Why I Would Never Vote Republican-Ever 4

I am not big on voting, and I haven’t voted in 20 years. Before that, I occasionally voted for Democrats, largely on antiwar grounds. I have cast a ballot for a Republican only once, and never in a general election. I did vote against the Rev. Pat Robertson in the 1988 Republican primaries by casting a vote for Bob Dole.

From what I can tell the Republicans are the enemies of all mankind. What are they for other than war, war, and more war, a Third World model plutocracy, and a fascist paramilitary police state that uses appeals to “traditional values” (which amount to little more than hating fags) as a means of galvanizing support from the red state rubes?

As Robert Lindsay says:

“The Conservative Republican Party: Corporatism and neoliberalism, albeit in a much stronger form than the Liberal Republicans push, a radical near-Libertarian out and out dismantling of government, combined with the usual rightwing nuttery such as ludicrous paranoia of Communism, socialism and the economic Left, crazy conspiracy theory, exaggeration, lies, constant propaganda, racist dog whistles for bigoted White people, homophobia, misogyny and sexism, puritanism, Fundamentalist Christianity, jingoism, xenophobia, paranoia and hatred of the state itself.

A wildly imperial neoconservative and even openly neocolonialist foreign policy, the celebration of inequality, authoritarianism and police state tendencies strangely combined with a bizarre fetish with arming ordinary citizens as if they were the an official army. Sheer contempt for workers and a warlike attitude towards labor unions. Hostility to consumers and contempt for environmentalism, a destructive attitude towards Gaia and our fellow creatures, a celebration of pollution in every form and even apocalyptic manipulation of the Earth’s very climate itself. A head in the sand attitude towards the future and a focus on immediate profits at the expense of all long-term goals.

A general backwards, retrogressive and Medieval tone and even a celebration of a primitive, Neandertal-like mindset. An all out class war designed to immiserate the working, lower and even middle classes and transfer their wealth and income upwards to the upper middle and upper classes. A celebration of the market over all other human values to the point where it is the very reason for existence itself.”

With the exception of the “hatred of the state” part (Republicans only hate the welfare state, not the police state, corporate state, prison-industrial complex, or their sacred military-industrial complex), I generally agree with much of the above analysis. The Republicans are so awful that they make the centrist-liberal-reincarnated Nixon Republicans of the Obama administration (see Bruce Bartlett’s analysis here)  look like some kind of leftist revolutionaries in comparison (and they’re such good propagandists they’ve got the red state rubes actually believing the latter).

4 comments

  1. Republican militarism is much overrated. If we look at all the wars since 1898 we see that WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam were all democrat wars, then Gulf War I & II and Afghanistan were republican. With Obama intervening in Libya. Clinton was intervening in many places as well Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia etc. The great propaganda coup of the century is that the democrats have postured themselves as the party of peace. Tell that to Japan, Vietnam and Germany. Do the math, the body counts of the democrats wars are so far in excess of Republican wars, of course not counting the civil war, that any comparison is ridiculous. Both Korea and Vietnam were ended by republicans Eisenhower and Ford respectively. Which war did the democrats end?

    “A general backwards, retrogressive and Medieval tone and even a celebration of a primitive, Neandertal-like mindset.”

    That is just silly, according to Neil Degrasse Tyson in “Who’s More Pro-Science, Republicans or Democrats” the Republicans outspend democrats on science spending. Usually the antithesis of medievalism as seen by the illiterate mob.

    “combined with the usual rightwing nuttery such as ludicrous paranoia of Communism, socialism and the economic Left, crazy conspiracy theory, exaggeration, lies, constant propaganda, racist dog whistles for bigoted White people, homophobia, misogyny and sexism, puritanism, Fundamentalist Christianity, jingoism, xenophobia, paranoia and hatred of the state itself.”

    Face-palm. Everything said here could in some measure been said of America in 1789 or 1860 or 1950. Are we to assume that america has been a police state for the most of its history? This kind of liberal paranoia and stupidity has reached pandemic proportions.

    Don’t get me wrong the Rockefeller Republicans are horrible, but hell would freeze over before the democrats would allow a Ron Paul libertarian to run on their ticket. At least the GOP allows for fresh people to join up.

    Lastly Lindsay is just stupid for the past 60 years the GOP has been moving more and more to the left. Before you know it Bill Clinton will be seen as, as Michael Moore said, the greatest Republican of the 1990s. The rise of a rightwing theocracy out of the GOP is ridiculous. In many ways the hysteria of Lindsay is reminiscent of the portrait he is painting of the GOP. He his a hysterical, anti-intellectual, neanderthal, bigot.

    Only by indulging in hysterical wet dreams can the delusional left keep its own sanity.

    Lastly all we really got was a selection of epithets and personal opinions not much to go on. For intellectually challenged public school drones I suppose that’s all we got.

  2. I agree with Todd half way on this. It’s true the Democrats were the “party of bloodshed” during the 20th century. See Wilson, FDR, Truman, and LBJ. But I do think the New Left takeover of the Democrats during the McGovern era curbed that a bit and on average Dems have generally been less hawkish than Repubs since then. Of course, there are notable exceptions like Ron Paul and Joe Lieberman. Meanwhile, the GOP tended to become more hawkish over time with Nixon and then Reagan and the Bushes, In fact, the war-loving neocons defected from the Dems to the Repubs once the later became the more hawkish party. Weakening the Democrats taste for war (somewhat, there’s also been the awful Madeleine Albright and Madame Hillary) was probably the most important and positive accomplishment of the New Left. There’s a fairly strong antiwar constituency on the left-wing of the Democratic Party.

