A new poll shows 61 percent of the US holds Republicans in an unfavorable light. Many will misinterpret these results to mean that people don’t want conservative leadership anymore. But that doesn’t jive with other polls and the results of the elections. Conservative principles and standards (limited government, low taxes, freedom, individual responsibility, etc.) are still popular. Conservative state ballot issues like Prop 8 passed by decent margins in the 2008 elections, even in a liberal-leaning state like California.
The problem with the Republican party is that it has abandoned many of the conservative principles it once stood for. Can anyone claim that George W. Bush has been a proponent of limited government? Has McCain ever been an advocate of conservative ideals? Did Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska come across as someone taking responsibility for his actions? I’m amazed only 61% of Americans think the GOP smells bad.
The issue with the poll as described by CNN is that it doesn’t point out why people are looking down on the GOP. If I were a respondent in the poll I would have told them I hold the GOP in an unfavorable light. That doesn’t mean I’m for Obama. That doesn’t mean I’m a liberal. It means I’m a conservative and that I’m disgusted with how the GOP has tried to out-Democrat the Democrats. I’m ashamed of politicians like Chuck Hagel who gets into office by appearing to be a conservative, then turns into a liberal, and then blames the conservative wing of the GOP for the GOP’s problems. Conservatives are not the reason I’m down on the GOP, Chuck, politicians like you are the reason.
How can the Republicans become popular again? By going back to what they did when they won in ’80 and ’84. Whenever Republicans have stood up loudly for conservative principles they have won in legitimate landslides. When they’ve chased Democrats they’ve lost big-time. It’s time to clean house and get more Bobby Jindals in the party and fewer Stevens, Hagels, and McCains.
Welcome to the Libertarian party, but conservitives will need to let go of their own socialism on certain issues as well, like opposing gay marriage and the contiuning of the drug war. If proclaiming to be for smaller governemnt and more freedom and liberty, than you have to imbrace that those of minority lifestyles have the right to their freedom as well.
Democrats and/or Republicans this is the biggest con game of modern times. They are both the same, no differences.
Remember Ross Perot? The media and the two major parties dismissed him as a kook. Well look at what a few years tells us now, almost every prediction of the American future has developed as Ross said it would. Look at our National debt as Ross warned us about years ago, has either party done anything about this rising number. By God we have to add another digit to the national debt clock in NYC to keep up with it. I wonder where we would be if Ross was elected.
Hooray! Finally some truth of what is happening to the American citizen. Government interference, the forced loans to those who are politically connected, yet undeserving is what has lead us to this crisis. More socialism is not going to fix socialism failings. All this will lead to is the Government owning everything, and “We the People” Are going to be left with nothing.
People look down on the Republicans primarily because they are hypocrits. The adore the military but would never wear their country’s uniform. The believe in family values while violating those family values at every turn. They believe in hard work . . . for the other guy. They call themselves the party of personal responsibility yet not one of them has ever taken responsibilty for anything they’ve done. It’s always the fault of the liberal, the blame America firsters, the reds, fellow travelers, east coast elites, unions, gays, hippies (still, believe it or not) bleeding hearts, the liberal media, the list is endless. The only name not on that list is the Republican Party. They have lied to us, stolen from us and dismissed our concerns. Good riddence to them. May the go the way of the Whigs
“It’s time to clean house and get more Bobby Jindals in the party and fewer Stevens, Hagels, and McCains.” You think environment-wrecking, pocket-lining born-again Christians like Bobby Jindal are the GOP’s best hope? On a national stage, that’s not gonna play well. Your party’s mired in crisis, and clinging to its least appealing attributes is probably not going to alleviate the situation. Seriously… intelligent design? An amendment to ban flag burning? Is this all you guys have left?
It is time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine so we could read and decide for ourselves what to think instead of being spoon fed by blithering idiots like rush and sean who think they have the right to decide what we should think—-we need to have the airwaves filled with sports, weather, news, arts and entertainment. The genius in the fairness doctrine was so that the media could not be used for brainwashing (or polarizing) the population. Guess what?—-the economy is mired in recession and trickle down economics doesn’t work! I should care what Reverend Jeremiah Wright says in church and Obama is a socialist? Crap, all crap and nothing but the crap. Put some live sports on, simulcast CNBC and get the blowhards off the air once and for all. Rush Limbaugh the Patriot wants to short the dollar and buy gold—-free country, right? Then, why do any of you listen while he banked a bazillion dollars in hedge funds that shorted against the very investments that you, his loyal listeners held for the long term! And we bought it! Out-friggin-rageous!
