I'm confused about the American Republican party

[DeeBye]

I'm not American, but I have this insane fascination of American politics.

So the Republican Party is conservative. I get that part. A big chunk of being "conservative" (from what I can gather) means small government, lower taxes, and an emphasis on personal freedoms as outlined in the US Constitution. I like this a lot. Who wouldn't?

What I absolutely do not understand is the connection between the US Republican Party and the Christian religion, and how the Republicans are so dependent on the "evangelical" vote (I don't fully understand what an evangelical is).

From what I can gather as an outsider looking in, the Republican Party wants to have a small government and promote personal freedoms, but only if it does not interfere with the Bible stuff.

The biggest confusion I have is the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution (Freedom of religion), and the Republican Party being so pro-Christianity.

I had some other questions lined up, but I forgot them while typing these ones out.

[kandrathe]

The biggest confusion I have is the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution (Freedom of religion), and the Republican Party being so pro-Christianity.

There is this euphemism of "values voters". Or, sometimes they are described as "family values" or "traditional family values".

They, like the other religious "extremists", have issues with the libertine direction of the culture and encourage government to use it's power to censor or restrict behavior. It's not neccesarily restricted to Republicans though. Take Tipper Gore for example, or Chris Dodd and his unbridled support of MPAA. Also, these religious values voters would be for "the defense of marriage" -- or against homosexual marriage. They also tend to be against public schools teaching anything related to sexuality, and promote abstinence as the preferred method of birth control. My dear and long dead father was a Teamster, a dedicated blue collar Democrat, and the most religiously conservative person I knew growing up.

Good call on seeing that. I think it's the one area that really separates libertarians from the Tea Party Republicans. Me, being libertarian (pro-freedom), and yet also pretty religious, just have separated government concerns from religious concerns and I wish more people would. We all can hold moral viewpoints against "harms, such as murder or assault", and when these are in common with the general well being of society we codify them into law. However, others which are "sins" such as pornography, smoking pot, or prostitution would need to more clearly demonstrate that they are indeed harmful before a libertarian would endorse restricting someone elses freedom to commit that "sin". It also bugs me that we waste our time and money enforcing a morality, rather than defending peoples life, liberty and property.

The other area I tend to disagree with the Republicans (and many Democrats as well) about is in the US projection of military force around the globe. Here again, we do to other nations what we'd never tolerate having them do to us. We have two definitions of sovereignty depending on whether it's ours, or theirs.

[eppie]

I'm not American, but I have this insane fascination of American politics.

So the Republican Party is conservative. I get that part. A big chunk of being "conservative" (from what I can gather) means small government, lower taxes, and an emphasis on personal freedoms as outlined in the US Constitution. I like this a lot. Who wouldn't?

You got bored on the lounge right? A few weeks without a rough discussion?

[Quark]

So the Republican Party is conservative. I get that part. A big chunk of being "conservative" (from what I can gather) means small government, lower taxes, and an emphasis on personal freedoms as outlined in the US Constitution. I like this a lot. Who wouldn't?

It's also a complete and total fabrication, seeing as how spending always seems to go up with Republicans in office - but they'll cut taxes anyway and forfeit our future away.

[kandrathe]

It's also a complete and total fabrication, seeing as how spending always seems to go up with Republicans in office - but they'll cut taxes anyway and forfeit our future away.

::nod:: That's just a problem with our political system that has been corrupted into "votes for cash". They are expected to pander to their constituents with all the great things they will spend tax money buying.

[eppie]

It's also a complete and total fabrication, seeing as how spending always seems to go up with Republicans in office - but they'll cut taxes anyway and forfeit our future away.

::nod:: That's just a problem with our political system that has been corrupted into "votes for cash". They are expected to pander to their constituents with all the great things they will spend tax money buying.

Well this is a problem of right wing parties. I mean left wing parties at least say they want to use taxes. Or even raise taxes.
Republicans (in the US, but this is what the right wing does in every country) are able to sell the lie that taxes are bad. And I mean that is fine, that is their choice and right, but please also be honest about the consequences.
In the US furthermore it is of course a problem because you have socialism for the rich. As system that is overly protective of those that can already protect themselves.

