialism without coercion by the state.
Yes, higher levels are meant to help lower levels when such help is needed.
But that is far from “Welfare State”.
First of all, helping the poor is a job for their neighbours (maybe individually, maybe working through Church). State is only to offer help during an emergency. For otherwise State “outcompetes” private initiative. And then, should the government aid be reduced, private initiative would lag behind, would fail to increase right away.
And too much help from higher levels is bad for lower levels.
For example, Lithuania receives lots of funds from European Union. And they cause much evil (just like funds from national government to lower levels). Not because EU (or national government) tries to cause evil, but because it is trying to achieve good without sufficient flexibility (and that is inevitable, because that is the high level trying to do the job of a lower level). That changes incentives and, for example, when higher level supports “creation of new study programs”, encourages making study programs that are pointless (but new).
Well, how did those communities end up wit “a poor tax base”, and why are they “overwhelmed” by it?
Is the local government, by any chance, trying to achieve too much? Living beyond its means? Thus trying to collect too much in taxes and driving away everyone who is rich enough to be able to go away?
And how did this government end up in charge of this community? Was it imposed from outside? Was it elected in fraudulent elections? Or did the people in that community make some bad choices, and are suffering the consequences?
After all, while the people in a poor community are likely to have lower income, the prices are also going to be somewhat lower. That alone should mitigate the problems to some extent. Thus the community might have problems, but should not be “overwhelmed”.
Given the current state of the GOP and its takeover by a nationalist populist agenda, I don’t think there IS an argument to be had to refute those sorts of assertions.
Actual conservatism, primarily fiscal conservatism, seems DOA in Trump’s Republican Party.
The Southern Strategy undertaken in the Nixon years is undeniably racist in origin and the takeover of the GOP in the south by disaffected Dixiecrats and their policies and influence that survive down to this day does nothing to refute the racism charges either.
The GOP sadly no longer represents me. It has becomes a corrupt shell, a party not based on principle, an enabling cult of personality, and utterly devoid of ideas.
I no longer try to defend it. I’m going to spend my time in the future trying to change it from the local level. And if that doesn’t work then I’ll spend my efforts trying to put it down.
Very good point. It goes both ways. If one wants to know what a democrat is or believes, they should ask a democrat. Same for the reverse. It was just like when I converted to Catholicism. I asked Catholics what they believed. I studied Catholic teaching. Had I asked a Baptist what a Catholic is or believes, it would have been drastically different.
I wouldn’t get involved. The elections are over.
Two years is a long, long time, and the narrative will have changed by then.
I was surprised that so many conservative pro-life Republican women were elected to Congress recently.
I saw it and you probably did as well. Trillions spent. Poverty increased, family structure was demolished and demographics decreased as crime and single motherhood shot through the roof. The FedGov could not even cook the books enough to make it appear successful.
A functional definition of insanity is to conduct the same experiment over and over, expecting a different result.
So why, after the utter failure of trillions spent, is the solution to spend more trillions?
Lincoln was Republican.
I fully understand that it is not this simple, but…
Lincoln was Republican.
I don’t really see the need to necessarily defend the whole group like this. I think it’s possible for a Conservative to say “look, the party tends to attract racists-both casual and vile ones, but im a Republican because I believe in (insert policy views) rather than (insert democrat views). Additionally, the Democrat party do have its own racists, albeit less obvious at times but Democrats continue to vote because they prefer (insert democrat policies).”
I find it silly to immediately have a knee jerk reaction to say that “Hey they’re not racists! Democrats are” like some Conservative pundits tend to so. It achieves nothing. If you’re a republican/democrat and you have your criticisms, it’s best to acknowledge them.