Peter, have you been in a cave for the past two years that you would say that Republicans “adore the military but would never wear their country’s uniform”? Who just ran for President on the Republican ticket? Not that I liked the guy–I disagreed with him on just about everything–but it’d be hard to say he would never wear the country’s uniform seeing as how he was a POW for several years. George W. Bush also wore the uniform, you know. So did his father. So did Reagan. So did Ford, and Nixon, and Eisenhower. You have to go back to Hoover to find a Republican President without military service. On the Democrat side it’s a little easier since you don’t have to look further than Obama and Clinton.
The rest of your comments are equally without merit and you give no evidence to back up your opinions.
Ryan, how has Jindal wrecked the environment? How has he lined his pockets? Where’s your evidence? As for intelligent design, I could care less whether it’s taught in schools or not, but I haven’t heard Jindal making any demands about it being taught, just that he wants kids to be exposed to a diversity of viewpoints.
What I like about Jindal has more to do with stuff like this.
Jeff, if the government controls what we get from TV and radio via the Fairness Doctrine then who decides what we watch and listen to? Would you trust George Bush or Karl Rove to make those decisions? Why should I trust Obama and Pelosi to decide what I’m allowed to listen to? By the way, I think Hitler and the USSR also controlled what their populations could listen to, and look where it got them. The Fairness Doctrine is nothing more than an attempt to stifle freedom of speech. Let Americans decide what they want to listen to.
Trickle-down economics is perfectly logical to anyone who takes the trouble to understand it as well as understand what’s going on in the current economy. But George Bush is not exactly a huge free-market proponent, and Congress certainly hasn’t been behind free markets. If they were, we wouldn’t be in the housing mess we have currently which was a direct cause of government intervention in markets (i.e. creating artificial incentives for banks to make loans to people who shouldn’t have been loaned money for a car, much less a house). Free markets are wildly successful at raising the living standards of everyone, rich and poor alike, compared to any other economic system the world has ever known.
Why should we care if Obama’s a socialist? Because socialism is what created one of the worst economic systems the world has ever known. Russia should be one of the richest and most powerful countries around today, but they floundered about under socialism for 70 years. When socialism ended, the country rebounded amazingly quickly, but has just as quickly been stifled as Putin has tried to control markets instead of letting them be free. China has only begun to prosper as they’ve adopted free markets, which has created a huge middle-class where none used to exist. If you want to talk about the divide between the rich and the poor, look no further than socialism. If you want to talk about a rising tide floating all boats, then that’s capitalism. Just study history a bit and you’ll see.
You know, it’s really funny when conservatives use examples of other countries to try to prove their policies. We’re always told about the failure of socialism is Russia, which actually failed because of a corrupt dictatorship. Many other countries have socialist systems that work very well. Most all of the civilized world has social health care systems that work, except the richest nation in the world, America. In America, one of our most important and proven social programs is social security. Yet, conservatives would destroy that as well, if they could, and always somehow forget to mention it when talking about the “failure” of socialism. The real reason America faces such monumental problems is because of too many greedy, selfish, right wing, conservative policies that allow only the wealthiest corrupt few to prosper, while the working class becomes downtrodden. Unfortunatly, a large number of Americans are too stupid to have a clue, and continue to support selfish conservative policies, as is evidenced by many of the responses listed here.
Please Joshua Steimle, will you spare me you’re Orwellian Double Think. The fairness doctrine doesn’t stifle free speech it expands it. Perhaps you and other members of the Jackboot right fear the fairness doctrine becasue you fear the exchange of ideas as opposed to having the psychotic ravings of Limbaugh and Hannity rammed down our throats. Those two, and other logically challenged people like them will still be able to blather on. The only difference is that with the fairness doctrine they won’t be able to do it unchallanged.
Your attitudes and way of thinking sir are the epitome of what destroyed this country and the Republican party
Peter, I’m an open-minded guy, so explain to me how the government deciding what content is allowed on radio and TV as opposed to free markets will expand free speech rather than stifle it.