Still it is all a question of what you find important. I mean if we in Holland would be happy with the same road quality as they have in Italy or the US, we could also bring down are tax brackets at least 10 % for the coming 30 years. But still, cars are driving around in Italy and the US, so maybe we are indeed just overspending for nothing.

[Bolty]

You got bored on the lounge right? A few weeks without a rough discussion?

We almost went three entire weeks without a post in a messy political thread.

That could be a record.

Anyway, for Deebye, the American 2-party system is self-aligning in that both parties will intrinsically steer towards positions that garner them roughly 50% of the voting base. Republicans pander to religious extremists because it grants them a strong following among the "Moral Majority" types. Democrats pander to minority groups because it gives them a strong following in African American and Latino communities.

I too am fascinated though at the alignment of ideologies in the parties; there's no particular reason why Republicans have to shoot for fiscal conservatism (which they don't actually implement in practice) AND social conservatism (which they happily implement in practice). It's the latter that prevents me from voting for them in general, as I'm against the curtailing of personal social freedoms just because someone in power doesn't like them.

Of course, Democrats love gun control, which is also an infringement of personal freedoms. Again, it's the 50% rule in force here; if any party started to slip too far under 50% of the vote, it would alter its alignment to get back there again with great haste.

As with all presidential elections, the end result is decided by the small 1-4% of independent voters who will swing one way or the other based on particular issues. This is the sort of thing you get with 2-party systems - everything gets diluted down to the 50% level.

[shoju]

As someone who finds themselves with toes and fingers dangling in the pools of both parties 'stances' I to find it very interesting the way that the parties line up, and go about doing things. Its probably because my father, a former Pastor and staunch republican, lists his favorite U.S. President of all time, and one of the men who he thought had the right ideas for the country as JFK, one of the "legends" so to speak to Democrats.

I can also tell you, the big reason that my father, and a lot of the "uber conservative" people that he is associated with are Republicans all comes down to a single thing. Abortion. Republicans banter about the idea of working to overturn Roe V Wade and it gets the Christian Conservative votes. Often times, at least in a conservative bible thumping area like North Central Ohio, that is the only thing many 'Normal Americans*' look at when choosing a candidate.

But, I stress, that this is probably a localized opinion. I don't enjoy talking politics or religion with many people because my childhood has left me with some really bizarre opinions about things (Growing up the son of a pastor in the Foursquare Gospel Church in the 1980's will do that), so I don't talk about it with friends very often. So I don't have opinions from people outside of the region I grew up in.

The Tea Party is rampant around here, and I shudder in fear if the Tea Party around here and their fear mongering hate speak campaigns are representative of the movement across the country. While they talk about the Tea Party Ideals, most of the "information meetings" that they have brought to the area have been racially / socio-economically motivated, and have drawn ire from even some of the more moderate people in the area.



*Normal Americans is used as a generalization of those who don't actively follow politics on a grand level. Those who read about it in papers, watch a debate or two at most, and are not nearly the type of people who would ever find themselves in a conversation about politics on a place like the lounge.

[kandrathe]

Well this is a problem of right wing parties. I mean left wing parties at least say they want to use taxes. Or even raise taxes.

Sort of. Their deception is that they claim to want to raise taxes on the wealthy, but in practice they can't get enough and end up taxing the upper middle, and middle middle classes.

Republicans (in the US, but this is what the right wing does in every country) are able to sell the lie that taxes are bad. And I mean that is fine, that is their choice and right, but please also be honest about the consequences.

I dunno. It's a balance right? There is a negative economic consequence to not investing in uplifting people through the effects of poverty, ignorance, and inequality. But, there is also a negative consequence to raising taxes so high that you stifle economic growth. So, the way I see it is that yes, taxes can be bad... But then, so are the lack of taxes when it results in a crumbling infrastructure, a lack of education, a high misery for vast portions of the populace.

In the US furthermore it is of course a problem because you have socialism for the rich. As system that is overly protective of those that can already protect themselves.

::nod:: This is what I was refering to before where the people in power vote themselves the money (and borrow from the future prosperity) and pretty much ignore every other trouble.