    “Everything said here could in some measure been said of America in 1789 or 1860 or 1950. Are we to assume that america has been a police state for the most of its history? This kind of liberal paranoia and stupidity has reached pandemic proportions.”

    It’s certainly true that American culture has moved far, far, far to the left of what it was in, say, 1950. Something like same-sex marriage would have been considered not only laughable but criminal back then. On cultural issues, the Dems are basically the baby boomers in old age. I’m sure most Democratic politicians are much further to the left on social issues than what they let on in public, and even publicly they’re pretty far left. The intellectual leadership of the GOP, the neocons, were on the far left in the 60s, and I’m sure on social issues they’re much further to left than what they let on, and even publicly they’re liberal by 1960s/70s/even 80s standards.

    But I do think a case can be made that things have gone the other way on economics given the neoliberal ascendancy that emerged in the 70s and 80s. Wealth disparity among social classes is now the greatest it’s been since the 1920s. In the 1950s a third of the work force was unionized. Now it’s something like 11%. There’s also the welfare reform that was enacted during the Clinton era.

    Also, while the general cultural atmosphere may be more “liberal” in the sense that expression of racist opinions has gone from being normal to being the ultimate sin, I don’t know society is more “liberal” in the wider sense given the present incarceration rates, incidents of police violence against civilians for trivial reasons or none at all, prison industry, etc.

    On the supposed rise of Republican “theocracy,” I agree Lindsay is greatly exaggerating. But I think what he’s getting at is the cultivation by the Republicans of “far right” cultural undercurrents as a countermeasure to the rise of the New Left since the 1970s. For instance, the old 1960s Republican establishment would have wanted nothing to do with “moral majority” type groups, thought the Birchers were crackpots, and even the Goldwater nomination was an act of defiance by the GOP rank and file against the elites. But even Goldwater was “liberal” compared to the American “new right” of the 70s and 80s.

    Now it’s also true that social conservatives have lost on all their issues. If they couldn’t stop gay marriage, they probably can’t win on anything. It’s also true the GOP keeps them marginalized, panders to them, but really does nothing for them. But the GOP certainly has a more visible right-wing presence than what existed in the 60s and 70s in many ways.

    I think what has happened is that as social conservatives have lost across the board, they’ve become increasingly militant (trying to go down fighting) and that makes them more visible. Meanwhile, the GOP establishment has cynically, opportunistically, and insincerely tried to marshal them as a constituency while doing nothing for them.

  3. “But I do think a case can be made that things have gone the other way on economics given the neoliberal ascendancy that emerged in the 70s and 80s. Wealth disparity among social classes is now the greatest it’s been since the 1920s. In the 1950s a third of the work force was unionized. Now it’s something like 11%. There’s also the welfare reform that was enacted during the Clinton era.”

    Totally granted, but how is that a success of conservatism or the right? Most of these fat cats are socialists/liberals, Bill and Melinda Gates, the Rockefeller, Carnegie, Warren Buffet etc.

    “Now it’s also true that social conservatives have lost on all their issues. If they couldn’t stop gay marriage, they probably can’t win on anything.”

    Conservatives can win electorally, just look at Proposition 8 in California, they lose because of judicial tyranny. Only be silencing the people and overturning their precious democracy is the left wining the culture war. I mean if proposition 8 could pass in California, the most liberal state in the union, why are the bugger boys wining?

    The short answer is that the politicians in Washington/state capitals are not listening to the people; big surprise.

    “There’s a fairly strong antiwar constituency on the left-wing of the Democratic Party.”

    It’s really more of an anti-Bush constituency. When Obama threatened to invade Syria and did intervene in Libya the so-called peace constituency was silent. Furthermore the “peace” constituency was always fine with communist imperialism, such as Afghanistan, Ethiopia and Angola.

    I guarantee that if World War III was started by Obama to make Russia less homophobic those idiots on the left would tweet with unanimous support.

    “I think what has happened is that as social conservatives have lost across the board, they’ve become increasingly militant (trying to go down fighting) and that makes them more visible. Meanwhile, the GOP establishment has cynically, opportunistically, and insincerely tried to marshal them as a constituency while doing nothing for them.”

    No argument here.

  4. “Totally granted, but how is that a success of conservatism or the right? Most of these fat cats are socialists/liberals, Bill and Melinda Gates, the Rockefeller, Carnegie, Warren Buffet etc. ”

    Yes! I keep forgetting you’re an actual conservative and not a neo-classical liberal Republican, lol.

    “Conservatives can win electorally, just look at Proposition 8 in California, they lose because of judicial tyranny. Only be silencing the people and overturning their precious democracy is the left wining the culture war.”

    Yes, but opinion polls (assuming they have an accuracy) shows opinion continually moving leftward on this issue. Probably at least in part because of center-left dominance of media and education.

    “It’s really more of an anti-Bush constituency. When Obama threatened to invade Syria and did intervene in Libya the so-called peace constituency was silent. Furthermore the “peace” constituency was always fine with communist imperialism, such as Afghanistan, Ethiopia and Angola.”

    To a great extent, yes. But I think there’s something of a weak but still present strand of anti-interventionist sentiment on the left end of the Dems and certainly on the far, far left.

    “I guarantee that if World War III was started by Obama to make Russia less homophobic those idiots on the left would tweet with unanimous support.”

    Ha! Yes, you’re probably right, unfortunately.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s