Larry, do you have any evidence to back up your claims? I’d like to know the following:
1. How do you arrive at the conclusion that the USSR failed due to corrupt dictators and that socialism itself had nothing to do with it? Bear in mind, I’m not arguing that there were corrupt dictators, but I think the country would have failed even with the most genuine, well-intentioned leaders.
2. Give me some evidence that there is a socialize health care program in another country that functions better than health care in the US. Give me three reasons why it’s better.
3. I’ve got an investment opportunity for you Larry. You give me $210,000 over the 45 years you work, and when you retire, I’ll pay you $1,800 per month until you die. When you die, if you have a living spouse, she may get part of that $1,800 per month, if she fits into our rules. Your kids might even qualify for a payment of $255 when you die! No, you can’t cash all that money out, no, your family can’t inherit it. Once you die and your spouse dies, we get to keep whatever we haven’t paid back to you. Sound like a good deal?
At $1,800 per month, assuming you paid $210,000 into Social Security, it would take 116 years for you to break even. You call this an important and proven social program? If an individual invested the same money in a 401K and put the money in very safe investments they’d easily be a millionaire when they retired.
Oh, and by the way, the government has already spent all the money they’ve collected from Social Security. The only way they’re paying for it is with the money being paid into the program by younger people. Trouble is, we’ve got this baby-boomer generation about to retire, which means they’re going to have to raise taxes on everyone to keep up with Social Security, not to mention Medicare/Medicaid, which is an even bigger problem (just another example of the failure of socialism).
4. As for only the “wealthiest few” prospering, have you ever lived in a third-world country? I have, and if you want to see examples of rich getting richer and poor getting poorer then go visit one. And guess what? They’ve got a lot of socialist policies in those countries. The Unites States has the highest standard of living by a long shot. Yeah, we’ve got more rich people here, but the poor people here are a lot richer than the poor in other countries. I don’t see people living in wooden shacks with nothing inside but a hotplate, a TV, and a satellite dish (somehow the poor in other countries can always afford a satellite dish). I don’t see kids playing in mud in front of their shack, right next to an open sewer. I don’t see double digit unemployment here. But I’ve seen that in other countries where it’s not just the exception but quite common.
The working class here is not downtrodden, that’s just the propaganda they’re fed every day. Their standard of living has increase over the past several decades faster than that of any other country in the world.
In this country anyone can get rich. You don’t have to have connections. You don’t have to know the right people. You just have to work hard and be creative. I know a lot of entrepreneurs who were poor at one point in their lives and are now millionaires. I know a guy who lived in a trailer park with his wife and two kids, and now he owns an Internet company that is publicly traded and he’s worth tens of millions of dollars. He’s also created several other millionaires while he was building his business, and he employs over a thousand people all of whom are paid very well.
He created that business out of nothing. It was just an idea in his head and he worked and struggled for years to make it happen and it finally did. There are thousands of similar stories across this country. But if the government controlled everything what incentive would he have had to create this business? If he knew the government would take whatever profit he made if he were successful, and that the alternative was to get a comfy, safe government job, then what incentive would he have had to start this business that employs 1,000 people and pays them all far more than they would make in a government job?
My friend got rich, but over a thousand other people either got rich or are doing quite well because of him. That’s trickle-down economics for you, and we’d have even more of these stories if the government got rid of Social Security, lowered taxes on businesses, and didn’t prop up failing companies.