Still it is all a question of what you find important. I mean if we in Holland would be happy with the same road quality as they have in Italy or the US, we could also bring down are tax brackets at least 10 % for the coming 30 years. But still, cars are driving around in Italy and the US, so maybe we are indeed just overspending for nothing.

Our road quality is pretty good. Don't ask about the bridges though. The trouble with infrastructure is that you need to replace it eventually after 50-60 years, and since most of ours was built during and just after WWII it's all reaching its end of life around the same time. But, we didn't plan ahead. Now when we need it, the coffers are empty and the debt is sky high already.

The more I compare the US and the Netherlands the less I find that is that much different, well other than size and total population. There are a few crucial legal differences, but mostly were pretty similiar there as well. The first time I went to Europe I drove from Amsterdam to Vienna, then to Rome -- then took trains, boats, and a plane to get to Athens and drove all over Greece. I expected the Autobahn to be like our interstates. But, it was beat up and delapidated. Our freeways are much better than they were, and at that time we were only allowed to drive 55 mph on ours.

There are parts of the north and eastern US that are very much like Northern Europe. There are parts of the south and southwestern US that are very much like Southern Europe. I was trying to think of a US state most like The Netherlands... It reminds me a bit of Wisconsin, although there is no comparable city to Amsterdam in Wisconsin. Madison is pretty libertine, but no where near as large.

[GhastMaster]

As with all presidential elections, the end result is decided by the small 1-4% of independent voters who will swing one way or the other based on particular issues. This is the sort of thing you get with 2-party systems - everything gets diluted down to the 50% level.

I believe "2-party system" may be a bit misleading. I'm sure we have covered the different voting systems at some point here, so I won't go too far into it. The way we vote is the system. Two parties are the result of the way our voting system works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_syst...er_methods

Imagine for a minute there were 10 different parties that could easily exist in the U.S. This is possible because U.S. Americans are very diverse in their political thought. What would happen if there were 9 groups representing 89% of the people and the parties were very similar aside from one or two minor things, and an 11% portion of the U.S. believed in something radically different, voting for the 10th group? With our voting system it is possible for that radical political group to win an election. Their views are actually the minority, but they are the majority in this hypothetical election.

That is why the parties have to get people to align with them on 1 issue and make people believe that this 1 issue is the most important thing in the world, and they can fix it. For the Republicans they have the evangelical Christians who of course take religious issues very seriously(abortion, gay marriage, etc). The Democrat Party garners the core vote of the racial minorities by feeding them, sheltering them, and raising their babies(via welfare). If another party pops up, they are referred to as un-electable or not representative of the majority. Yet these parties affect the elections massively sometimes. If Ron Paul ran an independent he would ensure Obama's re-election. Even if the majority prefers a Republican or a Ron Paul, their votes get split and Obama will win. How is this a good idea? It's not. The ranked voting system is my favorite. In a ranked system you could give 1, 2, or 3 points to the last standing candidates, and whomever gets the most points wins. It's kinda like voting in rounds where the person who accumulates the least amount of points is dropped and you vote again.


I fear that U.S. politics will never reflect what the average true majority wants, nor will it be able to protect freedom from oligarchy, military-industrial complex, and all the other bad things that come about from a limited vote choice. Actually the Military-industrial complex is a direct result of the states slowly losing powers through the years...save that for next time.

I hope there is some good info here. Oh yeah, Liberty and Freedom---> Ron Paul 2012 y'all!

[DeeBye]

You got bored on the lounge right? A few weeks without a rough discussion?

No, I was watching CNN and they were talking about the Republicans and how they needed the evangelical votes and it just confuses me why one of the 2 parties focuses so much on religion. It's almost as if you cannot be a "True Republican" candidate unless you are incredibly Christian and yell loudly to everyone within earshot just how Christian you are. Are there really a subset of American voters that will only vote Republican solely because of religion?

I never followed the Democrat primaries in the past, are they the same?

[kandrathe]

Are there really a subset of American voters that will only vote Republican solely because of religion?

Yes. But, ALL the candidates tend to pander. It's like a mom, apple pie, baseball thing. You gotta love these things or you're just not candidate material. If they go too far, then there are a bunch of people who retreat because they don't want a theocracy.

I never followed the Democrat primaries in the past, are they the same?