Well, Joshua, You are doing exactly what I mentioned earlier. Conservatives love to use third world countries as comparisons of how “well off” Americans are. Which means what?. We shouldn’t complain? Because the fact is compared to the third world almost EVERY one else is better off. Let’s see, New Zealand lags behind the U.S. in several catagories for standards of living, but using the typical conservative logic of comparing everything to the third world, they’re doing great! So they’ve got nothing to complain about. How about Canada? Everyone knows their close relation to the U.S. gives them a needed boost, but they still don’t come close to America’s wealth, unless, wait, compared to the third world, they’re fabulously well off! So they can’t complain. Typical twisted conservative logic. And who is talking about the government controlling everything? Nobody is advocating a Soviet Union type of socialism in America. And by the way, PBS had an excellent documentary on the fall of the USSR a few years back that clearly demonstrated that Russia’s version of socialsim was not true socialism, but a very corrupted version of it. As for social programs, my mother never worked in her life. When she was young, women were housewives and didn’t have “careers”. Today she is 90 years old, and depends on social security to live. That story is true for the millions of retirees from her generation. The idea that private investment is better is just plain stupidity. I certainly do not want my retirement security left in the hands of some greedy, corrupt company, that suddenly evaporates overnight because of the criminal activity of the company. It’s happening all the time, or haven’t you noticed? Your example of your friends success is impressive, but who’s to say that hard times might not someday find your friend’s company? In today’s climate, nothing is secure. So what then happens to his 1000 employees? Would they be tossed onto the street, and told by their government who collected taxes from them all those years “sorry, we don’t have any programs to help you through, you’re on your own”!? Contrary to the twisted beliefs of conservatives, a government’s job IS to provide basic services for it’s citizens using the tax funds it collects from those citizens! The idea that the government should “stay out of people’s lives” is ludicrous! Your definition of “trickle down economics” sounds OK until reality hits the fan. Again, I certainly do not believe in the good will of greedy, corrupt corporations to allow their crumbs to “trickle down” to me! Only a fool would be willing to accept such nonsense. I don’t expect to change your mind about these things. It’s conservative thinking that has led this country to the brink of disaster, and I’m sure conservatives who never learn will someday push America finally over the edge. So be it!
Oh, and I almost forgot. On the subject of health care, watch the movie “sicko”, and you might learn something about health care in other countries. Oh wait, let me anticipate your reply; “Sicko is left wing, radical, liberal propaganda, by that radical anti-American Michael Moore”, right? Conservatives love to dismiss that which blows their arguments out of the water as “unreliable propaganda” perpetrated by “radicals”, because there is no viable counter argument. It’s almost laughable. Conservatives, again using twisted logic, love to use economically struggling countries as examples of “failing” government run health care systems. But do you want some reality? I work in a business that deals with international customers on a DAILY basis. I literally meet thousands of people from all over the globe. I recently spoke to a married couple from Canada. They told me while they come the the U.S. to work, they will under no circumstances give up their Canadian citizenship because of the health coverage they recieve there. They said Canada’s system is not perfect, but in their words, “It’s a helluva lot better than the outragous health care system in the U.S.”, end quote. I hear the same thing from our clients from Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, France, Australia, Belgium, and EVERY place else! Nobody, from anywhere in the world, except maybe your precious third world countries, would change their health care system for ours, NOBODY! But the real reason conservatives are oppossed to a social health care system is not because it would be “bad” for America, or because it “couldn’t be done” here. No, the real reason conservatives are oppossed to ANY government health care system is because of greed and selfishness, period. I had one lady, a Republican, tell me straight out that she should not, and will not, pay her tax dollars to provide health coverage to “Lazy bums”. You see, that’s what it’s really about isn’t, my friend? Conservatives will not lift a finger, or spend a dime to provide ANY sort of benefits or coverage to anybody, for any reason. Because the reality is, conservatives are selfish, greedy people, period. What idiots like that Republican woman do not realize is, their tax dollars paid into such a program would benefit THEM as well. But no, not in greed obsessed America, where the law of the jungle is “I’ve got mine, now go get yours or die”. Liberty and justice for all?
The purpose of my comparison is to point out that third-world countries that have had socialist policies in place for decades are not doing well. But as they’ve begun to shed socialism and adopt capitalist principles they’ve prospered. Ireland and Chile are two of the most dramatic examples, but China and Brazil are good ones too. France is currently trying to become more like the US because socialism is failing them while we are trying to become more like them for some inexplicable reason.
As for PBS, I take much of what I see there with a grain of salt, seeing as how it’s controlled by the extreme liberal side of our government and it takes too much research to figure out if what they’re showing me is factual or completely one-sided. At least with conservative talk radio they’re completely open about their agenda. With PBS and other mainstream media outlets they try to convince you they don’t have an agenda, that they’re objective, but they’ve got bigger agendas than conservatives do. They just know that if they were open about their agendas then people wouldn’t go for it, so they rely on a false air of objectivity to get their message out.
We seem to have fundamentally differing opinions of the purpose of our federal government. If by “basic services” you mean housing, food, healthcare, and retirement funds, then you’re right, I don’t believe that should be the role of our government because it’s not in our Constitution and because I don’t believe it works. I believe governments provide for the maximum amount of happiness for the greatest number of people when they keep their citizens from being killed or robbed, and regulate markets only to the point of providing stability and predictability. That’s it. I don’t believe governments should be involved in any way in healthcare, housing, food, or retirement planning. I believe non-governmental organizations and individuals themselves are better equipped to handle these challenges.
The caveat is that in my ideal world people can fail. People can suffer. Failure, poverty, and suffering are one side of the coin, and on the other side is success, wealth, and joy. I think any attempt by a federal government to completely remove failure and suffering goes against reality, and when governments try to go beyond the basics of providing “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” they inevitably end up infringing upon those basis rights and making everyone equally miserable.
It’s not that I want anyone to starve, be sick, or go homeless. but I’d rather see charities, churches, and individuals feeding people than the government. I’d rather see an anonymous millionaire step in and pay off a widow’s mortgage (which I have seen firsthand). I’d rather see a doctor generously choose to help a poor patient for free. When the government steps in and says “We’ll take care of everything” they not only are making a promise they won’t be able to keep, but they reduce incentives for people to help other people and they also reduce the incentive for personal responsibility. Fear of failure is a great motivator, but if you know you can fall back on the government then you might not try as hard to avoid failure.
My friend’s business may go under some day. But if his employees know the government is going to save them regardless do they have as much motivation to work hard and make sure the business succeeds? Ironically, by providing a safety net the government actually increases the likelihood of failure.
Your opinions about corporations seem to be based on political cartoons I’ve seen from the 1920s portraying business owners as grotesquely fat men taking advantage of everyone around them and running the government. Perhaps that was true 90 years ago, but I don’t think it is today. Sure, there are corrupt businessmen, and they are the ones who end up in the news and so it’s easy to develop the idea that all businessmen are corrupt. Such has not been my experience, and I’m inclined to believe it’s largely a myth. I believe that 99.99% of corporations and those who run them are honest and want to do the right thing. But those people rarely show up on TV or are portrayed accurately in movies.
The pilgrims understood that creating incentives for individuals led to increased prosperity for all, and that socialism had the opposite effect.
Larry, if you want people to take you seriously I’d recommend sticking to facts and not calling people names or insulting them generally. The idea that all conservatives or Republicans are greedy and selfish is as ridiculous as me saying that all Democrats and liberals are lazy welfare cases. The truth is that all of us probably agree more than we disagree.
I agree our country has healthcare problems. I think it’s a complex issue and I haven’t done the research to understand it so I can’t comment too much on it one way or the other. I can say that I believe healthcare is a privilege, not a right, but I already think our current program is socialistic and I doubt my ideal plan would ever get implemented so I’m open to looking at anything that is better than what we’ve got. The one thing I can say is I sure don’t want to put Michael Moore in charge.
Here are just a few counter-arguments to Sicko. Whether they’re viable or not is a matter of opinion.