How about;

"Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition." BARACK OBAMA, Jun. 28, 2006

Democrats are especially sensitive to the Southern Black church and the northern working class Catholic vote, which also garners a significant population of hispanics. In the "bible belt" down south, the Church is your community.

[eppie]

[quote='kandrathe' pid='193645' dateline='1328837133']It's a balance right? There is a negative economic consequence to not investing in uplifting people through the effects of poverty, ignorance, and inequality. But, there is also a negative consequence to raising taxes so high that you stifle economic growth. So, the way I see it is that yes, taxes can be bad... But then, so are the lack of taxes when it results in a crumbling infrastructure, a lack of education, a high misery for vast portions of the populace.
[quote]
I think spending tax money on building projects, health care and welfare ensure that the money you spend directly enters the real economy again. In a country like the US where you (still) produce a lot of things yourself (unlike Holland for example) you even support industry when spending more on health care.
(this has been done during the Bush years when he spend tax dollars for all kinds of building contracts in Iraq and security measures in the US all done by companies owned by friends of him of course.......and of course he was republican.


[quote='kandrathe' pid='193645' dateline='1328837133']
The more I compare the US and the Netherlands the less I find that is that much different, well other than size and total population.
[/quote]
Well, a large part of our population and politicians try to be like the US as much as they can. Our politicians just want to shake the hand of the president of the US and hope to get some nice job at the UN later.

It is nice this comparing of the US and Europe or the Netherlands.


I like Boston a lot, but that is just a city of course. Here in Sweden I recognize a lot of the US, but that is maybe just because of the population density.....big cities and then nothing. So the same structures with strip malls etc.


But for the rest I don't think you can compare american cities to Amsterdam.


I am really sensitive to atmosphere and people's culture. So when I am in the states I can really enjoy when you take an exit on a highway and you arrive in this area where there ar a bunch of motels and some restaurants. Or the walking around in big city centre's without visiting the tourist attraction....I mean just on tuesday morning in autum or so just to get a taste of the city like it normally is. New York is fun but to much a theatre and touristy just like San Francisco (which is extremely nice , but indeed touristy). Boston I like a lot maybe because it is the most european american city (mainly the beacon street area).

Salt Lake City is the other end of the spectrum boring as hell but I will always remember it. All the streets are 100 m wide, very quiet etc. Also places like Cincinnati or Indianapolis are very boring from a tourist point of view, but nice to walk around there once.

[eppie]

You got bored on the lounge right? A few weeks without a rough discussion?

We almost went three entire weeks without a post in a messy political thread.

That could be a record.

It is also highly suspicious that deebye started this thread....he usually steers away from the political threads.

[Jester]

I never followed the Democrat primaries in the past, are they the same?

Yes and no. It's still not acceptable to be irreligious, even in the Dems. And there are some votes to be gained by courting religious interest groups, although the most fervent (the African-american evangelical churches) have more pressing social issues than religious conservatism.

However, this is nowhere near the scale of the Republicans, for whom the religious right represents a formidable voting bloc that can make or break candidates. They have unity of purpose and message, they donate heavily, and they come out to vote. That's powerful in the general election, but it's downright crushing in the primaries.

Or, to put it differently, I have heard of Democratic candidates with substantial religious support, but I've never heard of the religious left breaking the back of any candidate's chances. There is no Democratic 700 Club.

-Jester

[eppie]

No, I was watching CNN and they were talking about the Republicans and how they needed the evangelical votes and it just confuses me why one of the 2 parties focuses so much on religion. It's almost as if you cannot be a "True Republican" candidate unless you are incredibly Christian and yell loudly to everyone within earshot just how Christian you are. Are there really a subset of American voters that will only vote Republican solely because of religion?

I never followed the Democrat primaries in the past, are they the same?

Yes and I think this isone of the main reasons that many people in Europe mistrust the US so much. We have the feeling that some uneducated miltant christian Arkansas inbread has (by using his vote) has more power over our country (we are influenced a lot by the US) than we have ourselves.

To me the US is very comparable to a country like Iran or Saudi Arabia. It is, ironicly, just because of the aggresive capitalism that they are not completely the same as these countries. Because however christian extremist they might be, being able to buy 1,5 gallons of pepsi for 35 cents is still more important for them.