‘SKiPO’: Michael Moore’s ‘SiCKO’ Skips Over Facts on Road to Government Medicine
‘Sicko’: Michael Moore’s Anemic Checkup
Sick Sob Stories
I enjoyed reading your response Joshua. And you make some valid points in several areas. As far as Michael Moore is concerned, he is not my favorite person either, but I defy anyone to watch “Sicko” and not come away with a totally different perspective on healthcare in the U.S. It’s an extemely powerful movie. I understand your point about allowing people to fail. I don’t believe there can ever be a society where success is guaranteed. But I disagree that having the government as a “safety net” discourages people from trying. The government simply cannot take care of everything, that’s true. But, there is no logic to justify, in any way, how, in a country as rich and prosperous as America, with such lofty ideals as we hold, that a majority of our population should be threatened with financial ruin just because they become sick, or are laid off. That any American should be left begging in the street, or that one class of citizen has to resort to criminal activity to make ends meet. It’s an embarassment to everything that America is suppossed to be. I find your comment about PBS being an unreliable news source to be strange. PBS, in my opinion, is one of the few reliable sources of information there is. Again, it seems that conservatives only “trust” news sources that they agree with. It seems that any news source that doesn’t present the world the way conservatives see it is immediatly dismissed as having an “agenda”, and “Biased”. Personally, I find FOX news to be the most offensive, biased news network in history. And MSNBC is blatantly biased to the left. Both are an abomination to American jounalism. Your examples of good deeds from good samaritans is wonderful, except that they are rare (if ever) occurances these days! The problem with the conservative ideal of free capitalism where “getting rich” is the goal, is that what it really leads to is unmitigated greed. Which is what has led us to the national crisis we’re in now. For my final comment, I want to share with you a conversation I had a few months ago with an 82 year old man named James who is a WWII veteran. He told me about how proud he and his brothers were to enlist in the army and fight for America against the evil forces of Hitler. He said he never once doubted that America would prevail, and he was willing to die for the cause of freedom. But he finished by saying that today, he would not fight at all for this country. And why would this patriotic member of the “Greatest generation” say such a thing? In his words, “Americans today will sell their own grandmother to make a buck. Greed is God today. I never would’ve believed it would happen”. That’s all I have to say Joshua. You seem like a true American who cares about the future of this country. But I think we all need to put aside our ideaology and be open to new ideas, and bold changes. Thanks for reading.
I agree that it’s a shame that someone might be threatened with ruin due to being sick, I just don’t think government should be the organization to take care of people who are sick. I think there are many other options outside of government that would do a better job, and I also think it’s dangerous when we allow ourselves to expect the government to take care of us to such an extent.
I don’t think there is such a thing as objective reporting. People think NPR and PBS are unbiased because they have a “neutral tone” but the more I listen to them the more I see that they choose to cover certain things and not others, and in that alone there is an evident bias. I’ve gotten to the point where I don’t really trust anything that isn’t an op ed piece, because as least with an opinion column I know where the person is coming from. But if they tell me they’re being objective then I have to figure out what their biases are and try to piece together the real story. I find that a quicker way to reach the truth is to listen to opinionated people from both sides of an issue who aren’t trying to hide anything.
I don’t see the conservative goal of capitalism as “getting rich” but more as one of freedom. I know hundreds of business people and I don’t know any of them who are greedy or in it just for the money. For them it’s more a sense of achievement and accomplishment or in some cases their businesses fulfill a sort of “mission” in life. They would get the same type of high from running a marathon or winning a game. I think there are a lot more generous and charitable business people out there than you might think.
When government’s place taxes on success they lessen the incentives for success, and I believe that hurts everyone. I believe it’s virtually impossible to get rid of the poor, but I believe it’s quite easy to get rid of the rich and that when you do, you don’t end up with society being better off as a result, you just end up with more poor people.
I do agree that unmitigated greed has led to the crisis we now face, but I believe the greed is largely centered in the government, and the greed that is evident in the market was a result of government policies. This housing debacle was a direct result of mis-regulation by the government. The government wanted more poor people in houses, but poor people aren’t very good at paying loans back, so the government removed the risk from lenders by buying loans through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Everything was great until people were no longer able to pay the loans, and now everything is falling apart. If the government hadn’t made it so easy for banks to close loans and then transfer the risk to FC and FM there would never have been a real estate bubble. I think there’s plenty of blame to go around on that one, and although I’m usually against regulation, ironically I believe this is a case where there weren’t enough regulations, and those regulations that were in place were backwards. To place the blame on corporations (other than FC and FM, which were really an extension of the government) is to ignore who it was creating incentives for corporations to do what they did and encouraging the corporations all the way. Conservatives were the ones trying to rein in the mess, while liberal Democrats like Barney Frank were saying there was nothing wrong with FC and FM and that they should be making even more loans to the poor. But of course now the poor are even worse off than if the government had never tried to help them in the first place.
Anyway, I think you and I want the same ends, we just disagree on the means to arrive there. Either way, I do appreciate the candid conversation.
I think republicans are the future of America.The very essence of American values and morals lies in republicans.If the republican party is made to be a show off to the masses,then both its national and international image will be tarnished.Its time they return themselves to the true values which they stand for.Then I can see it as a hope for the whole humanity.