Someone should explain them that Jesus was a socialist himself.........actually I doubt this would help......most churches don't have anything to do with what that guy tried to explain 2000 years ago.

---

I believe "2-party system" may be a bit misleading. I'm sure we have covered the different voting systems at some point here, so I won't go too far into it. The way we vote is the system. Two parties are the result of the way our voting system works.

I agree. And of course the 'two parties' in question do know this. And so will not change this. A quasi two party system is the best way to keep politics for the elite.

[kandrathe]

We have the feeling that some uneducated miltant christian Arkansas inbread has (by using his vote) has more power over our country (we are influenced a lot by the US) than we have ourselves.

As a part time geneologist... my research into haplogroups... http://hapmap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ I'm maternally H7a1.

Genetically, the average Arkansan is no more inbred than the average Swede, German, or other rural mostly somewhat isolated population. In fact, due to the advent of modern transportation, the worldwide level of human genetic diversity has been on the increase since the early 1900's. And, before that in the US, due to the high levels of immigration, the US population tends to be more genetically diverse that most of the world. Arkansas is one of the 30 state's where you cannot marry your cousin, although I believe it is still legal in much of Europe.

But, due to Hollands location and history... I'd say you've experienced your share of cross pollination with the rest of Europe, north and south and your former colonies.

Someone should explain them that Jesus was a socialist himself.........actually I doubt this would help......most churches don't have anything to do with what that guy tried to explain 2000 years ago.

I think he was more revolutionary than that. He advocated where possible, stepping out of the traditional Jewish and Roman systems and devoting yourself (and your earthly possessions) to Godly pursuits (e.g. feeding the hungry, clothing the thread bare, tending the suffering, and bringing Gods message to others). His big idea if you like, was that we could bring about heaven on earth by each of us being more concerned for others than we are for ourselves. But, this was not to be a system -- where this was law. But an individual choice, answerable to their concience, and a pact between each person and their God.

[eppie]

[quote='eppie' pid='193666' dateline='1328884937']We have the feeling that some uneducated miltant christian Arkansas inbread has (by using his vote) has more power over our country (we are influenced a lot by the US) than we have ourselves.

As a part time geneologist... my research into haplogroups... http://hapmap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ I'm maternally H7a1.

Genetically, the average Arkansan is no more inbred than the average Swede, German, or other rural mostly somewhat isolated population. In fact, due to the advent of modern transportation, the worldwide level of human genetic diversity has been on the increase since the early 1900's. And, before that in the US, due to the high levels of immigration, the US population tends to be more genetically diverse that most of the world. Arkansas is one of the 30 state's where you cannot marry your cousin, although I believe it is still legal in much of Europe.

But, due to Hollands location and history... I'd say you've experienced your share of cross pollination with the rest of Europe, north and south and your former colonies.

[quote]

Yes but that was me just using some offending terminology. Some slightly altered song lyrics.

And yeah, we were just pollinating all the time man.

[kandrathe]

And yeah, we were just pollinating all the time man.

I don't think your libido's are any different, just your opportunities for finding genetically diverse mates. Up in Jamtland, who are you going to marry locally if it's not a cousin somewhat removed? I know. I'm related to about 40% of Jamtland still after 4 generations of ancestry living in America.

[DeeBye]

It is also highly suspicious that deebye started this thread....he usually steers away from the political threads.

I stay away from political threads when they descend into non-stop debate. I'm not looking to debate anything here; I'm just curious about American politics and why it's so vastly different than Canadian politics, even though we have the same sort of 2-party conservative+liberal system and have so much else in common. The only conclusion I can come up with is the religion angle.

I started really wondering about it when I read about US Christian religious leaders meeting in Texas to decide on a preferred Republican candidate (Here's a link, don't know if the website is biased but there are more sources). That sort of blew my mind because with my understanding of the 1st amendment, church leaders should never have influence over politics - right?

A bunch of people have replied saying that each side panders to voters, so are Republicans pandering to Christians just to gain their vote - or are the nominees really as religious as they say they are? The same question applies to Democrats stating their pro-Christian views.

Edit: I also should thank everyone for their very informative replies. I haven't replied to each of you, but I have read everything and I appreciate it. Politics is confusing.